To inform the Senate that a quorum of the House has assembled and of the election of the Speaker and the Clerk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, every time that I walk into this Chamber I am awed and I am overwhelmed, when you think of the history that has taken place here in this Chamber, in this hall, and the speeches that have also been proclaimed and stated within these walls.

Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I heard some really eloquent speeches as well, some spectacularly eloquent speeches, some of them criticizing the job proposal that this House has passed, the job proposal plan that the President has proposed.

I also heard, Mr. Speaker, some great examples of not letting the facts get in the way of the rhetoric. I have seen some wonderful examples here as to how to just disregard the facts and let us go forward with the rhetoric and hope that you can confuse people, Mr. Speaker.

But the American people, Mr. Speaker, are not easily confused. The Jobs and Growth Tax Act, which is really based on the jobs and growth plan that we passed last week, is a comprehensive approach to creating jobs. We heard criticism after criticism after criticism of that plan; but what you will notice is that not once, not once, was a proposal spoken about, an alternative proposal, that created jobs. No. They criticized the plan that creates jobs, and, in its stead, proposed absolutely nothing. Again, the American people witnessed that here tonight.

Yet the plan that we passed provides, for example, tax relief to American families and immediately eliminates burdensome and unfair taxes that provided huge obstacles to economic growth and job creation.

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) worked awfully hard to get through this House a plan that will create over 1.2 million jobs throughout the entire country by the end of next year. This was a specific proposal, not rhetoric. That is a specific proposal that this House passed. It creates, as a matter of fact, 45,000 new jobs in the State of Florida that I represent; next year, 45,000 jobs. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we heard no other proposal; just criticism, criticism of a plan that creates 1.2 million jobs.

This plan that we passed that our dear friends in the minority love to criticize, and, yet, I repeat, have nothing to show other than criticism, this plan would put $550 billion in economic stimulus and job creation in this country.

Then I heard something that I keep hearing time and time again, and it must be something that the Democratic Party's PR machine has told them to repeat time and time again, again regardless of the facts. They keep saying, oh, the plan that the House passed, the President's plan, cuts taxes on the rich.

Let us again speak of the facts. I know that my dear friends on the Democratic side hate when you bring up the facts. They do not like the facts to be used. They do not want to permit the facts to confuse the rhetoric. But I think it is important to bring up some of those facts.

The rich? Cut taxes on the rich? Twenty-three million small business owners will benefit from tax rate cuts in order to stimulate job growth; 23 million small business owners are going to have their taxes cut. Those are not the rich, those small business owners. Again, the facts, Mr. Speaker.

The tax cut, for example, on dividend income and the capital gains tax cut will provide relief for the 50 percent of Americans who have invested in the stock market and 70 million Americans who own homes. Those are the facts.

Yet what we have heard tonight, all the criticism, all the critiquing of the President's plan, of the plan we passed, with nothing else, no proposal, no alternative proposal, is just criticism based on innuendo, not based on the facts.

Again, the President's job and growth plan, what we passed here in the House, will provide 1.2 million jobs next year. Those are the facts, not the rhetoric.

The energy bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) spoke of here last week with me on the floor of this House will provide 750,000 new jobs. But yet both those initiatives our friends from the minority party object to; and they object to them but have no decent, good proposal, as opposed to what we have done. This is a good plan, because it does provide jobs.

I was wondering, I see that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) is here; and, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman. Maybe he can try to shed some light on some of the facts, not on just empty rhetoric, some of the facts: why it is important that we do not just sit idly by and hope the economy gets better; why it is important to incentivize this economy; why it is important to go forward with the President's plan, with what this Congress passed, to make sure the millions of Americans can find good jobs; why it is important to not just sit back and pretend that things are okay, they are going to get better, and the solution is maybe to raise taxes; why it is important that we move forward.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman can shed some light as to some of the rhetoric that has been heard before here tonight which does not conform with the facts.

Reclaiming my time for a second, as the gentleman knows, I am new in Washington. This is my first year. One of the things that has surprised me a little bit is the ability by some Members, very eloquently, to just espouse things, yet with no facts whatsoever, and sometimes even distorting some facts that are used.

The gentleman mentioned something that is very important. There has to be a proposal. In other words, if we want to create jobs, which is I think the emphasis of this, clearly of the President and the majority of this Congress, we have to put something forward that creates jobs.

One of the ways to create jobs, and that is a bipartisan goal, we have agreed to that, I think, one of the ways you create jobs is by cutting taxes, making sure the people can keep more of their money.

Another way I think we can create jobs is by controlling government spending. Yet, since I have been here, I have never heard one moment where our friends from the other party have ever asked for controlling government spending.

Every time I turn around, they are asking for more government, bigger government; more bureaucracy, more money for that bureaucracy; more taxes from the people for that bureaucracy. That is a common theme I have been hearing in these debates.

I was wondering if the gentleman could shed some light on how does creating a larger government, more bureaucracy, more taxes, how does that help create more jobs for the American people.

One of the things that I keep hearing, and the gentleman just mentioned small businesses, which is a big part of this economic stimulus-job creation package, it is to provide relief for small businesses. That is where most of the jobs are created, in small businesses.

In the State of Florida it is even more dramatic. The numbers are staggering, the number of jobs created by small business. That is the entire economy of the State of Florida.

But we hear when we want to cut taxes on small business owners to help small businesses do well, to incentivize them to spend more money, to hire more people, to create more jobs, you hear that we are cutting taxes on the rich. Yet, when you look at the proposals from our good friends on the minority party, the Democratic Party, everything that they do seems to be trying to raise taxes on working Americans.

By the way, many of those working Americans are now struggling, which is why it is important to pass this package. But yet their proposals seem to be, and I have them here, seem to be raise taxes on the working people, on the hardworking Americans, who are having a hard time paying the mortgage and rent, who are having a hard time staying employed. Some of them have actually lost their jobs. Yet they want to raise taxes on them.

It seems in many cases just to create larger bureaucracies up here in Washington, DC. I do not think one has to be a brilliant economist to realize when you are further taxing people and you are creating more bureaucracy in DC, that does absolutely nothing to help the economy. What it does, it actually helps stagnate the economy; it hurts the economy. It makes sure that the economy does not grow.

Again, the gentleman has been here longer than me. Is that just a normal theme for them, that they always use these blank statements when we are asking to or suggesting or trying to cut taxes on small business owners, that they say those are the rich?

The small business owners in my district, the district that I represent, it is not my district, that I represent, are not rich. They are struggling. They are struggling to pay their employees, to pay for their health care, to keep that business, those small businesses, alive. To call those people rich people and say that cutting the taxes on those people is cutting the taxes on rich people, and, at the same time what they want to do is raise the taxes on the working people of this country, to create a larger bureaucracy, how is that good for the economy?

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the things that we have to note as well is that we keep hearing that government can give these small businesses, is going to give them something. It is not the government's to give. That is the people's money. What we are talking about is allowing hard-working people to keep a little bit more of their money; in other words, for the government to take less of their money. But when we talk about that, we hear that, oh, it is horrible, because it is going to cost government. We are going to be giving away these things. Excuse me? Giving away?

I think that is part of where we have a huge ideological difference, a philosophical difference. It is not government's money to give away. What we are saying is that government is going to take less money of the small businessperson, of the small business. He is going to take a little bit less money, just a little bit less money, take a little bit less so that that person, that small business, can reinvest it in their business.

The gentleman mentioned some great examples to create more jobs. I know that for some people, that is a theory. That is a theory. Why do we have to create more jobs? Let us just criticize the President. They have done that from day one about every issue; whether it is the war to liberate Iraq, they criticize the President. They do not criticize him that much anymore, but they sure were criticizing because it is the thing to do, just criticize the President.

Now they criticize this job creation plan, and they say that, well, we are going to give these people, these small businesses, money. No. What we are saying and what the President is saying is it is the people's money, it is not government's money. The government should allow those small businesses, those individuals, to keep some more of their money so that they can use it back home, in Florida, in Minnesota, and in Texas, in Wyoming. And they tend to do it much better than we do, than government does, because we tend to waste a lot of money. Allow them to keep some of their money, and that will create 1.2 million jobs in 1 year.

But some people say, well, it is only $100,000. It is only $100,000 that we are going to cut, it is only $10,000, it is only $1,000 that businesses are going to be able to reinvest. I guess that think that they have better plans for that money in D.C. But I am, frankly, a little shocked.

I have been doing a little research about some of the waste up here. Our dear friends on the Democratic side hate when we talk about waste and fraud and abuse. But I have been doing just a little research. I have not spent a lot of time on it because the gentleman knows I just got here recently, but I found some very interesting things.

Just one issue, for example. Government purchase cards and travel cards wasted approximately $97 million annually. But let me tell my colleagues what some of those really bright things are that we should take more of the people's money for. This is the kind of thing that we need to tax people more for, to spend it on some of these things. This is $97 million worth of escort services, jewelry, clothing from Victoria's Secret, Macy's, Nordstrom, Calvin Klein; taxpayer money to buy a dog for an individual. Taxpayers' money was spent on pornography for some employees, on expensive luggage. There was one incident of one dinner for $2,100 at Treasure Island Hotel and Casino.

That is why we need to raise more taxes. Take it away from the hard- working American men and women, bring it up here to D.C. so we can spend it and waste it on some really good things such as this: designer leather goods from a prestigious store, Lego toys, expensive sunglasses, beer, wine, and cigars.

There is also, do we remember the travel cards? That is a separate issue altogether. That was used for, well, for interesting places I do not really want to mention. Some of these things I really would rather not talk about, including some gentlemen's clubs, some plastic surgery, down payments on a home. So that is why we have to tax the American people more, because Washington knows how to spend the people's money better; oh, yes, on a down payment for a home for a member of the bureaucracy. That is why we have to take more of their money, on cruises. No, no, no, no. Wait a second.

The reason that some of us, the gentleman from Minnesota and others, have been speaking about waste, fraud and abuse, because it is not a laughing matter, because this is hard-earned money. This is money that government takes from the American people and then misspends it. Government does some really good things with taxpayers' money as well, but we throw a lot of it away. And for anybody to say that government is so efficient, so well run, so lean and mean that we have to take more of the hard-working American people's money, people that are having a hard time because the economy is not as good as we would like it to be; for us to take more of their money to spend it up here as opposed to what we want to do, which is allow them to keep more of their money so that they can spend it on some of the issues that the gentleman mentioned, on their families, on creating wealth within their businesses, of creating more jobs within small businesses, I think is absolutely ludicrous.

But these examples are not new. We have been hearing about waste, fraud and abuse for a long time. So again, I am having a hard time. I know that the gentleman, like me, believes that we need to incentivize this economy, but since the gentleman has been here longer, maybe the gentleman has heard some of the words of wisdom from the other side stating how raising taxes on hard-working Americans, particularly when they are having a hard time, helps create jobs. I do not buy it.

Mr. Speaker, by the way, I have been very impressed with the quality of the speeches. Sometimes the rhetoric is really, really good. I mean, there is some great eloquence on the floor of the House. We heard some great eloquence today bashing the plan to create more jobs. We heard that tonight. We have heard eloquent speeches bashing the President's plan to create more jobs. We have heard eloquent speeches bashing and bashing and bashing. We also heard, the gentleman will recall, very eloquent speeches from our friends on the Democratic side bashing when we were talking about trying to cut wasteful spending. They just hate that. They hate when we talk about that.

I mentioned some examples, but I want to make sure that nobody thinks that, well, because when we add that up, it is only $100 million. Some people say that. We have heard that here, it is only $100 million.

Only $100 million. Ask the American people if that is just only $100 million on some pretty sad things. But it gets worse than that. And when we talk about these things, we get bashed by the Democrats. When we talk about, for example, we were mentioning facts before, and it is important to not just spew rhetoric, but bring in some facts to the discussion.

Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government cannot account for, and we need to listen to this, the Federal Government cannot account for $17.3 billion it spent in the year 2001; $17 billion unaccounted for. Yet some criticize us when we talk about let us have some accountability. Let us not misspend. Let us look at ways that we can save some of this money. Mr. Speaker, $17 billion is not peanuts. That is a lot of money unaccounted for.

The Federal Government made $20 billion in overpayments in the year 2001; $20 billion in overpayments, on people that were not qualified or things that should not have been funded. The Department of Housing and Urban Development made $3.3 billion, and I repeat, billion, with a B, billion dollars in overpayments in 2001, accounting for 10 percent of the Department's budget; 10 percent in overpayments, in waste. Yet some will tell us that there is not enough money up here; that we need to raise taxes on hard-working Americans; that we should not incentivize the economy by letting more hard-working Americans keep some of their money, no, because there is not enough money in D.C. Oh, of course not, when we misspend 10 percent of the Department's budget.

But some will tell us the answer is, no problem. Do not worry about that. Let us just squeeze the American taxpayer a little bit more, a little bit harder, because you know something? It is okay, they will not mind, or they cannot yell loud enough, so let us squeeze them a little bit louder, a little bit tighter.

No, no. It is time that we do not squeeze them anymore, so that we allow them to keep more of their money so that they can spend it and they can create jobs.

If the gentleman will allow me, I would like to mention a couple of other examples. The Department of Agriculture was unable to account for $5 billion in receipts and expenditures; $5 billion. Medicare overpayments, overpayments totaled $12 billion in 2001; $12 billion.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has passed a Medicare prescription drug plan without raising taxes. We have done it. Actually, the House did it last year as well, but the other body refused to do so, but now we have done it again, and we are going to pass it again. Well, do we want to find where some of the money can come from? There is $12 billion in overpayments. That is money that is not going for the elderly that need it, that is not going for the elderly that deserve it, that is not going for the elderly who have paid into it.

No, that is just waste. That is just waste. And that is unacceptable. That is immoral. Totally immoral. So, yes, we are going to do it.

There has been a lot of rhetoric for 40 years; the other party has been talking about it. It took the Republican majority to pass it, and we have passed it again in the House, and we are going to do that; but we need to make sure that this kind of waste stops, stops, because that is our hardworking Americans who are paying for it. The food stamp program pays approximately $1.3 billion in overpayments each year. What can we do with that $1.3 billion for health care, for education, for defense, to incentivize our economy? A lot.

And yet when we talk about these things, our friends on the Democratic party get upset. They say you cannot do that; you have to tax the American people more. Do not look at fraud, waste and abuse. Just tax the American people more. More than $8 billion is lost in erroneous earned income tax payments each year and again the list goes on and on and on, and we are not talking small amounts of money. If we were speaking about small amounts of money, that would be no excuse. We still have to stop it, because it is not government's money. It is the people's money, but what is even worse is we are talking about billions of dollars in misspent, misused, lost money. And some want to tax the American workers, tax the American family more to do more of this? I do not understand it.

Absolutely. You mention a specific issue that, by the way, is in the bill that we passed which would create jobs. Another thing that would create jobs that is also in the bill that we passed, and by the way, it would also save, it would provide relief for 92 million Americans, 92 million Americans, an average of $1,083 in the year 2003, allowing them to keep more of their money. That would put more than a hundred million dollars into the economy of our country over the next 12 months, creating jobs, turning over that economic engine.

You mentioned a little while ago that the way to get out of the deficit, by the way, to pay for the essential service that we all want to pay for, including what the Republican majority is doing with, for example, the prescription drug coverage under Medicare, is to expand the economy. That is not to raise taxes to the point where

people cannot pay them and you destroy business. It is to grow the economy. One way to grow the economy is, again, by allowing the 2 million Americans, now I know, I know, some of our friends on the Democratic side will say, those are rich folk.

You are going to cut $1,083 in the year 2003 on 92 million Americans. Those are rich folks. I wish, by the way, there were 92 million rich people in the United States. Those are not the facts. But that will allow Americans to keep more of their money, to spend more of their money, to invest more of their money, to put it into their businesses; and that alone is a hundred million dollars into the economy that right now is being sucked in, this huge sucking sound that goes from every single city, town, village in our country of money coming up here to D.C. to do with it as we know the government does with it, including some of the things that we mentioned.

The plan that we passed also would see the tax burden eliminated entirely on 3 million moderate-income families. Three million moderate- income families would pay zippo, zilch, nada, zero. Those are rich people? No. Those are working families. Those are working families.

How about the child tax credit that will be raised from $600 to $1,000? Tell me that is not something that has to happen. Tell me that is not something that the American people deserve. Tell me that is not something that the American people can do better with their money than us in D.C., with the bureaucracies, and the size of this government, again, 23 million small businesses would, again, in H.R. 2, the bill that we passed, House Resolution 2, by having more capital to expand on their businesses. That is what this country needs. And I know that some are content to think, no, we should not do anything. We should just kind of pretend that things are okay. They will complain here on the floor, but they will not propose anything that creates any jobs.

I am so proud to have been able to support this package that actually will create, just create so many jobs for the hardworking people of this country. I do not know about the area that the gentleman represents, but in the State of Florida, the area that I represent, people are concerned. People want jobs. People want to work. People want to have good high-paying jobs. And they are looking for government to do something to incentivize this economy, not to just sit back and pretend that things are okay. I am pretty sure it has got to be the same where you are.

You also get taxed when you die. When you die you get taxed again on money you have already paid taxes on, by the way, to the government. So it is one tax after another tax after another tax. It seems some people are never satisfied. There is never enough that we can take away from the American people; and that has to stop, that attitude, that philosophy, that approach, that culture. We have to change the culture from a culture of just grabbing as much money as we can from the taxpayer and spending it whichever way we can, regardless of the waste, of the fraud and abuse, to a culture of responsibility, a culture of real responsibility.

Again, we misspend so much money. It is not only we misspend money but it is the bureaucracy we create that forces the American people to spend a ton of money. For example, the IRS, which by the way spent $8.9 billion administering the Tax Code.

The numbers are astounding. Americans, hardworking Americans spent $135 billion complying with the Tax Code. And yet the other side insists on raising taxes. And, again, let me bring up some facts because I want to make sure we bring up the facts. I have got three proposals that the other side had. I sit on the Committee on the Budget, and we discussed these at length in the Committee on the Budget. We also discussed them at length, some of them, on the floor. One of them, the CBC/Progressive Caucus tax substitute, that is the substitute to what we are doing which is a plan to incentivize the economy by allowing Americans to keep more of their money so they can spend it, invest it, creating more jobs. This plan raised taxes, increased taxes by $44 billion in 2004, by then $420 billion over 5 years and $875 billion over 10 years. And, by the way, it also cuts defense spending at the same time. So they raise taxes, but they cannot fund or did not want to fund defense; and we know how important that is.

This was, of course, the Blue Dog budget proposal that was discussed here on the floor. And I was here for that debate which basically has no support to increase, to get the economy going; but it balanced the budget by raising taxes.

What a concept. Think about it. The economy is not doing too well so you raise taxes to balance the budget. This proposal would have raised taxes by $124 billion in 2006 to 2011. These are their proposals. Here they are. And then, of course, you had another one which raised taxes by $128 billion over 10 years and had much more in government spending as well. Let us just spend more. Let us spend more money, send more money to the bureaucracy in D.C. But then they will say when we say, no, we have to look at fraud and cut fraud, abuse and misspending of money, they say, oh, but you are cutting essential services. We have heard about the cuts in, for example, Medicare. I have heard that on the floor of this House many, many times. We heard it tonight. We will probably hear it later on tonight and the day after and the day after.

In fact, when we look at the facts, what is in the bill, in Medicare, it is a 7.2 percent increase in Medicare. There is no cut. It is an increase. It is a rather substantial increase in Medicare.

Then Medicaid cuts, I have had people talk to me about Medicaid cuts. I have gotten e-mails, how come we are cutting Medicaid, we are so nasty and rude, how come we are cutting Medicaid. Let us look at those cuts of Medicaid in our budget. It is a 9 percent increase in Medicaid. There is not a cut there. It is a 9 percent increase. Washington is the only place in the world where a 9 percent increase is said to be a cut. Nine percent increase is a 9 percent increase. The facts are the facts. Here it is. Yet we have heard that before, I am sure, accused of cutting Medicaid.

Then, of course, we are cutting education. That is why we have to raise taxes, because we are cutting education. If we do not raise taxes, we

have to cut education. Oh, really? Except that it is a 6 percent increase in our budget in education spending, a 6 percent increase.

Oh, one that I have heard time and time again, and this one is annoying because of trying to use veterans, saying that we are cutting veterans, funding for veterans. That is just not true. It is a 10.7 percent increase for 2003. It is a 10.7 percent increase. That is not a cut.

They do not exist. It is not there. It is not true, but again, some will say, do not let the facts confuse the rhetoric. Do not let the facts confuse the issue.

The facts are that the plan that we passed, the plan that is very similar to the President's plan, provides for jobs, creates jobs, keeps more money, allows the American people to keep more of their money. It is not a gift from government. It allows the American people to keep more of their money, provides increases in spending for the essential services like Medicaid, Medicare, education, veterans services. It does so in a responsible fashion, and those are the facts.

Again, I assume, though, that my colleague would probably tell me that that is nothing new, right, saying that a 10.7 percent increase is a cut. That is something that I guess the other side is used to saying quite a bit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I know that we do not have a lot of time left, and I would like to see if I could ask my colleague to give us a bit of an update, because one of the bills that I am really excited about is one that he has sponsored dealing with health care.

Health care is such a crucial issue, the cost of health care. The cost of health insurance is really getting to the point where it is unobtainable to many American families, and we cannot survive without health insurance. And we hear a lot of people cannot afford health insurance, and we have what I think is a model piece of legislation. And I know we do not have a lot of time, but if the gentleman could just briefly let us know about that bill that my colleague has been so generous to allow me to cosponsor and work with him. I think I would like to hear a little bit about that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota for coming here today and shedding some light on the facts; not showering with us rhetoric, but getting to the facts, speaking about the facts. He is absolutely right. We did pass legislation to create jobs, and so we are not complaining. We are not just spewing rhetoric. We have results here, and that is a huge difference between, I think, the two sides.

And I again thank the gentleman for his work on health care. I thank him for his work on the budget and transportation. And yes, I think we have to be very proud that we are not going to sit back and just let things happen. We are going to do everything in our power to incentivize this economy so more Americans can have more high-paying jobs, because that is what really it is all about.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wholeheartedly agree with what the gentleman is saying. This focus should be on jobs. Our focus as a Congress should be on creating jobs.

A lot of what we have heard earlier today is talk about extending unemployment, and we certainly have. Our hearts go out to those that are unemployed. But if you talk to those that are unemployed, what they really want is a job, and that is what we have to talk about, that is what we have to act on, that is what we have to create.

They have not talked a lot earlier in their discussions on the floor about what they are going to do to create jobs. As the gentleman mentioned, they do not have a plan to say here is how we are going to create jobs.

Our plan that we did pass last week will create, according to estimates, 1.2 million jobs. I know a little bit about jobs. I spent 20 years in the business world creating jobs, keeping people employed; and I know what are some of the things that can help encourage that and what are some of the things that can hurt that. So our focus needs to be what can we do as a government to nurture an environment that creates jobs.

The gentleman spoke of the energy bill. That is clearly part of it. The gentleman spoke about many of the provisions in this bill, in this bill we passed for jobs and growth, which will indeed create jobs and growth.

The economy has suffered. We went through a period where we had not only a bust in the telecom bubble, but soon following that, 9/11, which set the economy back, and the threat of terrorism and the concern with our efforts to free

a people from oppression in Afghanistan and do the same thing again in Iraq.

We are now suffering from concern over SARS and other diseases that are threatening our economy and threatening people and threatening lives around the world. All these put a lot of pressure on our economy, put a lot of pressure on the ability to create jobs; and now more than ever, our focus needs to be on the facts and how do we create those jobs.

I think that is a big issue we are dealing with. There are two different world views. There is a world view that says having the government spend more creates jobs, with the idea that somehow we here in Washington know how to do that. As a businessman, I can tell you, this is not where the jobs are created. They are created back home by small businesses.

I would like to go back to the facts, because so often much of the rhetoric on the other side is lambasting the job creators and lambasting any efforts that we have to encourage those job creators to create jobs. That is what this bill does.

If you think about what bonus depreciation does, going from 30 to 50 percent bonus depreciation, the extra ability to expense immediately investments in equipment that drives jobs, that is critical to providing those jobs.

Also the bill that we passed last week will increase the amount that small businesses can deduct from $25,000 to $100,000, the amount they can deduct in the first year. This is so vitally important. As I talk to so many small businesses around the State, they tell me this is something that can get me to go out and buy that piece of equipment that will allow me to add jobs to my business.

It is a recurring theme, as the gentleman mentioned, that we somehow here in Washington have all the answers; that we can create jobs in some way by just taxing people more, bringing the government more money. And we are overhead; we are overhead. We are a cost to all those small businesses out there. We are the big ``headquarters in the sky'' that does nothing but send the bill to them and say send more money; we need more money.

We do not need more money, but small businesses do. And it is true that too often we demonize small businesses. Too often we say the answer is to throw more penalties their way.

Things like this $100,000, being able to deduct it immediately is thought of as a tax cut for the rich, but let us think about what that means. That means rather than having to expense over 4 or 5 or 7 or 9 or 25 years, it can be deducted immediately. As a finance guy who worked in business and who has gone through the calculations, I can tell my colleagues, that will change businesses' decisions as to what they invest in.

And what could that be used for? I just started to go through my own history. My first job was picking strawberries, and if we think about our agricultural businesses, what they could do with $100,000. There is the harvesting equipment. That allows them to produce more product, to feed more people, to increase our economy.

After I had the opportunity to pick strawberries, I graduated to the local bakery in town, Meisner's Bakery in Pequot Lakes. With that $100,000, you could buy a new oven or a new steamer or a new area to increase your production of doughnuts or whatever. And that is going to add production, it is going to add jobs to a community.

After I got finished at the bakery, I had the opportunity to rent boats at a boat marina. Somebody who is doing that can add boats to their fleet so they can be renting more.

After that I had the opportunity to be at a gas station and pump gas, but they also had a little retail store there with fish and bait and all that stuff. A retail store like that could add fixtures, could expand space and, therefore, grow its sales and add jobs.

I can go on and on and on through the jobs that I have been in, and one can visually picture what could happen with that extra ability to deduct that $100,000 right away rather than over a long period of time, how that could motivate businesses to invest and how that investment could increase jobs. Sometimes we do not hear about that

from the other side. We just hear about lambasting of those business people that are taking the risks, that are investing in something that does not have a certain future, but it is that entrepreneurial risk- taking that creates jobs in this country, and that is what we need to encourage.

And I do not buy it either. And I agree with the gentleman as it relates to the people out there creating jobs. Hard-working families know a whole lot better how to spend money to create jobs and to provide for their families than we ever will here in Washington, and the gentleman's many examples just proved the point.

Mr. Speaker, amongst the wisest words I have heard here was during my freshman year we had a speaker come in, a George Will, who some of my colleagues may have had the opportunity to read his columns, and he tried to make things understandable for us, because sometimes it is hard to understand some of the verbiage that we hear. He said, you will find that on most issues, that the battle of ideas is between freedom on one side and people telling you that you need them here in Washington to keep bringing the gravy train to you, or, said another way, dependency, we are going to cultivate dependency. And if my colleagues listened tonight, they heard that.

We have heard the other side say, you need us here, because without us here, we will not be able to keep you dependent on unemployment rolls; whereas I think what our statement is saying, yes, we will take care of unemployment, and yes, we have extended, and we both voted for that, and we both will again when that need is there. But that is not our main focus. When we get up in the morning, our focus is how can we give the economy more freedom, small businesses more freedom, families and small businesses more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets so they can take that freedom and they can go out and create jobs and create a more prosperous America for all of us.

Only $100 million.

I do not understand it either. And the waste, fraud and abuse cries out for a razor-sharp focus on what can we do to scale away those costs that are burdening our economy. And we can get back to a sound fiscal picture only by sparking this economy with the kind of tax-relief jobs proposal that we passed and by controlling that spending with a razor-sharp focus, as they say, on waste, fraud and abuse.

They know how to spend money better back home in Florida and back home in Minnesota than we do in Washington. They do not put up with that. They will drill to the bottom of those issues and find out what was causing it and uncover the waste, fraud and abuse, and get it out of the system.

But what could they do, for example, with the dividend and capital gains reductions that we have passed? When I studied economics, they told me it was investments that drive jobs. It is when you invest in the economy, that is when you drive jobs. Where do those investments come from? Those investments come from savings. And this bill encourages savings by reducing the double taxation on dividends, and they are excessively high compared to many other countries' tax that we have on investment income. We should be taxing income at its source, but when we discourage investment and have the very low investment rate that we have here in America, we are hurting our economy. And who is receiving most of those dividends? I think it is important to point out it is primarily seniors that are receiving those dividends. And they have paid taxes on that in the business. They have paid taxes all their lives. Why are we charging them this double investment?

We have a concern here with having good fiscal responsibility. One of the big benefits of the dividend and capital gains proposal we have talked about is that by encouraging more businesses to be giving their dividends back to shareholders, you will be having less cash stockpiled in the company. That will be better for us keeping track and holding our businesses accountable. It is also going to make the balance between debt and equity less tilted towards debt. Right now we have such higher tax benefits for fully deductible debt on interest on debt; and yet on dividends coming out of a business, we are taxing them twice unfairly. By getting that balance more in line, you are going to really have a stronger, sounder capital structure, more equity in our businesses so they can withstand downfalls without having to lay off employees.

Again, our focus here is what can we do to create jobs. How can we run our ship more efficiently here by scaling back on waste, fraud and abuse so that we have to take less out of the pockets of small businesses and hardworking families and let them get on with the business of America, the business of creating jobs, expanding the economy and taking care of our families.

It is the same in Minnesota. And you were right, the jobs proposal that we have passed, as we have spoken of, focuses that help to our job providers on encouraging investment. That is what creates jobs. And as it relates to helping out and providing more money in the pockets of hardworking families, it focuses that in a very appropriate way.

The gentleman spoke of the per child tax credit, and I would also add the marriage penalty. As someone who has 23 years-plus of marriage under his belt and four teenagers to help pay for, I want to make sure there are not disincentives to keep you from enjoying both of those treasures of life, marriage penalty is something we have to get rid of, and getting rid of it now as this bill does is critical. We charge people when they walk down the wedding aisle more for getting married. We tax marriage. They get a little extra gift from Uncle Sam saying, Here is your bill. On average before we passed our tax relief in 2001, $1,400 more on average just for being married.

Families are the foundation of our society, the foundation of our economy. Why we do that is beyond me. And accelerating this marriage penalty relief so that it is eliminated today is something that is very powerful in this bill. The per child tax credit, those that have children know how expensive they are to raise; how we put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into them. Yes, and we need to, and there is nothing more rewarding. But we also have to put a few dollars out for their education, for their food, for their clothing; and we benefit greatly as a country from the youth having this increase in the per child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. Now, that is something that is very important to do and a very important part of this tax relief jobs bill that we just passed.

That is just the IRS, not all the expense that businesses have had and families have had in order to fill out some of the most complicated tax forms in the world.

We hear it all the time, and the gentleman mentioned that the facts often get distorted, and they get distorted to try to say and try to convince us in all cases that we need to spend more on X, Y or Z, and we have the benefit of many of our constituents coming in and speaking with us, and if they represent a category of spending, it needs to go higher. If they represent a business, we need to do something for their business, I have to tell my colleague, to increase the activity in that business.

I have to tell my colleague, one of the strongest confirmations that I have for his earlier statements about the complexity of the Tax Code and the burden of that Tax Code upon our economy, on our families, is that the one group that sort of stands out from all the rest is when I speak with my fellow certified public accountants. A certified public accountant that helps in preparing those tax returns one might think would want the Tax Code to be more complex so they can have more business, but they are all to a person telling me, whether I am visiting them in their one- or two- or three-person firm in a small town in Minnesota or otherwise, they are saying we have got to reduce the complexity of this Tax Code.

This Tax Code reduces the trust that people have in their government. It takes away far too many of our resources to devote to something that does not do anything for our competitiveness as a country.

One of the areas that they often single out as being just really out of control is the alternative minimum tax, and the alternative minimum tax was put in many, many years ago with the intent of making sure that we all paid taxes, and was targeting those at the very top, but they never changed the dollar amount, and the years and the decades have passed, and now it is being not just a burden of an additional cost to people where it is being unfairly applied, but the complexity of it in having to pool so many moderate to middle-income to lower-middle-income families into it is astoundingly burdensome.

So I am also pleased that part of what we did in the relief that we passed last week was to increase the AMT exemption so that the other provisions were not causing more people to be dumped into this quagmire of a mess with AMT.

We do need to invest in our priorities, and we are in our budget, as the gentleman so eloquently pointed out, but we also need to reduce the burdensome elements of our taxes and our tax preparation and get a simplified form, which this AMT relief is moving us in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague has helped me cosponsor my fair care legislation to help with addressing the uninsured, and he is absolutely right. When we go out there and talk to small businesses and employees, the availability of insurance is critical.

What are we doing with insurance right now? We have a growing number of uninsured that are being provided for through the emergency rooms of our hospital, the most expensive way we can treat them. Federal law requires that emergency rooms need to treat everybody, including the uninsured. Where does that cost come from? That cost comes to us from higher Federal, State and local subsidies, but also higher insurance premiums, which drive up the uninsured pool even further, and we get in a vicious cycle.

I am pleased the gentleman has been so supportive of our fair care bill that gives the uninsured the same tax benefits that we that are employed have. When one is employed, they get help from their employer. That help that they give for their health insurance does not come to them as taxable income. They are getting a tax benefit.

My bill would, which my colleague has nicely helped cosponsor, gives $1,000 per child tax credit per person, $500 per dependent, up to $3,000 per family, and this is the way where we can help that uninsured in a way that will give them more choices and really benefit us all through lower insurance premiums and more accessibility. But we have done so much more for helping with that vital thing that is constraining jobs.

The medical malpractice reform that we both supported and passed earlier this year in the House will take away those excessive settlements that have been driving medical professionals out of the business and again driving up the costs of health care. We have many other provisions to help, but this prescription drug bill that, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, we passed in this body twice would take away an expense that has just been so burdensome in a way that is affordable to us, and we can do it in our budget, and it keeps seniors from having to spend their lifetime savings for life-saving prescriptions. But that is, again, another way that we can help keep the costs of insurance from being driven up.

The energy bill we passed earlier and, as my colleague knows, I have spoken on earlier is so critical to this economy because nothing hurts or helps the economy more than the cost of energy and making sure that we have affordable energy, that we are not dependent on foreign sources, that we can grow more alternative sources here as well as encouraging efficiency and conservation are provided there. That is a critical bill, and I know I am working very hard as we are on the roads in the transportations bills.

We met earlier today on an airport improvement plan and making sure we are investing in that infrastructure that is so very critical to our economy. And I am also pushing another proposal on fast lanes to free up the ability of local and State governments and maybe private enterprises to move forward and help put extra lanes in our interstates that without we are congesting traffic and closing down our economy.

There is so much that we are doing, and we do have a razor-sharp focus on jobs. What do we need to do to create jobs? That is our focus. It is not to complain. It is not to talk about the problems in America. It is to say America has always risen above those problems, and we have risen above those problems and succeeded and gotten to a point of leadership in the world not because we have taxed more and brought more dollars to the Federal Government, but because we have relied upon and trusted and given more

freedoms to hard-working entrepreneurs that are taking risks, that are creating jobs, and letting families keep more of their hard-earned money because they know best how to take care of themselves.

I appreciate the gentleman bringing these very important issues before the Chamber and our fellow colleagues and look forward to working with him to continue the type of policies that we have already been able to successfully achieve so far in this Congress and hopefully will have more to come.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 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), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is an appropriate rule providing for 1 hour of debate for consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, taxes now claim a greater share of the median two-income family's budget than food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. That just is not right. Families need the flexibility to dedicate their hard-earned resources towards their most pressing concerns. While some may need more money to help pay off their debts, others may need extra money to pay tuition for their child or to invest for their retirement.

The same can be said for small business owners, the entrepreneurial backbone of America. They should be empowered to allocate their resources however they see fit, whether it be hiring more employees, reinvesting, or expanding their business in order to create jobs.

The point is, people should be making decisions on how to best spend their hard-earned dollars, not the government, nor should government punish them with job-killing, unfair taxes.

Today's legislation is not just about tax relief; it is about creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The fact is jobs do not create themselves. And we, in this Congress, have both the ability and responsibility to help create those jobs. Through his consistent and immediate attention to growth and prosperity for working Americans, the President has once again guided Congress to foster job creation and ease the outrageous tax burden on working Americans. Under his direction, we will be helping countless Americans achieve a greater parity in the Tax Code and realize the fulfillment of employment.

No one knows the current job struggle like my constituents and fellow New Yorkers across the State. For my part of the State, which never shared in the economic boom of the 1990s, job growth remains the number one priority. And this type of positive impact is what this and so many other parts of our country need.

On average, over 30,000 new jobs will be created in New York every year for the next 5 years. Instead of an unemployment check, these workers will get a paycheck that they want and they deserve.

The bill recognizes that we cannot create employees if we do not work with employers to create jobs. For example, small businesses will have an option of immediately deducting up to $100,000 in expenses, a significant increase over the current $25,000 deductions. Because most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, accelerating the top rate reduction means lower taxes for small business owners. This means that millions of entrepreneurs will have more money to spend on employees, supplies, or expansion efforts.

The conference report also drastically reduces the dividend tax burden, making stocks more valuable and increasing expected rates of return. By lowering the rates of dividend and capital gains, people will be more willing to invest because they will pay less tax on the returns to their investments.

What this bill also recognizes is the need for an immediate infusion of direct aid to States facing dire fiscal crises. Budget shortfalls and sharply rising Medicaid costs have crippled local governments, restricted access to vital services, such as health care, that our constituents greatly rely on.

By coupling State relief with tax relief and job creation, we can alleviate the strain on State revenues, and further stimulate the economy with direct aid to our States and localities that need it most.

Whether creating jobs, relieving the tax burden, increasing investment, or fostering State and local stability, this bill acknowledges the need for all-encompassing approaches to growing the economy.

Mr. Speaker, former President Ronald Reagan once said the current Tax Code is a daily mugging. This is not what our political science teachers meant by participation in government. Let us not rob the American people of their hard-earned money. This country was founded upon individuals who stretched their imaginations, fostered ingenuity, and broke their backs for freedom and justice. Americans throughout history have not toiled resiliently just to fork over all their earnings to the Federal Government. This was not the intent of our forefathers, nor should it be ours now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule as well as 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, my memory serves that at the time, had we not done the tax cuts that we passed in 2001, we might have been in a deeper recession, a slower economy. And, quite frankly, that was part of the stimulus that has moved us to a shallow recession. In moving forward with this tonight, my hope is the economic stimulus will continue to advance.

Quite frankly, I think the Republican agenda, led by our President, has done the job, and I am hoping that we can continue moving on that agenda. I will be happy to take that record to the voters of this land and let them make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are getting to the heart of it. The heart of it is that the left is filing in here to talk about we need bigger government and more spending. We need more of that central Federal Government.

And the debate will happen after this rule is passed of those who want to see a tax cut, those who want to put that money back in the American people's pocket. And then we will begin to look at some of the facts in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, a married couple with two children, an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of $1,133 in 2003. That is a decline of 96 percent.

In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. And 68 million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338; 45 million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786; 34 million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549; 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558; 12 million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401; 23 million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209; 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

I will repeat that again. Mr. Speaker, 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act. Half of the tax relief package in 2003 is directed to the child tax credit, expanding a 10 percent bracket eliminating the marriage penalty, accelerating the marginal rate cuts, and ensuring that middle-class families do not face AMT. Ten million seniors will receive some type of dividend income, will be able to make their golden years more secure by keeping more of what their dividend income is.

When I have this vote cast for this rule and then when I vote on the underlying legislation, I am happy to take those facts back to my district and stand before my constituents. Do Americans want more Federal Government and bureaucrats creating programs, or do they want that money in their pocket for them to make that decision?

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

For a point of a question.

Mr. Speaker, I also saw a poll that says that the American people want a tax cut. And, quite frankly, as the President traveled the country in the week that we were on recess, he raised the polling numbers for that tax cut by 10 percent.

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

I stated a number of facts of how many millions of Americans benefit from this plan. I realize it was my party that started the graphs and bringing those very scientific presentations before us. I respect listening to the gentleman as he brought some of those today, but there are two important messages that I know I have been taught and trained by my constituents when I go home each week that is drilled into my graph of my mind and my views here.

One is: Keep and create jobs. That is what this bill does.

The other is: Tax cut now. That is what we are going to have the opportunity to vote on.

There is going to be a great debate after this rule on the Thomas tax bill that he will present, but the reality is, at the end of the day, we are going to pass that legislation and we are going to help people go back to work.

We have also done some important things with the unemployment insurance today. We are moving forward. It is a good Bush agenda. It is an agenda that the American people want, and they are going to have it.

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

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

This is not a new debate for me. I came from the New York legislature. I listened to liberals every day tell me how government was going to solve all of New Yorkers' problems. I will not go through all those facts of the millions and millions of Americans that benefit from this bill as I cited earlier, but I want to remind my colleagues of one simple fact: A married couple with two children and an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 by $1,133 in 2003. It is a decline of 96 percent.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from

Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), my good friend and classmate.

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

I cannot speak for the gentleman's constituency as a whole, but I know there is one constituent down there who wants a tax cut.

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

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

We are nearing the end of our hour debate on the rule, and we have heard a number of different viewpoints. But I want to remind the colleagues as they look at the rule that gives us an opportunity to move forward on a tax cut and also a $20 billion stimulus to our States and localities. The child credit increases our child credit to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004. Families will receive a child credit check this year for up to $400 per child. It accelerates the expansion of the 10 percent bracket for 2003. The marriage penalty relief begins in 2003, individual rate cuts where we accelerate the 2006 individual rate cuts scheduled to 2003. The individual increase of AMT exemptions where that will be increased by an amount of $4,500 for single persons and $9,000 for joint filers.

But I look at jobs and small businesses. I have come up through the elected route of legislative bodies from county to county to State, our Federal Government. All of my working adult life I have been a small businessman. When I go back home to those Chambers of Commerce and, yes, it will not be Waco, Texas, or Crawford, Texas. It is going to be Clarence, New York, or Amherst or Batavia, Greece. I am going to talk about the fact that in small business that they have the opportunity to expense at $100,000 versus $25,000. Not because I thought so, but because they told me, as small businessmen and women, that is what they needed. That is what they needed to first retain their jobs, that is what they needed to grow jobs.

And, by gosh, the Congress heard them, the President heard them, and there is a new law of the land that this Congress will enact tonight. That small business expensing increases the amount that they can expense from $25,000 to $100,000.

Some of you are going to go home to the Chambers of Commerce, and I hope, as they get a chance to look at that, you can answer the question: ``You are right. I have heard your call across the America, and I am going to do that $100,000 expensing in the vote I cast here tonight.''

And in dividends and capital gains, I hear all this class warfare on the rich. Where I come from and in that real estate business I owned for 25 years, I knew a lot of working men and women that built a little capital gains in that second property they owned or the double that they rented out up the street,

and they just want an opportunity to have that money come back to them versus the government gobbling it up for more government programs to give you a solution of how to spend the money versus sending it back to the American people.

This debate is, as we pass the rule and moving on to the debate, we will hear a lot from the left. We will hear a lot from those who cast that 1993 vote to have the largest tax increase in America's history defend it then and then defend it tonight. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not care how we cut it. The American people want to create jobs and jobs growth, and they know tax cuts are the route to get there.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay for it by giving it back to the American people. Will there be deficits? There are deficits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believed when I voted for a $726 billion tax decrease, for tax cuts, that we would have moved our economy even faster. I believed it when I did $550 billion. I am supporting $350 billion with the other things we are doing today for an economic stimulus package because I believe it will create jobs, and those jobs and earning power will more than keep our country running, if we do not let the big spenders in Congress spend our money.

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

Mr. Speaker, my two posters are really simple, as I said before: Create and Keep Jobs and Tax Cuts Now.

I want to say that this is not a partisan thing. It is either you believe that bigger government and more government spending is how we solve our problems in America, or you believe it is the people's money and you give it back to them. It is important to really note that in the bipartisan aspect of reality, either you believe one or the other. As President Kennedy said, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now.

Mr. Speaker, if we move ahead on this rule and we move ahead on the underlying legislation, we are going to do just that; and that is what America wants, that is what they deserve. And I think in every poll in America that has been cited in every different direction here, the bottom line is the people, and I go home every week and I know, want to create jobs, and they are going to do it by our cutting taxes, and that is what we are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, let us have a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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, here we are again, at quarter to eleven, the shades of darkness have fallen, and we have to ask ourselves a question, at least I do: Is the other side not particularly competent? Is that why we are here this late at night, as we always are on major pieces of legislation? Or have

they intentionally put us here late at night so no one will watch this on television, so the American public will not know what is going on?

I will complete my statement, and then my friend, the chairman, will have plenty of time to respond.

I understand, but my friend will have plenty of time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, it is more than a coincidence that the major pieces of legislation that this Congress does are always done late at night when not very many people are watching. Tonight, Mr. Speaker, the House will pass and send to the Senate the ``Leave No Millionaire Behind Tax Act.'' Yet at the same time around the country millions of Americans are looking for work.

This country is still suffering from the second Bush recession in just over a decade, the third Republican recession in the past 20 years. The Federal deficit is spiraling even higher. The public debt is growing. Every penny of this tax bill have will to be borrowed. But Republicans in Washington, from the President on down, are busy patting themselves on the back for successfully pulling off another rip-off of the Federal Treasury.

Make no mistake, that is all this conference report is, a welfare package for the very wealthy and a big fat bill for future generations. When you borrow money, you generally have to pay it back. This conference report is the latest attempt to give the average American's Social Security payments and their Medicare payments to a small elite group of very wealthy individuals.

Republicans have argued among themselves about how much this bill costs, but it hardly matters because they are basically making up numbers at this point. After all, the Senate Republicans attached a number to their tax bill last week and then had to admit it was $70 billion too low. And this week House the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), was in the newspapers bragging about how easy it is to fudge the numbers to make their tax plan look less expensive than it really is.

They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax bill, but they will not extend unemployment benefits to every American who continues to look for work with no success. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but they kick 1.4 million veterans to the curb and out of the VA health system. They can fudge the numbers to pay for a tax cut, but they cannot hide a record $400 billion deficit.

Mr. Speaker, since George W. Bush became President, some 2.7 million Americans have lost their jobs. Unemployment is the highest it has been since the last Bush administration, and only Herbert Hoover lost more jobs than George W. Bush has. Of course, President Bush still has a year and a half to go to top the Great Depression President in this contest.

Mr. Speaker, the stock market is down. Republicans have driven America's deficit so high that the Bush administration's own Treasury Department has twice asked to raise the debt limit so they can borrow more money. Not only does the administration need to borrow more money, they want to borrow nearly a trillion dollars, the largest increase in the history of the debt limit. This is not a record to be proud of, Mr. Speaker. This is not a record to run for reelection on, Mr. Speaker. It is a record of shame.

After all, 2 years ago, the Republican majority in the House did not sell their economic package as a budget buster. But they were wrong. And they are wrong today. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' will not create jobs or stimulate the economy, any more than Part I did 2 years ago. But it will drive this country deeper into debt, raising the debt tax on all Americans to pay for more tax breaks for the richest few. The true cost of this particular bill is closer to a trillion dollars than to any fake numbers Republicans trot out today.

That trillion dollars is about what the administration and the Republican leadership want us to raise the public debt by so they will not have to face up to the failed economic policies before the next election. The Republican leadership wants to force that record-setting debt limit increase through the Congress, along with this tax bill, while they skip town and leave millions of Americans who cannot find work in the lurch. This is reprehensible behavior, Mr. Speaker, but certainly not behavior that surprises Democrats one little bit.

We have a responsibility to govern with the needs of the present and the future in mind. This tax bill thinks of neither the present nor the future in a responsible manner. What the President and the Republican leadership are advocating is a failed economic paradigm that will borrow against the future to pay a few millionaires today, and the Republican Party does not have a clue how they are going to pay this money back and keep this government solvent.

That is why we have to defeat this rule and this conference report. Until someone makes President Bush and the Republicans stop ruining the economy, they will keep raiding ordinary taxpayers to pay for more tax breaks for the wealthiest of the wealthy. This is just wrong, Mr. Speaker. You know it and I know it.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), who has a very interesting description of the bill.

I have a table here, table 5.1, ``Conference Agreement on Jobs and Growth

Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.'' This table has some very interesting information in it. An American who makes a million dollars or more would get $93,530 of tax cuts on the average. If you make between $20,000 and $30,000 a year, you get $15 a month. If you make between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, you get a little bit less than $30 a month. Let me just comment, the gentleman is trying to say this is a wonderful thing for people in the lower income brackets.

I suggest to Members that the great spread here of $93,530 for the millionaires and $15 a month for the fellow or woman making between $20,000 and $30,000 and less than $30 for the family of between $30,000 and $40,000, I am not sure what the gentleman is trying to say here.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I am just proposing that we not try and tell them they are getting a really good deal here, that they are getting a really big tax cut, because the people who are getting the really big tax cut are the folks who are the millionaires, and the average folks out there are just getting a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I have been listening to the gentleman from New York and, of course, he offers a false choice. He says, do you want tax cuts or do you want bigger government? The people that I talk to do not want a government that puts them in debt. They do not want their children and grandchildren to be paying, having to bail out the country for this tax cut that is being passed this year because of the size of the debt that this is causing. No, they do not necessarily want bigger government, but they do not want that debt hanging over their children and grandchildren for several generations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

The gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, that is sunset almost immediately. They may get that for a year or two, and then it is sunset.

I do not have enough time, but I just observed that the gentleman says, oh, we are going to do this thousand dollars, but they take it away in the next year or two.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Is the gentleman talking about the multimillionaire who lives in Crawford, Texas? I think that is who he was talking about. I do recall that the net worth of the resident in Crawford, Texas, is somewhere around $15 to $20 million.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2156, a bill introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) that would require the administration and the Congress to do something about the budget disaster their economic policies are creating.

The Rangel bill attempts to avert the train wreck Republican economic policies are steering us towards. His bill would permit a temporary debt limit increase of $375 billion, on the condition that the administration and Congress come up with a serious plan to balance the budget by the year 2008. The Rangel bill would give the Republicans the opportunity to show some real leadership on economic issues.

Mr. Speaker, let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not keep the House from considering the conference agreement. What a ``no'' vote will do is allow the House to consider the Rangel balanced budget proposal as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible proposal.

Mr. Speaker, the debt tax is not a tax we can repeal or sunset. This vote is the only opportunity the House will have to show some real economic leadership and consider the Rangel balanced budget plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of H.R. 2156 be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

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, will the gentleman yield?

I just wanted to respond to the query that was put forth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I rise to say that this has been a great day for us. We have been able to pass out, in a bipartisan way, with an overwhelming vote, a spectacular defense authorization bill. We have been able to deal with one of the most pressing needs out there by extending unemployment benefits to those who are really hurting. And now we are dealing with what truly is the number one priority for us economically, and that is we are going to be putting into place a measure which is designed to create jobs and increase economic growth in this country.

I am looking at the clock. It is now 6 minutes before 11 p.m. Now, I know my friend from Texas has described this as the dead of night. But I have to say that it is 6 minutes before 8 p.m. in California, and I suspect that there may even be a broader audience following the debate at this hour across the Nation than there might be at noon following a debate that takes place here in the House of Representatives.

I also have to say that I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who are anxious for us to complete our work and get this done so that we can create jobs for the American people, which is what this measure is going to do.

Now, I am very proud to be a Republican, and by virtue of being a Republican, I was born to cut taxes. And I am proud, I am proud of the fact that we are putting this measure into place. The ``Leave No Millionaires Behind Act'' was a great line that I heard. I thought that was very creative. But if we are using it on the model of ``No Child Left Behind,'' I guess it should be broadly bipartisan. And, frankly, this is a measure which cuts taxes for virtually everyone who pays taxes.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his question. And what I will say is that, frankly, as we look at the numbers, 1 percent of the American people provide 37 percent of the tax revenues that are paid in this country, and 5 percent of the American taxpayers provide over 52 percent of the tax revenues.

But what I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it again, is that this measure will cut taxes for virtually every American who pays taxes. And I am so excited about the fact that it cuts taxes not only for those job creators by dramatically increasing expensing for small businesses, by bringing about the kind of increased depreciation which is very important and necessary, but also I am enthused about cutting the top rate on the capital gains tax.

I am very privileged to have worked for years and years and years here. In fact, I have a bipartisan bicameral Zero Capital Gains Tax Caucus. And guess what? This measure creates a zero capital gains, and not for those who are in the highest income tax brackets, not for those who are out there creating huge numbers of jobs, but this measure will, in the year 2008, establish a zero capital gains tax rate for whom? For those who are in the 10 percent tax bracket and those who are in the 15 percent tax bracket. And, Mr. Speaker, it also provides a zero tax in the year 2008 for those who have dividend income. And there are many Americans who fall in that category.

So we are achieving, with passage of this measure, a zero capital gains rate for those who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. And, yes, we are, in fact, cutting it for those in the higher end as well. We are cutting it from 20 percent to 15 percent.

We also know, as we look at the broad cross-section of the American people who are going to be benefitted by this expanding and making permanent the marriage tax penalty, that that relief is very, very important. Also expanding the child credit up to $1,000, another very important provision, will be helpful to middle-income wage earners in this country. So while I hear this measure described by my friend from Texas as only benefiting millionaires, that is an absolutely preposterous description of this very important legislation.

I also have to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am very proud of the fact that we have stepped forward, acknowledging that there are real challenges that our States are facing. My State of California has, tragically, a $38.2 billion deficit. And what is it that we do in this measure? We step up to the plate and provide $20 billion in assistance for those States that have come to us and talked about the very important needs that they face.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we have done the right thing. We are going to lay the groundwork to provide a tax-defined effort to create jobs and growth in this country. This measure deserves strong bipartisan support. The President of the United States stood here at the Capitol this morning and said he looks forward to signing this bill.

While it is not exactly what we wanted from the beginning, we have said that we are excited about the fact that the argument has been over what the size of the tax cut will be, because we know that when our friends on the other side of the aisle were in the majority the debate was so often over what the size of the tax increase would be.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the lines about the desire to keep these dollars in the pockets of the American people because they have earned them. We all know that is the case; but we also have to realize that these proposals which have come forward from the other side of the aisle to increase taxes, which is the proposal that we had last week that came from that side, would do nothing to create jobs and encourage economic growth.

In fact, as my friend from New York has so eloquently said, it would have exacerbated the economic challenges that we face. The downturn began in the last two quarters of the year 2000. That was before President Bush was elected President of the United States. Since that time this Nation has faced all three of the factors that the President outlined in his campaign that indicated that he possibly would have to lead into deficit spending: war, recession, national emergency.

No one needs to have September 11 redefined for them. We all lived through that right here in the Capitol; and tragically, many of us lost friends on that day. We also have just gone through a war liberating the people of Iraq, and we know it has been very costly.

We also know, as we have looked at this deficit, the real problem is the fact that we have seen a slow economy. How is it that we are going to generate the revenues to deal with these very important priorities that we have? It is to generate a flow of revenues that we need.

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

That is a very good question. I think what I have basically said was this downturn began in the last two quarters of 2000. I did not say whose economy this is or is not. I would say we are all in this together as the American people. We all together stood outside the Capitol as Members of Congress following the tragedy of September 11. We all have been faced with the war with Iraq, and we have all been faced with a downturn that began in the last two quarters of 2000, and we are struggling to emerge. We are struggling to get this economy back on track.

That is why the measure that we passed in 2001 which the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) was talking about did play a role in mitigating the economic downturn. Virtually every economist indicated had we not passed that measure, the problems would have been worse than they are today. I believe that passage of this measure will go a long way towards creating the kind of revenue flow that we need. As I was saying, every single time we have cut the top rate on capital gains, we have seen an increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury.

We saw it when John F. Kennedy did it and when Ronald Reagan did it. We doubled the flow of revenues to the Treasury during the 1980s when Ronald Reagan brought about that reduction. In fact, we saw a 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues when the top rate on capital gains was reduced from 28 to 20 percent in 1981.

Unfortunately, in the 1986 tax bill, we saw that rate go back up. That 500 percent increase in the flow of revenues that came by unleashing that potential that was there, unfortunately we saw a diminution of it once we increased that rate.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we are going to observe a dramatic increase in the flow of revenues to the Federal Treasury once we put into place this measure that cuts for most Americans the rate from 20 to 15 percent, and for those in the 10 to 15 percent bracket, reduces it to a great big zero.

When I think about those at the lower end of the spectrum, I think about those individuals who are starting their businesses, maybe have a home that has appreciated, they want to be able to have the chance to create jobs and get onto that first rung of the economic ladder.

This measure is designed to create the opportunity for people to do just that. This is a very good start. It is a good piece of legislation. I am very proud of the work that has been done by the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means, our colleagues in the other body, and of course President Bush in providing stellar leadership for this, as well as Speaker Hastert who has constantly pushed in the direction of trying to reduce that burden.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my friend, does he propose that that American who is earning between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, does he propose that they receive a $93,000 tax cut? Is that what the gentleman is proposing?