Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004.

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. President, I rise this evening in strong support of the homeland security amendment that was offered earlier this evening by Senator Byrd. I am pleased that I had the opportunity to work closely with Senator Byrd on the details of the amendment because it impacts the security of our transportation system.

Before I start, I wish to align myself with the very thoughtful and important remarks of the Senator from North Dakota made earlier regarding the northern border. Senator Dorgan has brought some real attention to the northern border issues that are so important to my home State of Washington. This work must continue despite the President's cuts to the border security initiative that the Senate previously approved.

This amendment represents months of work on behalf of Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee. Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Appropriations Committee, convened a series of hearings last spring to discuss homeland security needs. We heard from numerous Cabinet Secretaries, including Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Secretary Mineta. Several respective national security experts gave us very valuable testimony. We also heard from several Governors, including Governor Locke from Washington State. Mayors appeared before the Appropriations Committee as did fire chiefs, health department officials, and water and sewer authorities.

Senator Byrd and the Appropriations Committee worked very hard to identify real needs for homeland security. The Byrd homeland security amendment is in large part the result of those hearings and our continued efforts to work with the true first responders.

Homeland security is an enormous task. We all know this. It is going to be enormously expensive. We all know this. Sadly, the administration has not requested adequate funding for homeland security needs throughout our country. The President refused to spend homeland security money previously approved in a bipartisan fashion by this Congress.

The bill before us today, at the President's insistence, makes further cuts in homeland security funding.

Homeland security is about our entire country. However, I must tell you that this issue is tremendously important to Washington State. Already, thanks to an alert Customs agent, we arrested a terrorist suspect crossing into Washington State with explosive materials.

We are an international State with vulnerabilities in our ports, our rail and highway infrastructure, and our international airports.

We are a trade State with an economy that is closely linked to the world. We have significant military assets, nuclear facilities, and many popular tourist-gathering points. My State is aggressively moving forward to protect Washingtonians. We need a partner in the President and the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the underlying bill does not address all of our homeland security needs. Homeland security should not be an unfunded mandate.

As a nation, we are working hard to close the security gaps that still exist. We know the transportation systems are a frequent target of terrorist attack. In fact, when you look at the worldwide statistics, one-third of terrorist attacks that take place around the world target transportation systems, including aircraft, highways, rail systems, subways, commercial ships, and ferries.

As many have observed, our security is only as strong as our weakest link. This amendment offered by Senator Byrd will help strengthen some of our weakest links in port security, aviation, and mass transit.

Let me start with port security. We have a lot of work to do to protect our Nation's ports. As my colleagues will recall, we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act 95 to 0. That act puts new requirements on our ports. However, effectively no funds have been provided to our Nation's port authorities to implement those new requirements, which will cost billions of dollars.

The underlying bill that we are looking at this evening, provides very little money to enhance port security. So I am really, pleased that the Byrd amendment would dramatically increase the security funds available to our ports.

I ask Senators to reflect for a moment on what a terrorist incident in our Nation's ports would mean to our Nation's economy.

Just look at what happened this past fall, when West Coast dockworkers were locked out of their jobs. It is estimated that the lockout cost our economy $1 billion a day.

A terrorist attack on our ports--or an attack carried out through our cargo container system--would undermine our Nation's confidence in the hundreds of thousands of containers that crisscross our country every single day.

And beyond the human toll--an attack on, or through, our ports would have a dramatic economic impact and could bring the flow of commerce to a dead stop.

It is not enough just to pass an authorization bill saying that we have better secured our ports. We have to actually provide the resources to make our ports more secure.

The Byrd amendment boosts--by almost half a billion dollars--the amount of grant money available to our public port authorities. I commend the Senator for his vision and leadership on this critical challenge.

Another way to secure our ports is through Operation Safe Commerce, an initiative that I started in last year's emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This TSA initiative was launched with the cooperation of the Customs Service. For the first time, it provides us a mechanism to track containers from their point of origin to their point of destination. As a result, we will have much better information about where the container came from, what is in it, and whether or not it requires either x-ray or further inspection.

With the initial funding that we provided for this initiative--and the $30 million that is included in the underlying bill--we have had to limit these grants to the three major container ports in our country. Those three ports take in roughly three-quarters of all the containers entering the United States. With the additional funding provided under Senator Byrd's amendment, we will be able to greatly expand the number of ports that can participate in this important initiative.

Finally, as I talk about port security, I want to talk about the new demands being placed on our Coast Guard. For a long time I have been very concerned that these new homeland security requirements mean the Coast Guard isn't getting adequate resources--or paying adequate attention--to its traditional missions, such as search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, and marine environmental protection.

In order to get the Coast Guard the kind of assets it needs to conduct port security, Senator Byrd's amendment includes sufficient funds to boost the Coast Guard's inventory of coastal patrol boats. These are the ideal platform for the Coast Guard's homeland security mission. Unfortunately the Coast Guard has not been able to buy enough of them, in part because of other major contract obligations that are outstanding.

We cannot continue to burden the Coast Guard with additional missions without providing them with the resources and the tools they need to do their job. I am pleased the Byrd amendment provides these resources.

Another weak link this amendment will address concerns mass transit. I think we should all recognize that the majority of fatalities resulting from transportation terrorist incidents have been in the area of mass transit, specifically from buses.

The challenge in securing our mass transit systems is daunting. By their very nature, transit systems are designed to be open and accessible and to accommodate many people in a very short period of time. It is a real challenge, but we have to address it.

The amendment that Senator Byrd has offered states that we are not going to shrink away from this vulnerability. It says we will better protect the millions of citizens who commute to their jobs every day. The $300 million included in this amendment will make a serious downpayment and get our Nation's transit systems focused on mechanisms that will simultaneously protect their passengers without clogging our transit systems.

I commend Senator Byrd for recognizing this vulnerability and for addressing it.

Finally, I want to talk about aviation security. I commend the Senator for including an additional $250 million for our Nation's airports.

As my colleagues know, the Aviation Transportation Security Act mandated that we check all passengers' checked baggage for explosives. Just a few weeks ago, the Transportation Security Administration met that deadline. But the truth is, there is a huge amount of construction that needs to be done to transition our Nation's airports from the interim explosive detection solutions to more permanent and efficient systems to check all bags for explosives.

From the very first day that this requirement was put into law, the Transportation Security Administration has consistently refused to request adequate funds to compensate the airports for these costs. They have consistently underestimated the true costs to implement these massive retrofits in order to leave our airports ``holding the bag'' for these costs.

The amendment offered by Senator Byrd provides an extra $200 million--over and above the $250 million included in the underlying bill--to more accurately reflect the real cost of this initiative in fiscal year 2003.

We will be paying the cost to implement the Transportation Security Act for many years to come. Our airports do not have easy access to the kind of resources that will be needed to make

these very necessary investments. The airlines--which the airports depend on for rates and charges--are almost uniformly in serious financial difficulty. Many airports have already extended about as many bonds as they can currently afford to pay off. So this amendment would provide very critical support.

I am proud of the progress this amendment makes in adequately funding port security, mass transit, and aviation security. I commend Chairman Byrd for this amendment, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

We cannot let the protection of the American people be ignored because an OMB director--a few blocks down the road--has said that discretionary spending will not exceed a certain arbitrary figure.

We have serious security needs in this country, and this amendment will help us meet them.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, this, I hope, is going to be an evening and a day that we will all remember as legislators. It is true that the majority tries desperately hard to bring these bills up in the middle of the night so that sunshine will never see what it is.

It is also true, it is also true that conferences do not mean what they used to mean. It means after a dozen Republicans get together in some room somewhere and decide what they want to do, they then come around and pass out a paper and ask you to sign it.

So I have been accustomed to that on the Committee on Ways and Means. But guess what, a lot of Democrats on this side have been saying forget all of this $726 billion and $550 billion and $300 billion. This is all a game they are playing, and they said that this bill was so full of gimmicks, that the Republicans were trying to fool the American people because we said that this was really a trillion dollar tax cut. And my friends over there started booing and saying this was so unfair and that we were just distorting the numbers.

Well, there is one person in this House that when he says something, people do not point their finger at him. They say the man makes a lot of sense. He is a straight shooter, and he is respected by both sides of the aisle.

Now, I do not normally read statements, but since it involves the Speaker of this great House, I thought it might start off the debate on a high level rather than wait for just the heavy people to come down at the end of debate and start talking about how we should salute the flag and do the right thing. And this is a bill that we have worked on and we have done it within the budget.

Now, it says here that House Speaker Hastert told the Congress Daily Thursday that the final package incorporates key features of the House- passed bill and positions Congress to pass much greater tax relief in the near future. The $350 billion number takes us through the next 2 years basically, Hastert said. Hastert, meaning the Speaker of this august body. But it also could end up being a trillion dollar tax bill because the stuff, that is what the chairman was working with, because the stuff is extendable.

That is the fight we are going to have, and it is not a bad fight to have. This goes on and says, Congressional Journal, Hastert said the final package is front loaded and will boost the economy in the short term but it includes nearly all of the content of the House's original bill. Now, I do not know how far in debt you guys want to take us, but listen, because this is important stuff. This is history-making stuff.

Now, this is what the Speaker said about this bill. That at the end of the day it is not 350, it is not 550, it is not 726. It is a trillion. But guess what? It gets better, to show you just how deep they would want to get us in the hole. I never knew they hated Social Security and Medicare that badly. But at the so-called conference, there was a period of time that I was the only Democrat there on the House side beside the minority leader. The chairman came in later. And so there was opening statements made before the conference report was just passed around to sign. And our distinguished majority leader said, while we are doing this bill and you have done a lot of good work on it and praised the Republican leadership and the House and Senate, he said, before this year is over we will be coming back to pick up the rest of it to make certain we get another trillion.

Now, I mention these names because the only thing that they did not mention was that they were going to borrow the money in order to give the rich these tax cuts, and they want to stick the rest of society with paying the interest on the money that they are borrowing at the expense of the Social Security system. I am so happy and pleased that at the end of this day that we do not have to point fingers and say that it is gimmicks that you are doing or you are trying to hoodwink the people because if the Speaker said it, and you applauded it, so therefore I do not have any apprehensions; and if the majority leader came back and said, you are coming back to raid us again and

you applaud that, well, thank God for your honesty in what you are doing.

And one day somebody is going to ask, when this deficit just grew, when the programs were collapsing, when people were just paying more interest on the debt than all of the programs that we have together, all of the discretionary programs, they may ask, and just what were you doing when this happened, when you shifted the responsibility for paying taxes to the working people that do not have the exclusions that you provided today?

So to the Republican leadership, thank you for making our day. I thank the Speaker for being so honest and saying what these people have done; and to the leader, come back again for the next trillion dollars and maybe some day soon the American people can see what you are doing to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), an outstanding, hard-working member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the House Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North

Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the head of the Democratic Steering Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with the gentleman from Louisiana. It certainly did go down because they stole the money out of the Social Security trust fund in order to make it go down. So he scores there.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

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

There is a whole lot to this bill I did not see, but if that wife is going to benefit from the marriage penalty and she is not working, this is an exciting tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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

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

It is really great if someone can get in the 15-percent bracket and not have a job. The IRS is really working overtime.

But I know you are not really trying to take care of these people. Basically, this is a Republican plan that came

long before the gentleman became chairman of the committee. It has very, very little to do with taxes. It is just the Republican belief that the Federal Government should not be in the business of providing service to American citizens, that they should just take care of national defense and to provide the wealth and protection for the investors. And for those people who are less fortunate, they should rely on local and State governments. For that reason, we find this enormous increase in taxes for working people that work in our cities and work in our States.

We also find our charitable organizations in deep trouble as the Federal Government will be providing less assistance to them in Medicaid and Medicare. And even our heroic veterans who come home will find that the benefits will be sharply reduced for them. Leave No Child Behind? Take a look at the budget and see how many people are left behind.

We know that some of these programs have been described as ``third rails.'' We do not want to touch them. Leave Social Security alone. But at the end of the day, when we see that you borrowed all of the money that you can and that our great Nation is now paying interest on the debt that you have caused not only tonight but you promise that you will come back again and again and again and we will find ourselves in more debt, we will be okay, those of us in this Chamber. But what about our children and our children's children? Do we not owe it to them to at least provide the same type of America that our fathers and grandfathers provided for us?

What happened with the surplus that we have? How did we have such a tremendous swing from $5 trillion there with our hopes and our dreams where we could do something? What do you leave us with now? A deficit as far as we can see, programs that we will never be able to initiate? And what will you say? The money is just not there?

You say that this tax bill is going to create jobs. Why do we not pull the Record about what you said the last time you came with a $1 trillion tax bill and find out where are the jobs that you promised then?

We know there is a philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats. We believe the people should be served, and not just the investor class.

Is it class warfare? You bet your life. But you declared it against the working people.

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?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate, I do want to thank the staffs, the majority staff, the minority staff, and the institutional staffs for something that has to happen before the Members can stand before the Speaker and the House in the Chamber and the American people and debate measures in front of us; that is, do an enormous amount of paperwork, double-checking to make sure that what is the desire of the House and Senate actually is produced in the document.

It happens on every bill that comes up. It especially happens on a very difficult and complex conference report, and I do want to acknowledge the tremendous service that our staffs perform for us on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that, as is the wont of legislative bodies, one of the easier ways to gain enough votes to pass a measure is to tend to listen to what people believe are either their needs or wants, collect that in an amalgam, and move forward.

It is my real pleasure to tell the Members of the House that if they have read the text, they will search in vain for any particular provision that is attributed to any particular Member of either body. In the vernacular, this is a clean bill.

I say that because it is very difficult to get people to look from the individual to the collective. That is, when we are talking about reducing something like people's taxes, it is oftentimes very, very difficult to look to the larger, more fundamental societal needs.

And I know we will have a very vigorous and healthy debate on this issue, and everyone will use numbers on both sides. All I request is primarily out of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and listening to the debate that went on on the rule, one individual would stand up and say this was less filling because it only was going to last for 3 years and then it was going to disappear. Only to be followed by another speaker who said this really tastes great because it is going to cost a trillion dollars, and it is going to last an entire decade.

Now, really, I do not care whether you feel it is less filling and it is only going to last 3 years or it tastes great and it is going to last for a decade; but for those of us who also want to participate, you ought to pick one way or the other. When you are arguing on both sides of the same argument, it is a little difficult to really shed light for the American people what this is all about.

If someone is going to watch this debate and they have a child under 17, there is one irrefutable fact. In calendar year 2003, $14 billion is going to be sent to those Americans with children under 17. They are going to be sent checks. They are going to be sent by the middle of July and by August. They will have that money in their hands. If they have children, one single aspect of this aspect of this bill, and we will go on and debate a number of other aspects, this bill puts money in Americans' hands immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, what I really heard in that quote, which I did not hear after it was said, was the Speaker said, And we are really going to have to fight for it because that is exactly what occurs.

We want to help Americans by letting them keep their own money and we are going to have to fight you to do it, because you want to hang on to their money just as hard as you can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a very limited playing deck. I am surprised this early in the debate they have already played the class warfare card.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I said they had very few cards in the deck. We may see several come up during the debate, but they just played the class warfare card once again.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the remaining time on either side?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very responsible member of the Washington delegation and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, the goal of this bill, and other bills we will pursue in the future, is to promote economic growth. Increasing retirement savings will promote economic growth by contributing to our Nation's capital stock. Of course we will monitor the way in which annuity sellers adjust to the new, more efficient financial product market conditions that H.R. 2 will create. As we proceed, we can determine whether adjustments are justified.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in case there are any students actually out there in the audience. I believe, if anyone wants to check an almanac, the election of 1960 resulted in the election of President Kennedy with less than 50 percent of the vote and there was some concern about whether or not a recount would reduce that. The argument that somehow there was a significant wave of votes simply is not accurate any more than most of the structures.

Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), I yield myself 10 seconds. I am just concerned that if people are really worried about not having enough taxes, I understand you can voluntarily write a check to the Treasury and at least you will feel real good about making sure that more of your money stays in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, now another view from the State of Connecticut. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I really do wish some Members, and we do not often do this, although we vote on it every day, would read the Congressional Record, especially the day that we debated the tax bill in this House for the first time. Because included in that Congressional Record was a historic first. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed this tax bill, and they said it was going to create jobs, more than 900,000 jobs over the next several years. Read it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do so try to explain to some folks here apparently that currently in the Tax Code, if we have two people in the 15-percent bracket, their combined tax obligation, and they are both single, is less than two people in the same tax bracket that are married. There is no requirement under current law that they both work. One cannot work and one can work. But when they are married, they are filing a joint return. In filing a joint return, they actually pay more in taxes than they do with two single returns.

And I make this statement with some shock and awe that the ranking member of the tax writing committee apparently does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman understands that when President Reagan became President, under the Constitution the purse strings are controlled by the House of Representatives, and the Democrats were in control of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to review the provisions of this conference report, so far as that has been possible in the very brief time available. I did so in the hope that I would find it enough of an improvement over the bill the House passed by the House earlier this month that I would be able to support it.

Regrettably, however, I have decided that it does not meet that test.

I do think the conference report is better than the House-passed bill in several respects. I am especially glad to note that, unlike the House bill, it provides for giving Colorado and the other States some much-needed assistance with meeting Medicaid costs and paying for other services. And it also includes some other things I support, including the refundable increase in the child credit and the elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' aspects of the income tax.

However, these good features of the conference report are outweighed by its major shortcomings.

For one thing, the aid to the states comes with a price--a number of States will lose some State revenue as a result of the depreciation and small business expensing provisions, due to linkages between federal and state tax codes. In fact, according to one estimate I have seen, if those provisions are extended and remain in effect through 2013, States will lose an estimated $15 billion over the decade as a result of the provisions.

Further, even the child-credit provisions could be better. The conference report evidently drops a Senate provision that was targeted on working families with children with incomes in the $10,000 to $30,000 range. This jettisoned Senate provision would have benefited 11.9 million low-income children and their families--one of every six children in the Nation. As it is, data compiled by the Urban Institute- Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center show that while under the Senate bill 18 percent of married and head-of-household filers with children would have received no tax cut in 2003, under the conference report that will rise to 29 percent. To put it another way, married filers with two children and incomes between $10,500 and $21,325 will receive no tax cut under the conference agreement--although all such households would have received a tax cut under the Senate bill.

And, like the House-passed bill, the conference report will do little to increase jobs in the near future.

The Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center estimates that 36 percent of all U.S. households would receive no tax cut whatsoever in 2003 under the conference agreement, and 53 percent of households would receive a tax cut of $100 or less. They also say the average tax cut in 2003 for households in the middle of the income spectrum, i.e., the middle fifth of Households, would be $217. Based on this, it seems clear that the conference report, being so focused on high-income filers, is likely to be limited effectiveness in boosting the economy in the near term. That's because high-income households are likely to spend a smaller share of their tax cuts than households of more modest means--and only if tax cuts are spent will they boost the economy in the near term.

On the other hand, it seems beyond dispute that the conference report will lead to a very large increase in the federal deficit and thus to a very large, long-term increase in the national debt.

So, like the House-passed bill, it does too little to address the real needs of the economy and the country, and it does too much to make our budgetary problems worse.

Just as they did when the House debated its bill, its supporters are reciting from the White House's cue cards that say it will create jobs. They know that is what the American people want to hear--because we need to begin to make up for the millions of jobs that have disappeared over the last two years.

But I am not persuaded, because no analysis I have seen--whether by the Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, or any other expert--supports the claim that enacting this conference report will help put very many people back to work anytime soon.

On the other hand, there is no doubt about how the bill will affect the Federal budget--it will throw it further out of balance and lead to much deeper deficits.

Like the House-passed bill, the conference report includes many gimmicks that cloak its true cost. Every provision in the bill but one is designed to expire between the end of 2004 and the end of 2008. More provisions expire at earlier points in time than under either the House or Senate bills. If the provisions scheduled to terminate in a few years are extended--and I am confident that the bill's supporters will be pushing for that--its total cost will be much greater that the amounts its supporters have claimed.

In fact, according to one estimate I have seen, if the bill's provisions (except the one providing relief through the Alternative Minimum Tax) ultimately are extended, the cost

through 2013 will be $810 billion to $1.06 trillion, depending on how one measures the cost of extending the bill's business depreciation tax cut.

But even if I were to suspend my disbelief and take it at face value, I would think the cost of the conference report--in terms of the deficit and the debt--exceeded its benefits.

As I said when the House first considered this tax bill, I think we need to take deficits seriously--as Chairman Greenspan reminded us again earlier this week, and as was earlier spelled out by Peter G. Peterson, President of the Concord Coalition, to the Committee on Financial Services.

As Mr. Peterson put it, ``A future of mounting deficits is a cause for grave concern. Mounting deficits can slow and even halt the steady growth in material living standards that has always nourished the American Dream. When such deficits are incurred in order to fund a rising transfer from young to old, they also constitute an injustice against future generations . . . This policy, after all, constitutes an explicit decision by today's adults to collectively shift the current cost of government from themselves to their children and grandchildren.''

In other words, by leading to deeper deficits and bigger debts, this bill would do just what President Bush, in his State of the Union address, said we should not do--instead of meeting today's challenges, it would simply create new problems for our children.

I don't think that is sound policy--especially when a better alternative is available. That is why I objected to the Republican leadership's refusal to allow the House to consider the alternative developed by Representative Rangel.

That alternative included very meaningful tax cuts. It included an increase in the child tax credit to $800 per child, an immediate expansion of the 10-percent tax-rate bracket to levels that under the 2001 tax will would be reached in 2008, and immediate elimination of the ``marriage penalty'' aspect of the income tax. It also included investment tax credits for small businesses, such as business expensing up to $75,000 and bonus depreciation. Those cuts would immediately put money into the pockets of middle-income Americans, who are the people most likely to spend it promptly, boosting consumer demand and thus helping set the stage for an increase business investment needed to meet that demand.

The alternative also had other important provisions to respond to the immediate needs of our country and the American people, including a provision to create a permanent, revenue-neutral corporate tax deduction to encourage American manufacturing companies to expand their operations, as well as a new tax incentive to provide a tax credit of up to $2,400 to businesses that hire people who now are unemployed.

And, just as important as everything else, the alternative was fiscally responsible--fully paid for over 10 years. So, it would have added as many as a million new jobs without adding anything to the deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I still don't know why the Republican leadership refused to let the House even consider that alternative. Instead, they insisted on pushing through a bill that I could not support. And, unfortunately, this conference report, while better, is not enough better to deserve enactment. So, I must vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 558) welcoming the accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 558, as amended.

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

Madam Speaker, this Member is extremely pleased to offer this resolution welcoming the accession to NATO membership of seven Central European democracies: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Yesterday, these seven nations became America's newest allies when their prime ministers presented Secretary of State Powell with their instruments of accession. Secretary Powell recalled their struggle for freedom and promised that ``by joining NATO's bond of collective security, Article 5 and all, you will remain free.''

Later, President Bush yesterday publicly welcomed their leaders to the alliance on the south lawn of the White House. In his remarks, the President noted, ``The countries we welcome today were friends before they were allies, and they were allies in action before becoming allies by treaty.''

The decision to admit former communist nations from Central and Eastern Europe, Madam Speaker, into the Atlantic Alliance, is one of the great successes of American and Alliance foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. It is a bipartisan success promoted by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress and by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It is also a success in which the House of Representatives has played an important role.

Since 1994, the House has repeatedly declared its support for NATO enlargement and the fundamental role of NATO in transatlantic security. We recognize that throughout its history NATO has succeeded not only in keeping its MEMBERS free, but in extending that freedom to new lands that have long yearned for freedom's blessings.

Already, the three nations that joined NATO in 1999, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, have been contributing to the Alliance and its operations in Bosnian and Herzegovina, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Poland has been a major contributor to Operation Iraqi Freedom and currently commands a multinational force in south central Iraq.

The current round of enlargement, the fifth in NATO's history, will further erase the dividing lines across Europe that were drawn at Yalta and will further extend the zone of peace and security in the North Atlantic region.

Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia are already contributing to the Alliance, with each of these new allies contributing to one or more of NATO's ongoing operations. In addition, six of them have forces on the ground in Iraq.

That is far from their only contribution. Last year as president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, this Member traveled to all seven of these countries; and after those visits, this Member is confident that they and their membership will reinvigorate the Alliance. In fact, the new vigor is already being felt.

Because the citizens of these new MEMBER countries have recent memories of living under oppressive dictatorships, they are especially committed to NATO and its collective defense guarantee.

Having fought so long and hard to gain their freedom, they know how precious freedom is and how fundamentally important the defense of freedom remains. They have pledged that they are ready to defend their freedom and ours, and we are very fortunate to be able to call them our allies.

In addition to noting the accomplishments of the incoming NATO members and welcoming their accession to the Alliance, this resolution also reaffirms the support of the House for the process of NATO enlargement and for keeping NATO's doors open.

Finally, this resolution expresses our support for the remaining candidates for NATO membership, at this point, Albania, Croatia, and Macedonia.

To ensure that the enlargement process continues after the accession of the seven new members, the resolution recommends that the leaders of the NATO nations at this summer's Istanbul Summit ``should agree to review the enlargement process, including the applications of Albania, Croatia and Macedonia, at a summit meeting to be held no later than 2007.''

This language is consistent with the language of the relevant communique from the 1999 Washington Summit at which Alliance leaders welcomed Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO membership. That communique called for a summit meeting to review the enlargement process to be held ``no later than 2002,'' that is, 3 years after that summit.

Scheduling a 2007 enlargement summit would also establish a 5-year cycle for NATO enlargement. Three nations

received invitations in 1997 at Madrid, and seven nations were invited in 2002 in Prague. This Member believes that this is a reasonable timetable, one that gives NATO time to incorporate the seven new members, while absolutely ensuring that the three remaining candidates are not forgotten and that they have met the necessary requirements to be full-fledged partners in NATO.

Madam Speaker, yesterday was a historic day for America's seven newest allies as they joined the most successful Alliance in history and thereby secured the freedom that they had fought so hard to gain. This Member urges his colleagues to vote for this resolution in order to welcome these countries to NATO and to ensure that NATO's door remains open to Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, and probably to countries to follow.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a brief set of comments, and I want to thank the gentleman for his outstanding statement and for his generous remarks directed toward this Member.

I would say to the gentleman with respect to Iraq and with respect to Afghanistan, the two subjects that the gentleman addressed towards the remaining part of his time, I certainly am in absolute agreement. The gentleman will recall, of course, that the House and the Senate have both expressed their view that NATO should take a larger role in Iraq and that, in fact, we should call upon the resources of the United Nations where appropriate. I am sure the gentleman is concerned about the lack of resources from NATO countries being directed towards Afghanistan at this critical time.

Madam Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield time shortly to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), who is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and who had the experience of being an infantry officer in a combat unit stationed on the Czechoslovakian border before, in fact, the Wall came down and before we moved to now admit, some 3 or 4 years ago, the Czech Republic to NATO. The gentleman has taken an outstanding interest and involvement in the NATO Parliamentary Assembly as a rapporteur or co-rapporteur on a number of important reports for the Defense and Security committee and, I might also say, he has a special interest in our Baltic neighbors who are, by actions yesterday, joining NATO.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her kind

remarks and knowledgeable comments. I thank my colleague from California (Mr. Lantos) again for his continued interest and leadership in this subject area.

Madam Speaker, I urge all Members to support this resolution. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on H.R. 2, the Jobs and Economic Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003. This bill is a responsible effort to address the economic needs and concerns of all Americans. This bill is a dramatic improvement over the tax legislation previousl considered by the House, which I opposed. It is more targeted to help American workers and families now and it is lower in cost and more fiscally responsible.

This bill will provide $330 billion in tax relief to American taxpayers and $20 billion in fiscal aid to the States. More than 272,000 households in Delaware will receive tax relief and hundreds of millions of dollars will be pumped into the Delaware economy to create jobs. To complement this effort, at my urging, Congress has also just voted to extend unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks bringing another $16.5 million to our State and much needed relief to Delawareans looking for work.

The final agreement is a fair compromise that reduced the overall cost of the legislation to a level that is fiscally responsible. This final tax relief legislation meets the key tests that I urged the House and Senate to achieve.

First, I urged that this tax relief be better targeted to provide an immediate boost to the economy. The final compromise will provide immediate relief to working Americans to put more money in their pockets now to help strengthen the economy this year. As soon as this legislation is enacted, American workers will have fewer taxes withheld from their paychecks, giving 88,000 Delaware households more money for the daily needs of their families. In addition, this bill will increase the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000 giving 77,000 Delaware families with dependent children a rebate check this summer of up to $400 per child. This additional disposable income spent by families will in turn help our businesses, communities and the economy this year.

The legislation will provide tax relief to all working Americans. It speeds the reduction in tax rates for all Americans to give them more income as soon as possible. By expanding the 10 percent tax bracket immediately, this legislation will benefit 212,000 Delaware households, including low and moderate income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of income for couples and $7,000 for single people at a lower 10 percent rate. In addition, it accelerates relief from the marriage penalty tax to 105,000 Delaware marriaged couples.

The bill will help small businesses by immediately increasing the amount they can deduct for new equipment and other expenses. That will encourage business owners to buy equipment now and make other investments that will build their businesses and create new jobs.

The tax relief provisions in this revised legislation are geared to have the most immediate impact in the next 2 years. I had urged that these changes be made to help boost the economy now without adding unnecessary long-term costs to our government.

Second, the final bill also recognizes that there are other pressing needs in our Nation

that must be addressed in addition to tax relief. This compromise will provide our states with financial assistance that will support programs to help individuals in need. Most states, including my home State of Delaware, are experiencing difficult budgetary times that has caused them to limit spending on important programs. This legislation will provide $20 billion in aid to the States over the next 2 years. This aid includes $10 billion for essential government services, of which Delaware is estimated to receive $50 million, and $10 billion specifically for Medicaid, the federal-state partnership to provide important medical care to low-income individuals. Delaware's share of the Medicaid funds could be as high as $28 million. This $78 million in aid to Delaware was not included in the original House-passed bill and I am pleased it was added in this final version.

Third, I had urged that the original proposal to eliminate the double taxation of dividends be modified to have a greater immediate economic stimulus and to limit the impact of this tax cut on the federal budget deficit. This issue has been addressed. I opposed the original proposal to eliminate the taxation of dividends because I did not believe we could afford the original $395 billion cost of that single proposal at this time. This compromise would not eliminate the tax on dividends, but it would reduce the rates on capital gains and dividends through 2008. This will provide an incentive for investment, at a much lower cost than the original proposal. With new investment in business ventures, new jobs will be created.

Finally, I am pleased that the cost this final legislation has been significantly reduced from earlier proposals and represents a more fiscally responsible effort to provide tax relief to create jobs and strengthen our economy. This was a top priority for me because I am a strong advocate of balancing the federal budget, and I believe that any effort to stimulate the economy must be weighed against other needs and the importance of returning the federal budget to balance. I opposed the original House Budget Resolution which called for $750 billion in tax relief because I did not believe it was affordable at a time when we have critical new national security requirements and other needs. That budget plan called for a $750 billion tax cut as well as unfair and unsustainable reductions in important programs like health care, education and the environment. I opposed those and was pleased that the final budget plan did not include those cuts. I also opposed the first tax relief bill passed by the House because its cost of $550 billion was still too great for our current budget limits. In response to the concerns expressed by me and others in the Senate and House, a fair compromise has been reached that will provide $330 billion in tax relief to all working Americans, as well as $20 billion in direct aid to the States.

Some of the tax relief in this bill is temporary, to stimulate the economy now and reduce the long-term cost of the legislation. Those provisions are part of the compromise and are certainly not a perfect solution. Some argue that if future Congresses extend these provisions, the long-term costs of the tax relief to the government are far higher. The sunsets act as a budget trigger that will force Congress to revisit these issues with new information and debate the best course of action on whether to extend the tax cuts beyond the years contained in this bill.

Earlier this month, I called on Congress to put together a bill that would provide tax relief now to individual Americans, families and small businesses in a fiscally responsible manner. I stressed that a package could be assembled that did not exceed $350 billion. Those tests have been met. As I stated, effective governing requires careful decisions and painful compromises. All of us involved in the debate have had to make compromises. That effort has produced a bill that will return more of their hard-earned money to working Americans, create jobs for unemployed Americans, and help our state governments meet the budget challenges they are facing. I am proud to have worked hard to ensure that this bill fairly addresses the need to provide tax and financial relief now, while recognizing that we must not jeopardize our efforts to maintain fiscal responsibility in our government in the future. This bill is a fair effort to meet those tests and I support its passage to help all Americans and our nation.