To authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012.

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

Today's bill, Mr. Speaker, represents a clear difference between the two parties in the House when it comes to tax policy. Republicans believe that Congress should not raise taxes on one group of taxpayers in order to prevent a tax increase on another set of taxpayers. To say that another way, we don't believe we ought to have to raise taxes to preserve something that's already in the Tax Code.

Now, we are certainly for continuing to patch the alternative minimum tax. That's been the practice for the last several years. The President, in his budget for the last several years, has had an AMT patch in his budget without increasing taxes on somebody else. So we are certainly for that. But we are not for imposing a tax increase in a like amount on another set of taxpayers. That just doesn't make sense to us.

Without this patch, another 21 million families would come under the AMT, and their average tax increase would be about $2,400 per taxpayer. So we certainly want to prevent that. But in 2007, we had the patch in place; so we did not collect the AMT revenue from those 21 million taxpayers. And yet we collected, last year, in revenues to the Federal Government, about 18.7, 18.8 percent of gross domestic product. The historic average of revenues coming into the Federal Government for the last 40 years has been about 18.3 percent of GDP. So last year with the AMT patch in place, those 21 million taxpayers protected from the AMT, we brought in substantially more in revenues to the Federal Government than we have historically.

So why, then, should we be so intent on increasing taxes to prevent those 21 million taxpayers from paying $2,400 apiece more in taxes in 2008? The only explanation is somebody just wants to get more revenue into the Federal Government. Now, they may say, well, we want to do that because the deficit is really high and we want to get the deficit down. Well, I wonder, if we took a poll across America, how many Americans would say, ``Yes, I want to get the deficit down and I want to do it by raising taxes'' and how many Americans would say, ``Yes, I want to get the deficit down, but I want to do it by controlling spending''? My guess is more Americans would say, ``I want to get the deficit down by controlling spending.'' But the PAYGO rules that are in effect, while they give us the opportunity to reduce spending to ``pay for'' all of these things, not once have we seen a cut in spending being offered by the majority to pay for any of these items. It's always a tax increase.

So, yes, if you want to get the deficit down to zero, you can do it by increasing taxes, and under the PAYGO baseline, if we were to follow it, we would continue to increase the take of the Federal Government from American taxpayers until at the end of a 10-year window we'd be taking in 20.5 percent of GDP, an historic high, or pretty close to an historic high, and certainly only a couple times in our Nation's history have we even approached that level of revenues coming into the Federal Government.

Now, I think it's a legitimate question as to what is the appropriate level of GDP that we should bring in to the Federal Government, and Chairman Rangel alluded to that in his statement by saying that, I believe he said, the President hasn't offered a tax reform plan. That's true, I guess, he hasn't. But you know what? Under the Constitution, the President can't even introduce a bill, much less pass one. That's the job of the Congress.

So if we want to do tax reform, which I think is appropriate, we ought to have this discussion about what is the appropriate level of revenue that we should bring in? What is the appropriate take of the Federal Government of everything that Americans make? Is it 18.3 percent, the historic average? Is it 18.7 percent, what we took in last year? Or is it 20.5 percent? I don't know what the magic number is, but that's a legitimate debate, and we ought to have that debate in the context of writing a new tax system for the United States that is more modern, more efficient, and more competitive. So I hope that the chairman will, in his constitutional prerogative as the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, undertake that task, have that debate, so that we can solve this problem once and for all of the AMT, the complexity of the code, and the continuing diminution of competitiveness that we enjoy with our tax system, vis-a-vis our competitors around the world.

This bill employs some pay-fors, some tax increases, that I believe would be onerous and would add to the lack of competitiveness in our Tax Code. For example, there is a provision that would, for the first time, ignore tax treaties that we have entered into in good faith with other countries around the world and would impose upon companies doing business, foreign companies doing business, through a United States subsidiary in this country, creating jobs in this country, a 30 percent tax, despite the fact that we have a tax treaty that says that company would get a deduction for that income and would not have to pay that 30 percent tax because they'd be paying taxes in the country where we have a tax treaty.

Now, yes, they say, well, but the ultimate parent is somewhere where there's not a tax treaty, but that still violates the spirit of the tax treaty that we have with the country where the immediate parent of the United States subsidiary resides. That change in our Tax Code would discourage at the margin that capital from coming to this country, being invested in this country, and creating jobs in this country.

Those companies that I'm talking about employ a substantial number of Americans; 5.3 million Americans are employed by those kinds of companies. Do we want to jeopardize those jobs? And 19 percent of all United States exports, helping us a little bit to get the balance of trade going our way, 19 percent of all exports come from companies like that. And just last year they reinvested nearly $71 billion back into their United States operations. That's capital, that's investment that we should want here and not discourage through tax changes like the one in this bill.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Members of this body that we ought to reject the majority's offering that they put forward today to save 21 million taxpayers from coming under the AMT because they would impose a like amount of tax increase on another set of taxpayers. Let's not increase taxes on any set of taxpayers, certainly not in this fragile economy.

We will later offer a motion to recommit that corrects the error, that strips the bill of the pay-fors, and it would allow this body to vote on a clean AMT patch to save those 21 million taxpayers from the increased tax burden but not increase taxes on somebody else.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am opposed to the bill in its current form.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The majority's use of PAYGO has really twisted the logic of this bumper-sticker-turned-budget-tool into a pretzel. In the last 2 weeks, when PAYGO stood in the way of more government spending, it was ignored or openly waived. But, today, the majority insists on new permanent tax increases in exchange for a 1-year extension of needed tax relief. That is not a good deal for anybody--a permanent tax increase to pay for a temporary tax relief.

The motion that we have before us would save us from that fate. It would remove the tax increases in the bill, including the particularly misguided higher taxes on energy production that would discourage production here at home, that would further increase our energy insecurity, that would reduce our energy supplies, and that would increase prices.

Is that what we want to do? Do we want to increase the price of gasoline? That is what the effect of this would be. This is a tax increase on oil and gas companies--the companies that produce the oil, the gasoline that we buy. Do we think that, if we increase taxes on them, they are just going to absorb that? Of course not. They will pass it through to the consumer, which will mean higher gasoline prices.

This is a terribly misguided part of this bill. The motion to recommit would get rid of that ill-advised tax increase. So we get rid of all the pay-fors in the bill. That's the first thing that the motion to recommit does.

The second thing we do is we do provide some relief in this bill from high gasoline prices to volunteers who use their vehicles to help charities carry out their work. A lot of charities are telling us that they are losing volunteers because of the high price of gasoline.

Now, the IRS has some authority to modify the tax deduction that people can get from using gasoline in certain situations. So the IRS did, this week in fact, implement a midyear increase in the standard mileage deduction rates, increasing to 58\1/2\ cents the allowable deduction for expenses incurred in operating a vehicle while carrying on a trade or business, and raising to 27 cents per mile the deduction for gasoline costs associated with transportation primarily for and essential to receiving medical care and for travel while moving.

But the IRS could not raise the deduction that can be claimed by individuals who use their car for charitable purposes, such as for delivering Meals on Wheels. That has to be done legislatively. So our motion to recommit would do just that. We would set the allowable deduction for gasoline expenses for charitable purposes at the same rate for medical care and for travel while moving, 27 cents per mile.

Meals on Wheels is one of those charities that has told us that they are losing volunteers because of gas prices. Nearly half indicated that increases in gas prices had forced them to eliminate meal delivery routes or to consolidate their meal services.

Mr. Speaker, these high gasoline prices are, in fact, having a very deleterious effect on charities and on Meals on Wheels in particular. I won't go into some of the details that we have been given by Meals on Wheels about the state of some of our seniors, but needless to say, it's not a pretty picture.

So this would give those charities some relief, Mr. Speaker, and it would allow them, we think, to get some of those volunteers back in active service to relieve some of these problems that we have.

So, Mr. Speaker, our motion to recommit does two things. It takes out the tax increases in this bill, leaving in place the AMT patch to give tax relief to those taxpayers who would otherwise be subjected to a $2,400-apiece increase in taxes, and number two, it increases the deduction, the mileage deduction, for vehicle use for charitable purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3546 to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012. The Byrne-JAG monies are supposed to be used to make America a safer place. I support the reauthorization and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Why Byrne-JAG is Necessary

Byrne-JAG allows states and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, which States and local governments have come to rely on to ensure public safety. They support: law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education, corrections and community programs, drug treatment, planning, evaluation, technology improvement programs, and crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). In short, they are an indispensable resource that states use to combat crime.

Recent Cuts in Byrne JAG Funding

Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2008 the Byrne-JAG program was cut by two-thirds. Although Congress authorized over $1 billion, only $520 million were appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The appropriation was then drastically reduced to $170.4 million in fiscal year 2008, and the President has proposed further cuts for the fiscal year 2009 budget.

Past Problems with Byrne JAG

The trend to reduce the grant funding may result, in part, from instances where Byrne-JAG funding has been abused. For example, in 1999 Byrne-JAG funding was used in the infamous Tulia outrage in which a rogue police narcotics officer in Texas set up dozens of people, most of them African-American, in false cocaine trafficking charges. In other instances, jurisdictions used the funding to fund task forces focused solely on ineffective, low-level drug arrests, which has put the task force concept--and the diminished standards of drug enforcement that it has come to represent--in the national spotlight.

The most well-known Byrne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African-American residents (representing 16 percent of the town's black population) were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to corroborate his allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the accused defendants were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out of state or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants (after four years of imprisonment), but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program.

These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, State managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies.

The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large- scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity.

Texas is not the only State that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other States have included the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant

money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable.

Amendment Considered But Not Offered

Because of these abuses, I would have offered an amendment when this bill was considered at the Full Judiciary Committee markup. My amendment would have addressed the responsible use of Byrne-JAG monies. Specifically, my amendment would have required that a State that receives Byrne-JAG money should collect data for the most recent year for which such funds were allocated to such State, with respect to:

(1) The racial distribution of criminal charges made during that year;

(2) The nature of the criminal law specified in the charges made; and

(3) The city of law enforcement jurisdiction in which the charges were made.

My amendment would have required a condition of receiving funds that the State should submit to the Attorney General the data collected by not later than one year after the date the State received funds. Lastly, the report should be posted on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website and submitted to the Attorney General.

My amendment is good because arrests will be transparent and the light of day and public airing of any problems will be the greatest disinfectant. My amendment is an attempt to make law enforcement more responsible, more accountable, and more just in their dealings with persons of all races and backgrounds. My amendment is but a small price to pay to rid the nation of scandals and disasters that occurred in Tulia, Texas and elsewhere.

These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are federally funded, state managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies.

The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified seventeen scandals involving Byrne-funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large- scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity.

Texas is not the only state that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other states have included the misuse of millions of dollars in federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the federal government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable.

My amendment, which I would have offered, would provide oversight and accountability. It is not burdensome. It will not prevent the States from collecting and funding programs under the Byrne Grant program. My amendment does however shed light on any maladies that might exist in the system. Once we see the problems, we can fix them. My amendment is responsible and aims to make the Byrne-Grant program a better program by ensuring that the funding is used appropriately and is used with oversight.

No More Tulias

While I support the Byrne JAG reauthorization, I would also my urge my colleagues to also support my bill, H.R. 253, No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2007. This bill also enhances accountability with respect to the use of Byrne JAG monies.

First, it prohibits a state from receiving for a fiscal year any drug control and system improvement (Byrne) grant funds, or any other amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of the Department of Justice, unless the state does not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year or the state has in effect laws that ensure that: (1) A person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the facts that a drug offense was committed and that the person committed that offense are supported by evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer or individuals acting on an officer's behalf; and (2) an officer does not participate, in an antidrug task force unless that officer's honesty and integrity is evaluated and found to be at an appropriately high level.

Second, H.R. 253, No More Tulias, requires that states receiving federal funds under the No More Tulias Act to collect data on the racial distribution of drug charges, the nature of the criminal law specified in the charges, and the jurisdictions in which such charges are made. I urge my colleagues to support my No More Tulias Act so that we can quickly bring the bill to markup.

I also urge my colleagues to support Byrne JAG.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 231 to reauthorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, Byrne-JAG, Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through 2012. The Byrne- JAG monies are supposed to be used to make America a safer place. I support the reauthorization, and I would urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Why Byrne-JAG is Necessary

Byrne-JAG allows States and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime and to improve the criminal justice system, which States and local governments have come to rely on to ensure public safety. They support: law enforcement, prosecution and court programs, prevention and education, corrections and community programs, drug treatment, planning, evaluation, technology improvement programs, and crime victim and witness programs, other than compensation. In short, they are an indispensable resource that States use to combat crime.

Recent Cuts in Byrne JAG Funding

Unfortunately, in fiscal year 2008 the Byrne-JAG program was cut by two-thirds. Although Congress authorized over $1 billion, only $520 million were appropriated for fiscal year 2007. The appropriation was then drastically reduced to $170.4 million in fiscal year 2008, and the President has proposed further cuts for the fiscal year 2009 budget.

Past Problems with Byrne JAG

The trend to reduce the grant funding may result, in part, from instances where Byrne-JAG funding has been abused. For example, in 1999 Byrne-JAG funding was used in the infamous Tulia outrage in which a rogue police narcotics officer in Texas set up dozens of people, most of them African-American, in false cocaine trafficking charges. In other instances, jurisdictions used the funding to fund task forces focused solely on ineffective, low-level drug arrests, which has put the task force concept-and the diminished standards of drug enforcement that it has come to represent--in the national spotlight.

The most well-known Byrne-funded scandal occurred in Tulia, Texas where dozens of African-American residents, representing 16 percent of the town's black population, were arrested, prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison, even though the only evidence against them was the uncorroborated testimony of one white undercover officer with a history of lying and racism. The undercover officer worked alone, and had no audiotapes, video surveillance, or eyewitnesses to collaborate his allegations. Suspicions eventually arose after two of the accused defendants were able to produce firm evidence showing they were out-of- State or at work at the time of the alleged drug buys. Texas Governor Rick Perry eventually pardoned the Tulia defendants, after four years of imprisonment, but these kinds of scandals continue to plague the Byrne grant program.

These scandals are not the result of a few ``bad apples'' in law enforcement; they are the result of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to corruption by its very structure. Byrne-funded regional anti-drug task forces are Federally funded, State managed, and locally staffed, which means they do not really have to answer to anyone. In fact, their ability to perpetuate themselves through asset forfeiture and Federal funding makes them unaccountable to local taxpayers and governing bodies.

The scandals are more widespread than just a few instances. A 2002 report by the ACLU of Texas identified 17 scandals involving Byrne- funded anti-drug task forces in Texas, including cases of falsifying government records, witness tampering, fabricating evidence, stealing drugs from evidence lockers, selling drugs to children, large-scale racial profiling, sexual harassment, and other abuses of official capacity.

Texas is not the only State that has suffered from Byrne-funded law enforcement scandals. Scandals in other States have included the misuse of millions of dollars in Federal grant money in Kentucky and Massachusetts, false convictions based upon police perjury in Missouri, and making deals with drug offenders to drop or lower their charges in exchange for money or vehicles in Alabama, Arkansas, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. A 2001 study by the Government Accountability Office found that the Federal Government fails to adequately monitor the grant program and hold grantees accountable.

Amendment Considered But Not Offered

Because of these abuses, I would have offered an amendment when this bill was considered at the Full Judiciary Committee markup. My amendment would have addressed the responsible use of Byrne-JAG monies. Specifically, my amendment would have required that a State that receives Byrne-JAG money should collect data for the most recent year for which such funds were allocated to such State, with respect to:

(1) The racial distribution of criminal charges made during that year;

(2) the nature of the criminal law specified in the charges made; and

(3) the city of law enforcement jurisdiction in which the charges were made.

My amendment would have required a condition of receiving funds that the State should submit to the Attorney General the data collected by not later than one year after the date the State received funds. Lastly, the report should be posted on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website and submitted to the Attorney General.

My amendment is good because arrests will be transparent and the light of day and public airing of any problems will be the greatest disinfectant. My amendment is an attempt to make law enforcement more responsible, more accountable, and more just in their dealings with persons of all races and backgrounds. My amendment is but a small price to pay to rid the Nation of scandals and disasters that occurred in Tulia, Texas and elsewhere.

My amendment, which I would have offered, would provide oversight and accountability. It is not burdensome. It will not prevent the States from collecting and funding programs under the Byrne Grant program. My amendment does, however, shed light on any maladies that might exist in the system. Once we see the problems, we can fix them. My amendment is responsible and aims to make the Byrne-Grant program a better program by ensuring that the funding is used appropriately and is used with oversight.

No More Tulias

While I support the Byrne-JAG reauthorization, I would also urge my colleagues to also support my bill, H.R. 253, No More Tulias: Drug Law Enforcement Evidentiary Standards Improvement Act of 2007. This bill also enhances accountability with respect to the use of Byrne-JAG monies.

First, it prohibits a State from receiving for a fiscal year any drug control and system improvement (Byrne) grant funds, or any other amount from any other law enforcement assistance program of the Department of Justice, unless the State does not fund any antidrug task forces for that fiscal year or the State has in effect laws that ensure that: (1) a person is not convicted of a drug offense unless the facts that a drug offense was committed and that the person committed that offense are supported by evidence other than the eyewitness testimony of a law enforcement officer or individuals acting on an officer's behalf; and (2) an officer does not participate in a antidrug task force unless that officer's honesty and integrity is evaluated and found to be at an appropriately high level.

Second, H.R. 253, No More Tulias, requires that states receiving Federal funds under the No More Tulias Act to collect data on the racial distribution of drug charges, the nature of the criminal law specified in the charges, and the jurisdictions in which such charges are made. I urge my colleagues to support my No More Tulias Act so that we can quickly bring the bill to markup.

I also urge my colleagues to support Byrne-JAG.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3546, a bill to authorize the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program at fiscal year 2006 levels through the year 2012. This bill continues to fund the Department of Justice Byrne-JAG Grant Program that, as the gentleman from Georgia said, provides assistance to State and local law officials.

These grants support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crimes and to improve the criminal justice system. The department allocates funds using a formula based on State population and the annual Unified Crime Report statistics. The program does have a minimum allocation to ensure that each State and territory receive an appropriate share of the Federal funds.

Byrne-JAG funds can be used to pay for personnel overtime and equipment, funds are used for Statewide initiatives, technical assistance and training, and support for local and rural jurisdictions.

I can say, Madam Speaker, that my experience in the past serving as the Attorney General of California allowed me to see the good work that the Byrne funds has done and continues to do, primarily in the area of multi-jurisdictional task forces as was mentioned by the gentleman from Georgia.

This is actually an area where we actually see a synergism that exists among different levels of government and their law enforcement personnel. It is always important that they have good leadership at each level, and the training that took place as a result of many of these multi-jurisdictional task forces actually created an improvement in the overall training for law enforcement across the country. It is a remarkable thing to see agents from different agencies, different departments, working together for a common purpose.

As the gentleman mentioned, you can, as a result of these task forces, count up the number of arrests made, the number of convictions obtained, the number of weapons taken off the street, the number of drugs taken off the street in each and every case making it safer for the people of the States of the United States.

On June 9, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released a 2007 Unified Crime Report detailing the statistics and tracking trends for violent crimes nationwide. The national rate for violent crimes, that is including robbery, sexual assault, and murder, decreased nationally. Unfortunately, the report also showed the rate of violent crime rate increased in some communities across the country. This is not by accident that we see an overall improvement across the country. It is the result of the work of many good men and women in uniform and the support to organizations that they have throughout this country.

We should understand that while sometimes the trend is to say that if something is a serious crime, it's a Federal crime; unless the FBI gets involved, it's not important, it's not going to be handled well. Well over 90 percent, well over 95 percent of all crime is investigated and prosecuted at the local and State level, not the Federal level. That's why these grants work very, very well when it encourages a multi- jurisdictional approach where you can find the abilities, the differing abilities of the agencies and departments, the coming together to work with one another.

Law enforcement officials remain committed to preventing crime and keeping our communities safe, and their efforts should be applauded. However, given the report, it is clear that additional steps need to be taken in order to continue to address the issue of crime.

During the past few months, representatives from various law enforcement associations visited me and my colleagues to discuss the Byrne-JAG funding. They have spoken with near unanimity about the important role Byrne-JAG funding plays in aiding their efforts to accomplish their law enforcement missions.

Congress plays an important role in supporting State and local law enforcement by continuing to enforce to reauthorize this program at appropriate levels. However, we should not in any way suggest that the Federal Government has the first responsibility for funding local and State law enforcement. That remains with local and State jurisdictions, and frankly, if they don't understand the priority, the first priority of government, to try and create a modicum of safety and security for the people of those jurisdictions so that they can live their lives in some sense of security not having to worry about violent criminals upsetting their lives, attacking them and their loved ones. If local and State jurisdictions don't understand that, frankly, they don't understand the first obligation of government.

So, while we wholeheartedly support this funding program, let us ensure that at the local and State levels those representatives are held responsible by the people that elect them to ensure that the first priority of government is achieved: a modicum of safety and security for the people of the jurisdictions that they find themselves in.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, once again, I rise in support of H.R. 3546, and I yield myself such time as I may consume, and suggest that of all the costs that are involved with law enforcement across the country, one of the greatest is the cost of gassing up their cars.

As the gentleman understands, law enforcement, yes, travels on its feet, but more than often travels on its wheels. The increased costs of energy affect us all across this Nation. Every home is affected by it, without regard to economic status. But think about this, our law enforcement agencies are very labor-intensive. They depend on people, yes, applying technology, but we depend on people.

When we have concern about crime in a particular area, it doesn't do to say, well, we've got new computers downtown; that's going to take care of it. What do people want to see? They want to see law enforcement in their areas. And for most areas of America, that means seeing patrol cars coming through their neighborhoods at an appropriate time, seeing them respond whenever there is a cry for help as a result of crime or an attempt at crime.

The costs that are implicit in this tremendous increase in energy costs in this country, the gasoline pump prices, affect each and every one of our law enforcement agencies. And so I would hope as we support unanimously this Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant Program for fiscal years 2006 through 2012, we also think at some point in time of bringing up a bill that might help us get some relief in that area. If you add it all up, it might add up to the total cost of the Byrne grant program.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from the place where I think they still build more automobiles than any other place in the country.

If I might respond, through the Speaker, I would say, Madam Speaker, the only person I know that has suggested that we nationalize oil companies, including refineries, is the gentleman from the other side of the aisle. It's worked so well around the world, I think you could go through all the countries with a nationalization. Maybe Venezuela is a trend setter here, but I don't think that's exactly where we want to go. So the answer to the gentleman, through the Speaker, is no.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I call up the bill (H.R. 6275) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide individuals temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, some time ago, in an effort to make certain that 159 taxpayers who are very wealthy had some tax liability, the Congress at that time passed the alternative minimum tax. What they neglected to do was to index the tax structure for inflation, and as a result we find people making 30, 40, $50,000 caught up as though they were wealthy taxpayers trying to avoid or evade their tax liability.

Now, the President should know, as other Presidents, that this is a very, very unfair tax. The truth of the matter is it should not even be in this structure. But in the close to 7 years that the President has been in office, he has not seen fit to give us a tax reform bill so that we can do what everyone in this House would want done, and that is to eliminate this fiscal threat from now some 25 million taxpayers.

So what do we have to do? Every year we have to come down and so- called ``patch it'' because, politically speaking, no one is going to go home and say that they did nothing about it.

So what is the difference between what we want to do in the majority and the other side? Well, if you listen carefully, you would see that the President has put this AMT in every budget except the one we have this year, which means that in the budget he never intends to remove it or have it removed. What does putting it in the budget mean? It means that you expect the money that would be coming from the alternative minimum tax to be there to spend. I can understand that, except that Congress says that we're not going to collect that money. So what we would believe is that if we're taking $61 billion out of the economy that we shouldn't go to China and Japan and ask them once again to bail us out but we should take a look at the Tax Code and to find out just what things in the Tax Code, what preferential treatment, what loopholes are there so that when we repair the AMT, at least for this year, we will be able to say we didn't borrow the money and we didn't put this burden on our children and our grandchildren.

So the four areas that we concentrated on to raise the money to get this bill passed is the carried interest. What is that? All it says is that if two groups of people, one a corporation and the other a partnership, are managing someone else's money and if, indeed, they don't put their own money in it, that the tax rate should be 35 percent. Somehow a group has manipulated the system, made themselves a partnership, said they didn't put in their own money, but they still consider it a capital investment, and they are now taxed at the rate of 15 percent. We think it's unequal, it's wrong, and we correct it.

The other area that we have a concern about is people who use tax havens for money earned in the United States to avoid taxes. They put it overseas. In the area of credit cards, we have the major credit card holders that reimburse vendors, and all we ask the vendors to do is to report the money they've had for reimbursement. And then, of course, we have our oil industry that received tax credits that they were not entitled to, and certainly at the obscene profits they're making, I hate to believe that someone believes that the government should further subsidize the moneys that they're making.

So, Mr. Speaker, it's going to be interesting to see how the other side explains as to why they don't have to pay for this. Certainly, if indeed we do nothing, $61 billion of tax burden is going to fall on 25 million good American taxpayers, and we want to fill that

gap of the $61 billion. The other side says it doesn't exist, and so I can't wait to sit down so I can listen to their very interesting argument.

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

I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6275, as amended.

I yield back the balance of my time, and ask for a vote in favor of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Certainly, the gentleman from Louisiana knows that we would be willing to work on the charitable deduction as it relates to the changes that were made by the administration, but basically, what he is saying is that, as to the $61 billion in tax

loopholes that we have raised, they would rather borrow the money than fill the gap that relieving the people of this tax burden would have.

So we both agree that 25 million people shouldn't suffer with this $61 billion tax increase, but he would have you believe that, if you take this out, you wouldn't have to put anything in. Well, what you're putting in is the future of our children and of our grandchildren.

I ask that this motion to recommit be rejected.

I yield back the balance of my time.