Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 774 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Madam Speaker, House Resolution 774 is a structured rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 5020, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration. This is the fifth intelligence authorization bill that this House has considered since the tragic events of September 11, which changed this institution's outlook on intelligence. It has certainly changed our intelligence community's approach to collection and analysis.

H.R. 5020 is the first intelligence authorization that is based on a budget request fully determined by our new Director of National Intelligence, again reflecting the changes, reflecting the evolution, the progress of our approach to keeping America secure, protecting our citizens, protecting our forces abroad through an ever-changing architecture.

The DNI, created in H.R. 10, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, created this new Office of the Director of National Intelligence, a responsible authority that would oversee and orchestrate a coordinated effort by the entire intelligence community composed of 15 different intelligence agencies. This legislation today continues the sustained effort and long-term strategy to achieve optimum performance in human intelligence, signals intelligence, imagery intelligence, open-source intelligence, analysis, counterintelligence, counternarcotics, and counterterrorism.

This bill authorizes appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System. In addition to funding these agency activities, the legislation contains other noncontroversial intelligence community housekeeping matters that will help create a more efficient and effective intelligence community. The legislation reflects recent administrative action and formally includes the Drug Enforcement Administration in the intelligence community and authorizes its activities conducted within the National Intelligence Program. It also requires the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, to conduct a regular strategic review of intelligence capabilities against threats, similar to the Quadrennial Defense Review, and limits the DNI's authority to hire civilian personnel in excess of the specifically authorized numbers to no more than 2 percent of the authorized amount of employees.

To more formally increase oversight, the bill specifically provides that reporting requirements contained in the classified annex will be considered as required by the underlying law. Additionally, it requires a comprehensive inventory of special access programs conducted within the National Intelligence Program to be provided to the committee in classified format. This provision was included in the House-passed bill for fiscal year 2006 as well.

The underlying bill also contains language offered by the ranking member, Ms. Harman, that expresses the sense of the Congress that the DNI should promptly examine the need for establishing and overseeing the implementation of a multilevel security clearance system across the intelligence community to leverage the cultural and linguistic skills of subject matter experts and individuals proficient in foreign languages that are deemed critical to our Nation's security.

I am pleased with the efforts of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Chairman Hoekstra and his ranking member, Ms. Harman, have done yeoman's work, with the assistance of their committee, on a bipartisan basis to produce this bill. It is a perfect example of how Congress can achieve a bipartisan product that meets the needs of our Nation. I commend them for their hard work.

I urge the Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that the gentleman acknowledged in the beginning of his remarks that this is a bipartisan bill that enjoyed unanimous support coming out of committee. As we move forward on the other issues of contention, we certainly look forward to that debate.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to one of this institution's experts on national security, a member of the Intelligence Committee, the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a graduate of one of America's fine service academies.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to address three of the points that the distinguished ranking member made, and I would point out that we appreciate her bipartisan efforts in crafting this bill, the underlying bill that the rule addresses, that came out of the committee on a voice vote.

First, the program that she categorized, that has been categorized, I apologize, Madam Speaker, the program that has been categorized as an ``illegal eavesdropping program'' had in a previous press release been characterized in this way: ``As the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, I have been briefed since 2003 on a highly classified NSA foreign collection program that targeted al Qaeda. I believe the program is essential to U.S. national security and that its disclosure has damaged critical intelligence capabilities.''

That was the statement of the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee as it relates to what has now been characterized by saying it is illegal eavesdropping.

Secondly, this question of Iran reports, the Iran crisis scares the dickens out of me. It is a very serious issue for this entire Chamber, for this entire Nation. It is a country that is not only engaged in what could be a speculative threat against its neighbors and the United States and the world as a whole, but are bringing in cameras to show that they are breaking IAEA seals, along with their red-hot rhetoric coming out of their President calling for the destruction of our ally, bragging about the uranium enrichment capabilities, talking about the difference between P-1 and P-2 centrifuges.

It is a very serious issue, one that all Members of Congress should make themselves aware of. As chairman of the policy committee, I was joined by my Energy Subcommittee in going to New York on Monday to receive such a briefing, the kind of briefing that every Member of Congress is entitled to. As members of the House Intelligence Committee, they are entitled to even higher-level briefings on the Iranian situation at their request.

So, the requirement, the responsibility, for us to engage the administration, to engage the Intelligence Community, to engage the appropriate persons who are tracking this crisis is on us. And it is not a mere every-90-day

exercise. It should be an ongoing exercise as developments come in through the media and through other open sources that call on us to further update our awareness of what is a very dangerous situation.

Thirdly, this idea of zero funding for the Civil Liberties Protection Board, that is an issue within the White House budget. It is not germane to the intelligence authorization bill, it is not an issue that we can fund, and it was ruled out of order for that reason. It is a matter for the appropriators who are dealing with the White House budget line, not for the Intelligence Community's overall budget.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments on the concern about Iran. As I said earlier, it is a huge issue and a major international crisis for all of us to be tracking on a very routine basis, especially those members of the Intelligence Committee who have access to a higher level of information than the rest of us.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to address this issue of leaks briefly. Before presenting this rule to the House, I took it upon myself to read the bill. And because of the nature of the bill, it is only available in Intelligence Committee space. And all Members have the opportunity to review the material that we are going to be voting on later today.

In the context of this discussion about leaks, I was reminded that at the beginning of every Congress, upon our election, we, all Members of this House, have to sign something saying that we recognize that House rules prevent us from disclosing classified information.

In addition, when you go to read the bill that we are here today to consider, you sign another form reaffirming that you have taken this oath, this obligation to not disclose classified information. That is what Members of Congress have to do.

When you join the CIA, you sign a standard secrecy agreement that says that you are going to keep the things that you are working on secret to protect the interests of our Nation. You

are not going to go writing books about it, you are not going to make a movie about it, you are not going to cash in on this Nation's security.

When you have access to sensitive compartmented information, you sign yet another nondisclosure agreement, again to drive home the point to the employees who are guarding the very secrets that keep us safe and free that you cannot capitalize on America's secrets.

This was very clear to the leaker. This was made very clear to Members of Congress. There is no double standard. What the individual did was against the law, was a complete breach of the secrecy agreement that that individual signed upon becoming an employee and then having progressively higher levels of access to more and more sensitive information. It is abundantly clear that what she did was wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I respect the gentleman's perspective.

That is why this bill is so important, number one; and number two, it is why it is so vitally important that our representatives on that committee, that our House Members on both sides of the aisle on the House Permanent Select Subcommittee on Intelligence, ask the correct questions, are given the proper orientation, dig into these issues, make this committee a priority, because they are the rest of this House's eyes and ears on those very sensitive issues.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the cultural differences in this House are intriguing. Hailing from the South, we would label ``cockamamie'' a theory where the President would conspire to break the law and invite Members of the other party in on the deal. We would call that a pretty cockamamie theory.

And so when the President, in an effort to keep America safe and to monitor members of al Qaeda who are communicating with people inside our borders, probably not checking the weather, probably not seeing how the Yankees or the Mets are doing, but plotting very dangerous, tragic, consequential events to destroy our way of life, to cause mayhem, to cause loss of life, we want to know what they are up to.

And the President, under this cockamamie theory, conspired to protect us, in the gentleman's words illegally protect us; but he did so in a way that brought in a team of lawyers, reviewed the program every 45 days, and invited members of leadership from both parties, from both Houses of the legislative branch, to be in on that discussion.

That is a cockamamie theory that he was conspiring to break the law in that regard. He was fulfilling his oath to protect this Nation.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, I recognize that the gentleman's use of ``cockamamie'' was directed at another aspect of this debate. But I stand by my comment that the President of the United States did not conspire to engage in any illegal, inappropriate activity by, first, calling a team of lawyers and, second, calling the leadership of the opposite party.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), another member of the House Intelligence Committee, another leader on national security issues for us.

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

The gentleman from New Jersey is a very capable member of the Intelligence Committee, and surely he is not suggesting that covert actions of the United States Government should be made available to every single Member of Congress. Surely the gentleman is not suggesting that every classified program that this United States is engaged in should be available to every single Member.

I would invite the gentleman to respond. Would the Manhattan Project have been available to every single Member who asked about its cost, the number of employees, where the activity was going on, how many people were involved? Would the gentleman have suggested that every Member of Congress would have been clued in on that, even when the Vice President wasn't?

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman, by his answer, has answered the question that clearly we have an Intelligence Committee specifically for the purpose of being our eyes and ears, because we do not empower every single Senator and every single House Member with every single detail of every activity going on in the intelligence community, and there are very strong reasons for that. So, clearly, that would not be the proper course of action.

Under longstanding committee tradition, the chair and the ranking member of both Houses were brought into a different level of awareness on certain activities that were going on. Under Democratic and Republican control, that was the case.

As a result of the terrorist surveillance program, the Senate created an entire new subcommittee to deal with the issue, and the House expanded access to that information to 11 Members, an unprecedented number of Members going beyond the historical, under the Democratic model, four Members who had been given access to those types of programs and activities.

Mr. Speaker, relaiming my time, the gentleman had suggested that the other 420 Members of the House had not had access to the information, and that is precisely how it is set up, that they would not have access to that information. That is why we have talented Members like yourself on the committee, and that is why we have expanded access to information about that program to more members of the committee than ever before.

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

Mr. Speaker, setting aside the fact that the amendment the gentlewoman refers to is not germane to this bill, I point out to the gentlewoman that the amendment that she refers to creates a commission that, A, already exists; and, B, the chair and vice chair have already been confirmed by the Senate, and the members have been appointed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to another member of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the remaining time.

I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Massachusetts had me with Iran and lost me with Iraq. Everything that he said regarding the seriousness of the threat from Iran, a nuclear-capable Iran, is unacceptable to our interests. Everything he said is absolutely correct.

And I can save him the vote on the previous question by asking him to turn to page 22 of the public version of the intelligence authorization bill, where it says, under the subheading Reporting Regarding Iran and North Korea, ``The committee has conducted regular and ongoing oversight of these efforts and expects the DNI to ensure that the Intelligence Community continues to provide timely, detailed, and frequent reporting on the current intentions and capabilities on Iran and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological, and missile programs, as well as the Intelligence Community's capabilities to understand and evaluate these programs. In particular, the committee is interested in receiving, on an ongoing basis current assessments of Iran and North Korea's nuclear, chemical, biological weapons, and missile programs; information on new intelligence developed, including intelligence collected from both open and clandestine sources; and full discussion of any gaps in knowledge, dissents, caveats, and other information that would tend to reduce confidence in the overall assessment. The committee believes these reports will provide timely information to help better inform Congress as it is asked to make decisions regarding U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea.''

The reporting requirement is in the bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. I urge the gentleman, I urge the Congress to support the rule, support the underlying bill, and support the hardworking men and women.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 766 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 766 is a rule that provides for general debate of House Concurrent Resolution 376, the bill establishing the congressional budget for the Federal Government for fiscal year 2007, and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2008 through 2011.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for consideration. This rule provides for 4 hours of general debate, with 3 hours equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, and 1 hour on the subject of economic goals and policies, again equally divided and controlled by Representative Saxton of New Jersey and Representative Maloney of New York or their designees.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the concurrent resolution, and it provides that after general debate the Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion and no further consideration of the bill shall be in order except by subsequent order of the House.

This rule allows the House to begin consideration of the congressional budget. The budget is an important tool of the Congress, allowing us to establish our priorities for the coming year. I am proud that this budget responds to the Nation's complex challenges with the straightforward principles of strength, spending control, and a continued commitment to reform.

The budget resolution continues policies that have helped to reestablish a strong United States economy. We have included savings for working Americans to the tune of $228 billion. We extend the 2001 and 2003 tax reforms, preventing what would otherwise be an automatic tax increase from their scheduled expiration. The budget also assumes the extension of other expiring tax provisions, including the alternative minimum tax relief, a House-passed pension bill, and other important economic growth measures.

While working to give Americans back some of their hard-earned dollars and letting them keep more of their hard-earned dollars, we are also working to enact a responsible spending plan that exercises control and restraint. I am proud that once again this House has delivered a budget that practices conscientious spending. Our goal is to stem the ever expanding outflow of Federal dollars.

House Concurrent Resolution 376 has an overall discretionary spending level that is equal to the President's budget request of $873 billion. It allows for the President's requested 7 percent increase in defense and a 3.8 percent increase for homeland security. As always, the discretion lies with the House Appropriations Committee to determine the final allocation of these funds. This budget essentially freezes nonsecurity discretionary spending, with only a 0.1 percent increase over last year's level, a tenth of a percent. As an additional savings method, the budget caps advance appropriations, spending that is for the year after the budget year.

In the area of mandatory spending, entitlement spending, we provide a total of $1.5 trillion. In an effort to control the automatic effusion of dollars, the budget resolution calls for mandatory spending reforms from several committees. These savings, these mandatory spending savings, total $6.75 billion over 5 years.

This is an important distinction. This is one of the first times in the history of modern budgeting that there has been back-to-back reconciliation instructions in the House budget. Today, over half of Federal spending is essentially on autopilot. Fifty-five percent of Federal expenditures today are going into what is known in budget parlance as mandatory accounts. So all of the discretion that lies within this body and lies within the Senate is not even half of the Federal budget. And within 10 years, if these reconciliation instructions are not implemented, that are embedded in this budget for the second year in a row, then within 10 years it will consume two- thirds of the Federal budget, two-thirds of the Federal budget being on autopilot if we don't implement the reforms that this budget calls for.

Last year was the first year since 1997 that we had made the effort through passage of the Budget Act to get our arms around mandatory spending through reconciliation instructions. This year we do that again. This is an important reform effort. Again, it is one of the few times in modern history where there has been back-to-back reconciliation instructions that allows us to reduce the size of the Federal deficit.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this year the Budget Committee included an emergency reserve fund to help Congress plan for unforeseen costs that may arise in the future. We have set aside $50 billion toward an expected wartime supplemental, as well as $4.3 billion for unanticipated emergencies, such as natural disasters, and $2.3 billion for potential avian flu costs.

As a Congressman from the great State of Florida, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty that the last several years have been very active in the Atlantic hurricane season. We know, without being able to see into the future, we know that somewhere in the next year there is likely to be a hurricane that will make landfall in the United States. Somewhere in the United States this year there will almost certainly be devastating wildfires. Somewhere in the United States in the coming fiscal year there will almost certainly be an earthquake or devastating tornadoes.

Hopefully, we will not have a natural disaster that reaches the catastrophic level that Hurricane Katrina reached. But nevertheless, just like responsible businesses and responsible homeowners who set aside money in their savings accounts for when the hot water heater breaks or when the car needs new tires or when the transmission goes out, the Federal Government, a little bit slowly, but nevertheless has come around to the notion that we should plan for emergencies, particularly those types of very expensive natural disasters that do frequently strike our shores.

With increased spending control, tax relief, and these important budget reforms, this budget makes a sizable dent in our deficits. Under these policies, the deficit will fall by more than half, from $521 billion, which is projected in fiscal year 2004, to $191 billion in fiscal year 2009, which is below the President's planned budget achievements.

I am proud of the work of the Budget Committee this year. I thank Chairman Nussle for pushing forward with fiscal discipline and bringing us this excellent budget for our consideration, and I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to have these debates. We ought to at least start out with our facts straight, though. For the last 10 years, spending per veteran under Republican leadership has doubled. In the last 10 years, spending budget authority for veterans medical care nearly doubled going from $16.2 billion to $31 billion.

Facts are stubborn things, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman raises an important point about the need for us to continue to invest in research and development, in health care initiatives that allow us to remain a Nation on the cutting edge of technology both in biosciences, basic research, and the whole gamut of diseases and disorders that afflict the human condition.

This majority takes a back seat to no one on investments in health. The National Institutes of Health are preeminent research institutions run by this Federal Government that are making great strides against cancer, against juvenile diabetes, against HIV/AIDS, against a whole host of orphan diseases and disorders that only afflict a small number of Americans, but nevertheless in a huge, huge way to that individual family.

Since 1998, NIH funding, because of the investments that this majority has made, has more than doubled. More than doubled since 1998. Funding in 1998 was at $13.5 billion. Today this Nation invests nearly $28.5 billion in the National Institutes of Health.

We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is fundamentally important that America remain on the cutting edge of innovation, that it is fundamentally important that we continue to produce graduates in the health sciences, in engineering, in mathematics to keep us on that cutting edge. We take a back seat to no one in recognizing that it is important to have in place economic policies, tax policies that encourage people to make those investments in this country instead of in other countries; that we have in place incentives to people to add new lines of scientists at their workbenches and their laboratories in Silicon Valley, California, or at the CDC in Atlanta.

We recognize it is important to have a growing economy that allows us the luxury of being able to invest in research that may not bear fruit for decades to come. And we take a back seat to no one in the commitment we have made for the last dozen years in funding the National Institutes of Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues join me in complimenting your selection of neckwear this morning.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), one of our newer members of the Budget Committee and a CPA.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentleman of two points. First, spending per veteran and spending for veterans' medical care both have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. I remind the gentleman of that.

Second point, with regard to the procedure around here for changing the debt limit, it is known as the Gephardt rule. The process for adjusting the debt limit was put in place when your team was in charge. So the gentleman takes issue with a process that was invented by his team.

I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's concerns about funding for veterans, and I would remind him again that since 1995 veterans medical care spending has increased from $16 billion to more than $31 billion, an increase of 92 percent. The funding increase for next year, over this one, year-to-year increase is nearly 4 percent, a substantial jump, especially relative to other discretionary programs who will see a tenth of a point cut.

They are getting a 4 percent increase.

We recognize the sacrifices that veterans make. We recognize our lifelong commitment to them for the sacrifices that they have made and continue to make. This budget builds on that strong foundation. It accommodates general veterans funding at $75 billion, and it is $800 million above even what the President requested. This Congress is meeting the needs of America's veterans. In addition to increasing over the President's request, it does not increase the fees that were called for in his request.

Frequently on this floor we get sucked into these debates based on what the President's proposal is, and that is not the document that we are debating here this morning. This is the House budget. In fact, in the budget markup, we had an opportunity to vote on the President's budget, and we chose to go a different path with the document that this House is producing.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the gentleman's stack of letters that we are entering into the Record, he could find the thank you notes from the veterans who thank us for finally, after decades of inactivity under the previous leadership, acting on concurrent receipts giving veterans what they need; doubling funding for veterans in 10 years; a 4 percent increase next year over this.

We budget year to year, and the gentleman knows it. Every year this majority has come through for our veterans. Every year we have been there, and we will continue to be there for America's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my good friend from the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from Massachusetts in the conversation about insatiable appetites that nearly every amendment offered by the Democratic minority on the Budget Committee spent more money. There was no amendment offered by the Democratic minority that changed the Tax Code in any way. In previous years they had sought to raise taxes. They have learned that lesson, that it does not fly with small business men and women across the America, that it is not particularly popular, and it is terrible economic policy to raise taxes. So they dropped that. But nearly every amendment offered in the committee markup was to spend more money and to pay for it using the mythical potential of what is called the ``tax gap,'' which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes collected. That is money that may or may not appear based on an aggressive IRS. That was their pay- for to feed their insatiable appetite for more spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, the myth is this: in your plan, you assume that the $200 billion tax gap will magically appear tomorrow. If we knew where the $200 billion was, we would find it now. You assume that the $200 billion in uncollected taxes are available to be collected and then be spent under your budget plan the day your proposal passes. It wouldn't be uncollected if we knew where it was. It wouldn't be uncollected if we could go get it. Somebody has to go hassle these people to pay their taxes.

That is the myth. Does it need to be done? Absolutely. Should we close it? Absolutely. But that is a crap shoot. You will not have 100 percent collections of all income taxes due by the day that your bill passes, if it were to pass tomorrow. That is the myth.

You point out that our deficit is different than the CBO baseline. You are correct. The CBO baseline assumes, and your budget assumes, that you will allow the tax reforms that passed in 2001 and 2003 to expire. So capital gains taxes go up; dividend taxes go up; taxes on middle-income brackets go up; the 10 percent bracket disappears; AMT relief, no action.

You allow those things to expire. The CBO assumes those things will expire. We assume they will stay in place because we believe that those are the drivers of the economic engine that is giving this country 4.8 percent unemployment, which is lower than the average of the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s. It is what allows this government to collect 15 percent more revenues, more money from the taxpayers this year than last year, even though the tax rate is lower.

That is the difference. That is the myth. That is the problem with the competing budgets as ours stacks up against yours.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a good debate. We have 4 more hours to go. We need to pass this rule.

The gentleman has grabbed the veterans issue by the horns, and appropriately so. We will stand by our veterans funding. It is a 4 percent increase in an era when the rest of the budget is assumed to be reduced by a tenth of a point.

This is a two-step process, and the gentleman knows it. The budget lays out the fences, the appropriations process decides what is spent within those fences. We have doubled spending per veteran, not spending on veterans, spending per veteran in the last 10 years. We have doubled spending on veterans medical care. These are issues that are hugely important.

I am proud of the way this debate has been conducted, because this budget lays out the competing visions for America, one that inspires economic growth through sensible tax policies, and one that wants to spend, spend, and spend some more based on the myth of the tax gap collections that would miraculously appear tomorrow under the Democrats' proposal.

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

I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Speaker, drugs are a scourge. It is a scourge that is not just an inner-city problem. It has spread like a cancer into our small towns, our suburban areas, farming communities, areas that used to view the war on drugs with a certain jaundiced eye as being somebody else's problem.

In Florida, unfortunately, we have been on the cutting edge of this war, beginning with the cocaine cowboys of the eighties, the dope runners who would use our airstrips and grassy areas to bring things in from the Caribbean and from Central America, and we have seen how it has ripped apart our communities.

We have seen how it has filled our schools with children with severe learning disabilities and developmental difficulties because of decisions that their parents made in using these terrible drugs, these highly addictive and dangerous chemicals. We have seen the costs that it has on society, and it is nothing short of a national tragedy. So I am pleased that there is such bipartisan concern for dealing with this scourge.

I am heartened by the bipartisan number of amendments that are being offered to try and improve upon this work of really giving the ONDCP the authority and the teeth that they need to continue to go after this. This Congress is working together to curtail the dangerous proliferation of drugs, and particularly that of methamphetamines. Meth abuse is where we really see a tremendous amount of growth outside of the cities, outside of those traditional areas where we have associated drug use.

My home district in central Florida is not what you would stereotypically think of as a high-drug trafficking area, a high-crime area. It is an area of suburban bedroom communities for larger cities and rolling citrus hills and cattle ranches. The largest city has less than 80,000 people in it. And yet it is, unfortunately, on the short list of major production areas for methamphetamine because of its rural nature, because they can have these labs in the middle of nowhere, where the stench from the creation of that terrible drug is not noticed.

In fact, the DEA says that meth has become the most dangerous drug problem of small-town America. They note that young people ages 12 to 14 who live in small towns are 104 percent more likely to use meth than young people living in larger cities. What a frightening statistic for people who think that they are escaping big-city problems when they move to smaller towns. Meth abuse is most prevalent in these rural areas, as we said, because you can set these labs up anywhere without detection, the more rural the area is.

My district has seen a huge spike in meth abuse, meth production, since the nineties, which has a direct correlation to rising crime rates, overcrowded prisons and an impact on local law enforcement and local schools.

I appreciate the work of the Meth Caucus here in this Congress for continuing to bring attention to this epidemic of methamphetamine abuse. It is imperative that our Congress ensure that the Federal Government start treating this national problem with the same urgency and the same commitment that our State and local governments and grassroots advocacy groups have been treating it with for years.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I appreciate the hard work of Mr. Souder and Mr. Sessions and all the folks who have put so much into this, and I urge Members to support the underlying bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today has changed somewhat from its travels in the Senate. The rhetoric on the other side of the aisle has not. It is the same old tired class-warfare rhetoric, more befitting of a response to the State of the Union than anything at all related to a parliamentary inquiry regarding unfunded mandates.

The specific point as it relates to an unfunded mandate claim by the other side regarding the child support changes in the Deficit Reduction Act is simply not correct. According to the GAO, in 2004 the Federal Government paid 88 percent of all child support program costs. Eighty- eight percent. Ten States made money on their program from the taxpayers from the other 40 States. Ten States retained more child support collections than it cost them to operate it. They actually generated substantial profit with the Federal Government picking up 100 percent of their costs, the Federal Government obviously not being a nebulous concept, the Federal government being the other 40 States subsidizing 10 States' child support programs to the tune of a profit.

Over the next 5 years, the Federal Government will spend nearly $20 billion on child support program costs. That is after the changes that are made here in the Deficit Reduction Act, and still far more than the States are expected to spend. States continue to receive $500 million in Federal incentive funds every year, on top of $2 in Federal funds for every $1 of State funds spent for a 66 percent Federal matching rate. Not a bad deal.

Set in this context, this claim of unfunded mandates is simply not correct and not meaningful. The child support savings in the Deficit Reduction Act result from ending the practice of States claiming Federal matching funds for spending Federal child support incentive funds, double dipping, if you will.

This double dipping cannot be justified. Closing this loophole, which is what it amounts to, saves $1.6 billion over 5 years with no impact on services being provided to the clients. The change would not take effect until fiscal year 2008, giving States 2 years to adjust to the change. And States could replace every penny of expected Federal savings by increasing their own

spending modestly with the Federal Government filling in the difference. States could unlock $2 Federal dollars for every $1 spent under the program's 66 percent match rate. So if States want to increase spending by $900 million, they would have to pony up $300 million of their own. Again, not a bad deal for the States. I think it is a return that most investors would accept readily.

CBO's letter that the gentleman refers to shows it is impossible to achieve even modest savings in this open-ended entitlement program without raising an underfunded mandate objection. Unless your goal is to prevent any reduction in Federal spending, which I think it is fair to stipulate is their goal, this is not a meaningful objection.

Even with this change, CBO expects child support collections will grow each and every year and the projections bear that out, rising from $24 billion today to $28 billion in 2010 and $34 billion in 2015, clearly only a Democratic definition of a cut.

Other features of the Deficit Reduction Act would provide States significant Federal welfare funds, including $17 billion in annual TANF block grants through 2010 and $3 billion in mandatory child care through 2010, a $1 billion increase above current law.

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

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

I remind the gentleman that today we will spend $24 billion on the child support collection program to which he refers. By 2010, we will spend $28 billion on the same program; by 2015, $34 billion.

The gentleman is worried about June, July, August, September, October, and yes, even November. We are worried about 2010, 2020, and 2030, about getting our arms around an exploding entitlement program that is engorging the entire Federal budget, and your actions to stop any and all responsible budgeting to prevent entitlement spending from taking up two-thirds of the Federal budget within the decade, to prevent any meaningful Social Security reform that would guarantee that GenX-ers out there will have the same opportunities that those in their seventies have, to prevent the types of entitlement reforms that are needed to save the very programs that you are so proud of in Social Security and Medicaid and Medicare, that are worthy pillars of this domestic government, you block each and every time, including this action which is a very modest savings that still generates more money each and every year by substantial sums than the previous and still guarantees a high level of service to the young people.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, nowhere in the CBO score for this report is there any estimates that States will lose TANF funds for failure to operate satisfactory child support programs. They would score as an additional Federal savings if they did, and that is just not there.

I think I have answered the gentleman's question.

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

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

This debate has devolved into a 10-minute extension of the overall concept of deficit reduction. The unfunded mandates claim does not ring true. There is more money going into these States. States have been double-dipping, and the action in this bill today will simply close that loophole and end that practice, particularly by the 10 States that have been operating on Federal dollars at a profit.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the Deficit Reduction Act yet again to address some technical amendments that were made by the Senate. House Resolution 653 provides that the House agree with the Senate amendments to the House passed version of S. 1932. S. 1932 provides for reconciliation as described in the Congressional budget resolution of 2006.

As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and a conferee on this legislation, I am pleased to bring this legislation to the floor for what we hope will be its final, final consideration.

For the first time since 1997, the Congressional budget resolution included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory program savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and by slowing the rate of the growth of government, especially on the mandatory side of the ledger.

The Deficit Reduction Act seeks to curb the unsustainable growth rate of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our total budget in the next decade if left unchecked. The agreement will stimulate reform of these entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient and excessively costly.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of this legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House, through its authorizing

committees, through the Budget Committee process, through, in short, regular order has achieved. I am proud of that. I am proud that this legislation begins a long-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement spending.

Our goal was to control government spending so that Americans can keep more of their own money instead of having the government seize more. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have worked very hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions that total nearly $40 billion in efficiency. The agreement allows programs and agencies to weed out waste, fraud, abuse, duplication of effort, so that we can channel more Federal dollars to programs that succeed and to the people who are truly in need, to serve the intended populations more efficiently, more effectively, and in smarter ways.

I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal responsibility here in Washington. This legislation is a step towards smarter, more competent government. I urge Members to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Barton.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the senior member of the Budget Committee, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who also serves on the Budget Committee.

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

I would like to correct the gentlewoman from Connecticut with regards to the Washington Post article. As is common in this media culture of get-it-fast instead of get-it-right, there was no lobby fix.

The Deficit Reduction Act establishes a timeline for phasing out overpayments to Medicare advantage plans. The Secretary of HHS had already proposed correcting those payment levels but had not set a timeline. Until the Secretary acts, Medicare is currently paying too much to those Medicare advantage plans, and the Deficit Reduction Act sets the timeline for the Secretary to fix it.

The simple explanation for the $22 billion reduction in CBO score is that the Deficit Reduction Act assumes that once the payment system is fixed over the next 5 years the Secretary will have the good sense to keep paying them at the proper level.

So it is incorrect to say that there was a $22 billion giveaway. CBO's estimate assumes that the Secretary will revert to overpaying those same people.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on each side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, both of the gentlemen are very eloquent, except they miss the overall point, which is that we are debating the technical amendments to what the House passed long before the President's State of the Union speech.

The three changes that were made by the Senate, that we are dealing with today and that are different than what we have already voted on as a body, deal with a value-based purchasing report, a MedPAC report, MedPAC being the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, and medical liability. Three items that, for technical rule reasons in the Senate, were stripped, causing the bill to be sent back over here.

The timing of this, situated as it is the day after the President's State of the Union, is irrelevant to the overall issue. We have already voted on this except for these three changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Under your definition, sir, people continue to get more money year after year after year and it is a cut. Under your definition.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, once again the other side is trying to have it both ways. In alternating speaker form, we are in turn told we are awash in a sea of red ink and that this measure is not adequate to deal with the deficit, and then the next speaker says we have consistently underbudgeted for the Nation's priorities and have not spent anywhere nearly enough money for all of the things that they would like to see spent.

Their metaphors are as limitless as their desire to spend the hardworking Americans' money in the sense we have heard that we are going to throw away Tiny Tim's crutches when we did this at the end of last year, we were told that we were the Grinch, and we were quoted to extensively from literary and

historic figures, and the bottom line is this: We have an explosion of baby-boomers in this country that will create a demographic crisis and we have an explosion on the mandatory side of our budget that will consume two-thirds of it within less than a decade. Already half of the Federal budget is on autopilot. This is the first step since 1997 in beginning to get our arms around that problem.

I urge Members to support this first step towards long-term fiscal discipline and fiscal health for this Nation.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 632 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 632 is a same-day rule that waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII, which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee against certain resolutions reported from the Rules Committee. It applies the waiver to any special rule reported on the legislative day of December 18, 2005.

H. Res. 632 allows the House to consider a rule and underlying legislation that may be reported today.

Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this same-day rule. This resolution will lay the foundation for the House to complete its business and send outstanding legislation to the Senate and eventually the President for his signature. We are working to move the process along towards adjournment of the first session of the 109th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this same-day rule so we can move forward to serious consideration of the remaining legislation for which we are staying here and working through the weekend to complete.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct when she characterizes this as an unusual time. It is almost 2 o'clock on a Sunday afternoon and the Congress is in session. These are very unusual times as we approach the end of this first session of the 109th Congress. I do not think anybody would dispute that. I certainly know that our wives and husbands and families who are scattered around the country manning Christmas parties and Christmas pageants as single parents while we are here doing the people's business over the weekend would agree that these are highly unusual times.

I would note that this same-day rule has passed the committee two times on a voice vote, and these concerns were not elevated to the point of even demanding a role call vote.

These are unusual times, I would certainly agree. And in order for us to bring this unusual session that has been marked by cataclysmic events throughout our country which were unforeseen, this unusual session that has seen an unusually productive legislative agenda pass both the House and the Senate and be signed into the law by the President, as we mark the end of this year and do everything we can to pass the legislation that will directly benefit our troops, both at home and abroad through the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, as we do everything we can in an unusual way on a Sunday night and probably into the wee hours of Monday morning, to do everything we can to guarantee that our friends and neighbors on the gulf coast in Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama and south Florida who were hit by Katrina and Rita and Wilma will have the relief that has been promised them and that is so important as so many of them struggle to bring their lives back together, yes, we will continue to operate in this unusual scenario on a Sunday afternoon and Sunday night to do our job, to finish the work that is on our plate.

The House has very successfully moved its appropriations legislation in a very timely manner. But, frankly, while we finished prior to the July 4 recess, Katrina hit during the August recess. Wilma and Rita hit after that. So while we were following the regular order that both sides of the aisle should be very proud of, both sides of the aisle should be very appreciative of our hardworking appropriators who made that happen, it all went out the window when you get hit by a category 5 and then another category 5 and then another category 4 while we were on August recess alone.

So certain unusual factors have impacted this unusual year, which lead us to the unusual situation of being here on a Sunday passing a same-day rule so that we can move forward on the important items that remain.

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

Mr. Speaker, while I would love to engage the gentleman in his theory that big oil companies caused Hurricane Katrina on the rule about consideration of legislation on the same legislative day, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, these are unusual times as we struggle through the important deliberations of this Congress to make sure that our troops are cared for through the Department of Defense appropriations process and that our gulf coast friends and neighbors receive the assistance that they need and have been promised and are owed by their countrymen in the wake of the devastation wrought by these hurricanes.

This rule lays the foundation for us to move that important legislation in a timely way. And martial law around the world means troops on the streets, tanks on the streets, the military setting mandatory curfews where people cannot act in a free and virtuous way.

Only in America would the opportunity for 535 elected representatives to come from around the country to haggle and debate and fight and compromise over ways to help their fellow countrymen and move forward with an agenda for liberty and prosperity and security, only in America do we take for granted our liberties such that we would call such a process ``martial law.''

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 640 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 640 provides for consideration of the conference report on Senate 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Budget Committee and a conferee on this conference report, I am pleased to bring this resolution to the floor for its consideration.

This is a historic moment for the House, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it has been a most unusual year for our Nation and for its government. It has culminated in this Congress being in session late into the year. We are here in the final hours of the First Session of the 109th Congress, working to complete the business of the people and ensure that our government provides opportunity and security for today and for future generations.

We are here at this unusual hour on this unusual day to bring to a close what has been a year of remarkable accomplishments for the 109th Congress. We passed major legislation such as the energy bill, the highway bill, and border security, to name just a few. Additionally, the House Appropriations Committee completed passage in the House of all funding bills prior to the July 4 recess. Chairman Lewis kept his promise to complete the appropriations process in regular order and avoid an omnibus bill. I am impressed by and proud of the work of this House and all that it has done this year in moving so much important legislation.

Our Nation also has endured a year of unusual natural disasters. The Gulf Coast States, including my home State of Florida, have faced not one but three major hurricanes that have caused some of the worst destruction this Nation has seen, not to mention the unprecedented destruction that our friends and neighbors in east Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have faced. This Congress has stepped up to the task of providing recovery and reconstruction funds for the devastated areas. We have passed two supplemental appropriations bills thus far and are set to provide additional relief when we pass the Department of Defense appropriations bill. The unforeseen events in the gulf changed the focus of the last half of the year and will continue to have an impact on this Nation for years to come.

This change in budgetary focus brings me to the legislation we are set to consider when this rule passes. For the first time since 1997, the congressional budget resolution included deficit reduction instructions to authorizing committees to find and achieve mandatory program savings for a more accountable government. It does this by finding smarter ways to spend and slowing the rate of growth of government. This deficit reduction provides a downpayment toward hurricane recovery and reconstruction costs and, most importantly, puts us on a path toward long-term fiscal health.

The Deficit Reduction Act fights back against the out-of-control growth of mandatory programs that are set to consume 62 percent of our total budget in the next 10 years if left unchecked. The conference report will stimulate reform of entitlement programs, many of which are outdated, inefficient, and costly. I am pleased that the legislation begins a longer-term effort at slowing the growth of entitlement spending.

In another unusual occurrence this year, those on the other side of the aisle called for deficit reduction. However, their proposals increased taxes on the American family. I am pleased to say that this House has delivered deficit reduction without raising the tax burden of the working American. Our goal is to control government spending so Americans can keep more of their own money instead of sending more to the government. The authorizing committees from both Chambers have worked hard to find savings within their individual jurisdictions. They did this using their own individual expertise through regular order. And I commend the authorizing chairman and committee members for their aggressive oversight that has yielded $40 billion in efficiencies. The conference report allows programs and agencies to weed out abuse, fraud, and inefficiency so that we can channel more Federal dollars to programs that succeed and effectively serve their intended populations.

I congratulate Chairman Nussle and Senator Gregg, along with all the members and staff from the Budget Committees, for their hard worked preparing the deficit reduction package. I look forward to passing this reform bill and reaffirming sound oversight and fiscal accountability here in Washington. This conference report is a step forward towards smarter and more competent, responsive government.

I urge Members to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my colleague on the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is the deficit reduction package, and we will have another opportunity to consider the tax reconciliation package. But their references to the tax cuts or tax reform or tax relief, and I am very proud of the work that the Budget Committee and all the other committees have done, is not in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a colleague on the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, in amongst the theology you would never know that the Department of Education programs have skyrocketed since 1994, the Department of Veterans Affairs' budgets have skyrocketed since 1994, investment in our defense continues to go up, support for our troops and their training, as well as their widows and loved ones and the level of support there, continue to go up, and overall mandatory spending in this budget continues to go up.

It is the rate of growth that we are here to discuss, and the fact that it is consuming our overall budget, something that some aspects of the other side of the aisle have expressed concern about, which is getting our arms around the budget deficit. This Deficit Reduction Act offers them the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the Budget Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have run through the gospels and now we are on to Dickens. We have heard it all. We would take away the crutches, the eyeglasses, and the hearing aids from Tiny Tim. I guess the other side would just tax him.

I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Education and Work Force Committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

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

I share the gentleman's concern about the budget deficit. That is why I am proud to announce that the deficit is $134 billion less than what was estimated a year ago, thanks to the strength of the economy.

I understand his concern about the ongoing growth of mandatory programs, which is why we have in place a deficit reduction package that helps us to get our arms around the fact that two-thirds of the Federal budget will be on auto pilot if we do not act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

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

I noted the gentleman's lavish description of the frozen tundra that people find themselves frozen in, and I would point out to him that $1 billion will be put into LIHEAP, something that he failed to mention, that will assist all Americans who find themselves in a low-income situation and need of assistance for paying their utility bills, to make sure they have the adequate protection they need, a record amount of money, $1 billion. That has not been mentioned in amongst all the other comments about the cuts that people are facing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we have worked our way through Dickens, Dr. Seuss, and the entire New Testament. I wait to see what else awaits us.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I came prepared for the wrong debate. I brought the good economic news that is being told and shared and being invested all across this great land. Productivity numbers up, unemployment at 5 percent, nearly full employment for the country. Record numbers. Robust GDP growth quarter after quarter after quarter. The news that important reforms to Medicaid and Medicare will be moving forward, allowing those programs to continue to grow at, in some cases, double the rate of inflation, double the rate of the CPI that most people use as their common benchmark. And the news that there is a record amount of money into LIHEAP.

We brought those facts and figures to a debate that was about deficit reduction, that was about the future of America. The other side brought Dr. Seuss. The other side brought Dickens and nursery rhymes and enough theology to field an old-time revival, but to do nothing about the fiscal health of this country; to do nothing about the fact that if we move forward with their Dickens economic plan, that if we move forward with their Dr. Seuss approach to economics that two-thirds of the Federal budget will be on autopilot; that if we move forward with their plan, these programs will continue to have the inefficiencies and the waste and the fraud that makes for an unresponsive, unreactive government that confiscates people's money and then does not even invest it back into a program that serves the very people who need it the most.

That is the crime in this, Mr. Speaker, that we have a thoughtful, long-term plan for the fiscal health of this country, something that future generations will say marked the turning point, the first reconciliation bill, the first real attempt at deficit reduction since 1997 to turn that ship of state toward a brighter tomorrow. It cannot be summed up in some cute little nursery rhyme. It is important stuff. Sometimes it is dry stuff; sometimes it is dull stuff. But, by golly, it is important.

It is important to each and every American because it impacts how much money their government takes from them and how wisely that government uses that money for the needs of its people.

General Leave

Mr. 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. 639 and H. Res. 640.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to applaud the accomplishments of the Lakeland High School Varsity Football team from Lakeland, Florida--the 2005 Class 5A Florida State Champions and the 2005 National Champions.

Coach Bill Castle, 2004 5A Coach of the Year and recent inductee of the Polk County Sports Hall of Fame, led the Dreadnaught's to their 5th State Championship, 17th District Championship, and 1st National Championship. The Dreadnaughts defeated Ft. Lauderdale's St. Thomas Aquinas, 39-19, ending their season at 15-0, in a rematch of last years title for the Class 5A State Championship. This is the first time a Polk County football team has won back-to-back State titles, and the first time that two top-five nationally ranked teams have met this late in the season.

I would like to extend my congratulations to Coach Castle and his staff, Dan Talbot, Dan Moonet, Frank Webster, Chris Davis, Clay Taylor, Jason Butler, Michael Peeples, Denny Krahe, and Brian Abdon, for the positive example they set and for the leadership they provide. In addition, Principal Mark Thomas and his administration, Athletic Director Sid Kimbrell, the faculty and staff, the parents, the students, the alumni and the fans should all be commended for their community spirit and constant support.

Most importantly, however, I would like to recognize those outstanding student athletes, who exemplified the hard work, character, and sportsmanship, to make this victory possible: Matt Grier, Scott Bryant, Chris Rainey, Rashard Coleman, Andre Walker, Pat Turner, Deonte Parker, T.K. Lamb, Ledarius Dobie, Darius Jones, Tyler Grantham, Billy Lowe, Awtan Glover, Jordan Hammond, Jesse Smart, Paul Wilson, Adam Williams, Blair Castle, Leon Covington, Steve Wilks, Cedric Edom, Preston Chatmon, Ahmad Black, Jamar Taylor, Troy Johnson, Calvin Shaw, Derrell Harrison, Connor Johnson, Tony McElrath, Aaron Walters, Devon Terry, Justin Burdette, Bryant Peace, Matt Roddenbery, Nic Moody, Colin Clyne, Quinten Campell, Mike Jensen, Michael Horton, David Liason, Ben Wilcox, Jensen Harris, Justin Calabrese, James Campbell, John Brown, Eagar Lewis. The Dreadnaughts prove that academic excellence, intensive training and a lot of heart, will lead a team to victory. The school's motto is ``Nulli Secundus,'' which means ``Second to None.'' I know that I speak for every member in offering congratulations and the best of luck to the Lakeland Dreadnaughts, who officially are ``second to none'' in the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a fellow public servant and dear friend, whose dedication and hard work has earned the admiration of not only the people of Florida, but public officials nationally as well. This is why I am proud to congratulate Florida State Senator Paula Dockery for her well-earned selection as Governing Magazine's 2005 ``Public Official of the Year.''

Senator Dockery was one of only eight public officials from across the country, and the only Florida official, to be so honored. She was recognized by Governing Magazine ``in honor of her success in bringing diverse groups together to craft a sound and far-reaching water policy for the State of Florida.'' The magazine also stated ``Since being elected to the House in 1996 and subsequently to the Senate, Dockery has demonstrated the ability to build consensus among groups with a history of contention.'' Senator Dockery has also recently been awarded ``Legislator of the Year'' by the American Water Works Association for her ``outstanding leadership and dedication in developing water supply legislation for the people of Florida.'' Additionally, the Florida Ocean Alliance presented the Senator with an award of appreciation for sponsoring legislation that established the Florida Ocean and Coastal Resource Council noting her ``leadership in sponsoring legislation to further conservation and management of ocean and coastal resources.''

Yet, this is only a small portion of Senator Dockery's long history of bringing together disparate interests to craft sound environmental policy. As a defender of private property rights and protecting Florida's environmental resources, she constantly recognizes the importance of sound conservation principles in a rapidly growing State.

I had the opportunity to serve with Senator Dockery in the Florida State House of Representatives for 4 years, and it is her dedication to the common good, passion for legislating, and ability to inspire her colleagues, that has led the way to her success. In 1999, Senator Dockery authored the Florida Forever initiative, providing $300 million a year to purchase land for preservation. Business interests and environmentalists both praised the program. In addition, she followed this initiative with the goal of developing a water plan for Florida. Spending much of 2003 and 2004 developing legislation to conserve water for Florida's future, Senator Dockery successfully led the passage of SB 444 in 2005, creating comprehensive water legislation that provides $300 million to help local governments develop water supply through alternative resources.

The constituents of Senate District 15 and the State as a whole are extremely blessed to have her leadership serving them in Tallahassee. As the Senator continues to proudly serve the good people of Florida, I look forward to many more accomplishments as she continues to lead and guide the future of our great State.

Mr. Speaker, as we continue the fight against terrorism around the globe, we are constantly reminded of the sacrifice and service of our men and women in uniform. I rise today to honor a true American hero, a man who has dedicated his life to protecting our nation, Rear Admiral AJ Jackson from my hometown of Bartow, Florida.

A 1970 graduate of Florida State University, Rear Admiral Jackson entered the Aviation Officer Candidate School in May 1970, and was designated a Naval Aviator in February 1972 at NAS Kingsville, Texas. His active duty assignments included NS Rota, Spain, Attack Squadron Eighty One (VA-81) aboard the USS Forrestal (CV-59), and the staff of Commander, Light Attack Wing One, NAS Cecil Field, Florida.

Rear Admiral Jackson commanded Fleet Logistics Support Squadron Five Nine (VR-59), NR Carrier Group 0170, and NR Commander Seventh Fleet 111, and was selected for Flag rank in June 1998. In October 1998, he assumed duties as Deputy/Vice Commander, Maritime Defense Zone, U.S. Atlantic Fleet. One year later, he was assigned as Commander, Rear Area Command, U.S. Seventh Fleet, and in this role he also assumed duties as Commander, U.S, Naval Shore Based Forces Korea, during exercise or contingency operations in Korea.

In July 2001, Rear Admiral Jackson was assigned his present billet at U.S. Central Command as the Deputy Director (Reserve) for Plans and Policy (J5). From March 2002 until May 2004, he was assigned additional duties as Commander, Naval Reserve Readiness Command South. In this capacity he supervised the training and administration of over 10,000 Naval Reservists in 29 Naval Reserve Centers in the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and Texas. Rear Admiral Jackson was promoted to Rear Admiral (Upper Half) on October 12, 2001.

His military decorations include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal, Navy Commendation Medal, and other unit and campaign awards. In his civilian occupation, he is a Boeing 777 Captain with American Airlines based at DFW Airport, Texas.

After 35 years of dedicated service, Rear Admiral Jackson will be retiring to spend some well-deserved ``R and R'' with his wife Jana. On behalf of the residents of Florida's 12th District, I want to commend Rear Admiral Jackson's service to his country and wish him the very best for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.

My good friend from Florida closed his opening statement with the inscription at the base of Lady Liberty, and that new colossus that was so new and shiny at that time has grown into the great colossus.

That shining city upon a hill that Winthrop commented on and that Reagan resurrected in his soaring rhetoric is still a shining city upon a hill that all of us like to speak of and remark upon on a number of occasions on this floor.

Who was that city shining to? Who was it beckoning? Who was it welcoming but immigrants? We are still that great city shining upon a hill. We are a nation of immigrants, and they are our strength, and they are our diversity, and they are our source of innovation, and they are what prevent us from being stagnant in the old ways of the old world.

But a key change has occurred since the wave came over from Ireland and Poland and the European nations, and then subsequently from the Latin American nations and the Asian nations, and that is the rise of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.

And so that immigration policy cannot be unfettered. We have to put in place common-sense, meaningful reforms so that we address it in three parts. We do not disagree about that. There is not an ounce of disagreement between our parties about strengthening our borders.

We all agree that we cannot continue to have a policy that allows hundreds of thousands of people to come across our borders, many of whom are seeking a better life, but a goodly number of whom are not. They are part of MS-13 gangs, they are part of human exploitation or sexual traffickers or even terrorists trying to bring in bombs or other equipment to do our society fundamental harm. So we have to be very careful in moving forward with this legislation and craft a balanced approach.

I commend the authors on their enforcement provisions at the border. That is phase one, to address our border security, to make sure that we have boots on the border, equipment, sensors, all of the technology that our innovation can provide to make sure that we are welcoming those immigrants who are coming here to build a better life for themselves and their family, and stopping those who are not.

The bill is incomplete in that it does not deal in a comprehensive way with the other two pieces of immigration policy, which are very sticky, difficult issues, that of what to do with those 11 million people who are already here and that of how we address the temporary worker program. It is incomplete in that sense. But this is an important step.

I would only characterize it as a baby step. But it is an important step forward to moving what I believe will become comprehensive immigration reform that deals with these three key components of this hugely important policy in a post-9/11 world.

I firmly believe that we are a stronger nation because of the diversity that our immigrants have brought us. I feel blessed to live in a nation that women seek to be here so badly that they are willing to put their babies on inner tubes to float across the Florida Straits to be here or to risk everything to come across a wall or a fence or a river to be a part of the freedoms and liberties that we take for granted every day.

I fundamentally feel blessed to live in a nation that everyone else strives so hard to join. And we have to have an immigration policy that meets the needs of our economy and welcomes those people who want to bring positive, meaningful developments to our Nation and help them find a better life for themselves and their families; and this bill puts us on the path toward doing that.

But it is important that we recognize what is not in the bill, and before it becomes law what must, what must become part of it, which is a comprehensive assessment of a temporary worker program and a way to deal with the enforcement of the 11 million people who are here.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I thank my chairman for allowing me to respond.

The gentleman made the statement that this is not a border enforcement bill, and I would disagree and say that it is a border enforcement bill. It is not a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 643, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 588 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Rochester, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, in April Congress passed a responsible budget that called for spending restraint, reduction of the deficit; and by slowing the unsustainable and automatic growth of mandatory spending programs and extending tax relief to families and small businesses, we have successfully accomplished the first two. Now, this rule will provide for consideration of our final commitment to American taxpayers, extending numerous important tax relief provisions.

In 2001, 2003 and 2004, Congress enacted responsible tax relief to help create new jobs, grow America's economy, and put more money in the hands of workers, families, small businesses, farms, and ranches. Following this tax relief, unemployment dropped a full percentage point to 5 percent, and we have experienced 10 uninterrupted quarters of real growth in our economy, above 3 percent, the longest stretch since the 1980s. As was proven by the tax cuts during the Kennedy and Reagan administrations, Federal revenues actually increase after taxes are lowered.

Our expanding economy is led by consumer spending, job growth, and business investment. This is a result of allowing workers to keep more of their hard-earned money, decreasing the tax burden on small businesses so they can expand and hire more workers, and providing incentives for families to save and invest.

Unless we take action today, many of the important tax provisions that have helped our economy grow strong will expire. Without passage of this legislation, workers, families, and small businesses will have less of their paycheck to take home each week.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4297, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act, not the most eloquent of names but an important one, will continue to build on the economic progress we have already made.

A key part of the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 was a return to fairness for those who live, work, and raise families in States with no State income tax. The State and local sales tax deduction is particularly important to those in my home State of Florida and nine other States because it gives every taxpayer the opportunity to deduct State sales tax from his Federal tax bill, something that other higher- tax States have enjoyed for some time. This provision is set to expire in 3 weeks. While I will continue to work to make the State and local sales tax deduction permanent, this bill extends the provision for an additional year, which is an important step forward for fairness.

The bill also extends several tax incentives to enhance the affordability of higher education, including tax-deferred education savings accounts and tax credits for post-secondary education. It allows all taxpayers to deduct up to $4,000 of higher education expenses, which will help more students go to college.

For teachers, the tax bill extends an important above-the-line deduction to help them contain the costs of out-of-pocket classroom expenses such as books, supplies, and computer equipment. We all know that our hardworking educators are covering for some of our neediest students, and this bill lets them keep the tax deductibility of their generosity.

In an effort to encourage savings and stable retirement security, this tax bill allows lower-income families that contribute to individual retirement accounts and pension plans to continue receiving a Federal match in the form of an income tax credit for the first $2,000 of annual contributions. This encourages families to save and plan for their own retirement. While we were unable as a body to settle on a Social Security reform plan, surely we can all agree that encouraging low-income families to save for retirement and giving them the tools to do so is a sound economic policy.

Our bill freezes the rate on capital gains and dividends and prevents an increase of the tax burden on 24 million families. It is imperative that we extend this tax relief so our economy will continue on its upward track.

New data released at the start of December show that our economy continues to strengthen and grow. The Labor Department reported that employers added 215,000 jobs in November, after adding 44,000 in October and 17,000 in September in the wake of devastating hurricanes.

The jobless rate remains unchanged at 5 percent. The economy grew at an annual rate of 4.3 percent in the third quarter, much stronger than expected.

Forecasters' outlooks for coming months are upbeat as well. November's increase in payroll, the largest since July, was broad- based. Construction employment rose by 37,000. Employment in professional and technical services rose by 22,000. Health care employment rose by 20,000 jobs. Manufacturers added 11,000 jobs last month following an increase of 15,000 in October.

The most recent Commerce Department report shows overall consumer spending increased at a 4.2 percent annual rate, exceeding expectations. Purchases of nondurable goods surged 3.6 percent, exceeding expectations. Housing spending came in at 8.4 percent. Business investment spending rose at 8.8 percent, exceeding expectations.

Obviously, the current tax policy of this Congress has encouraged economic growth, and to raise taxes now would close the door of opportunity that is open for so many today.

Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a substitute bill.

While we often hear Democrats decry tax relief, they have decided to offer a substitute that extends many of the same tax provisions as this underlying bill does, but let us look at who they left out.

The Democratic substitute does not extend an income tax credit for low-income families who contribute to individual retirement accounts, IRAs, and pension plans. This hurts low-income families who are struggling to save for retirement, people who are doing the right things to prepare for their future rather than solely depending on the government to do it for them.

The Democratic substitute does not extend enhanced small business depreciation expensing, so it increases taxes on small businesses, the very engines of innovation and growth and employment in this country.

The Democratic substitute does not include an extension of the reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. Without this extension, 24 million families will see a tax increase, including 7 million seniors who have benefited an average of $1,200 annually from that change. At a time when concern is growing about foreign investment in the United States, the Democratic substitute throws up barriers to Americans investing in America.

The Democratic substitute does include a tax increase on families and small businesses to pay for the bill. Many of these individuals are small businesses who do much of the hiring and buying in this economy.

The Democratic substitute bill leaves behind small businesses, omits low-income savers, and hurts families and seniors. At a time when home heating bills are rising and local property taxes are growing, why would the Democratic substitute take even more from the wallets and purses and piggy banks of the American taxpayer?

Mr. Speaker, the Republican tax reforms of 2001, 2003 and 2004 have created jobs, strengthened our economy, and increased Federal revenues in the process. They quantifiably aided in shortening and curtailing the severity of the recession of 2000 and 2001. They buoyed the economy through major terrorist attacks, devastating natural disasters, and a global war on terrorism. Now is not the time to increase taxes on the American people. Failure to pass this bill would result in higher taxes on seniors, savers, small businesses, and farmers. We must continue the policies that grow our economy and keep our tax bills from rising.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the underlying bill, the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

I would remind the gentleman that AMT relief is not in our package because it passed yesterday in the House by a vote of 414-4. That is why it is not in this package, because it passed yesterday.

We all talk about what we do here in Washington as it relates to the economy. The bottom line is that the economy is doing quite well because Americans are out there working hard every day. A lot of them are getting up before the sun comes up and not getting home until the sun goes down, bringing in food and fiber from our fields, manufacturing the devices that we take for granted each and every day in our manufacturing facilities, and working hard in an expanding and robust services economy, going into classrooms, going into hospitals, building houses that are part of the American Dream for more and more Americans. In fact, a record number of Americans now have achieved that piece of the American Dream through homeownership.

So it is ordinary Americans doing every day what they do best that is allowing this economy to move forward, and our role in that is to create the climate that allows them to maximize that opportunity, to put in place policies that keep inflation in check, keep interest rates low, and reduce the tax burden in their lives.

Today, more corporations pay dividends than at any other time. In fact,

there has been a 69 percent increase in S&P 500 companies that pay dividends. It is not only wealthy people that are benefiting from dividend taxes being cut and the corresponding increase in companies paying dividends. In fact, it typically is your retirees who are owning those stocks that they have invested in their whole lives that are paying the dividends to supplement their retirement income.

Prior to us changing that policy, the number of companies paying dividends over the last several years had actually gone down by 45 percent; and since the change in the tax that lowered the dividend tax, it went up almost 70 percent. That is a clear indication that what we did here in that small policy changed behavior in the business world to the benefit of all Americans: poor Americans, seniors, middle class, professionals, people who make six figures, people who make five figures. Everybody benefited from that. In fact, disproportionately, seniors benefited from that.

Everybody benefits from the fact that unemployment is now at 5 percent. That is indisputable. Would we like to see it go lower? Of course. Would we like to put policies in place that do that? Of course. Does raising taxes on the American people help lower the unemployment rate? I do not think so. Perhaps some on the other side of the aisle would disagree.

More Americans own stock today than ever before. This is not a class- warfare argument: 91 million individuals own stock in America. This bill puts in place a policy that encourages more Americans to invest in America. That, I believe, is sound economic policy.

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

Addressing the gentleman's concerns, yesterday 414 Members of the House voted for AMT relief. I am unclear which piece of that the gentleman is referring to that the Democrats had that paid for that as it relates to that. And the gentleman, in reference to his concern about the deficit, which is legitimate and shared by all of us about the growth of the deficit, failed to point out that the deficit has gone down over $100 billion in the last year. The size of the U.S. deficit dropped $100 billion based on the strength of the economy.

And finally, to the gentleman's point, he illustrated and spoke very clearly and directly about the Democratic intentions with regard to tax policy. They want to pick and choose the winners in American society, and we want everyone, everyone on equal footing to have the opportunity to achieve their piece of the American dream. We do not propose to pick winners and losers in economic policy and tax policy. We say everybody has got a shot at making the most of their opportunities in this country. Everybody has got a shot at paying less in taxes on capital gains. Everybody has got a shot at paying less in taxes on dividends that are paid by companies that support all Americans. Everybody has got an opportunity to go to college through the tax incentives that are in there for higher education opportunities. Everybody has got an opportunity to achieve home ownership through economic policies that keep interest rates low and inflation in check. That is the difference, an opportunity for each and every individual, according to their own merits and their own hard work, and their own character and their own ability to get out there every day to do it. And the other side's proposal to pick and choose the winners in our society.

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

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

Recognizing that volume does not always make up for sound policy, I would just pose the question as to why the Democratic substitute leaves out many of the people that the gentleman purported to speak for. The Democratic substitute does not include the savers credit for low income families, those low income families who are contributing to IRAs and pension plans, scrimping and saving every day, every week, every month to put aside money to prepare for their own retirement, to

prepare for their own retirement security so that they are not solely dependent on the government. Their substitute is silent on that point.

Why are they silent on the point of assistance for small businesses, allowing them to increase section 179 expensing so that they can get that new piece of equipment, add the new line, which means more employees, more growth, more purchasing and a better economic ripple effect in the community? Why do you leave out small businesses along with your low income savers?

Why do you leave out the part that impacts domestic manufacturers who finance sales of large equipment to foreign customers?

We hear an awful lot of concern about outsourcing. Here you have American-based companies doing everything they can to trade in an increasingly complex globalized economy, and you leave them out of your substitute.

Why do you leave out the parts that deal with capital gains and dividends? Why is it only about the wealthy and not about every one of those 91 million Americans who own stock, who are trying to invest in America, who understand that markets offer them an opportunity to grow and create opportunities that they may not have had otherwise?

Why are all of those 91 million Americans who participate in our capital market so bad? Why are they such awful people that they ought to be singled out and excluded from the tax policy that you have created?

Why do you leave out the tax credits for cleaning up brownfield sites? That is something that I have always thought was the cornerstone of the Democratic Party, cleaning up our environment. It is certainly something that we are proud of our record on with Teddy Roosevelt and our conservation effort. We believe that you can use the Tax Code to encourage businesses to go into areas that formerly were environmentally damaged sites and clean them up and create jobs and opportunity in otherwise blighted areas. This is an issue that impacts disproportionately urban areas. Why would we leave them out? The Democratic substitute is silent on these points.

It is important that we move forward together with sound economic policies that encourage people to invest and save and be a part of this ever complicated globalized economy, not pick and choose the winners and single out individual cases of success to be punished, which is what their bill seeks to do.

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

I have one remaining speaker as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate here has been consumed by the discussion of capital gains and dividends, and that is a big part of this and that is appropriate.

But the AMT relief component, which has been the source of much recent debate, we dealt with yesterday. We dealt with it on a vote of 414-4, overwhelming, bipartisan, on the suspension calendar, which I will remind Members under the rule, requires a two-thirds vote to pass. It is out of here. The AMT relief bill moved through here in an expeditious manner on a bipartisan basis.

What this bill does is provide continued assistance for those people who are saving to go to college. Middle- and low-income students, this is their shot at going to college. Assistance for those who are saving for retirement, seniors, low income, saving through an IRA and a pension plan for retirement. Ten States that do not have a State income tax that want the same tax treatment that high-tax States have, this expires in 3 weeks unless we pass the bill. Just one of several important components in this tax relief package.

It is vitally important that we pass this and not allow taxes to go up 3 weeks from now on those 10 States, not allow teachers to lose their deductibility on classroom supplies, not allow low-income seniors and savers to be punished under the Democratic plan.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to support the rule and support the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House vacate the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1400 to the end that the Chair may put the question on the motion de novo.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. 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.R. 4297.