Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I came down here to talk about taxes, but let me first talk about Texas. All Americans must unite in the war against terrorism and we did that. We passed the PATRIOT Act. We provided resources for the Department of Homeland Security. But now we discover that the war on terrorism is a war against Democrats. This will divide America, and that is good for the terrorists. How many Americans may lose their lives because we cannot empower the Department of Homeland Security because it uses that power to pervert American democracy? Only an honest release of the tapes, only an honest approach will save the Department of Homeland Security and save only the Americans that it can save.

Now let us talk about taxes. The Bush recession continues. Republicans continue to use their political power to adopt job-killer policies which means the Bush recession will continue to continue. The most obvious job-killer policy is the dividend exclusion provision included in the Senate tax bill passed last week. Every major tax provision has both positive and negative effects on our economy, and Republican after Republican has come down here to talk about the rather modest economic benefits of excluding dividends from taxation. Democrats, though, have not used our time to respond and to point out the much larger offsetting negative effects of this provision. The reason for that is that we Democrats have been so incensed at a policy that provides 50 percent of the tax benefits to 1 percent of the population and gives 1 percent of the benefits to 50 percent of the population.

We have been so incensed that the Republicans would launch a class war attack against working families. We have been so incensed that they would come up with a policy designed to allow the richest in America to buy the new $350,000 Mercedes Benz, the Maybach, and pass the cost on to the sons and daughters of working Americans as they build the deficit. We have been so incensed about that that we forgot to mention, oh, by the way, it is a job killer.

Let us talk about that. We could of course drop currency from helicopters, $25 billion a year, $50 billion a year, and that would have some positive economic effects; but it would have a much larger negative economic effect because it would raise interest rates and it would deprive us of the opportunity to help States. They will have to discharge teachers, law enforcement officers, and others; and those folks will lose their jobs. So even helicopters dropping cash has some positive effect, but a larger offsetting effect.

The offsetting and negative effect of this dividend exclusion is worse because at least the people who catch the money from the helicopter will probably go out and spend it on necessities of life, whereas the dividend exclusion is aimed at the folks most likely to buy foreign luxury imports, which does not provide jobs for Americans.

The dividend exclusion was justified on the idea that it was going to build up corporate treasuries because people would invest in stock and then the corporations would go out and buy plants and equipment. This was proven to be a phony ruse because under pressure to bring down the price tag of the dividend exclusion, the White House has now written a version that obviously will not cause any additional corporate investment. What does that provision do? It provides half-tax exclusion for dividends paid in 2003; full exclusion for 2004, 2005, 2006, and then back to a full taxation of dividends starting in 2007 and future years.

What will that mean? First, all the dividends corporations were going to pay out this month and in the next 8

months will not be paid; so we will have a slump in expenditures by those who receive dividends. Why? Because they can wait until January 1 of next year, pay the dividend, and have it be completely tax exempt. So we start with the decline even in the amount of dividends paid, but come 2004 we will see huge dividend payments. That money comes out of corporate treasuries. It reduces the amount that corporations have available for investment of plant and equipment; and if they have any money after 2004, they will pay it all out in 2005, 2006. No corporate investment; huge dividends.

But it is argued that this dividend exclusion is going to encourage investment in stock. If it had been a permanent exclusion, maybe that was a possibility. A lot of people buy municipal bonds because they get tax-free income. But who would buy municipal bonds if their income was going to become fully taxable in just a few years? Who is going to buy corporate stock because they want dividend exclusion when the dividend exclusion is going to expire in just a few years? So there will be a huge outlay of corporate funds from corporate treasuries that will not be available to buy plant and equipment. But there will be no investment in corporations caused by this provision because nobody is going to buy a new issuance of stock if in just a few years we are going to be back to the old tax law.

The Bush recession continues. Job-killer policies like that contained in the Senate bill will ensure that the Bush recession will continue to continue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to five outstanding members of our law enforcement and firefighter communities. Bradley C. Thompson, Michael Jensen, Jim Pollock, Brian Brown, and Edward Lee Teter will be honored tonight at the Valley Community Legal Foundation of the San Fernando Valley Bar Association ``Law Day Dinner'' honoring ``Heroes in Law Enforcement.'' Each of these fine men have dedicated their lives to the service of the San Fernando Valley and leave a legacy of heroism for all to admire.

Deputy Bradley C. Thompson of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department distinguished himself last December when he fearlessly rescued a driver from a burning vehicle. Deputy Thompson observed a passenger van engulfed in flames on December 10 and immediately responded. Bradley selflessly proceeded into the fire and ultimately freed the driver, undoubtedly saving his life. His heroism is truly admirable.

Los Angeles Police Detective Michael Jensen has excelled at his job since joining the force in 1972. Michael ascended to the rank of Detective in North Hollywood. In that role, Officer Jensen has become a mentor for the division and has solved many critical cases. Michael continues to lead his fellow officers in the Valley and has proven to be an exceptional asset to our law enforcement community.

City of San Fernando Police Detective Jim Pollock began solving narcotics cases in 1979. He has become a vital liaison between local law enforcement and federal police agencies such as the FBI, ATF, and DEA. Detective Pollock was nationally recognized in 1996 for his efforts to dismantle a large interstate drug trafficking organization. Jim is invaluable to our communities efforts to improve the lives of San Fernando Valley residents.

California Highway Patrol officer Brian Brown began assignment in the West Valley in 1998. Over the past five years, Officer Brown has served the Ventura Freeway corridor with bravery. This past January, Brian happened upon a serious accident involving a burning car that had left the roadway. Officer Brown made several attempts to free the driver from the perilous wreck. For his efforts, Brian has been rightly nominated for the Medal of Valor.

Los Angeles City Fire Fighter Edward Lee Teter has served Pacoima from Fire Station 98 since 1982. His engineering skills and leadership have been tremendous assets to the Fire Department and the East Valley. Ed has also volunteered his time and efforts to help rebuild an orphanage in Tijuana, Mexico. Mr. Teter mentors many firefighters in his station and was recently recognized as ``Officer of the Year'' for his unselfish service.

Mr. Speaker, please join me in commending these fine individuals on their exemplary work for San Fernando Valley residents. Each of them has set a standard for leadership and dedication we can all aspire to. It is my privilege to join the San Fernando Valley Bar Association in recognizing our wealth of outstanding police and fire officers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the Democratic 5 minutes after the Republican.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a job killer. It ensures the continuation of the Bush recession.

Now, some will benefit from this. In fact, those who earn over $1 million a year will average more than $93,000. That is almost enough to be a Bush Pioneer, if you give $100,000 to the Bush campaign.

What has happened here in this debate is that the minor economic benefits of this proposal have been talked about extensively, but the offsetting and much larger economic detriments have not been discussed as extensively. Because my colleagues on the Democratic side are so incensed at how unfair this bill is, we have not had enough time to talk about what a job killer it is.

What does this bill do? Yes, it does put some wealthy individuals in a position where they can buy the new $350,000 Mercedes. It is an expensive car. It is a new car. It is the latest toy. And that is where a big chunk, along with similar consumption items, foreign consumption items, where a significant part of this tax bill's result is going.

It is true that some of it will be invested by the wealthy. Some of it will stimulate domestic demand. So there is some positives of the $550 billion. It is hard to find $550 billion that does not have some positives.

But what about the negative? 100 percent of the cost of this bill, and as the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) explained, that is over $1 trillion, gets sucked out of our capital markets. What does this mean? It means that the over 2.5 million Americans who have already lost their job in the Bush recession will not find new jobs, because when small businesses in my district go to borrow money, the banker will say no, money is not available. We lent it instead to the U.S. Treasury, who has an excellent record of paying it back.

How are small businesses supposed to get the capital they need to expand? They are not going to be able to get it from our capital markets, because $1 trillion is going to be sucked out to pay for this deficit.

It is not typical for me to come to this floor and criticize one of my California colleagues and how they run their office, but I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), you must give your staff a raise, because they have come up with a more regressive tax proposal than the Bush administration. They have done more for the Pioneers.

Look at this. This is amazingly regressive, with virtually nothing going to half of Americans, and $93,000 going to the very wealthy. How do they achieve that? Let us look at the next chart. They come up with an interesting approach.

The tax provisions that help middle-class families cease to have any effect in 2007, whereas the provisions that are responsible for the millionaires getting $93,000 each each year continue for quite some time. In fact, this bill does not have a single provision that helps middle-class families that continues in effect past 2007.

So, let us summarize this bill:

Benefits in 2008 for future years that help middle-class families, zero.

Benefits to 50 percent of all Americans from the dividend provisions in this bill, 1 percent.

Benefits to the top 1 percent coming from the dividend provisions and capital gains provisions of this bill, over 50 percent.

Having a staff that can put together a bill that is more regressive than the White House was able to put together, priceless.

Yes, RepubliCard. Some things, campaign contributions just cannot buy. For everything else, there is RepubliCard. RepubliCard. The country club will accept nothing less.

Also, finally, do not forget to apply for the Deficit Express Card, now with a $12 trillion credit limit, because we will indeed have a $12 trillion national debt with the budget adopted by the majority party. Deficit Express Card, don't leave the House without it.

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I will try to drag out my speech as long as necessary so that the chairman's speakers will have time to arrive on this floor.

Mr. Chairman, small is big. Nanotechnology is very small, roughly the size of a molecule, and very small is going to be very big. Nanotechnology really encompasses virtually all of the cutting edge science that will pretty much determine our future this century, because it includes what is being done in genetic engineering, what is likely to be done in computer engineering, and it includes the molecular manufacturing dealing with a host of new products created molecule by molecule.

Nanotechnology offers the possibility, I think the probability, of solving most of the problems that we wrestle with here on the floor such as energy and health care. But if it is able to do that, it will also create even more challenging problems.

Nanotechnology will operate below the surface for quite some time until the basic technological and scientific challenges are met. But once we are able to manipulate matter at the molecular level, there will be an explosive impact on our society.

The last such explosion was the development of nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Einstein and others wrote to President Roosevelt in 1939, describing the possibility of nuclear fission, and in less than a decade we as a species had to deal with the realities of nuclear weapons not only in the hands of America but other countries as well. That is why it is so important that this bill includes not only scientific research, but also every possible effort to deal with the societal implications that arise from this technology.

I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the ranking member, for the bipartisan approach and the very reasoned approach taken during the markup of this bill to make sure the bill includes mechanisms to examine the societal impacts.

I bring just one of those impacts to your attention, and that is the creation of new levels of intelligence, whether that is done through what is sometimes referred to as wet nanotechnology, that is to say, genetic engineering; or whether it is done through what is sometimes called dry nanotechnology, computer engineering. Either of those two approaches may well create levels of intelligence that may be our protector, may be our competitor, or may simply regarded us as pets, or it may change our definition of what it is to be a human being.

Before we confront questions of that type, it is important that this bill, as it does, provides mechanisms for us to get input from a wide range of society because while these issues will not confront us this decade, it will take us more than a decade to see how we can deal with them.

I see that other speakers have arrived so my effort to stall has been successful, and I want to yield back my time just after I make one comment, and that is I understand that there are four amendments that will be offered today. I do not know if they will all be offered, but each of them is designed to enhance the bill further by having us take a look at the societal implications of nanotechnology, and I would hope that each such amendment would be perhaps accepted without a rollcall vote so that this bill can move over to the other body in the best possible form.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I rise in support of this amendment. It is my understanding that the amendment does not limit the societal impact that is going to be evaluated, but simply specifies that among the things to be looked at are the toxicological and the environmental.

I do not know whether the gentleman from Texas would want me to yield to him so that he could further explain whether his amendment would limit or perhaps just identify certain areas for such review.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the bill does a good job of dealing with the societal impacts. This amendment would make it better.

I just returned from spending 2 days at the conference of the Foresight Institute in Palo Alto devoted exclusively to looking at the societal impacts of nanotechnology. There I had extensive discussions with Eric Drexler who coined the term ``nano- technology,'' and got to meet the people from the Singularity Institute who are focusing on the implications of artificial intelligence.

One good aspect of this bill that I should point out is Michael Creighton's book ``Prey'' is identified with nanotechnology; and, in fact, whether or not what he describes in that book is possible, the bill already identifies six standards to be included in the safety standards for the research done in this technology. Following even some of those standards would be enough to put ``Prey'' to rest.

So the bill does have some excellent aspects to it. I think it could be enhanced by the amendment from the gentleman from Texas. I would also point out that the bill calls for societal impacts to be reviewed as part and parcel of scientific research so that when it is practical to fund scientific research, that the societal impacts are reviewed.

The bill also, and I think this is important, would allow us to look at the societal impact separately and prior to the time when it is appropriate to fund practical scientific studies. So it may be that we are not funding a particular type of technology because it is not ripe, but we do need to look at the societal impacts of that technology even before it is ripe to develop it.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to being part of the process as this bill moves to the other body. I think it is a bill that covers the societal impacts, and the amendment would only make it better.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of this amendment. I think getting all of the citizen input possible is called for. I know that it has been discussed that perhaps the citizen panels on telecommunications did not create sufficient community interest. I for one found Tauzin-Dingell to be boring. I am not sure that my constituents found telecommunications to be a reason to drive long distances to participate in citizen panels. I think the issues that nanotechnology brings before us are simply going to create more citizen involvement and that the citizen panels here will be quite important.

Among the questions that this technology will raise, when I took the CPA test, they would not let me bring a calculator. A decade from now, chips will be implanted in people's brains. Can they take the CPA test? Do we have to disable the chip? I do not know. Today Shaquille O'Neil is the most dominating force on the basketball court, but what if parents decide that they want genes moved this way and that way so that their son or daughter could be even taller, even bigger? Will this person be eligible to participate in the NBA, and if so, will the Lakers get to draft that person? I do not know, but it strikes me as more interesting than much of telecommunications, and I know there are Members of this body very interested in telecommunications, and I praise them for that involvement.

The entire issue of artificial intelligence and what happens when a computer first asks us for the minimum wage, I do not know how we are going to react; but I think that these are questions we are going to confront in the next few decades. They are questions that should involve all of society. They involve the very issue of what it means to be a human being. They will arouse a level of theological debate that we did not face in telecommunications; and for those reasons I think that even if panels were not successful on that issue, they will be quite interesting on it. Before we change what it is to be human, we ought to ask humans what they think about.

I yield to the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this shows the kind of bipartisanship and camaraderie that has been achieved under the chairman and ranking member on the Committee on Science, and I salute it.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 832, the Permanent Partners Immigration Act would allow US citizens and lawful permanent residents, who are in a permanent partnership, to sponsor their partner for immigration purposes in the same way that opposite-sex spouses now can. This proposal would also hold these partners to the same legal commitments of a legal marriage, in that if a person is found to have entered into a fraudulent permanent partnership for the purpose of obtaining a visa for another person, they will be subject to the same five year maximum imprisonment, or $250,000 maximum fine, or both.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, this legislation would affect the status of thousands of couples who currently are separated or risk permanent separation from the ones they love. Fourteen countries-- including Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Israel, the United Kingdom and South Africa--recognize same sex partnerships for purposes of immigration.

I have co-sponsored H.R. 832 because I strongly believe in its purposes and I am confident that its text will be fine tuned as it goes through the legislative process. I called upon the Congressional leadership to begin that process.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

I have been trying to figure out this process because normally an organization that works only 2 days a week should be able to get its work done without working till 3 in the morning, and so if the House was run competently we would not be here till 3 in the morning. So I thought it might be incompetence, and then I realized, this is chicanery masquerading as incompetence.

The reason we are here late at night is because what we are doing would not stand the light of day. We are creating a system where our friends on the other side of this building can say they are only voting for a $350 billion tax cut. We over here can say it is a $550 billion tax cut, but ultimately, the resolution tells us that we are on our way to a $1.2 trillion tax cut.

The plan is simple. They will pass the most obnoxious provisions of their $350 billion tax cut over there. It will go to conference. It will come back as 550. It will be passed on both sides by their majority vote, and that will be the portion of the tax cut loaded exclusively to the most wealthy.

Then, having cut the taxes in an unbalanced way, then another tax bill will be prepared, including the least egregious provisions, and they will be packaged in such a way that they can pass without a filibuster on the other side. If only the light of day would shine and the country knew what we were doing.

Mr. Speaker, this budget resolution is designed to enrich the rich at the expense of economic growth for all Americans. It means larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, larger trade deficits. It will take capital away from business investment while underinvesting in education and infrastructure.

Senate tax cut, $350 billion. House tax cut, $550 billion. Ultimate tax cut, $1.2 trillion. Knowing you can pass the entire cost to future generations, priceless.

Allowing corporations to escape American taxes just by renting a hotel room in the Bahamas, $4 billion. Cutting veterans benefits, $6 billion. Cutting education, law enforcement, et cetera, $168 billion. Setting up a $1.2 trillion tax cut while allowing Senators to pretend it is only $350 billion, priceless. Republicard, and get the new Deficit Express Card with the $12 billion credit limit.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I was just down here because the next bill is one I am managing dealing with Cyprus and international relations; but in a former life, I headed the second largest tax agency in the country, and that is why I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time this evening.

This resolution calls for a fundamental review of our tax system; but no speaker has mentioned the most unfair, egregious, and unproductive tax of all, and that is the debt tax. Tomorrow, we will bring to this floor a budget resolution which will put us on target and may even be honest enough to express this in exact numbers, to tell us that we are on target for an $11 trillion Federal debt. Imagine the effect that has on our economy. Imagine the effect that has on interest rates and on what our children will be paying one way or another. Surely we should close the Bermuda loophole.

But what concerned me most was when the majority leader himself came down here and addressed the issue of those U.S. corporations that want to contract and do business with our Federal Government while renting a hotel room in the Cayman Islands and claiming to live there. He came here to justify and protect and court and woo those tax trader corporations back to the United States with a plan; and that plan, as the gentleman, I believe from Washington, pointed out is to tell working people that when they buy a $1 can of cola, they should pay an extra 60 cents so that the corporations do not have to pay anything so that they can come back from the Cayman Islands. I welcome in depth congressional hearings on such proposals.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 165.

Mr. Speaker, let me first provide some background. On July 20, 1974, thousands of Turkish troops invaded and occupied 37 percent of the island, which since that time has been separated by a green line, actually a line of barbwire, analogized by the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) to the Berlin Wall. They created the Northern Republic of Cypress in 1975 and, indeed, recognized only by Ankara. Nicosia today is the only divided capital in the world.

Today Turkey maintains 35,000 troops in Northern Cypress and that area is one of the most highly militarized areas of the world, according to former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali.

Eighty thousand Turkish settlers were installed after that invasion and occupy properties forcibly vacated by Greek Cypriot refugees, people who had lived there for generations. And now we have 200,000 refugees and over 1,600 people missing since that long-ago invasion, including five American citizens. In Northern Cypress there are a few Greek Cypriots. They are, in effect, locked into enclaves. They are denied basic human rights such as freedom of movement, access to education, religious freedom, or political rights.

The deterioration of the situation in northern Cypress must be contrasted to the prosperity of the southern part of that island ruled by the official government of the Republic of Cypress. That government has done so well that they have met the EU's strict standards for administration and will soon be admitted. Those standards include tough limits on the amounts of public debt, limits that, after this budget resolution comes to the floor tomorrow, the United States will not be able to meet. The economic hardship on the northern part of the island and the competition with settlers from Turkey has caused the exodus of the majority of the Turkish Cypriot population.

On September 30, 2002, the EU's enlargement commissioner stated that Cypress complies with all political and economic conditions for membership and that the government-controlled areas of Cypress enjoy an atmosphere of economic prosperity and political freedom, allowing its people to enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.

Cypress will become a member of the EU in a few weeks, and the Cypriot government will sign an accession agreement and formally join, I believe, on April 16 of this year.

The recent failure of the U.N.'s peace talks must be blamed on Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash. The U.N. plan offered a wide range of autonomy, a weak central government, a demilitarized Cypriot state, and a continuing, if greatly reduced, Turkish and Greek presence to guarantee the safety of the respective communities. But Denktash was not willing to put this plan to a referendum. Notwithstanding the fact that his own people, the Turkish Cypriots would have overwhelmingly supported this plan, a great opportunity was lost.

Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse this resolution and in later comments would want to detail its terms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), a gentleman who has been a leader on issues of foreign policy and human rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), a distinguished former ambassador who is also a congressional Representative.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has shown her dedication to human rights and impressed us all with her expertise on Hellenic issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), my favorite rocket scientist.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important resolution. It expresses our support for a peaceful, just and lasting resolution of the Cyprus problem. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), the chairman, for sponsoring this resolution and to commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler), the ranking Democratic member, for his leadership on foreign policy issues. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the resolution.

I fully endorse the sentiment expressed in this resolution that Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot parties should renew their efforts to find a settlement to the Cyprus problem on the basis of the U.N. Secretary General's framework for a comprehensive settlement, notwithstanding the lamentable failure of the most recent round of diplomacy.

It is also important that this body reaffirm its own commitment to giving any necessary assistance to help achieve a just and durable settlement of the Cyprus problem, and that is, again, called for by this resolution.

In particular, this resolution expresses the Congress' very strong regret that Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Denktash rejected the comprehensive settlement offered by the Secretary General and denied the Turkish Cypriots the opportunity to determine their own future, because he refused to offer the settlement proposal as a referendum. I urge the parties to return to the table at the earliest possible time and to complete negotiations on the Secretary General's plan.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. has a clear and direct interest in solving the Cyprus problem. Its resolution would offer peace and prosperity to all of the peoples of Cyprus and would bring lasting stability to Greek- Turkish relations on NATO's southern flank.

It is, therefore, vital, Mr. Speaker, that this body go on record uncompromisingly in support of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I see that I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I hope this amendment passes. If it does not, I will be offering an amendment that goes just half as far as this one and still allows Turkey to obtain substantial benefits for its limited aid to us at this time.

Keep in mind, Turkey will get tremendous benefits during the Iraqi rebuilding program. Her contractors are well positioned to obtain billions of dollars in contracts. Keep in mind that we are controlling the exuberance of the Kurds, who otherwise would be waging war against Saddam's forces more effectively; but we are restraining them because of the request of Turkey.

Therefore, we have already done a lot for our friends in Turkey. We do not need to provide aid that they have not asked for.

Mr. Speaker, we are united in our prayers for the success and safety of our men and women in combat. The powers that be have brought to this floor a highly divisive budget resolution. This budget resolution is designed to enrich the rich at the expense of economic growth for all America. It means larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, larger trade deficits. It will take capital out of the private sector and away from business investments while underinvesting in education and infrastructure.

But I rise to address another point, another flaw in this budget resolution; and I will do so with an analogy to a credit card advertisement that we are all familiar with.

Allowing corporations to get out of paying American taxes just by renting a hotel room in the Bahamas, $4 billion; ending taxes on all dividends, $385 billion; ending the estate tax even on the largest estates, $662 billion; knowing Members can pass the entire cost of all of this to future generations, priceless. RepubliCard, it is everything the super rich want it to be.

Also available, the new Deficit Express Card soon with a $4.2 trillion credit limit. The Deficit Express Card, do not leave the House without it.

Mr. Chairman, both Republican budget resolutions, the leadership resolution and the Toomey alternative, give us high deficits, high interest rates, and increased trade deficits. They take capital out of the capital markets and make it unavailable for private business investment, thus resulting in slower economic growth.

Now, to sell anything that bad, one needs a commercial. This morning I brought such a commercial to the floor, but marketing experts tell us a commercial requires repetition. So here, once again, is a commercial on behalf of both Republican budget resolutions:

Allowing corporations to skip out on their American taxes just by renting a hotel room in the Bahamas: $4 billion. Ending taxes on dividends: $385 billion. Ending the estate tax, even for the largest estates: $662 billion. Knowing you can pass the entire cost to future generations: Priceless.

RepubliCard: It is everything the super-wealthy want it to be.

Also available, the Deficit Express Card, now with a $4.2 trillion credit limit. The Deficit Express Card: Don't leave the House without it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his generous yielding of time and want to focus on the fourth amendment that will come before this House dealing with venue shopping.

Most of this bill and most of the controversy is over individuals going bankrupt, but it is also important to the economy of this country that we have corporate bankruptcies run effectively. What my amendment would do is say that if a group of corporations is going bankrupt, they should file their case where they are located. So if, for example, Enron, a mainstay of the Houston community, goes bankrupt, they should file the case in Houston. That way the many small businesses that do business with that company can go to their local court and hope to collect some of what is owed to them.

Just as importantly, it means that the place where the corporation will file its case is set in advance. They realize we are going to go bankrupt; we are in our hometown. Imagine if in some basketball game, as we have in the upcoming March Madness, they did not have to take the referees that were assigned, but rather, one team was allowed to search the whole country and pick the squad of referees that they preferred. We would not end up with fair basketball games.

That is what we have in the area of corporate bankruptcy. Enron was able to scour the country, looking for a bankruptcy court that met the needs of the lawyers involved, met the needs of the executives in control. They went thousands of miles from Houston. They made it almost impossible for local small businesses to even have their case put before the court. They were able to scour the whole country for a forum, a venue that met their interests.

What was their interest? High retention bonuses, high lawyer fees. So we have a circumstance where Enron can scour the country and pick whichever court they feel is going to approve tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in cash payments to the executives.

Fees of $500 an hour to the lawyers involved and hundreds of dollars to the associate lawyers, hundreds to the paralegals. How does this operate from the court's perspective? We have asked our government agencies to behave more like businesses, and they are. They are looking for market share. They are looking for more business, and every bankruptcy court in this country knows that it can get the cases, the juicy cases, the Enron, if only they are hospitable to the company and its lawyers that are declaring bankruptcy.

Today, it is one Eastern State or two that curry favor with the giant corporations going bankrupt. Tomorrow, it may be a Western State. It might be a Southern State. It may not be an entire State; it may be just one district court within that State, trying to gain market share by currying favor. The result is as crazy as if the referees were selected by one of the basketball teams.

I know that my amendment is going to be opposed more on the basis of what will make a particular Member of the other body happy, rather than what is good public policy. But let me warn this House, the competition for bankruptcy business has just begun; and the retention bonuses and fees approved for the Enron case may be just the beginning. Other districts will offer higher and higher retention bonuses, more and more liberal plans.

If Members voted for this bill in 1999, they voted for a bill that included a provision very much like my amendment. If the Members do not like the bill, and voted against it in 1999, they will probably be voting for the Democratic substitute, which includes a provision identical to my amendment. So virtually every Member will have voted for provisions on forum shopping. It is a good public policy. We have all voted or will vote for a bill that includes the provision. I think it is critical that we look past the politics and provide for efficient corporate bankruptcies.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I had a chance to address the House earlier thanks to the generous time allotment from the gentleman from Massachusetts.

This amendment really puts before us a question. Should we stick with a present system that is favorable to one or two jurisdictions because they have particularly demanding Members both perhaps in this House and certainly in the other House, or should we vote for our own States, for our own districts, and for the greater public interest? The question is where, when a corporation goes bankrupt, should they file their case. One would say, as this amendment says, file where the corporation is located, where the majority of its assets are located and if it is a group of corporations, where the largest of them is located. The present system has a different approach. That approach says that, with some careful planning, the corporation can file anywhere it wants to. If it happens to form a little shell subsidiary in this or that State, then they can file anywhere in that State.

What is the effect of that? It means that when Enron goes bankrupt, owing local businesses in Houston, they have to go to an east coast State to try to present their case. But worse than the inconvenience, this is a situation where referees are selected by one of the teams, and Enron is able to select the jurisdiction that provides for the largest attorney fees and the largest retention bonuses.

Of course the Court could decline to take the case, transfer it back to Houston. But instead, these bankruptcy courts are fighting for business. They are behaving like businesses. They are welcoming additional cases, providing additional fees to their particular courts, and they are not about to send a juicy case back to its legitimate at- home jurisdiction. I ask all Members to vote for this amendment when they come to the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

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

I would like to respond to the arguments but remind my colleagues when they come for a vote that they should vote for the interests of their own State and for their own constituents, and we should not send a bill to the other body just because we have created it so that one particular Senator will not object, one particular State will not be concerned. We need to pass the best public policy product we can from this House.

Now, what has happened under the present law is the beginning of an abomination. Right now, only 30 percent of the large corporations that have gone bankrupt have filed locally. Virtually none that filed thousands of miles away have been sent back to their locality, and for 70 percent of the large business bankruptcies, you have to go thousands of miles from where the company is headquartered.

Not only is this inconvenient, but it causes a race to the bottom. Today it may be Delaware allowing hundreds of millions of dollars of retention bonuses. Tomorrow it may be California outbidding Delaware for the bankruptcy business by providing more hundreds of millions of dollars of retention bonuses; not $500 per hour fees, but $1,000 fees. And to say that a district court can send the business back is like saying, I am going to walk into a McDonald's, and they are going to tell me that, in the interest of justice, I should go get a salad around the corner from another provider.

Once a court gets the business, they are not going to give it up, and that is why if we are going to have business bankruptcies proceed in a way that is fair to local creditors, fair to local employees and avoid a spiral to the bottom of larger and larger law fees, larger and larger retention bonuses, we need to tell the corporation that they must go to the bankruptcy court in their own local area. It is not a situation where one of the teams gets to pick the referees. That is not a fair system.

So far we have had only minor abominations, only $100 million, $200 million retention bonus packages approved. In the future, as my State fights with the State of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for business, maybe my State will approve larger bonuses.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to Members, come to the floor, vote for a sound policy that distributes the bankruptcy work to the place in which the large corporation goes bankrupt. Vote for the interests of your own home constituents. Vote for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.