Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his leadership, and I wanted to just expand on what was said.

President Bush in the State of the Union address, and then later on, made a comment that I strongly agree with, in principle, but not in the way he has put it into practice. The President said, ``See, I ran for office to solve problems, not to pass them onto future Presidents and future generations.''

That is with merit to say that. But what has he, in fact, done?

This is the budget outlook under the current Republican policies. And I want to call your attention to a couple of things, and I know it is something that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) raised before.

Virtually every Member of this body voted to put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox. The President said he would put it in a lockbox. But what he did not say is he would keep the key to that lockbox in his back pocket and if budget numbers look bad, he would open up to lockbox and borrow from it to make his deficit projections look smaller.

The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) pointed out that the deficit is so great under this administration that we could completely eliminate the Department of Education, the National Institute of Health, the National Park Service, transportation funding at the Federal level and a host of other programs, lock up the National Parks,

shut down all the research at the National Institute of Health, and we are still not out of deficit.

When the President and the leadership of the Republican party say we have a $400 billion deficit, what they are not telling you is we are borrowing hundreds of billions more from Social Security and Medicare. That debt is going to come due at precisely the time that the tax breaks these folks have passed expand.

Our friends would have you believe that Democrats want to raise taxes. That is not true. In fact, this party offered a number of constructive and responsible tax breaks. But what we do believe is we should not pass debt onto our kids.

Let us look at the debt we are putting on. You hear about all of $400 billion debt or $400 billion deficit or a $500 billion deficit, and the Republicans would have you believe, well, it is not so much. It is a percentage of gross domestic product. But the American people have more sense than that. The American people understand that even in Washington, D.C., $400 billion is a lot of money. And they also know that it adds up year after year after year.

Look at this chart. This chart shows the cumulative effects of the Bush deficit and the Republican Congress deficit, because make no mistake about it, the fiscal policies in play in this country right now are solely, solely the responsibility of the Republican majority because they control the House of Representatives, the Senate of the United States, and the Presidency. And their deficit adds up to $7 trillion more debt over the next 10 years. They will double, effectively double the debt in just 10 years. And that is a debt our children are going to have to pay. I would submit to you that this is not an economic policy. It is a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes are outlawed because they do not work, because you promise people things that they cannot deliver, and that is what this budget does. They would have you believe it is going to recover magically. The growth fairy will come save us.

I will state that in April I gave a speech, and I said we should be aware, and we should hope that the economy is going to recover because, quite frankly, if you give me 2 percent interest rates or any President 2 percent interest rates for a period of a couple of years, and if you pump in a trillion dollars of deficit spending, just like if Disney dads whip out the credit cards and buy their kids all kinds of treats, you will think the economy has gotten better. But the long-term cost of that short-term celebration will be paid by our children and that is not responsible. That is not conservative and that is not compassionate.

The American people deserve to know the truth. I applaud the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for being able to tell them the truth and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) who has been a leader on this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know how I am going to vote on this. Two weeks ago, I visited Walter Reed Hospital, and I met young soldiers who had double amputations, severe burns and head injuries that will be with them for life. Sending those soldiers into the field without adequate body armor, without armored Humvees, was inexcusable, if not criminal. We must act to protect those soldiers right now.

But, I say to my friends, I have yet to hear the supporters of this supplemental say how they will pay for it. I will tell you right now, you can possibly get my vote if you will answer that question. I have only 2 minutes, less now, but I would yield at least 30 seconds to anyone who is supporting this bill if they will tell us how you want the American people to pay for it, when we are closing veterans hospitals, when we are $600 billion in deficit every year, when our schools are falling apart, and we cannot rebuild our roads.

I yield 30 seconds to anyone who supports this bill to tell me how to pay for it.

Mr. Chairman, that is the problem. That is the problem. We want to make lots of promises, but we do not have leadership in the administration or in this body that will tell the American people the hard truth; what programs we have to cut, what taxes we have to raise, whether we will borrow from Social Security or whether we will pass the debt on to our children. That is the problem.

I am really sorry. We must support those troops. But they are fighting for

a democracy that owes it to its people to be honest with them, honest about the tough choices we must make. But we are not living up to that bargain, and it is a darn shame, because those kids deserve better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Washington for yielding me the time, and I thank my colleague also from the other side of the Cascade Mountain.

The reason I am concerned about this, since I represent Vancouver, Washington, we call it America's Vancouver, it is on the banks of the Columbia River, and it is down river from Hanford. For years, DOE has assured us that they had the cleanup under control. We have thousands of gallons of liquid waste in unlined single-wall tanks, and we were assured that they would not leak into the aquifer for hundreds of years. In fact, we have discovered already that there is nuclear material in that aquifer and that aquifer connects directly to the Columbia River.

The solution to our problems of disposing of radioactive waste is not to redefine them and say the problem's gone away because we came up with a new definition. That is essentially what the Department of Energy is asking to do, and I applaud my colleague for this motion. I thank the Chair of the committee for rejecting that.

So I am glad we are going to support this, but I would say this is troubling to me that the Department of Energy has even made this request because I think it raises questions about their good faith, that they believe that the solution to cleaning something up is to define that it is already clean and we do not have a problem. I urge the chairman of this committee to insist that such language not be allowed to exist in a final conference report and would urge my fellow colleagues, should that language somehow get in, to reject it strongly.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my great privilege to represent portions of Mount Rainier National Park and Mount St. Helen's National Monument. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

I personally know some of the people who work in these fine resources for the benefit of the American people. Our

national parks are truly great treasures of the people of not only our country but the entire world. The people who work in these parks are not there, for the most part, for the money. They are there because they value and cherish this resource.

I can tell Members, having spoken to some of these folks, that this move towards privatization has had a chilling effect on morale. Let me share two brief anecdotes not just germane to this issue but about the broad effect of privatization.

A dear friend of mine works for the U.S. Geological Service, and he told me that when he first began working for USGS he and his colleagues put in typically 60- 70- 80-hour work weeks, not getting paid overtime, just putting in personal time because they so cared about their mission. Indeed, when Mount St. Helen's erupted, many of the geologists who were there had taken vacation time on their own time to be there to study that danger, and some lost their lives in the disaster.

Last week, I was flying back here with a member of the civilian workforce who is in charge of safety at naval facilities. She told me that what surprised her most was how dedicated many of her employees were even as they faced privatization. But I also hear that it is only humanly natural, if one believes their job is soon to be put on the block, it is difficult to establish the institutional loyalty to put in that overtime, to develop the career path that will lead to the skilled and the trained and accomplished experienced workforce we need to staff our parks and other Federal agencies.

In the name of our dear love for these resources, I plead with the committee to make sure that we do not move forward with this privatization. I thank the sponsors of the amendment for withdrawing it, and I will vigorously oppose the amendment should it reemerge.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished chairman and dispute the comments of the gentleman from Indiana, and particularly the material he provided to his colleagues which said do not spend money for NIH panda research in China. In fact, the research has to do with population dynamics, the pressure on an ecosystem that supports the pandas, and the development of a population, including how those people can provide fuel and food for their children. It is a study of pandas; it is a study of human development.

There is a fundamental nexus between environmental quality, human health, and population pressures that impacts the world profoundly. The gentleman fails to recognize that and deceives his colleagues with the title of his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending my colleague from California. I think he raised a number of good points, which is why I strongly have supported reform of the estate tax. We need to do it to support small farms and small business. The question is, how do we go about it? My belief is that the majority party proposal here will benefit the extremely wealthy but will not necessarily help the small businesses and farmers who would benefit more, quite frankly, from the Pomeroy substitute. We need to remember, and it is caveat emptor here, that the Republican bill does not allow for a step-up in basis and there will be many people who think this is a great thing when it passes today, but who will suffer.

Secondly, the gentlewoman from Washington has repeatedly reminded us how much money has left various States. I would remind her with great courtesy that $500 million a year leaves her own State because Washington State, like six others, is not allowed to deduct the sales tax. She has focused on a tax reform that will benefit 2 percent of the population or less, neglecting a reform that will benefit 47 percent of the population. $500 million leaves Washington State every single year. We should reform that first and establish justice through that mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman raises a perfectly legitimate point about the family foresters. The bulk of the family foresters in my district would be perfectly well covered under the $6 million exemption. I have met with them. I meet with their association. They would be covered under the Pomeroy exemption. What they would not be covered under is any relief from sales tax which is unjust. And the gentlewoman ought to join me in that effort and fix that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership on this issue and also the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

What we are about here is about as serious as it gets. We are contemplating the possibility that everyone in this building and most of the Federal Government officials in this city would be killed. It is not pleasant to contemplate, but I view it as a sign of the strength of this great democratic Republic that we are able to contemplate it because what we are saying is this: We are proud to have been elected and serve in this great body, but there is something bigger than us as individuals. There is an institution that we love and hold dear called the House of Representatives that assures the people of our States and our districts that they will have a voice in the Federal Government as it deliberates the most weighty matters that come before this Nation.

Should we all be killed and not have a mechanism to replace this institution, we would leave this great Nation, indeed the world, without the system that has served us so well, the system of checks and balances to ensure that a self-appointed executive would not emerge with no checks and balances, to ensure that an unelected Cabinet member could not exercise extra constitutional powers without the checks of a representative body. That is what we are about.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has done an outstanding job, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) on the working group. Norm Ornstein is certainly to be credited, as is Tom Mann for the gift they gave this body yesterday with the Commission on Continuity. But we have important work to do. It is now almost 2 years since September 11 happened. We just lack a few months from that tragic date. In this time, we have the opportunity to ensure the continuity of this great body. I hope we will act on that.

The entire Constitution was written over the course of a few months by very wise individuals who got together and, as this select committee will do, set aside partisan differences. There were no parties at the time. They simply said: What is good for this country? What will help preserve our liberties? How can we establish a system that will learn from the mistakes of the past and persevere through the challenges of the future?

We have met new challenges, and we understand now we must adapt the ways we do business. This committee will help us learn to do that and will establish the procedures we need to move forward. I commend the two leaders for setting this up.

Mr. Speaker, what the responsible gentlewoman from Washington failed to say is that this bill does nothing to return $500 million to the people of her own State of Washington by reinstating sales tax deductibility.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin) for yielding me time.

I have spent a great deal of time on this legislation studying it. I have friends on both sides of the aisle, and I respect and understand the general intent of this. I sincerely do.

We have a huge problem in the Pacific Northwest forests. But I have a great concern about the provision regarding the insect assessments. Apparently, there has been an amendment that allows for the Secretary to no longer have sole discretion on the reviews, but she would still appoint the panel that makes the reviews of these assessments. Frankly, this administration has a dismal record of appointing objective panels.

I introduced an amendment that would have offered a National Academy of Science provision that would have allowed a truly independent body within 60 days to review these. Had that passed, I would have been very inclined to support this amendment or this legislation. But it did not.

We must address this problem of fuel overload and insect infestation in an expeditious manner, but we need to make sure it is not used as a cover to engage in intents that it was not designed for.

So I would hope that when this legislation goes to the other body we can address that. There is no need to give the Secretary such broad latitude. We can have independent assessments, and I would encourage this body to insist upon those.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about fundamental principles, principles of responsibility, integrity and common sense as they apply to the Federal budget and to tax policy. Over the past 2 weeks, we had the opportunity to go home and hear from our constituents, and we hosted an event with the Concord Coalition. We had people in several of my communities get together to try to balance the Federal budget, and we learned some very interesting things from that process.

We learned, among other things, that in spite of the majority's recent claims that deficits do not matter, the American people say that common sense says deficits do matter. We cannot, year after year, run enormous deficits, pass those on to our kids and not expect somebody to have to pay the piper. With several of my colleagues tonight, we are going to talk about how we got into that deficit, how we ought to get out of it, and how the policies put forward by the majority and this administration will actually make the situation far worse rather than better.

The first speaker this evening is the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards). He said to me tonight he has to speak first because he has to go home and tuck the kids in. It occurred to me that is really why most of us serve here, we want to create a better America for our kids. And part of that way we create a better world is facing up to fiscal responsibility and not passing on an enormous burden of debt to those children in order to gain easy election or political advantage in the short term.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for such an articulate presentation and a clear-cut explanation of what is wrong with the tax proposals and the budget plans of the majority party and the administration. The gentleman was, I think, astute in observing that when the Democrats controlled the White House and the House of Representatives, it was literally about 10 years ago, almost 10 years ago today, they had the courage to step forward and confront budget deficits, not to pooh-pooh them, not to say this does not matter, but to confront budget deficits and say we must enact fiscally responsible policies.

The other party, the majority party, claimed that if we did that, we would lose jobs, we would see interest rates skyrocket, we would see inflation go through the roof. What in fact happened? The longest economic expansion in the history of this country. More jobs were created. Unemployment went down. Healthcare was improved. Our education system was improved.

If my colleagues want to make a judgment by history, look at the recent history. When the Democrats set the fiscal policy of this country, we saw sustained economic growth. In the Republican administration, we have seen sustained unemployment and economic decline.

The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) is a member of the Committee on the Budget and will address precisely those issues now. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. What a clear-cut explanation of the situation we are in.

When I had those forums and town hall meetings back home, people asked me precisely the kind of questions the gentleman was addressing. What does this tax cut do for jobs? What does it do to provide prescription benefits for our senior citizens?

When I asked people, which would you rather do, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country, or invest in our transportation infrastructure and put people back to work? They said put people back to work.

When I asked which would you rather do, a tax cut for the wealthiest people in this country or invest in a prescription drug program so our seniors can stay healthy and actually lower the cost of health care in the long run, they said take care of our seniors.

One of the Members of this body who has done as much as anyone to keep the cost of prescription drugs down is my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). I yield to the gentleman, who will not only talk about job growth and the tax cuts, but also about the fundamental principles of values and how those are manifested through the decisions we are making, and, unfortunately, through the decisions this body is not making.

If the gentleman will yield, when I look at that chart, you look at the graph where the numbers are going up, that is putting people back to work. That is helping people take care of their families, buy homes, invest in this economy.

When you see that chart going down, which has happened in this administration, that is people losing their jobs, losing hope, losing health care, losing the ability to take care of their families.

These are not just numbers. As the gentleman knows, these are real life stories of people whose lives are being ruined by the economy.

When I talk to those folks, they do not tell me, ``What I would like the President and Congress to do is give me a tax cut.'' What they say is, ``We want jobs and we want health care.''

I thank the gentleman. The gentleman has summarized it so well. The irony is, and let me just ask the gentleman to respond to this for second. You had that chart up there that showed that the vast bulk of the tax breaks go to the very wealthiest. The majority party, the Republicans, say we are engaging in class warfare. Not at all. I admire and respect people who have made wealth in this country.

But it is interesting, when I talk to those folks, they often say to me, ``You know what? We are not asking for the tax cut.'' This assumption that everyone is venal and self-serving and does not put the country before their own immediate needs, I am not sure I buy it for most Americans.

I do not think so. I think most Americans say, we have to invest. I do not know about my colleagues, but I hear small business people saying, give me a little break so I can make ends meet, take care of my family and provide health care. I hear Mom saying, make sure that I have a job that pays a decent wage. I hear Dad saying, make sure that I can provide for my family and give my kids an education. I do not hear most Americans saying, let us make sure the people who have the most in this country get the most in the tax cuts. Is the gentleman hearing that from his constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I agree. When the President asked rhetorically in his speeches, if a little bit of a tax cut is a good thing, what about a big tax cut, well, the answer is we have already had a pretty big darn tax cut; and the second answer is, most people are not going to get that tax cut. And the third answer is, that big tax cut comes with an awfully big debt, and there is something desperately wrong with an awfully big debt.

I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Budget, and an individual who has led efforts in this body on education, on health care, on social justice, making sure that all Americans share in the American dream and have an opportunity to benefit from the economic policies of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments.

One of the issues this budget does not address that I know is important to the people of Wisconsin, as it is to my own State of Washington and, in fact, to the Committee on the Budget chairman's State of Iowa, is Medicare fairness. Many of our States are desperately underfunded in terms of Medicare compensation rates. This budget does nothing to fix that. My own State of Washington faces a terrible injustice, that we cannot deduct our sales taxes like other States can deduct their income tax. This budget does nothing to fix that. There are a host of problems with this budget. It was passed at 2 a.m. in the morning. The majority of the Members of this body who voted for it had never read it. They had seen summaries perhaps, but I guarantee they had not read it because there was not time. When you pass a budget that spends $2.2 trillion, that takes 24 hours to debate it and you have not read it, we have a problem on our hands and, unfortunately, our country has a much bigger problem.

We have heard from people from Maine tonight, from Texas, from my own State of Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia. The distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget hails from South Carolina. I think it is arguable that very few people, if anyone, in this Congress have more knowledge about the intricacies and the importance of the budget process than my dear friend and colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, this has been an exciting discussion. We have talked about responsibility, common sense, about jobs, about health care, and about getting this budget back on balance.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have to go back home now to their districts and pass the commonsense test. They have to explain to their constituents how it is that they passed a $2.2 trillion budget that will increase the deficit in the next 10 years by $4 trillion; and they did it without sufficient time to even read it, they did it with inconsistent and dishonest manipulation of numbers, and they have to explain that to their constituents. The Democrats will not have to, because we will say we voted ``no.'' We will pass the commonsense test, and those who vote ``yes'' will fail the commonsense test.

My colleagues on the other side will also have to explain this: for the last several years they promised on television, in their mailers, in their speeches on this floor that they would put Social Security and Medicare in a lockbox. But when they talk about the deficit and they talk about their balanced budget, the fact is, you have raided the lockbox, you have broken your promises, you have broken your faith with the American people, and you will have to explain that. We will not, because we will vote ``no'' on this budget.

And those of you from States like Washington and Iowa and Wisconsin and Oregon who suffer from unequal and unfair imbalances in Medicare payments, you will have to explain to your constituents why this budget does nothing to correct the unjust and imbalanced Medicare payment structure.

In Washington State, 50 percent of physicians will not accept new Medicare patients. This week, I have had physicians in my office saying, I cannot afford to treat Medicare patients because the compensate rates in Washington are too low. We have an opportunity to fix that. This budget does not fix it, and you will have to explain that to your constituents over the next 2 weeks.

I would give one bit of counsel to those who vote ``yes'' on this budget resolution. Cancel all town halls. Those who vote ``no,'' I encourage you to have many town halls, and let the American people see just what this Congress is up to. It is not pretty.

Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me time, and my dear friend, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

As the proud Representative of America's Vancouver, as our Mayor Royce Pollard likes to describe it, I am privileged to represent Fort Vancouver itself.

As the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) explained, the chief factor of Fort Vancouver in its early years was none other than John McLoughlin. He distinguished himself in numerable ways. His help to the American settlers of this region was invaluable, and many, many people described his hospitality.

Narcissa Whitman, the wife of frontier evangelist Marcus Whitman, whose statue resides in this very building, described Vancouver at the time as the ``New York of the Pacific Ocean.'' Now, mind you, it was a pretty small New York. It was a stockade-type fort. But for those who had traveled that long journey across the Oregon Trail, it was a beacon of friendship, of health care, of food and of protection. Without John McLoughlin, that would not have been possible.

I am proud to represent Vancouver, I am proud to represent Fort Vancouver, as we call it, ``Vancouver, not B.C.; Washington, not D.C.''

Madam Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) for her initiative, and our ranking member and the Chair of the committee for their initiative in preserving this valued historical site. I urge its passage, and I urge people to come visit the birthplace of American history in the Pacific Northwest, Fort Vancouver, Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his leadership on the Committee on the Budget, and I want to thank my friends who spoke so

eloquently about the needs for veterans health care. Having worked in a Veterans Hospital, I know well the needs of these fine individuals, and I know their sacrifice to this country.

Mr. Speaker, if it were not for the war today, there is no question in my mind that the two most important priorities with the American people would be the economy and health care. Fifty percent of physicians in my home State of Washington have said that they will not take new Medicare patients. There were doctors in my office today saying, Congressman, we cannot afford to see Medicare patients because in Washington State, as in Iowa, as in Wisconsin, as in Oregon and many other States, the compensation rates for our doctors are lower than elsewhere. And doctors are leaving. These doctors cannot only not afford to see patients, but we cannot even attract doctors to Washington State.

Sadly, the Republican budget does nothing to remedy this. In the Committee on the Budget, the Democrats offered an amendment to correct the inequities in rural hospital payments to try to fix this. The Republicans voted this down universally.

We also face Medicaid problems. Not just Medicare, but Medicaid problems. What is the Republican solution? To propose a $107 billion cut in Medicare spending. Now, admittedly, Medicaid spending will go up. But the problem is it will not go up sufficiently to keep pace with the demands of the people in need and with the demands caused by inflation. Washington State alone would stand to lose $1.7 billion over the next 10 years.

Our State has been ravaged by budget cuts already. That $1.7 billion is not just a number. It is children who cannot see a doctor, and it is working parents who have no health care for their families. That is fundamentally what is wrong with this budget.

Now, I could understand and support the need to control increased costs, and I have supported that all along; but not for the sake of passing some of the largest tax cuts in history that will go to the people least in need at the expense of those most in need. Someone who has worked so hard and so diligently on the health care issue is my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin); and if the gentleman will yield to her, I know she would like to make a few comments.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from South Carolina would continue to yield, I thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin, who has been so eloquent in her comments about why we need to provide health care and the damage that can be done by the Republican budget.

I mentioned earlier the challenge we face in our State and so many States finding and retaining qualified physicians to treat the patients. Someone who has been a champion of another critical issue dealing with the nursing shortage that is harming our health care system throughout the country is the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps); and if the gentleman from South Carolina would be willing to yield to her, I know she can add to this colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for her comments and her leadership on dealing with the nursing shortage.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, captured the White House and held the majority in this body and retook the Senate based in part on a slogan of compassionate conservatism. Based on what we have heard tonight on cuts to Medicaid, Medicare and cuts to veterans benefits, I am not sure I see the compassion; and based on earlier comments about their budget having a $4 trillion deficit, I am not sure where I see the conservatism.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished ranking member for yielding me the time.

We have talked a lot about what is in the budget. I would like to talk about two things that are not in the budget. The first particularly should be of interest to people who live in Washington State, my home State, Tennessee, Texas, Nevada, Wisconsin, Florida or South Dakota.

Residents of those seven States are unjustly treated in the Tax Code, and

this budget does nothing to correct it. Those States rely on sales tax to fund their State governments, but they are not allowed to deduct their sales tax from their Federal tax return as one is allowed to deduct their State income tax.

What that does is it disadvantages our State. The Federal Government essentially tells our States how we should tax our citizens. I believe it is an issue of State rights.

The Democratic Party introduced an amendment to the budget bill to fix this. Regrettably, the other side voted that down.

The second thing that is not made allowance for in this budget is fixing the Medicare payment imbalance. Forty-seven percent of physicians in my home State, in Washington, will not see new Medicare patients. Why? Because the fee-for-service rates under Medicare are unjust. This is the case in the Committee on the Budget chairman's home State of Iowa.

We had an opportunity to provide language in this bill to fix it. We managed to provide language to protect tax cuts, but we do not seem to be able to provide language to protect people for tax fairness, and we do not seem to be able to provide language to assure fair Medicare compensation rates.

I urge the people from those States to ask their Representatives, why have they left us out in the cold? Why have they not solved the sales tax inequity? Why have they not fixed the imbalance in Medicare payments?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I thank my good friend from the State of Virginia. It is appropriate that I follow him because, whereas the journey of Lewis and Clark began in his great district, it ended in mine, at least the first half of it. They went back home afterwards. But it is a great privilege and honor to represent the great State of Washington where Lewis and Clark, almost 200 years ago now, arrived at the coast, looked out across that ocean, hoping they would find a ship. They saw none, and they had to winter over across the river in the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. Wu) district.

But this commemoration is a chance not only to celebrate the accomplishments of Lewis and Clark but also the contributions of the Native Americans who helped them along their way to reinvigorate this Nation's spirit of adventure at a time when we sorely need it. By changing the nickel temporarily in this fashion, we can honor Lewis and Clark and also honor that great man, Thomas Jefferson, who sent them on the way.

I rise in strong support of this, thank my colleagues for their leadership on it, and hope the American people will find new inspiration when they use this nickel with the new design.