Floor Statements

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in extending time.

I, too, am perplexed by the debate that is being advanced in terms of being able to focus on the national security implications of the threat of global warming. I sat on the committee, the Special Committee on Global Warming and Energy Independence, as we listened to three and four star admirals and generals, as we listened to the former head of the CIA talking about the defense implications for the United States of Global Warming.

These men were not radical environmentalists. These are respected experts who have led a lifetime of service to protecting the integrity, the defense, the security of the United States. They are deeply concerned that our dependence on foreign oil from unstable areas of the world. The overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change, global warming is a reality, led them to argue in the most strong terms that we need to be serious about it. Item after item, about the strategic implications, about what happens to defenses of the United States, to instability around the world of water-stressed areas, to new disease patterns, these are not arcane, philosophical issues. This isn't environmental fringe. This is the nuts, and bolts of the future, of our country.

It has already been made clear that we already have a great deal of work that is underway. What this would require is assembling it under the guise and guidance of people who are experts in national security to put it in the national security context.

Other major countries around the world are grappling with this. I think the Rules Committee was entirely appropriate to put what I think is a misguided amendment on the floor because I think it is time for people who care about the future of the country, who are looking at the evidence, to have an honest and thoughtful debate.

But to somehow dismiss this as the province of radical environmentalism or a detraction from the hard work of planning for America's security future is, I think, sadly misplaced.

I appreciate what the Rules Committee has done. I support the rule and look forward to the debate later.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up where my good friend from Minnesota left off in terms of dealing with the money that is in this legislation that would help us deal with the crisis that is occurring in our Nation's forests.

One of the legacies, unfortunately, of the last Congress where we had a meltdown of the budget process is that these issues were left unresolved. We have eviscerated the budgets for the Department of the Interior, shifting money out of operating budgets for purposes of firefighting. This is going to help us move back in the right direction.

One of the other casualties was the county payments program. In the last session, the implosion of the budget process where the Republican majority and the administration could not follow through, left 4,600 school districts across the west, including a number in my State in Oregon in a lurch.

This legislation steps up and meets the needs. It is not extraneous. I sincerely hope the President changes his tune and withdraws his veto threat.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and it is a pleasure to work with him in cosponsoring this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is the largest consumer of energy in the world. If we harness the ability of our Federal agencies in terms of what they do with energy, what they do with procurement, we have an opportunity to revolutionize the business practices in this country in a way that doesn't require a lot of new rules and regulations and fees. It is simply leading by example.

It has been my privilege early in my career to do work dealing with minority enterprises, with women-owned enterprises, with small business; because, as the gentleman from Vermont mentions, these are areas that are tremendously underserved, but there is a great deal of energy and vitality and it has made our economy stronger. This is the next logical addition to that portfolio of activities.

By giving a preference to procurement with small businesses that are environmentally sound, it is going to help nurture an explosion of new technology, of new business opportunities, and, most important, most important, it is going to help to bring these activities to scale. It is going to make best green practices more cost effective. It is going to be a better value for the taxpayer. It is the cheapest way to improve the environment. And, ultimately, it is going to strengthen our economy, because areas in the European Union, in Canada and, dare I say, even in Asia dealing with China and Japan, progress is being made. This is going to help us. It is going to give a better value to the taxpayers. It is going to jump start these.

I look in Portland at TerraClean, Ecos Consulting, Rejuvenation House Parts, ecological small businesses. If this is enacted, they will be able to do a better job in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy and leadership.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am privileged to take the floor after my colleague from Virginia and I am in agreement with the sentiment that he has expressed. However, I would like to speak for a moment about the second greatest refugee crisis in the world after Darfur.

Four years after the fall of Baghdad, many of the worst fears expressed at the beginning of that war have come true, as Iraq and its neighbors are in the midst of a humanitarian crisis rivaled only by the ongoing genocide in Darfur, referenced by my good friend from Virginia. Iraq has the fastest growing refugee population in the world. The United States has a responsibility to try to protect the innocent victims of massive violence wherever it can. However, having made the decision to begin a war of choice in Iraq, we have a particular responsibility to those who are suffering as a result of America's actions. Whatever one believes about the wisdom of the war or the future of the United States' engagement in Iraq, we have a responsibility to those innocent Iraqis who have been driven from their homes or fear for their lives every day.

The numbers are sobering. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates 4 million Iraqis have been made refugees, 2 million of which have left for adjacent countries like Syria and Jordan. Every month, another 50,000 to 70,000 Iraqis continue to be displaced from their homes, and these figures likely underestimate the magnitude of the problem. These are the front lines of a regional humanitarian crisis, one that could easily destabilize these front line countries that neighbor Iraq and turn a humanitarian crisis into a security disaster.

For one group in particular, however, our moral responsibility is unquestionable--Iraqis who are at risk because they helped the United States. Having collaborated with the United States military, the United Nations or even with a nongovernmental organization can literally mean a death sentence at the hands of any of the many sides in this civil war. Tens of thousands of Iraqis, who worked as translators, drivers, even construction workers, live every day in fear of being targeted. However, the United States is only allowing 50 Iraqi translators to start their lives over in the United States. Over the next few months, that may be raised to 500, a number that is still dwarfed by the need.

I became acutely aware of this problem working with a local high school in Portland who were partnering with members of the Oregon National Guard who had served in Iraq who were trying to bring their translator to the United States to save her life but kept running into bureaucratic hurdles. Since then, I've heard the same story over and over again.

We should keep faith with those who have served alongside our brave men and women in uniform. This is a basic moral responsibility and a simple issue of fairness. Yet in March, the United States admitted only 11 Iraqi refugees. Since the war began, we have admitted only 700-- remember, out of 4 million displaced.

I am introducing legislation this week, the Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act, to address this ongoing humanitarian crisis to use all of the tools at our disposal, admitting refugees, providing assistance to the region, and using diplomacy to ensure their well-being. It creates a program to admit to the United States Iraqis who are at risk because they helped coalition or reconstruction efforts. It establishes a special coordinator for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people and requires the United States to develop plans to ensure the well- being and safety of these Iraqi refugees. Most important, it increases the number of persecuted Iraqis who can be admitted to the United States as refugees. And, finally, it would authorize additional funding for assistance to those refugees, their resettlement and fixing the bureaucratic process that often hampers even the most well-intended efforts.

I urge every Member of the House to cosponsor this broad, ambitious and comprehensive response to the Iraqi refugee crisis before it is too late, too late for the people whose only crime was working with Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.

It is an interesting debate that is going on here today because in terms of the motion to instruct, there really isn't that great a difference of opinion. We are, in fact, going to be able to meet the objectives. We are working hard in our budget to make sure that we deal meaningfully with tax relief for those who need it.

The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is that they are not willing to make any distinction. For them it is Paris Hilton who is first in line. We have made it clear that we are going to work to make sure that

real priorities for American families are adopted. We have proven that in terms of what we have stood for in the past as well as what we are working for in the future.

Democrats have repeatedly voted for a lowered tax bracket on lower- income people, the expansion of the earned income tax credit, marriage penalty relief, increase in the child tax credit, acceleration of the expansion of the 10-percent bracket, increased expensing for small businesses. These were things that people here on the floor who are on our side of the aisle offered up as a responsible alternative when our friends on the other side were engaged in a rather extensive and unfocused effort to try to provide tax benefits for those who need them the least while ignoring the needs of those who need it the most.

They have given some modest bones to a few in America. Those that merit our support will, in fact, be continued. And, more important, we are going to deal with what is the largest tax increase in American history, which the Bush administration and my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle have set the stage for, and that is the tsunami of the alternative minimum tax. That is going to cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years, and we have made it clear that that is our number one priority to solve, as in the House Committee on Ways and Means we working on this.

We don't have to accede to every single detail for Paris Hilton in order to make sure that we deal with the needs of working Americans and the tax tsunami of the alternative minimum tax, which has been ignored session after session after session by the Republicans when they were in charge.

I find no small amount of irony to hear my good friend from Wisconsin talking about how he has proven it is possible to have a unified budget surplus when for 12 consecutive years of ironclad Republican control they wrote all the fiscal rules, wrote the budgets, wrote the tax policy.

I invite anybody to look at what the now minority proved that they could do. It's a pretty sorry record of fiscal irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker, my point is simply that the budget resolution that we brought forward is a reasonable, meaningful approach to deal with these fiscal problems.

Independent observers agree that there is no tax increase this year or the next. And we are on a path allowed for in our budget resolution and the work we are doing in the Ways and Means Committee right now to make sure that we solve the tax tsunami of the alternative minimum tax.

I look forward to our getting past this type of discussion here, as my friends on the other side of the aisle seek to substitute rhetoric for their sorry record of non-accomplishment, and look forward to moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, we make progress in dealing with discrimination based on sexual orientation when we're not distracted by myth and bigotry, but when we deal with the rights and needs of real people. I am pleased that that is why we will pass this hate crime legislation today which follows progress in my State of Oregon just this week, where we have provided protection for domestic partnerships and antidiscrimination legislation. I hope it will herald changes on the Federal level in the military for gays and lesbians, and in the workplace with non-discrimination protection for all Americans.

When we deal with real people, their rights and needs, we will solve these problems and America will be a better place.

Mr. Speaker, as chair of the U.S.-Vietnam Caucus, dedicated to strengthening the bilateral relationship between the United States and Vietnam, I strongly support efforts to help Vietnam improve its human rights record and I support this resolution. Nothing would do more for this important relationship that continued steps by Vietnam towards respect for free speech, human rights, religious freedom and democratization. I have raised this issue at the highest levels of Vietnam's government and continue to do so at every opportunity.

However, given that Vietnam has made significant progress over the last decade, I wish that we could have passed the version as introduced, which focuses on the steps Vietnam needs to take, rather than this Committee-passed version which now includes unhelpful language about placing certain sanctions and restrictions on the U.S.- Vietnam relationship. I

continue to believe that the path of engagement and honest dialogue will be a more fruitful avenue for the advancement of human rights and democracy in Vietnam.

Mr. Chairman, today's legislation marks a continuation of the important effort to advance animal welfare in the 110th Congress. One of the stark differences with the new congressional majority is the ability to deal meaningfully with important animal welfare provisions. Congress, as one of its first orders of business, passed the long-stalled animal fighting legislation, ending barbaric cruelty that helped foster and advance other illegal and dangerous activities.

Today Congress has the opportunity to take another step reaffirming policies that deal with the protection of horses and wild burros; protection of free roaming horses and burros from commercial sale and slaughter.

Actually, it's embarrassing that it had to get to this point because, since 1971, the Federal Government has had a policy to protect these animals. Unfortunately, in the last Congress, without hearing or public notice, a rider was slipped into legislation that eliminated these protections. I'm pleased that a majority of the Commerce Committee and a strong bipartisan majority has voted to support this important provision. The Senate is also moving to protect animals by ending the sale of horse meat for human consumption. These are important steps reflecting a renewed commitment to animal welfare, an essential part of any vision of a livable community.

It is important and overdue that Congress renew our commitment to developing a policy framework strongly supported by the American public.

Mr. Speaker, by calling for a withdrawal date from Iraq, today the House is making a compromise that marks another stage in the unfortunate struggle with the President to end the war. Yet despite our hard work and the desire of the American people, this bill faces a veto from a President who is out of touch both with what the American people and the Iraqi people want: winding down the presence of American troops who are stuck in the midst of a civil war.

This is not the precise legislation I would have written, but it is a fair compromise that reflects the mindset of Americans who voted for a new direction in Iraq. The U.S. spends $8 billion a month on the war, and Oregon has already lost 54 brave men and women in Iraq. I have opposed the war from the start, and this bill hastens the day when we bring the tragedy of the Iraq War to a close. I urge support for it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have been intrigued by the debate that has been transpiring here. I wanted to come to the floor to make one simple point, and that is that I appreciate the efforts on behalf of the Financial Services Committee and Chairman Frank to start demystifying the process. There is a lot of talk about supporting of shareholder rights and what not. But the fact is that we don't have a uniform system in this country that actually guarantees people the right to exercise corporate democracy in ways that most people would take for granted. In terms of the most important stakeholders, the people who own these corporations, they are too often treated like children that need to be kept at bay. You don't have to read very many business pages in the New York Times, just for the last year, to discover areas of systematic abuse in terms of what anybody would expect to be the treatment of shareholders. And, unfortunately, that is aided and abetted by government policy.

I appreciate what is happening with the Financial Services Committee to take some steps to try and demystify the process. I see this as one simple step to allow shareholders just an advisory vote on compensation. I thought it was a pretty good idea. I thought it was being part of a larger conversation. I think it is a warning shot about corporate behavior and to State regulators to take seriously the rights of the people who own these companies. All of us, I think, support capitalism. But the way that the shareholders are treated must make us be suspect.

Then on top of this, I hear the amendment from my friend from Florida. Again, I may be a little biased, getting my information from the business pages of the newspaper, but the Sunday before last, it was fascinating looking at the hash that has been made by SEC in terms of trying to explain what total compensation is. It is almost now beyond the capacity of individuals to understand because we get in here, make these distinctions that torture and twist information.

I thought the proposal that is brought forward by Financial Services, was pretty straightforward. Yet this amendment again would start parsing that out, distinguishing between different types of compensation and making it harder for shareholders to have a clear understanding.

I would respectfully suggest that we vote against this amendment; we support the underlying bill; and most important, we support the philosophy from Financial Services to demystify corporate governance, that we give a little more respect to the rights of shareholders and our responsibility as people who establish the rules of the game.

I think the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was rushed through after years of sort of holding it at bay in the aftermath of scandals where Congress wouldn't act, to the point where Congress was forced to act.

I appreciate what is happening in the Financial Services Committee where they are looking at this subject in a systematic fashion. I look forward to subsequent proposals that come forward so that we can give shareholders the rights that they deserve as the people who are after all really the owners of our capitalistic system.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlelady's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this rule and on this bill.

I further appreciate what this represents. It has been my privilege to serve for the last 10 years on the Water Resources Subcommittee for Transportation and Infrastructure. Over that period of time, I have watched as we have focused legislation to deal with the amazing needs that face water resources around the country.

Unfortunately, the legislation that we have passed through this House with strong support in recent Congresses has never been able to find its way into law. I think that with this legislation, we are able to find a way to help break the impasse.

I would like to speak to one of the elements that was in that legislation that has been made in order by the Rules Committee, an amendment that I am offering along with my colleagues Peter Welch and Tom Petri to help bring the Corps of Engineers into the 21st century by updating the principles and guidelines under which it operates.

Our amendment takes a step back from the politics and controversies that have surrounded the Corps' activities over recent years. In fact, there has been some finger-pointing at the Corps, but frankly, Congress itself is part of the problem and can be part of a process that can help move this forward.

These principles and guidelines are used for the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. The current rules under which the Corps operates have not been updated since 1983. It seems hard to believe, given how important water resources are and how much we have learned about the science, about hydrology since 1983.

Think about it for a moment. In 1983, Ronald Reagan was President. We were dealing with the movie ``Return of the Jedi.'' A year later, the 3.5-inch floppy disk was introduced, and IBM was soon to launch the first portable computer which weighed 30 pounds. Half the people who work for me in my congressional office weren't even born in 1983.

Every Member of the House is aware how much has changed since 1983 in terms of technology, science, environmental policy, our national priorities, and our understanding of water resources. Yet, the Corps of Engineers and the thousands of dedicated men and women who work for them have a planning process that has not kept up.

It was my privilege with the former head of the Corps, General Flowers, to meet with representatives of all of the planning agencies for the Corps across the country. They understand the problems; they are striving to make some adjustments. We are still developing projects, yet they are still working under an umbrella that was based on principles and guidelines when James Watt was Secretary of the Interior.

This amendment is very simple. It directs the Secretary of the Army to update the principles and guidelines in consultation with all the other Federal agencies that have a stake in the process, to work with the public to deal with what we have learned over the last quarter of a century.

This is a very important step on addressing criticisms from the National Academy of Sciences, the OMB, the Government Accountability Office, and others. It does not impact any project that currently is approved or under way, none of the projects that are listed in the bill we have before us, but it is going to help us change the process to get at the root of a long-term problem.

Passing the amendment will not delay any projects or tie the hands of the Corps in any way. In fact, I am convinced that it will break the paralysis for projects in the future by making sure they are structurally, fiscally, and environmentally sound.

There are some projects around the country that have been delayed in recent years due not just to funding, although that is a serious issue, but due to lawsuits and other controversy. The ones that I have looked at that have met bumps in the road were in this situation in the main because they weren't properly planned and ground-truthed, as they say; and they have stirred up unnecessary controversy in some instances.

This amendment will make it easier to approve and construct good projects in the future. This amendment will make it easier for the House and the Senate, which in the past have been at loggerheads over principles of Corps reform. I think this is an area of common ground that will bring people together. This amendment represents a fresh break. It won't solve all of the problems of the Corps, that will await another day; but with this amendment, it gives us a chance at a new beginning for Congress to be positively involved in these issues.

We start by equipping the Corps with the latest science and analytic tools to bring them into the 21st century rather than tying their hands with out-of-date policies.

I strongly urge that each of my colleagues join with me in supporting our amendment, which is endorsed by Clean Water Action, Taxpayers for Commonsense, Republicans for Environmental Protection, the National Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, American Rivers, the National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, the League of Conservation Voters, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the people who are charged with making these projects work.

I deeply appreciate the progress that this represents in bringing us forward. I appreciate the Rules Committee making it in order, and look forward to being able to carry this amendment to the floor, hopefully for its approval, and being able to break the impasse surrounding water resources projects.

In the aftermath of the tragedy we saw with Hurricane Katrina, with the flooding that has occurred in the Northeast just in recent days, this legislation is more important than ever.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am proud of the time that I was able to work with you for 10 years on this subcommittee.

I rise in support of the bill. As was referenced by the Chair of the committee and the subcommittee, this is an important and complex bill with 682 projects. They are important economically. They are important environmentally. We found out less than 2 years ago how critical they are to the Nation. Hurricane Katrina revealed it can literally be a matter of life or death.

This legislation has been hung up since the year 2000, in part because of disagreements about the reform agenda with the Corps of Engineers. I am pleased that we have signaled an effort to try and move forward, to be able to break that impasse with this legislation, the provisions in it and others that will follow.

I am also pleased to have an opportunity to offer an amendment to update the principles and guidelines that would help the Corps move even closer to developing environmentally, fiscally, and structurally sound projects.

Let me be clear. The amendment will not impact any project currently under way or anything covered in this legislation. It would simply tell the Corps of Engineers to update their own principles and guidelines, the playbook for developing water resources projects that are over 25 years old. The National Academy of Sciences has said they are woefully out of date. And the Corps and the Congress' inability to update these principles and guidelines is one of the reasons why the Corps has drawn criticism from the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, and the OMB, along with internal Pentagon reviews.

It is one of the reasons why we have had trouble passing WRDA in the last 6 years and reconciling it with the Senate which has similar provisions. It does not affect anything in the bill currently; and I think it will be an opportunity for us not just passing the bill, but it would be a reason for the President to sign it, given the problems they have had.

I appreciate the hard work that has been done. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of the bill, and look forward to having support for the amendment for updating the principles and guidelines later in the afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply requires the Secretary of the Army to update the principles and guidelines used by the Army Corps of Engineers in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water resource projects. As I said on the floor earlier today, they have not been updated since 1983. It is embarrassing that the Corps is operating under guidance a quarter century old.

We have learned a lot in the last 25 months, as I look to my colleague from Louisiana, about Katrina and others in

terms of the Corps. Imagine how things have changed in the last 25 years.

Under this amendment, the Army Secretary would incorporate the latest scientific and economic knowledge, eliminate biases and disincentives, would be required to consult with the public and other Federal agencies while updating the principles and guidelines.

I want to be clear about what it would not do. It would not impact any project already underway or impact any project that is in the bill that has been created here today. It would not prevent the Corps from doing structural projects and would not delay any projects at all. It is why it is supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the professionals who actually do the work, taxpayer organizations, and environmental groups.

The National Academy of Sciences in a report from the year 2000 pointed out that the current principles and guidelines were state-of- the-art thinking when it was written, and some of the concepts and paradigms that underpin it are relevant today. However, in over 20 years since it has been updated and revised, it needs to be revised to reflect contemporary management paradigms; analytical methods; legislative directives; social, economic, and political realities.

I deeply appreciate the work with the committee's staff, the Chair and subcommittee Chair in getting this to this point.

I want to be clear that what you just stated that our goals, the things that you just cited, have never been incorporated into the principles and guidelines, have they?

And my question was, Is it not true that the Corps has not adopted those things into the principles and guidelines?

Engineering Circular that has not been incorporated into their principles and guidelines.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our distinguished chairman.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Then I will close.

I deeply appreciate the words of support that have been offered here by my colleague from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri); from my distinguished chairman, Mr. Oberstar; and from the former ranking member of the Water Resources Committee, Mr. Costello.

I want to be clear that what was offered up by my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, in no way undermines what I said. These principles and guidelines have not been updated. There are procedures and circulars discussed by the gentlemen from LA. They have not been incorporated into an updated, revised principle and guideline for the Corps of Engineers.

That is why the National Academy of Public Administration, one of the many scientific organizations to recommend updating the principles and guidelines, they released their recommendation after the circular that the gentleman from Louisiana mentioned. His information simply is not current in terms of how the Corps is operating and all the independent bodies, the Science Board, the public administrators, why the American Engineering Association, as well as taxpayers and environmental groups say it is past time to fix this situation.

For those of you who care about getting something actually through Congress, you ought to support this amendment. One of the hang-ups between the House and the Senate has been this issue of reform. The Senate has stronger language than this. I think it will help bridge the gap. I urge its adoption.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, 4 million Americans are paying the price for the misplaced tax priorities of the Bush administration and the Republicans here in Congress. For the last 6 years, their obsession with assisting the top \1/10\ of a percent and other favored special interests to reduce their tax burden has riddled the Tax Code with more loopholes, adding about a million and a half more words to that code. At the same time they have considered three mammoth and expensive tax bills in 2001, 2003 and 2004 that refused to address the alternative minimum tax inequity. They have made few modest additions with broad benefit like the 10-percent bracket but showered their real attention, their affection, and huge sums of money on those who need help the least. In the process, the $5.6 trillion surplus inherited by this administration has evaporated, to be replaced by $2 trillion more in additional national debt.

In the meantime, the alternative minimum tax, signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon to ensure that the richest of Americans, who used tax shelters, pay at least some income tax, has morphed into a tax on millions of Americans who are caught because they pay their State and local taxes and are raising their families but largely leaves the most wealthy untouched.

Without extraordinary action, over the course of the next 3 years the alternative minimum tax will ensnare 32 million families, virtually every two-worker middle-class family with children. It won't bother the hedge fund manager or the NBA superstar but it will tax the teacher married to the firefighter with two kids. Because a tax shelter now means paying your local property and income taxes but does not include the tremendous tax advantage from capital gains, it won't hit the high- tech billionaire but will hit the postal worker and the nurse with three teenage kids at home.

The zeal to make permanent these tax changes has left the needs of tens of millions of Americans at risk. Indeed, the number one priority of the administration and the Republicans in Congress for taxation would not only make a true reform of the alternative minimum tax prohibitively expensive, it would rely on the ever-widening reach of the alternative minimum tax to finance their schemes.

On this day that millions of Americans are filing their tax returns and 4 million are paying the mutated, unfair alternative minimum tax, it is time to have that critical national debate on taxes in honest terms:

Should we tax people who work at jobs more than people whose money works for them?

Do we care about reducing the ability of some very privileged people to escape taxation?

What is our priority for tax reform? Is it to freeze the patchwork of special interest provisions over the last 6 years? Or to prevent 32 million families from an unjust alternative minimum tax, and then paying billions more to accountants just to calculate the damage?

I would hope that this is the last year that this unjust tax is used to provide unnecessary tax benefits for those who need them the least at the expense of those truly in need of tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy, and I am pleased to join with my colleagues from Oregon in recognizing the importance of the anniversary of the flooding of Celilo Falls.

Mr. Speaker, we have, in the Northwest, I think, in recent years, started to re-evaluate our relationship to native peoples and to the special sites that are holy for them.

I remember in my youth Celilo Falls when it was a site of the native fishing, going by on a train, watching the dip netting, pulling these fish from the falls. It was something that I didn't properly appreciate at the time. People in my own family were talking about the great dam that was about to be constructed, and using it as a metaphor for progress in our community.

Well, transforming the mighty Columbia River into a machine that has aided navigation and electric generation has had many positive aspects for the Pacific Northwest, but it has been devastating for the Native Americans.

Sadly, our history, since the treaty of 1855, has been one where we have not always honored even the provisions in those treaties to Native Americans. And particularly the site at Celilo, where we are talking about over 10,000 years of history, strikes special significance. It is an unparalleled meeting point for people of native tribes that, slowly but surely, now we are starting to recognize, starting to appreciate, the Federal Government is starting to invest in working with them to restore the heritage. I hope that this recognition of the significance of the 50th anniversary of the flooding of the falls might be another signal that we are appreciating our responsibility in partnership with native people, the need to work with them in terms of first foods, in terms of historic sites, in terms of restoring the spirit of partnership in those treaties too often that has not been observed.

I appreciate my colleague, Congressman Wu, bringing this forward. I appreciate the Congress focusing attention on it today, but I hope it is the beginning of a more sustained effort to keep faith with our native people.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Georgia, the distinguished chairman of the Oversight Committee, for permitting me to speak on this bill, and I commend his hard work.

I find no small amount of irony hearing one of our friends from the other side of the aisle talk about how it might be time now for tax reform. The other side of the aisle was in charge for 12 years, and it is interesting that in the last 6 years, when they controlled the White House and Congress and had three major tax bills before us, the words in the Tax Code increased 1.5 million; 1.5 million extra words, special-interest provisions, while ignoring opportunities to simplify the code and to deal meaningfully with the tax tsunami that is coming at us, the alternative minimum tax.

I appreciate the hard work that the subcommittee has done, dealing with provisions like this that have no argument against them. These are things that are long overdue. I am glad we are moving forward. I commend the subcommittee Chair, and our Chair, Mr. Rangel, for looking at other provisions that would level the playing field, that would deal with simplification, deal with fairness, deal with some of the problems that lower-income citizens have in terms of trying to cope with the complexity, and being able to equip the Internal Revenue Service to make sure that we deal with hundreds of billions of dollars that is uncollected revenue that shifts the burden on the vast majority of Americans who are hard working, who report their income, who pay their taxes fairly and on time.

It isn't the fault of the worker who has got the W-2 that we have this vast amount of uncollected income. We have the complexity. I appreciate what this bill represents, a true effort at bipartisan cooperation to establish a foundation. We can move forward to have an Internal Revenue Code that is fair and effective for all.