Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this week, the House will be considering the most important economic and environmental bill of this session. It is the reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act.

It has been fascinating to watch the broadest coalition in memory be assembled in support of this important legislation to rightsize our investment in America's transportation system. This coalition ranges from the Sierra Club to the chamber of commerce, from the bicyclists to the truckers, people who lay down asphalt to those who care about historic preservation, all are on record as supporting an investment that is rightsized for America's future.

The number that has been identified by the administration from the Department of Transportation is on the order of magnitude of $375 billion over the next 6 years. It does not appear, sadly, as though this House is going to be able to consider an appropriately sized piece of legislation to meet those needs. The bill that is coming forward is at $275 billion. Our colleagues in the Senate passed overwhelmingly a proposal for $318 billion.

It is important not to fixate just on the amount of money, although that is not insignificant. What we want to do is make it so that it is appropriate for the needs that America has now.

These are jobs that are not going to be outsourced to India or China. There are between 20,000 and 50,000 jobs that are created for each billion dollars of investment. And this is an investment that has a huge return beyond simply family-wage jobs. Each dollar that is invested back in our communities under this legislation will be investing in rebuilding America's crumbling bridges. It will be revitalizing streets. It will be enhancing the environment.

The framework of these choices for American communities will inspire other private investment that will significantly enhance the Federal money.

This legislation has a number of innovations that give more choices to States and localities.

One is a ``Small Starts'' project for transit that can be commuter rail, streetcar, or bus rapid transit to be able to allow communities to have more cost-effective, simple, direct investments that can revitalize neighborhoods. After all, most American cities were built up around streetcar and urban electric systems in the past.

This will be the best bill in history for cycling, in no small measure due to the efforts of the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). There is a program for safe routes to schools so our children can bike and walk to school safely at a time when we are concerned about morbidly obese junior high students. The fact that most communities are finding fewer and fewer children can get to school safely on their own, these will be welcome additions indeed.

This is the time for the House of Representatives to do its job. We need to send a clear signal that we support investing in America's transportation future. We need to make sure that we protect the basic framework of the ISTEA legislation so that it enhances the choices that communities have and provides incentives to properly plan it.

It is important that we think of this as the beginning of the reauthorization for TEA-4 because this framework is going to provide a floor. It is going to provide direction not just for this next 6-year reauthorization but it will be the framework to launch what happens in the subsequent reauthorizations as well. We do not want to be 6 years from now in the place where we have an administration that is threatening to veto even a modestly sized piece of legislation for America's future.

I urge my colleagues to support a motion to recommit this bill to establish the $318 billion threshold the same as the Senate. I look forward to a debate this week that will help move America's economic and environmental program forward.

Mr. Speaker, I voted against this legislation as it does not seem fair to cut off federal funds to institutions that have policies against allowing recruiters on campus from employers that have an open policy of discrimination. We should not be punishing universities that have legitimate policy differences. As long as the military continues its ill-advised policy of prohibiting service by openly gay members (although it's interesting that, in times of war, gays and lesbians are considered valuable to our country and not forced out of the military) we should not force them to break their non- discrimination policies for the military.

Mr. Chairman, the budget process in the House of Representatives is a casualty of the increasingly extreme partisanship of the Republican leadership and their obsession with reducing taxes for those who need it the least. All the deep concern about deficit spending that formerly influenced Republican policy making is of a previous generation.

We now have the specter of the Republican budget causing another $1.3 trillion in national debt, while at the same time spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus, and cutting critical education, environment, and veterans' programs.

The good news is that not even the Republican leadership will take their budget resolution seriously. They will not follow this blueprint.

The bad news is that Republicans in Congress will combine the worst of both worlds, grudgingly increasing the spending for some critical programs, while at the same time continuing to pursue a reckless plan of tax cuts that ignores the greatest needs of middle-class families. The Alternative Minimum Tax, under the Republican plan, will tax tens of millions of American families, penalizing them hundreds of billions of dollars. For the Republicans, it is more important to give the richest few Americans more tax cuts than rescue millions of middle class families from the Alternative Minimum Tax.

This plan means we will have to fight harder to meet the needs of our veterans and they will not be treated as generously as they would have been treated under the Democratic Budget alternative.

It is my hope that with a presidential election looming and activism from groups like the coalition of veterans who have denounced the Republican budget proposal, we can return fiscal sanity to Washington.

Mr. Speaker, history shows in the last 10 years that we are increasingly taking the budget process here less and less seriously. This week's alternative from the Republican Party will be no exception. It

is an alternative that will actually increase our deficit more than if we simply did nothing.

But it is not that the budget resolutions should not be taken seriously. The environment is one key area. We Democrats will be providing an alternative that actually lowers the deficit while protecting the environment, funding Superfund cleanup, which creates jobs, funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund without drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.

There was a time when fiscal restraint and protecting the environment were bipartisan objectives. I hope I am in this Chamber long enough where that comes back to be the priority again.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in permitting me to speak on this.

Mr. Chairman, the budget is an important statement of our values, and I am proud to support the Democratic budget crafted by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) because our values are a lower deficit, more direct services to Americans, more Americans put to work in jobs that will not be outsourced; and Democrats maintain the Federal commitment to clean air, clean water, and our Nation's natural places.

How are we able to do so much better a job than our Republican counterparts? Well, the Republicans have placed the highest priority in their budget on meeting the needs of a few Americans, less than 1 percent. They will receive more benefit under the Republican budget than all of the funding that will be spent on our veterans and, bringing it down to the conversation on the environment, their tax cuts for the people who have been already well taken care of, those tax cuts will be over the next 10 years and will be 1\1/2\ times all the spending on the environment combined.

Now, I was proud to support the compromise that came forward in 2001. I see our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), here with then-chairman, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), to bring together dedicated funding for conservation funding. We passed overwhelmingly on this floor CARA, and there was a delicate compromise worked out with our friends on the Committee on Appropriations to do a better job of dealing with the land and water conservation fund. Every year since then, sadly, our Republican friends have turned their back on that commitment.

I am proud that the Democratic alternative budget would provide the entire $2.2 billion authorized for conservation, preservation, and recreation programs. It keeps faith with this body; and most important, it keeps faith with the Americans who expect us to do so.

The Republican budget cuts and undermines the Conservation Trust Fund's ability to promote smart growth in livable communities, something near and dear to my heart. These funds are for open space programs to assist people who are trying to cope with the forces of growth and change. These programs curb sprawl by protecting lands outside the borders of a city and making efficient and attractive use of open space within it. The Republican budget turns their back on it.

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is one of the most important programs within the Conservation Trust Fund. Historical funding of less than one-third of the LWCF's authorized level of $900 million has left us with a backlog of $10 billion of unmet needs. This program has been underfunded again by my Republican colleagues; but under the Democratic alternative, that is not the case. I could go into greater detail, and I invite people to look at my Web site or the Congressional Record, all inserted.

But the point is that we have worked very hard to keep the faith with the American voters to provide the funding for these critical areas that will enrich people in every congressional district in the country, vital funding for a better community, more jobs to help promote it, and a cleaner environment. I would strongly encourage a vote for the Spratt alternative to keep faith with each other and with the environment.

These cuts will undermine the CTF's ability to encourage and promote healthy lifestyles--which was ignored in the ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' Five chronic diseases--heart disease, cancers, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases, and diabetes--account for more than two-thirds of all deaths and three-fourths of the $1 trillion spent on health care annually. Research is clear that aggressive health promotion, especially with regard to daily physical activity, can substantially reduce these chronic diseases. The CTF provides Americans with outdoor places to hike, bike, swim, fish, and camp.

These cuts will also undermine the Conservation Trust Fund's ability to provide critical resources to America's kids through places for recreation and education. Again, the Republicans' budget zeroes out the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). Last year I worked with over 110 members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats to encourage the Committee to include funding for this program that's important for so many districts around the country.

The Republican budget represents missed opportunities and misdirected priorities for the environment. That alone is reason enough to reject it.

The Spratt alternative keeps faith with each other and the people who rely on us. It will result in a cleaner environment, stronger communities, and will keep our families safe, healthy, and economically secure.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, there is no question about it. We came to the floor of this Chamber when we had the Presidential election in 2000, and we were very, very concerned, because we had seen in the State of Texas when it was then-Governor Bush sounding positive and not following up when it came time to put money on the table and meet those commitments.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will again yield to me, the gentleman from Washington is 200 percent correct, if I may use Republican mathematics in this budget context. This is money that is owed to the American public. It is in a trust fund. It is available today. It will not affect any taxes, other than the royalties that have already been paid. This is not going to require a change in taxation, other than the fact that my friends on the other side of the aisle want to add over $1 trillion of additional tax benefits to Americans who need it the least.

Mr. Chairman, I could not have said it better myself.

Mr. Speaker, the House is about to consider H. Res. 561, which represents another missed opportunity for this body. The war in Iraq defined and drove United States' policy for the last 2 years. While there are legitimate questions about whether we are as a world safer today than we were a year ago, this resolution ignores the real question of how safe the world would be, if we had done it right.

While there was never a doubt about the U.S. winning the war, this administration ignored the cost of winning the peace. Our young men and women in

uniform pay the price every day in Iraq for that failure.

Yes, we need to support; yes, we need to unify; yes, we need to indicate our appreciation for our troops; but more important, we need to learn from this experience. How do we improve our intelligence and our military execution so that our soldiers are not unnecessarily put in harm's way in the future? Our families at home and our troops overseas deserve for us to do it right.

Mr. Speaker, if the Republican leadership wanted to work on a bipartisan expression of support, we would have been able to get some place today. They could at least have had an opportunity for Congress to step back and examine what we have learned.

We were prepared to win the war in Iraq. It was never an issue. A major concern is that we were not adequately prepared to win the peace, either in terms of equipping or staffing the occupation of Iraq nor preparing the American public for the full scope of the cost and consequences.

Giving too much money to the wrong people to do the wrong things in Iraq is a legitimate object of debate, and I hope that we will some day have it. But, in the meantime, the most important unanswered question is whether the massive investment of the troops, the money, and the attention was best spent rushing to Iraq rather than concentrating on continuing the global struggle against al Qaeda and the other forces of terror.

By delaying for over a year and a half the concerted efforts in searching out bin Laden, it has allowed al Qaeda and other terrorists to gain strength, to metastasize, making bin Laden almost irrelevant other than as a symbol of our policy failure. Our unwillingness or inability to launch a concentrated effort to mobilize global support when we had the entire world united on our side is a sad by-product of this administration's policies.

We are long on celebration; we are short on analysis. We are long on talking; we are short on accomplishment. Congress's job is to know what is going on, define the policy, to fund the right things, and provide oversight. That is our job, and we are falling far short of the mark.

Mr. Chairman, if anyone needed an example of how Congress misses opportunities to make a difference, they need only to look at today's discussion of H.R. 339, a fast food tort reform bill. The very title invites parody. At a time when obesity is the fastest growing health care in America, affecting over one-third of American adults and touching almost every family, and when we have particular concern about an explosion of childhood obesity and related illnesses, there is good reason for Congress to become concerned.

Congress could make a real difference by providing reasonable diet standards including school lunch programs to help remedy this epidemic. Another step would be to have education reform and ``leave no child behind,'' have a provision dealing with children's health. Physical education is not a part of Congress' answer to school reform, and we find today that most of our children do not get regular physical activity as a daily part of the school curriculum. In our transportation bill we could provide major opportunities for safe routes to school so that our children could walk and bike to school on their own. These would be simple, commonsense, cost-effective steps to improve the health of our children and their families, while improving the environment and quality of life.

Instead of dealing substantively with the obesity problem, Congress in its wisdom has seen fit to continue selectively tinkering with the legal system by providing immunity from litigation. Never mind there has never been a jury verdict for a plaintiff in an obesity lawsuit. Corporations like McDonalds are well suited to take care of themselves, but the House leadership is taking a page out of their recent outrageous, unprecedented immunity for gun manufacturers. Not only is this legislation unneeded, but it would immunize defendants for negligent and reckless behavior including mislabeling of food products, something that I find impossible to explain to American consumers.

I find this trivializing a serious issue, undercutting fundamental legal protections, and providing a remedy for a problem that does not, at this point, appear to exist.

Mr. Speaker, the most troubling aspect of the first case of mad cow disease is what it revealed about the cattle industry and the United States Department of Agriculture. It revealed that the USDA is not just protecting the food supply, but it is also actively promoting the cattle and meat packing industry. How well are these competing priorities balanced?

Well, the mad cow episode has exposed holes in the food safety chain. It has revealed that the USDA's policy was not one of comprehensive testing, but rather a limited sampling of a few thousand. Of the over 30 million cattle slaughtered last year, only a few thousand of these 30 million were tested for mad cow disease.

Beef, we found out, quickly disappears into the vast distribution network and is mixed with the remains of thousands of other cattle. These consolidated batches of meat are then distributed far and wide, which makes them difficult to recall, almost impossible to trace.

Currently, there is only one laboratory owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture located in Ames, Iowa, that performs testing on meat to detect mad cow disease. The techniques used in this laboratory require several days to complete. The public is rightly concerned. Maybe the reason we have not discovered mad cow disease until this past December in the United States is because Americans have been eating the evidence.

There are responsible members of the beef industry that want to test their cattle and many consumers who want to buy this tested beef. The tests exist today that can be done quickly, cheaply, easily, and close to home. The cattlemen are willing to pay for it; customers consider tested beef worth the cost. So what is the problem? Well, our

Department of Agriculture and the large beef producers do not want it tested. The $27 billion meat packing industry does not want the possibility that private testing would challenge the Bush administration's position that mad cow disease is not a problem.

An article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal details many of these responsible cattle producers' frustrations with the current Department of Agriculture policy. It recounted how David Luker, who owns Missouri Valley Natural Beef, wants to pay to test his beef in order to satisfy the demands of his customers. The USDA, however, will not allow it.

The USDA's laboratory refused to test his cattle, insisting that the beef supply is safe, and just take our word for it. When Creekstone Farms Premium Beef said it wanted to build its own laboratory to test for mad cow disease in order to get back into the Japanese market where all cattle are tested, the USDA responded by saying anyone testing without the USDA approval, which they will not give, would face criminal charges. What is wrong with this picture?

President Bush's friend and benefactor, ``Kenny Boy'' Lay, is walking around free after gross mismanagement of Enron, which devastated workers and cost American investors billions of dollars, yet the Bush administration is now prepared to press criminal charges against people who merely want to test to ensure that the beef they are producing is safe.

There are four testing firms in the United States that make rapid diagnostic kits that can tell in a matter of hours whether a cow is infected. These kits are widely used in both Europe and Japan where testing is pervasive, and as I mentioned in Japan, where it is universal. Yet here, the administration will not allow these tests to be used on American cattle. This is not just an issue about mad cow disease, which is admittedly rare, we think, and we hope will stay that way. It is an issue of consumer choice and consumer protection. This is an issue of treating Americans like grown-ups and supplying them with information they can count on regarding food safety.

If the administration was as concerned with the public interest as it is with special interest, we would have much higher testing standards in place at this point, and we would not be stopping responsible members of the industry from giving what many consumers want.

Mr. Speaker, food safety is a key ingredient for a livable community where our families are safe, healthy, and economically secure. I hope the public will be heard on this important issue as this year progresses.

Mr. Speaker, the general election for President is basically starting this week. The Democrats have selected their nominee. The President is out campaigning. But I hope that we will be able this week to take a pause before the action gets too heated to deal with the hundreds of volunteers who are visiting Capitol Hill who are advocates for bicycling.

These are people from all over the country, small businesspeople, community activists, all here with a message of how activity dealing with cycling in

America can make our communities healthier, cycling can be a dramatic opportunity for economic development for thousands of small businesses, and it is, after all, the most efficient form of urban transportation ever devised.

It is an opportunity for us, in a small but important way, to reduce our energy dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions, to improve air quality, and to reduce the traffic congestion that is costing American families dozens of extra hours that they cannot afford every month.

I urge my colleagues to join our bike-partisan Bicycle Caucus; to support robust transportation funding that includes things like safe routes to school and enhancements; and integrate cycling into your life and your community. We will be healthier, happier and the country will be better off.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 1997, the so-called ``Unborn Victims of Violence Act''. Since the landmark Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, Congress has slowly passed legislation to erode women's reproductive choices. This is a personal and private decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her physician, and her own beliefs.

This is the third time that people who oppose reproductive freedom for women and their families have attempted this back door maneuver to restrict abortion. Instead of focusing on purely political measures aimed at the erosion of a woman's reproductive freedom, we should be protecting women from violence and increasing assistance to women in life-threatening domestic situations.

Harsh penalties already exist in 38 states for crimes against pregnant women that result in the injury or death of her fetus. The overwhelming majority of crimes against pregnant women that cause injury to her fetus occur in cases of domestic abuse or drunk driving accidents, instances that are prosecutable under currently existing State laws. Nearly one in every three adult women experiences at least one physical assault by their partner during adulthood. Drunk driving accidents continue to result in substantial loss of life in every city across the Nation. H.R. 1997 would do nothing to add to the existing protections against these serious and prevalent crimes.

I support the Lofgren amendment, ``the Motherhood Protection Act'', a crime bill that would protect pregnant women from violence and impose stiffer penalties than the competing bill, ``the Unborn Victims of Violence Act''. If protecting pregnant women from violent crime were truly our priority, Congress would have passed the Lofgren amendment to

Mr. Speaker, we have much serious business to attend to on Capitol Hill these days. Many of us on our side of the aisle are deeply concerned about the Bush economic picture, how sad it is for most of America, including my State, which has struggled with very high unemployment for most of the Bush administration. The administration has fallen 1.8 million jobs short of the promises that were made to the Americans and to this Congress to justify the first two massive tax cuts from the Bush administration. There are significant issues to deal with the national government's fiscal health, the guarantees of an extra trillion dollars that was going to be available when the tax cuts were brought forward that the President repeated here in Washington, D.C., and out in the hustings.

Now the administration wants to spend another trillion dollars in the face of hemorrhaging red ink to make these tax cuts that benefit a tiny number of Americans, those who need help the least, make their tax cuts permanent. This is something we could debate here in Washington, D.C.

There appears to be no concern for the millions of Americans who are being caught in the payment of the millionaires tax, the alternative minimum tax, that was inspired because there were a handful of people who were earning $1 million or more in today's dollars that escaped taxation altogether. Congress in its wisdom passed the alternative minimum tax.

Now it has turned into a voracious revenue machine for the Federal Government that is taxing 2.4 million American families, and that number is due to quadruple to over 12 million families in just a year; and if nothing is done, it is going to put the tax bite, extra taxes, on 41 million American families who will be subjected to the millionaires tax. But the Bush administration is more concerned about making permanent tax cuts for those who need it the least, as opposed to dealing with the alternative minimum tax. We do not hear any outrage. That is something we should debate on this floor.

Or remember the lockbox where the two candidates for President, was it just 2000, Al Gore and then Governor Bush, were going to lock up the Social Security trust fund to make sure it was available for future generations? Now under the fiscal policies of this administration and his allies in Congress, we are borrowing every cent of the Medicare prescription drug benefit from the Medicare trust fund. That is something that is worth debating.

The tax cut that is being pressed would fund the Social Security deficit three times over and avoid a disaster as the baby boom generation approaches retirement.

This administration has refused to join us in the battle against the Republican leadership to extend unemployment benefits for workers who have had them expire. That is worth debating.

Or the loss of manufacturing jobs across this country. It is fascinating to hear the administration's one concrete proposal to increase the number of manufacturing jobs that I have heard in the last 3 years, and that is to reclassify the people who work at McDonald's, providing the service at those restaurants, that they are somehow going to be manufacturing jobs. They are going to change the definition. That is worth debating too.

But what is it that the administration wants to talk about? Not the false choices in Iraq that have put us in a disastrous situation on the ground and putting young men and women in harm's way, not the deeply flawed policy where we are not following through in Afghanistan. They want to talk about gay marriage.

I would strongly recommend that instead of pursuing something that was brought to us by Republican judges in Massachusetts, we let the States alone debate the real issues and not deal with a Federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join with my colleagues

today on what is the most important economic, environmental, and public safety issue that we will be facing.

I for one was a little bit startled when we had the President refer to this transportation bill as an entitlement program. With all due respect, this is not an entitlement, except to the point that I think, as referenced by our committee chair, the American public is entitled to have infrastructure investment.

I find it striking that we can have conservative icons like Grover Norquist, Paul Weyrich, we have the Chamber of Commerce, along with environmentalists, with unions, with development interests, with Realtors, all coming together with one of the broadest coalitions we have seen. All understand that this transportation funding is a user fee. To keep pace with inflation is an important national goal that was endorsed by no less a conservative icon than President Reagan. We are attempting to move forward in this fashion. It does not have to be this hard.

I would hope that our membership across the aisles will support our leadership on this committee who have taken a principled and strong stand to fund needs, as the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) mentioned, that were identified by a study from the administration itself. It is not a hard sell to the American public. Eighty percent of the public feels that our highway and transit network are important to our economy. Sixty-nine percent of the public support increasing our Federal transportation investment, even if it means raising the gas tax.

TEA-21 has provided money for roads, for bridges, for virtually every metropolitan area. It has helped with air quality. It has helped with transportation enhancements, transit freight movement, bicycles. Communities large and small have used all of these provisions. Now is the time for all of us to step forward.

I am sorry we are not debating the 6-year reauthorization, but I hope that we will be using the next 4 months to actually do our job of legislating and passing a bipartisan bill that funds these needs, balances transportation, places a premium on environmental protection, and maintains local flexibility and control of decisionmaking.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon with some good news and bad news for Amtrak. I congratulate Amtrak for having the highest ridership ever experienced in the Nation's intercity passenger rail service in its 32-year history. In my region of the Pacific Northwest, we have seen ridership increase 520 percent since the inception just 10 years ago of service between Eugene and Seattle and on to Vancouver, BC. It has had massive improvements in its infrastructure; very, very exciting.

The bad news is that, despite all of this progress with Amtrak, we have a proposal from the administration that would break it apart, it would privatize it, it would lease out its assets and abandon some of its routes, which would jeopardize the very existence of this important transportation mode. It would place heavy financial burdens on the States to fund what is essentially a national system, the only country in the world that has abandoned its commitment to rail passenger service.

I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that this Chamber will once again rise to the support of a strong intercity rail passenger system, support Amtrak, support the new leadership there under President David Gunn, and provide a service that the American public desperately wants.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the President's State of the Union speech and the Republican leadership in Congress, I have been struck by the false choices and misplaced priorities that have been presented to the American public.

We heard pledges from the Presidential candidates on the campaign trail in the year 2000 to save the Social Security surplus and put it in a lockbox.

The reality of the President's 2005 budget proposal is that he feels it is more important to reward those who need help the least, instead of correcting, for example, the looming crisis in Social Security. Perhaps, a cynic would say, because it does not explode until after the expiration of the next Presidential term.

Rather than protect future retirements for American workers, this administration would instead borrow more from the Social Security trust fund to finance tax breaks for people who already have gained the most. But the most disingenuous, insidious, and destructive of all of these policies to American middle-class families is the refusal to deal with the alternative minimum tax, which has become a cruel penalty on middle America.

This tax was established 35 years ago after a study revealed that there were 155 people who paid no Federal income tax at all despite having an annual income, in today's dollars, of over a million dollars. This led to the alternative minimum tax passed in 1969. It was designed to ensure that a few ultra-rich people at least paid something. This alternative minimum tax, the AMT, has now morphed into a money-raising bonanza for the Federal Government and a nightmare for middle America.

Because it was never indexed for inflation, more people pay this every year, people who were never designed to be subjected to it. Congress now uses these tax revenues to finance other tax cuts for more privileged people. The goal of the administration and the Republican Congress is to make dividend and investment income tax free, inheritances tax free.

As recently as 1997, less than 1 percent of the American tax payers were subjected to the alternative minimum tax. Because of inflation, rising incomes, and added gimmicks to the tax system, today, almost 2\1/2\ million families pay the AMT. By 2005, we will have five times as many people, over 12 million families; by 2010 over 33 million American families are going to be providing half the Federal income tax through the alternative minimum tax. By 2013, 10 years from now, 37 percent of all taxpayers, 41 million families, will pay it.

The tragedy is that instead of catching a few who avoid paying taxes, the alternative minimum tax is specifically penalizing hard-working families who are doing exactly what government and this administration ask. Rather than strike people who avoid paying taxes, the alternative minimum tax penalizes families who are because they pay high local property and income taxes. It penalizes people with children who take advantage of the child care deductions and family credits. It penalizes those who save for their own future with 401(k) or other tax-deferred programs. These things trigger the alternative minimum tax for doing exactly what people are asked by this government to do.

Finally, many people are going to pay more to a CPA to make complex calculations than the tax itself will cost them, thus a double tax penalty.

Where is the outrage from this administration and from the Republican leadership in Congress about this disaster that is befalling American families? They claim that they are for tax fairness and justice, yet they are addicted to the Federal Government raising revenues unfairly while they are cutting taxes for people whose taxes have already been cut and who need the help least of any Americans.

Federal taxes overall as a percentage of government spending are at the lowest level of national income since the 1950s; but they are being shifted. Because of the policies of my Republican friends in Congress and this administration, they are being shifted to America's hard- working families who deserve better.

There ought to be no more talk about tax cuts for the most well-off until we

fix this nightmare. The failure to address the alternative minimum tax makes a mockery of alleged concern for middle America, for families, and for tax fairness.