Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, let us understand something fundamental here. People do not just want the appearance of health insurance. They want a program that they can trust and that will pay when they incur the claim, and that is the critical problem with the bill being put before us. There are no meaningful consumer safeguards. This can manifest itself in three critical ways. First, as to content. We all know about insurance loopholes, the fine print that says, oh, we will pay your claim unless you file a claim, in which case we

won't pay the claim. This kind of malarkey has been with us ever since insurance first came in the marketplace. Insurance commissioners make certain that the policy does what it purports to do, no fine print taking away the meaningful coverage. This bill takes away that insurance commissioner protection provided to the consumers.

The second protection, rating. Do you know that in our States, there was a company that tried to sell a policy that actually raised the premium whenever you went to see a doctor? You thought you had good health care coverage, you went to see a doctor, your premium went up until it quickly became unaffordable. That is no insurance coverage. There is not the kind of protection on this kind of terrible rating scheme in this plan. As an insurance commissioner, I have seen rating schemes. Do not think for a second there are not people that will try this under this legislation. Consumers need protection there.

Thirdly, solvency. If there is one part of this bill that I think just screams out, ``This is stupid,'' it is the part on solvency. There is a $2 million cap on the solvency required for an AHP, no matter how many lives you have. Millions and millions of lives, $2 million maximum coverage. Do you know that the claims incurred by two premature babies could totally bust this plan? Again, people want coverage that is there when they need it, not coverage that gives them the appearance of having something only to have it go bust because it did not have enough capitalization. This business of capping solvency stands in stark contrast to any actuarial approach and shows that this is absolute danger for our consumers. Reject this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 3199, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act, with the expectation that this bill's flaws will be fixed in conference negotiations with the Senate.

I support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act because it provides for the continuation of much-needed, modernized criminal and intelligence investigating tools that bolster the ability of federal authorities to combat the threat of terrorism. However, I believe that these powers should be properly tailored to ensure that the legislation meets its intended purpose and does not allow for unnecessarily broad searches and surveillance of innocent Americans.

The bill we are considering today takes many good steps towards reauthorizing the tools necessary to combat terrorism. However, I believe that this bill can be improved by tightening the ability to conduct roving wiretaps and inserting provisions to re-evaluate measures to assure accountability and effective congressional oversight. Despite my concerns with H.R. 3199, I am going to vote for this bill based on the expectation that this bill's shortcomings will be significantly improved during negotiations with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues who have just completed their hour discussing on the House floor tonight why we should enact CAFTA.

Clearly, they were sincere, yet the arguments discussed essentially have been the same arguments advanced for why these negotiations even began now 2 years, 18 months ago, certainly being concluded well over a year ago.

It is an enormous privilege to serve on the Ways and Means Committee, the committee of jurisdiction on trade matters. And during the period of time, the extended period of time this has been before the Congress, it has given us a chance to look at this agreement pretty closely.

I could spend my time tonight going into the whats, and the whereases and the what-fors, but I think it might be more fruitful to discuss this in the broader perspective, perspective first of all involving the track we are on relative to our trade agreements and our Nation's economy.

Then, secondly, a particular for instance in terms of where this is just more of the same, in terms of our loss of jobs, loss of economic opportunity here at home, and then finally to discuss the process, a process that I think raises serious questions about this trade agreement.

Well, let us start with the broad pattern. We have been on a track of these trade deals, part of our participation in the global economy, for some years now. A recent commentator contrasted the approach taken by the United States with that of most other nations. It would just seem natural that as you stroll to the table and negotiate on behalf of the country you represent, that you advocate the nation's interests, the nation's jobs, the nation's opportunity to sell more under these agreements. And most nations do precisely that.

But this commentator contrasted the United States, where it is not just local interests that are represented by the big multinational corporations based in this country, it may be a U.S. corporation, but may be jobs all across the world.

Whether or not the interests of the multinational corporations have been advanced, the record is clear. The interest of the American worker and American opportunities have not been advanced. Just look at the trade numbers. Could you possibly have a clearer indicator as to whether this is working or not than the trade numbers? And what do they tell us? They tell us that our trade deficit, the amount we buy more than we sell, has never been greater in the history of our country.

Now, we have been at this awhile, these trade deals. A friend of mine says there is not a trade deal ever negotiated that our silk-shirted Ivy League-educated negotiators could not lose in half an hour. You certainly seem to think there might be truth in that when you look at the job loss that has just wrecked the economies of important parts of our country and led us to a net position, again, where we are buying more than we are selling to a dimension never before seen in the history of the United States.

I represent an agriculture State, North Dakota. We had, growing up when I was a kid in school, we thought of ourselves as North Dakota, bread basket to the world. We were very proud of the role we played in feeding the world. So let us just break out this

agriculture component of our economy, take a look at that one. This year, 2005, we are on the brink of importing more food than we export.

The United States of America as a net food importer. Can you imagine something more screwed up than that? Clearly, this trade path that we are on is not working, and quite clearly CAFTA is more of the same.

You know, my friends that just took the preceding hour, they took about the 44 million new customers, the 44 million new customers. You know, we did not just learn of these places down there; heck, we have been dealing with them for years and years and years.

We have got about 94 percent of their wheat market, just to reference a commodity important in North Dakota. How much more are we going to get? They are not 44 million new customers. These are long-established trading partners of the United States. But what is at issue is what we are going to do relative to opening the flood gates to their production, to the further displacement of our workers and our opportunities.

And let me give you a for instance, because it is an industry I represent, the sugar industry. Of all of the commodities of agriculture, sugar is one of the higher value opportunities for the American farmer. And I represent people, third generation, fourth generation on the land, families that broke the prairie under the Homestead Act to begin their family's farming experience and now making a go of it because they raise sugar beets in the Red River Valley.

This is an industry that they have grown by blood, sweat and toil and risks, enormous financial risk. They had farmers not just raising the sugar beets, but when they had an opportunity, they acquired the processing neck of the business. So as a cooperative, farmers joining together, they actually bought the sugar refinery.

That is the place that makes the refined sugar. They put it into the market. Now they control the marketing of it as well.

This entire sugar industry from the Red River Valley sugar beet growers, from the workers in the plants today, to the sugar cane growers down in the South Central and Southeastern part of country, to the sugar beet growers out in the Northwestern United States, significant areas of the country broadly affected by the threat to sugar. Because what is at stake in CAFTA is opening up the border for yet an additional allotment for sugar to come pouring in from the CAFTA countries, countries whose labor wages have no relation to ours, whose environmental protections in their plants are no relation to ours, whose costs are often subsidized to get them down to global dump price.

And I have seen the context of the CAFTA debate argument that what the United States needs is to resort to the global dump price at the end of domestic production of sugar in this country. When will it end? When we decide are U.S. jobs worth fighting for, and the economic hopes and dreams of our families are what we ought to be representing? If it is not good for us, why are we doing it? And when it comes to sugar, believe you me, just look right across the opinion of the United Sugar Industry in this country. They do not believe this is good for us. They believe it is the beginning of an end to domestic production of sugar in this country.

What that means in the Red River Valley, we are talking Fargo, Grand Forks, North Dakota, not large places, is a direct and indirect economic impact of up to 2- to $3 billion, direct jobs 2,500, indirect jobs maybe 30,000 in the area I represent. Just another chapter in this global trade path we are on that has cost us so much and brought us the deepest deficit in the history of the country.

Now, you might say, well, those are interesting arguments, but these other guys say something quite different. And so who do we believe? I would just say look at how this bill CAFTA is being handled. It was negotiated in the spring of 2004 and concluded in late spring, early summer. If this was such a point of pride for our trade negotiators who brought this agreement home, why in the world did President Bush not, as an achievement of his administration, put it front and center in the election campaign and run it up to Congress for a vote?

They ran the Australia trade agreement for a vote. That was negotiated after CAFTA. Why did they keep CAFTA like a dark family secret in the back room, out of the way, out of public view after the election? I believe it is because they knew that the American people knew this was another raw deal, another trade deal that was a raw deal; and, therefore, out of sight, out of mind. Let us get the votes. Let us win the election. We will bring it up and run it through later. That is a pretty callous way, I think, to deal with something so important to the people of this country, but that is what they have done.

Now, here we are 7 months into the new year, and just now they are running up for a vote. What has delayed them now that the election is so long past? Very simple. They do not have the votes. Why do they not have the votes? Because the American people understand that we have the deepest trade deficit in the history of the country. They understand that their jobs are not safe. They understand that their friends have lost jobs. They understand that industries are being dislocated. And as a result they do not have much time or attention for this CAFTA.

The House of Representatives is a very imperfect place, but there is one thing that this place captures, and that is what the American people are thinking. And that is why, beginning this last week before the August recess, the majority, the majority who have dictated so much in terms of vote outcomes, did not know whether they have the votes to pass CAFTA. And I believe they do not or we would have had it up for a vote this afternoon.

The Members of this body know that CAFTA is a loser for the American people. And so what are we hearing in these final hours before the CAFTA vote? I want the American people to understand what is at stake just as I discuss it with my colleagues. They have directly linked China to CAFTA. There is no linkage to China and CAFTA. We are upset about China. We are worried about the trade imbalance with China. CAFTA gives us a deeper trade imbalance, in my view, with CAFTA countries. It has nothing to do with China. They are trying cross-linkages, anything to try and get votes. Even more insidious.

There is a highway bill in conference committee. One of the things each and every Member represents is thousands and thousands of miles of roads back in their home districts. It is very important for each of us, Republican and Democrat alike, from every corner of the country, that we get our local needs attended to in the highway bill.

Now, do you think the highway bill is being held up because there is a problem with the highway bill? Absolutely not. The highway bill is being held up to leverage votes for CAFTA. This trade deal, so important for American jobs, is being bartered for highway projects in far-flung congressional districts.

This is no way for us to look at the future of U.S. trade. We can do better than that. It is just wrong to link Federal highway appropriations to preferred votes on trade deals. It is absolutely wrong.

Now we are hearing that it is going to be brought up for a vote late at night, in the early morning hours of the last minutes before we break for August recess. I fully expect that you might see this up for a vote between 2 and 3 in the morning maybe, or 4 and 5 in the morning if they have not corralled the votes before we leave town.

Can you imagine this body acting any more disgracefully than to hold the debate, run it when people are not watching, try and break the arms required to pass the deal, and then leave town under cloak of darkness for a month to hope the heat cools down because we have passed another bad deal for the American people?

I would hope and I would urge those who really determine the outcome of this fight, those who tonight find themselves caught between standing for their constituents and what their constituents want and what their leadership tells them they have to do, I would urge them to do the thing that you could never lose by doing: Stand with your constituents. They are the ones that sent you here. They are the

ones we pledged to support. They are the ones who are counting on you tonight.

I was as a freshman in a Democrat majority. We have been in the minority for more than 10 years. And I believe we are in the minority in part because our leaders thought there were times when we had to vote for the majority instead of voting for those who sent us here.

I urge my Republican colleagues who are on the fence on this trade deal, getting tremendous pressure from the leadership, I urge you to stand your ground, stand with your constituents. They need you. They need you badly on this vote.

To the Democrat and Republican Members who have already signaled that we are opposed to this deal, we are opposed to another sell-out of our economy, we are opposed to another rolling over of the concerns about American workers, I urge you to dig down and work harder than we have ever worked before.

We are on the brink of winning this important vote. What happens if we do? It is not like relations end, for heaven's sake, with our near neighbors. We go back to the table and we get a deal we can all be proud of, one that has some fundamental protections for our country. That is all that happens if we defeat this deal. So let us stand together and win one, by golly. The American economy and the American workers deserve no less.

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Some things should not be so hard. This is about asking for a report about consular services in Pristina. An example of why this is needed: some refugees from the war in Kosovo have settled in Bismarck. They are very close personal friends of mine. They wanted to have family come and visit. To get those visas, they could not go to Pristina. They sure did not want to go to Belgrade. They ended up going to Macedonia and dealing with the embassy in Skopje, tremendously difficult, cumbersome, and burdensome; and what is more, it took a couple, three trips. We do not need to do this to the people in this region.

I have got an idea: let us have a report on whether we could provide these services in Pristina.

That is all that the Committee on International Relations voted on this question. It just makes simple sense. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the amendment that would strike this language. Let us move this forward and look at how we can improve the services, consular services, we are providing to the people in this region.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 3010, the fiscal year 2006 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Appropriations bill with the hope that funding levels in the bill will be increased during conference negotiations with the Senate. While I support many of the funding provisions in this legislation, I also believe that this bill shortchanges important needs in education and health care.

I am deeply alarmed that this funding plan not only continues to break the funding promise of the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB, but it actually takes a step backwards. Under this bill, NCLB funding would fall $13.2 billion short of what was promised when the law was passed, translating to a 3.3 percent decrease from 2005. I am convinced that this law's success will depend in part on the investment made in this effort.

Not only does this bill fall short on critical funding for education, it also makes damaging cuts to rural health assistance. As co-chair of the Rural Health Care Coalition, I am disturbed by two damaging cuts that would compromise access to quality care in rural areas. The legislation eliminates funding for Rural Health Research Center grant programs that analyze how federal policies impact rural providers. In addition, the measure cuts funding for Rural Health Outreach grants by over 70 percent. Outreach grants are used to develop innovative approaches to health problems that are specific to rural communities. If these cuts are retained in conference, 146 rural communities will be forced to abandon their current outreach projects. I urge the Senate to provide full funding to these critical rural programs, and I intend to actively support the restoration of these funds in conference.

This bill does include many provisions that I applaud. I was pleased that the Rural Education Achievement Program once again received funding to help rural districts manage the No Child Left Behind Act's new accountability requirements, but I strongly believe this program merits an increase in funding. I was also pleased that this bill maintains funding for rural hospital flexibility grants and small hospital improvement grants.

Ultimately, I cast my vote in favor of this legislation in order to ensure that the appropriations process could move forward. I remain hopeful that the Senate will include higher funding levels for these programs and that we can work on a bipartisan basis to develop a fiscally responsible funding plan that provides adequate resources to strengthen our schools, address our public health needs, and support our Nation's workers.

Mr. Speaker, on June 22 and June 23, 2005, the Base Realignment and Closure Commission held a site visit and hearing in Grand Forks, North Dakota, at which I testified. Due to the schedule, I missed rollcall

votes Nos. 293 through 304. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner: rollcall No. 293, ``no''; rollcall No. 294, ``no''; rollcall No. 295, ``no''; rollcall No. 296, ``aye''; rollcall No. 297, ``no''; rollcall No. 298, ``no''; rollcall No. 299, ``no''; rollcall No. 300, ``no''; rollcall No. 301, ``no''; rollcall No. 302, ``aye''; rollcall No. 303, ``aye''; rollcall No. 304, ``no''.

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

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us posed a double-barrel shotgun blast to the continuation of Amtrak. One barrel has been dealt with with the amendment passed earlier by this House restoring funding critically needed to keep national passenger rail available. But we cannot stop now. We have to also pass the Brown amendment, because without the passage of this amendment, investment in the routes denoted in red on this chart will end. Now, that continues to be the routing for many of the vast stretches across this country that truly make this a national rail system.

Coming from the heartland, representing North Dakota, a place of vast distances and not that many people, I must tell my colleagues that I am surprised at what I am hearing on the floor of the House, that this is a national service. Provided, it runs just between populated areas and short distances, some place for the Northeast, maybe the Southwest; but the rest of the expanse of this great country, forget about it. Are we the United States of America, or what?

In North Dakota, what is at stake is the Empire Builder. It is a route that has been operating for 76 years. This year, it will serve 89,000 North Dakotans. Amtrak links many rural cities and communities that are not serviceable by airlines. In North Dakota, Amtrak has a strong record of reliable service. It is an important transportation option for many North Dakotans and North Dakota businesses.

For the resident of Rugby, North Dakota, seeking to get to Minot, the regional medical center to attend to their medical needs in the middle of a cold, January day, or small businesses along the northern route, Devils Lake, depending upon the transportation option for the shipping of central materials for that particular business, Amtrak matters and it matters a great deal to us. In Minot, North Dakota, one station alone, 29,000 served last year.

Mr. Chairman, in rural America we do not have airports in every corner, we do not have the same kinds of options that the crowded areas of this country do, and that is why we need to continue this national commitment to national passenger rail.

We all have supported taxpayer dollars, and I mean over and above the ticket tax dollars, that have gone into the highway program. They have gone into the airport improvement program, and now it is time to do our proportional share for passenger rail. It is pennies on the dollar compared to the public subsidy of these other transportation alternatives. But take it from one from the heartland: passenger rail matters, and it matters just as much to us as it does in the northeast corridor.

I urge passage of the Brown amendment. Do not dismantle Amtrak. Do not take this service away from rural America.

Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine, Angela Wilz of Bismarck, North Dakota, has shown tremendous courage during a very challenging year for her family. When her husband--CPT Grant Wilz of North Dakota's 141st Engineer Combat Battalion--was deployed to Iraq in February of 2004, Angela was forced to face the challenges of parenting and managing a household without her partner. Though this is always a difficult task when a spouse is serving overseas, Angela's situation was especially demanding.

Angela took over her husband's responsibilities as administrator of a local retirement home, working overtime to help meet the needs of those charged to her care. On top of these professional duties, Angela continued to provide love and care to the couple's three children-- including their oldest child who has special needs.

To make matters more challenging, Angela was diagnosed with thyroid cancer during her husband's tour of duty. After undergoing two surgeries, Angela began to experience complications--including temporary paralysis that resulted in hospitalization. Never one to feel sorry for herself, Angela prayed for her health to return so that she could continue to be there for her children.

Thankfully, Angela is on her way towards a full recovery and Captain Wilz is now back home in North Dakota, safe and sound.

The courage showed by the Wilz family is indicative of the sacrifices made by the husbands and wives of soldiers throughout our country's history. Whether their loved ones manned a battleship in the South Pacific, served in the sweltering jungle of Vietnam, or are currently performing dangerous duties in the sands of Iraq, it has been service members' spouses who provide love and care to anxious children and work long hours to make ends meet. Our nation's deeply felt gratitude goes out to all of our servicemen and women and their families who have endured so much on our behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

It seems curious to me that at a time when our trade deficit is the deepest in the history of our country and that we face the prospect that this year the United States may actually import more agriculture goods than it exports, that we would hear in the urging of the passage of this amendment that bringing in foreign product is the thing we need to do.

I represent sugar beet growers in the Red River Valley. This is an industry that they have built from scratch with sweat and toil at an enormous financial risk. Presently, it makes a $2 billion contribution to our economy and employs directly 2,500; indirectly, 30,000. This is a vital industry to the region I represent and needs to be protected.

It is simply not responsible to take on a component of the economy as important as, for example, this industry is in the region I represent by amendments offered in the course of appropriations debate.

I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 1544, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responder Act with the expectation that this bill's serious flaws will be fixed in conference negotiations with the Senate.

Our police, firefighter and other emergency service officers are routinely putting themselves at risk in order to ensure our safety. As a strong supporter of our nation's first responders, I believe it is imperative that the federal government provide these fine, brave public servants the resources they need to properly respond to threats of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the current system for distributing grants to first responders does not allocate funding in a timely fashion. According to the Department of Homeland Security, only about 48 percent of the funding obligated to the State of North Dakota between 2002 and 2004 has actually been spent to support first responders' efforts to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks, leaving about $20.6 million to still be spent. H.R. 1544 addresses this issue by streamlining the funding process for terrorism preparedness grants and moving the planning to the front end of the application process. By restructuring this process, it is predicted that the time it takes to get funds from the federal government to the local entity will be shortened by about 6 months.

However, I have deep concerns regarding the minimum funding levels provided in H.R. 1544. Every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response. Unfortunately, the minimum funding levels provided in H.R. 1544 do not go far enough to ensure that a rural state such as North Dakota will be provided the resources needed to develop and maintain a safe, emergency response infrastructure. Seeing that we do not know where terrorists will strike next, it is important that all communities possess properly trained first responders who are equipped with the appropriate equipment and technology to prevent, prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism. Despite my objections to H.R. 1544's minimum funding levels, I am going to vote for this bill based on the expectation that the minimum guarantee will be increased during negotiations with the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be casting my vote for H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005.

I am voting for this legislation with the face of Ashley Dahly on my mind. Ashley is a 17-year-old high school junior from Devils Lake, North Dakota. She is a happy teenager with an adoring family. She likes school, enjoys Student Congress and speech class, and loves ice skating.

Ashley also has juvenile diabetes. In fact, today she is at home missing her finals because of high blood sugars. Ashley is North Dakota's delegate for Children's Congress through the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, taking place here in Washington on June 18-22nd. Ashley's goal is to enter a health-related field such as a nurse or diabetes educator, because as Ashley has said, ``I know the pain that children diagnosed with diabetes go through, and I think I could help in relieving that pain.''

There is currently no cure for juvenile diabetes, a disease that affects another child every hour of every day. Embryonic stem cell research offers great potential for advancing treatments or even curing diabetes, as well as many other diseases such as Parkinson's disease, cancer, ALS, paralysis and others. Particularly in the case of diabetes, embryonic stem cell research holds the greatest possibility for understanding and curing this disease, since adult stem cells are not present in the pancreas, the organ attacked by diabetes.

Embryonic stem cell research is an extremely difficult issue, involving the potential for critical medical breakthroughs on the one hand, and very complex bio-ethical issues on the other. The bill requires that research only be conducted on stem cells derived from embryos created for fertility treatments that were in excess of the need of the mother and would otherwise have been destroyed. My vote today is supported by over 200 major patient groups, scientists, and medical research groups, and I believe that my vote can provide hope to families in North Dakota like Ashley's who are suffering through the illness of a loved one.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a colleague and dear friend of mine as he retires as President of the Turtle Mountain Community College in my state of North Dakota. I have had the privilege of knowing Dr. ``Carty'' Monette since first being elected to Congress in 1992 and have seen firsthand the leadership and devoted service he has provided in developing the College into the strong institution that it is today.

Dr. Monette has been with the Turtle Mountain Community College ever since its inception in 1973. He served his first five years as College Director before becoming President in 1978. During his tenure, he oversaw the College's growth from a young, fledging institution to a nationally-recognized leader in tribally-controlled post-secondary education. Not only has Dr. Monette lead the way in helping the College achieve excellence, but his efforts have also truly enhanced the entire community in Belcourt, North Dakota. After 27 great years, he will be difficult to replace.

I know that Dr. Monette will be sorely missed by all who have known his dedication to the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa in North Dakota and American Indians across the nation. I offer him my congratulations and best wishes for his continued success and happiness in his well- earned retirement years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time, and I am rising today in support of H.R. 902. I congratulate the gentleman from Delaware and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) for having worked long and hard on this legislation.

In a Chamber where we find so much to fight about, you might think that a dollar coin commemorating former Presidents would be the ultimate no-brainer; but believe me, I had very deep troubles with this legislation. You see, I represent the State of North Dakota, home of Sacagawea, as we say in Hidatsa, Sacagawea as she is known in the Shoshone language. This coin, the Presidential coin, will come in addition to the existing dollar coin which bears the likeness of Sacagawea.

This occurs at a time when we are recognizing the 200th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark Expedition and commemorating, in accordance with that remembrance, the role Sacagawea had in this very important expedition.

The State of North Dakota feels very deeply about Sacagawea and about her role in U.S. history. We commemorated not long ago our second statue in Statuary Hall in Sacagawea's likeness. We were concerned that the move to the Presidential coin would somehow phase out the Sacagawea coin or relegate this one coin to history and obscurity. We thought that was not the time to do it, not in the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, not this coin that recognizes the contributions Native American people have made in our history, not the coin that recognizes the role women have played in the history of our country.

So with all of these concerns, I sat down and began my discussions with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and also many discussions with my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

I am very pleased to say that this was one experience where rather than just being rebuffed with ``forget about your concerns, we have got the votes so we are going to run this,'' there was actual, very sincere listening to our concerns that Sacagawea continue in the coinage of our country. There were sincere efforts to address the issues that we were raising, and let me just cite a couple of them:

First, that the Presidential coins start at the conclusion of the bicentennial observation of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. In addition, that any improvements to the coin to advance the Presidential coins would also be applied to the Sacagawea coin. Specifically, here we are talking about making a coin that will work in vending machines, that has the gold color, yet is not so subject to tarnishing as the existing rendition of the Sacagawea coin.

I think that the bill, as a result of the changes made by the constructive dialogue we were able to maintain, is a better bill; and I am just deeply grateful that on this issue, maybe not of great national importance to many, but of very real importance to me and the people I represent, you paid attention to our concerns, addressed them and came up with what I believe is an acceptable compromise. Maybe we can take this example and export it to other issues before us.

I am deeply grateful to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle). By golly, when the gentleman gets an idea, he just does not let it drop. I was hoping the gentleman would wear out on this one; but, no, he kept pushing, and here we are today and we are going to pass it and are going to pass it with my vote.

So I commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and I thank them once again for the opportunity to work with them on this legislation.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this rule brings an important debate to the floor. Let me tell you what is not on the floor. What is not being debated is whether there should be additional estate tax relief. We agree there should be. Much has been accomplished over the last few years in that regard. The estate tax level attached at $600,000 per individual at the beginning of this decade. So that, as my colleague from West Virginia talks about the concern of estate tax on small businesses and farms, that may have been more the case at that time. Certainly it is less the case now. The estate tax level attaches at $1.5 million per individual, $3 million per couple, and obviously the number of estates that would have tax consequences has fallen significantly.

Is it enough? No. Let us do something quite dramatic. The proposal that I am offering as a substitute would double from where we are today and in a very certain and immediate way bring to $6 million the estate tax exclusion for couples. Couples across this country possessing less than $6 million in assets, no estate tax. Nothing. Gone. Immediately and certainly. By the end of the decade, it moves to $7 million. By 2009, there could be $7 million in a couple's estate.

Is this meaningful? You bet it is meaningful. You look at the numbers, and it will tell you that we all but make this problem go away. Looking across this country, 99.7 percent of estates in this country no longer have estate tax issues under the substitute that I am advancing. That is 997 out of 1,000. That is pretty significant.

There are a couple of other differences. It is one-quarter of the cost of the majority proposal, $290 billion, that they are talking about. There are things they are saying that just are not so, that small businesses and family farms have major estate tax issues when the level is $6 million per couple. They do not.

I represent family farms and small businesses all across the State of North Dakota. I am telling you, if we set this level at $6 million per couple, to move to $7 million by the end of the decade, we largely take care of the problem.

But beyond that, going forward, there is yet another very important wrinkle in the majority proposal. This is the capital gains tax that their proposal would add. It is unlike a tax relief bill that I have seen before, because, for everyone it helps, it adds capital gains taxes for many more. Right now in the handling of an estate, there is no capital gains tax. Under their proposal, they establish something called the carryover basis. Not to get technical with you, but what that does is impose capital gains tax exposure on estates. The way the numbers work out, more estates are going to end up with capital gains consequences than get relief from estate taxes. So you help a few; you harm a lot. It does not make much sense to me. Again, at a total budget cost of $290 billion over the first 10 years and more than $800 billion over the second 10 years.

This is a budget buster, my friends. At a time when we are talking about how we address the long-term solvency of Social Security, to just, without a concern, pass a $290 billion bill to help three-tenths of 1 percent of the most affluent in this country seems to be standing priorities directly on their head. The very people that favor privatizing Social Security, which is going to add risk in the Social Security benefit, which is going to reduce benefits sharply because they change the inflation index going forward, that is going to reduce the benefits on our children and grandchildren, want to now run up the debt on our children and grandchildren in order to help that three- tenths of 1 percent, the very wealthiest among us. What kind of sense is that?

So we have proposed something quite different, immediate and certain estate tax relief, $6 million per couple, $3 million per individual, right now, and in 2009, $7 million per couple, $3.5 million per individual. And, once more, a proposal that I think we would want to consider closely, we could take the difference between the majority bill and our bill and dedicate it to the Social Security trust fund.

There is a lot of talk from the other side: Where's your plan? Where's your plan? How about this one? Let us start by addressing the problem and making a good deal of it go away.

If we took the difference, the amount of estate tax revenue over the $7 million figure at the end of the decade, and dedicated it to the Social Security trust fund, we could fill 40 percent of the hole over 75 years, almost make half the problem go away, while preserving benefits, while keeping the inflation adjustment that our grandchildren need.

I think in the consequence of our floor discussions today it is important to talk about both concepts, the immediate and certain estate tax relief alternative that we are advancing and what we could do with the difference. They say this estate tax has to be repealed, that it is the most unfair thing in the world. I can think of something even more unfair, and that is cutting the benefits of Social Security to our children and grandchildren. That is more unfair in my opinion.

We do not have to make that trade-off. We can make estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of the people in this country, take the balance between the bills, invest it in the Social Security trust fund and deal with almost half of the problem of the underfunding over the next 75 years.

That is what the minority is bringing forward today. It is a thoroughly considered and balanced alternative, I believe a reasonable and responsible alternative, and I urge the Members' consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts, for leading the debate on this important rule in this fashion. I will just respond to my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the preceding speaker.

It is important that we talk about real facts today and, honest to goodness, some of the language does not reflect what reality would be relative to the estate tax if you would pass the Pomeroy substitute and set it at $6 million per couple, taking care of, making estate tax completely go away for 99.7 percent of the people in this country. Language like ``waging war on small business'' and the majority reason for why small family farms do not pass on, 99.7 percent have no, absolutely no estate tax under the proposal that we are advancing. Clearly, that language does not match the facts of the proposal that we have advanced.

We heard about the immorality of taxing for the wealthiest three out of the 1,000 estates in this country. I believe another immorality is on the floor today, and that is the immorality of privatizing Social Security and reducing the benefits of Social Security for our children and grandchildren. An essential part of the Social Security debate is changing the inflation index that would reduce the benefit for our subsequent generations. In my opinion, that is immoral.

What I think we ought to have captured in this debate on estate tax is the trade-off, because they say it is just estate tax; believe me, it is also Social Security. If you take $290 billion out of the budget for the wealthiest three out of 1,000, you impact the ability to fix Social Security for everybody else. And the proposal I would like considered before the House is, let us give immediate and certain estate tax relief, 6 million per couple, and let us capture the amount over that dedicated to Social Security. That would fill 40 percent of the unfunded liabilities.

In context, we are looking at a 75-year solvency figure that the President has found so troublesome he wants to privatize Social Security. Well, by dedicating the sums that we capture with this three- tenths of 1 percent, we could fill 40 percent of the hole on Social Security. We would not have to cut benefits for our children. We would not have to cut benefits for our grandchildren.

So what we have is a very reasonable proposal going forward. Let us make the estate tax go away for 99.7 percent of the estates in this country. Let us not impose new capital gains taxes at the time of estates, and let us dedicate the difference to addressing Social Security. It brings us almost halfway there in terms of keeping all of the guarantees, while meeting the funding challenge over the next 75 years.

That is what is advanced by the minority proposal in this debate, and I hope it will get my colleagues' close consideration.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to H. Res. 202, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin the presentation of the amendment in the nature of a substitute by yielding such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), the other member of the Earl Caucus of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to carry this debate today on behalf of the minority, and a privilege to participate with the gentleman from Missouri, who is one of my favorite Members of the House. He has presented his side very well.

He asked relative to a number of estates, would they be covered under the Pomeroy substitute? Well, I believe that a number of them would have their estate tax problems completely eliminated, because we take the exemption and we double it. We go from today, a joint estate at $3 million, and we say, if you have a joint estate of $6 million, no estate tax. We, like 2009, take that up to $7 million in a joint estate circumstance.

So as to the question he asked, I do not know the particulars of those cases, but I expect that a number, if not all of them are covered, because 99.7 percent of the estates in this country are under that amount.

But there is a feature of the majority proposal that is not represented in our substitute, and I want to talk about it right now, and this involves the imposition of capital gains liability at the handling of an estate under the majority bill.

I can just imagine Members in the majority, some of them that might have signed that ``no new tax'' pledge that was going around last Congress, just wringing their hands because they are about to vote for a tax increase, a tax increase in the form of capital gains taxation on estates. Section 541 of the bill that the majority proposal would make permanent reads this way: termination of step-up in basis at death. Tax legalese, but what does it mean? It means new capital gains and capital gains if you have an estate that exceeds that 1.3 gross value. You have a reporting commitment that attaches at 1.3 gross value for estate.

You know, it is the darndest tax bill I ever saw. Because, while they talk about tax relief, they are hurting more than they are helping.

I direct you to this chart. Number of estates today with capital gains issue, zero; and that is because the taxable basis in the property is established at time of transfer in an estate. No capital gains.

What happens under their proposal? Well, we know that there are 71,000 estates in the year 2011 that are likely to have reportable amounts, in other words, gross valuation over $1.3 million. Some will have a capital gains issue they have to pay. Some will not. But they are all going to have to report with the IRS.

And this report is something else. It means going back in and trying to establish what the value of the property was at the time mom and dad acquired it. It is a nightmare. And that is well-established in the Congressional Record. Because I have here the hearing, I have here the Ways and Means record at the time the committee considered testimony to repeal the carryover basis, the very provision they want to re- establish in tax law.

You see, it passed once before, in 1976. It was delayed from implementation and then repealed retroactively because of its consequences.

Here is what some very interesting participants had to bring to the committee. Carryover basis fosters an insidious bias against farmers and ranchers. Carryover basis calculations for

land, buildings, machinery, livestock and timber have been described as, at best, potential nightmares. Trying to establish what the taxable basis on this is, which their law would require, is a nightmare. So says the American Farm Bureau in their 1979 testimony.

The Cattlemen's Association, one touted as one of these that want to re-establish capital gains on estates, they say, because of its complexity, carryover base is impossible to comply with. It will increase the tax burden and compound the illiquidity of estates of farmers, ranchers and other family business operators who sell inherited property in the normal course of business, and I quote, and find it in the record from the National Cattlemen's Association.

NFIB also states, I strongly urge you, as an individual and as a taxpayer and as one who professionally and through an association represents small business people, repeal the carryover basis. So says the National Federation of Independent Business, the very group that they have cited as trying to re-establish carryover basis in the Tax Code and put capital gains back on estates.

We have been here before. We do not want to do it again. Do you not understand, voting for the repeal bill brings a new bill, a capital gains bill, and a capital gains bill to thousands that have no estate tax consequence?

So if you want to cast a vote this afternoon for a tax relief proposal, vote the Pomeroy substitute. No capital gains in the Pomeroy substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 90 seconds.

You know, anyone in the accountant or tax-planning profession worrying about losing business because of the estate tax is going to be smiling broadly at the end of tonight when we pass this re-creation of capital gains tax and estates.

In fact, the ABA Task Force report devotes almost 70 pages to discussing the problems that exist with the new carryover basis rules in their legislation. The problems identified in the report include unequal treatment of capital losses, difficulty in applying basis adjustments to property sold during the administration of the estate, treatment of property with debt and excessive basis, treatment of installment loans, unequal treatment of pension assets, administrative problems with allocation to spousal property, discrimination in favor of spouses in community property states. Even a cursory examination of that report leads to a conclusion that serious problems exist with the new rules and that their surface simplicity is quite misleading.

Let us just walk through some of the titles, some of the titles of the new capital gains law that they are going to have: Basis increase for certain property; limit increased by unused built-in losses and carryovers; spousal property basis increases; qualified terminable interest property; definitions and special rules for application of subsections (b) and (c); fair market value limitation; coordination with Section 691; information returns, et cetera.

And to think that for every one taxpayer getting relief under their proposal, an additional ten are now going to face this nightmare. It is a funny way to give tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis).

(Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the imbalance of time, I would be happy to have my friend from Missouri burn up a little more of his time, unless he has no further speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are at the end of our time, and I yield myself the balance of the time to close our side.

Mr. Speaker, I am feeling a bit like the man in the middle as we approach this debate. There has been some on our side that suggests the Pomeroy substitute provides too much estate tax relief. Indeed, the amounts are higher than acceptable. Obviously, we have heard from the other side they believe this is too low, but I would say to my friends in the majority, and listen to this carefully, those who approach this issue with an all-or-nothing mentality are likely to get nothing.

We cannot tell what is going to happen in the year 2010. None of us know. Except there is one thing we know, and look at this chart, the national debt is going to exceed $10 trillion, $10 trillion, 36 percent above where we are at today, and this is based upon established budget projections.

Do we really believe that that future Congress is going to sit blithely by and let this become implemented? There is not a nickel's worth of certainty in that. And we all know, because as damaging as this is to the budget in the first 10 years, with $290 billion of revenue loss, debt service added, this is a $326 billion hit to the budget in the first 10 years, look what happens in the second 10 years: $1.3 trillion impact in the second 10 years when we count the value of the debt service.

Do any of us think that we are really going to allow this to happen in the future years?

That is why I have advanced a very different alternative, entitled certain and immediate estate tax relief, because it is certain and it is immediate, and it deals by taking the estate tax to $6 million per couple, $7 million per couple by the time we get to 2009. It deals with the estate tax issues of 99.7 percent of the population.

Those of my colleagues looking at this chart may not be able to see this tiny red line, because that is what three-tenths of 1 percent represent with looking at the total population, three out of 1,000, and we know that on average those estates are going to average $15 million.

So for three-tenths of 1 percent we offer an alternative that has no capital gains, that is one-quarter of the cost, that immediately phases in estate tax relief and is far and away the superior way to go. All or nothing gets us nothing. Vote Pomeroy, immediate and certain estate tax relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.