Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, 2004, I missed a series of rollcall votes in the House of Representatives because of a family obligation that required my presence in Arizona. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall votes 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 198, and 199. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote 197.

Mr. Speaker, on May 18, 2004, I missed a series of rollcall votes in the House of Representatives because of a family obligation that required my presence in Arizona. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Vote Nos. 188, 189 and 190. I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall Vote No. 187.

Mr. Speaker, I give thanks that we serve in a Chamber where we can champion differences of opinion. Yet I rise really more in sorrow than in anger to see the headline in today's Roll Call newspaper, the senior Member from the other side of the aisle now calls our war effort in Iraq ``unwinnable.''

Mr. Speaker, our troops in uniform do not wear their political registrations on their sleeves. They are Americans representing all over America. I would caution those even as I embrace the right to dissent. I would caution those who choose to blame America first even in the wake of the challenges we see now with the abuses that are being found out and the people are going to be punished and punished and brought to justice from our side.

I would caution those who would paint with a broad brush every member of our military. I would caution those who would attempt now for political reasons to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It is not becoming this Nation. It does not well serve our men and women in uniform. And even as I defend the right to dissent, I disagree in the strongest possible terms with those who attempt to politicize this conflict and, in essence, place in jeopardy our men and women in uniform.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Rangel substitute and in support of the base legislation that we are discussing here today. I think it is important to have a full perspective of what is being talked about. Part of it, of course, is the tenor of the times, where we are on the calendar, the fact that notwithstanding, the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November the people of the United States will make some decisions. Perhaps it is in order, Mr. Speaker, to remind the Nation, and certainly my colleagues in this Chamber, how we arrived at this point.

A decade ago, the largest tax increase in American history increased the alternative minimum tax rate and did not adjust the AMT exemption amounts for inflation. As a result, more and more middle income families are forced to pay the AMT each year. Now with a change in majority status, when I was pleased to come here to the Congress and become a part of this majority, the fact is we have delivered time and again on relief from the alternative minimum tax.

Public Law 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001; Public Law 107-47, the Job Creation and Worker Assistant Act of 2002; PL 108-27, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003; H.R. 3521, the Tax Relief Extension Act of 2003; H.R. 4227, the Middle Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004, again providing alternative minimum tax relief by extending the relief enacted in 2003, adjusting it for inflation through 2005.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle reminiscent of a country song, that is their story and they are sticking to it, perhaps need to be reminded of this fact.

Do my colleagues know who really ends up paying corporate taxes? Mr. Speaker, the fact is every American consumer ends up paying corporate taxes. How? Prices increase, business accommodates, oh, and just to help people understand because I listened with interest to my friend from North Dakota say that somehow we are in the amen corner, I will tell my colleagues what I do say amen to, Mr. Speaker. I say amen to more quality jobs for Americans, and the Rangel substitute will result in lost jobs by imposing a permanent tax hike on manufacturers and other job creators at a time when our economy is recovering.

I know, Mr. Speaker, for many, given the political season, any good news is bad news for partisan political fortunes; but the fact is, we have seen an increase in orders for manufacturing. Manufacturing is on the upswing. Now that we are seeing real growth, quarterly economic growth, now that we are getting there, my friends on the left, who sadly have never met a tax hike they did not like, witnessed their inaction in the wake of the largest increase in American history a decade ago now let us put the kibosh on the recovery.

How best to do that? Well, let us cost jobs to the manufacturing sector, let us demonize anyone who creates jobs, and let us go back to the time-tested bugaboo and shopworn phrase that we are only going to increase taxes on the rich because the rich are somehow inherently evil.

No, Mr. Speaker, I reject that notion wholeheartedly because what we are talking about is opening doors of opportunity through job creation. That is why we should reject the Rangel substitute, stick with my good friend from Pennsylvania, and pass, yet again, relief from the alternative minimum tax.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate the comments of my friend from Ohio who preceded me.

Mr. Chairman, just to inform my friends on the left, if they want to ask about the number of unemployed in the State of Arizona, and am I aware of it, you bet I am. I also should point out for the record that our Democratic Governor in Arizona vetoed last year an unemployment bill to put to use some of the $8 billion in extended unemployment benefits available to Arizona and the other 49 States. I would remind this House, to amplify what my colleague from Ohio pointed out, as of last month, more than $5.4 billion in unemployment benefits still remains available.

Mr. Chairman, I was surprised that our Governor chose to veto that bill, supported by labor and by business to deal with economic needs in the State of Arizona. So I am well aware of what is happening in my home State.

I am well aware too in this House of another division. My friend from California asked where was the compassion. Mr. Chairman, this points out a fundamental difference. If you measure compassion by the number of people who stay on unemployment, I think that is a curious standard, because Mr. Chairman, compassion is not measured by the number of people who remain on unemployment and collect those checks. True compassion is measured by the number of people who leave unemployment and find real, rewarding jobs.

Expounding on my friend from California's statement, who asked where was the compassion when jobs are lost, a couple of points.

Mr. Chairman, just up in the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, we heard from union members, we heard from some of my fellow Arizonans who were in attendance, we heard from others across the West and across this country about jobs that have been lost because some in Washington thought it was more important to move away from a policy of balance when it comes to resource-based industries, and to support in another branch of government court cases that actually shut down the ability of people across this country to utilize the renewable resource of timber and, sadly, that resulted in catastrophic fire, not only in my State, but in the gentleman's home State of California.

I do not believe it is compassionate to get rid of those jobs. I am sorry my friend was not in attendance at that particular meeting. I am sorry many of my friends on the minority side were not in attendance at that particular encounter, because we continue to talk about restoring jobs and positive policies.

But we do have a fundamental difference, Mr. Chairman. And to my friends who measure compassion by the continuation of benefits on unemployment rather than taking actions to create new jobs, well, I think we understand how they are going to vote on this amendment, although for the record I would point out this does not really improve the unemployment benefits. It sets up a further administrative program, a new grant program, I guess more make-work-for-Washington bureaucrats, without the money necessary, and, by the way, with over $5.4 billion still sitting there in the unemployment program that the 50 States have not utilized. But I suppose if we want to grow government, this would be the action to take.

So, Mr. Chairman, spare us the false compassion, spare us the false compassion of preening and posturing and creating a new grant program, and finding some thin sliver of germaneness, when the real issue here is the fact that we have seen in the last year the biggest December drop in long-term unemployment in U.S. history: 146,000 going from the rolls of long-term unemployment to jobs. That is the real way we get this done.

Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues, reject this amendment, support true compassion, which is putting people to work with real jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee, my friend from California, and I thank him for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this conference report, which at once is an important first step and, at the same time, is long overdue.

It has been interesting to listen to the conflicting philosophies on the floor. There is one point of view represented that true environmentalism means therapy for the forests.

Mr. Speaker, I think the questions are accurate to be asked. Is it therapeutic to have such destruction in the forests that the number of particulates in the air eclipses rush hour in many of our major metropolitan areas? Is it therapeutic in the forests to see watersheds destroyed? Is it therapeutic in the forests to see land burned so badly that, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, the land is sterilized?

No, the sound environmental position is to have sound scientific principles embracing healthy forest management. And to the effort of protecting homes and property and people like the 20-plus who perished in California, this job is long overdue. We must pass this bill; and, quite frankly, we should do more, not only for rural America, but for suburbanites who perished in the recent fires in California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health of our full committee, for yielding me this time.

It has been interesting to listen to the debate thus far this evening. In fact, it evokes memories of an earlier time when I first arrived in this Chamber and, much to my surprise, heard all of these horror stories about what might happen to senior Americans and how schoolchildren might be starved and all sorts of villainy and demonizations that had no basis in fact.

Mr. Speaker, good people can disagree, but it is important to take a look at what we are doing with this legislation. The first thing we are doing is actually strengthening Medicare and preparing it for the 21st century, for the influx of more seniors, demographically what we will see in the 21st century, in just a few short years. And what we are also doing is updating Medicare for the 21st century to reflect changes in medicine. Prescription drugs are the first line of defense for America's seniors. This legislation recognizes that reality and moves to cover it. But moreover, Mr. Speaker, we first reach out to those seniors most in need, and we provide for all seniors next year immediate discounts, with our discount drug cards. Very, very important.

Now, we have heard a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the endorsement of this plan by the AARP. I think rather than tearing up cards or engaging in personal attacks on those who may serve very competently in that association, it might be good to actually listen to the words of our seniors who belong, the millions of seniors who depend on prescription drugs and believe in the AARP. And they readily admit, as all of us would admit, this legislation may not be perfect, but it is a good place to start. We all know, on both sides of the aisle, change comes incrementally. Let us adopt this legislation for America's seniors and for future seniors.

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

I would be remiss if I did not take time to commend my colleague from the First Congressional District of Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his hard work in shepherding this legislation through the committee process and for working tirelessly with the Forest Service and all affected parties to achieve consensus on this very important piece of legislation. I would likewise be remiss if I did not recognize my good friend and colleague from the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from American Samoa, who was nice enough to come and visit us in Arizona on many different issues and maintains a great interest in public lands throughout our country and beyond its immediate shores to the place where he calls home.

The Northern Arizona National Forest Land Exchange Act of 2003 provides for a Federal land exchange that places roughly 35,000 acres of pristine ponderosa pine forestland and biologically diverse land, much of which borders an existing wilderness area, into the hands of the United States Forest Service. This bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that the environment, ecosystems, watershed, and forestlands of northern Arizona are protected and preserved.

Mr. Speaker, harbor no delusions. This was an incredibly ambitious piece of work to get done. That is why kudos go to my friend from the first district for working so hard, because the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), with this legislation, really refined a concept very similar to what I was pleased and honored to sponsor in the last Congress, together with our late friend, Bob Stump. The concept of this type of land exchange to consolidate the Yavapai Ranch lands just makes sense. Through this land exchange, our Federal Government will receive pristine forestlands that truly belong under the stewardship of the Forest Service to be preserved for future generations.

This exchange was originally initiated by the Forest Service to consolidate the largest remaining ``checkerboard'' parcel of land in Arizona and to protect the Juniper Mountains forest area from future development. Watershed management, wildlife habitat, and

outdoor recreation in the consolidated land parcel will be preserved through this action.

Additionally, many of the land parcels the Forest Service will trade to accomplish these goals are eagerly sought by the local communities for a variety of worthwhile civic purposes, including expansion of airports, parks, and other municipal facilities. And, as my colleague from the first district mentioned, six summer camps that currently lease lands from the Forest Service will acquire their leased areas. So there will be no uncertainty about this. We will be moving proactively, positively to preserve these youth camps that are so vital for so many children in the West and especially in our great State of Arizona.

Importantly, the land exchange embodied in this bill follows all Federal regulations, especially as they relate to land appraisal methods, public input and involvement, compensation for individuals holding grazing permits, and a requirement for an equal value exchange to ensure that the public is not short-changed in any way, shape, fashion, or form.

As an involved cosponsor of this bill, I can attest to the fact that there has been considerable participation of local elected officials, Forest Service personnel, private citizens, and various citizen groups from northern Arizona and Arizona's Verde Valley in drafting this legislation. Their input, Mr. Speaker, has been invaluable, and I am confident that the bill now put forth by my colleague addresses every major concern that has been brought to light.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the efforts of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), this bill has been endorsed by the city councils of Flagstaff, Williams, Camp Verde, Cottonwood, Clarkdale, as well as the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors, the Salt River Project, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, the Greater Flagstaff Economic Council, the Williams Chamber of Commerce, the Camp Verde Chamber of Commerce, the Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce, the Grand Canyon Trust, the Sedona-Verde Valley Realtors, the Wildlife Conservation Council, the Arizona Antelope Foundation, the Arizona Mule Deer Association, the Central Arizona Land Trust, and the Arizona Republic newspaper; and that is just a partial listing of folks supporting this legislation.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this legislation makes good common sense for our forests and for the people of Arizona. The cost savings for the Federal Government and, therefore, for American taxpayers associated with this land exchange are significant. The savings are accomplished through consolidation of Federal lands that allows for much greater ease in forest management. But much more important, this exchange will ensure that one of the last largest pristine forested parcels in Arizona will pass out of private hands and be protected from potentially harmful development indefinitely.

Again, Mr. Speaker, let me take time to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), for his hard work on this important legislation. I am grateful for the opportunity to partner with him on this bill. I am pleased to see my good friend, again, from American Samoa playing a vital role on the other side of the aisle, and I would urge passage of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from West Virginia for yielding me this time. At the outset, let me say my affection and admiration for my colleague from North Carolina, the chairman of this Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations, knows no bounds. There is much to praise in this bill; and yet as this legislation came together in conference, an indignity has been thrust upon this body and the legislative branch of government.

What we witness tonight, my colleagues, is the triumph of the unelected, where legislative staffers, along with staffers from the executive branch, presume to know more than the duly elected officials of this body. And so in a closed conference, in 15 minutes' time, a provision is added to this bill which passed neither the House nor the other body and is thrust upon us at the last nanoseconds of the 11th hour in a cynical attempt to say, Come on, we dare you. There is needed firefighting money in here. We dare you to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, there may be some who interpret this as a turf battle. That would be a serious mistake. This is not a turf battle. This cuts to the core of our legislative branch and our system of coequal and separate branches of government.

We cannot allow the First Americans to remain the Forgotten Americans. This House has taken action time and again to reaffirm the rights of Native Americans on the trust fund accounts. I will grant every Member of this body it is a difficult issue. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact remains those of us on the Committee on Resources that have the jurisdiction, many of us will meet in my home State of Arizona Monday as I will chair a field hearing on this very topic. And now what we are seeing happen, if passage of this legislation takes place tonight, it renders those hearings a moot point. It silences the First Americans. It assures they remain the Forgotten Americans.

Vote ``no'' on this bill. It is the wrong thing to do.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for yielding me this time and for his willingness to engage in this colloquy regarding an issue of tremendous importance. I am concerned, as are many of our colleagues, about the out-of-pocket costs to U.S. soldiers participating in the Rest and Recuperation program for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

As my colleague from Florida knows, soldiers granted leave through the R&R program are flown by the Department of Defense to Baltimore, Washington International Airport for a 2-week leave from arduous duties on the front lines of freedom. The Pentagon restarted the R&R program, which had been dormant since Vietnam, to boost morale of soldiers who are being deployed for over a year. Once soldiers arrive at BWI, it is up to them to pay for the rest of their travel costs to see their families. Often, airlines have provided discounted rates, but some soldiers have reported paying in excess of $1,000. Now, we should not be causing an additional burden on soldiers or their families during this comparatively short stay in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, the Senate adopted an amendment during floor consideration offered by Mr. Coleman of Minnesota to alleviate this burden on our Armed Forces. Several Members of this House, including myself, have introduced legislation to correct this issue. I would ask the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations if he would consider supporting the Senate provision in the conference committee.

I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

I welcome my colleague from Maryland. It is the first chance, Mr. Speaker, that I have had the opportunity to engage my friend in debate on the floor of this House, though on a personal note I certainly appreciate the gentleman's friendship and welcome him to the floor, not to rehash rhetoric but to champion and highlight some respectful differences in policies.

First of all, when it comes to the priority of military families, I do not know anyone in this House who does not believe our fighting men and women should have the best equipment, the best opportunity to succeed and the best for their families, and when they leave the military, the best care.

It is interesting that my friend during this debate, which is on a motion to instruct in terms of the tax credit and the child tax credit, would spend much of his time talking about the military and I welcome that because I think we should always have that scrutiny, but let me respectfully suggest that tax policy does not occur in the vacuum, and what is most notable about the question confronting us today are the things that my friend from Maryland failed to say.

First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, the House should be reminded that under current policy, 40 million tax filers in this country pay no income taxes, and of that group, many of those folks with whom my friends on the left say they are very concerned, many folks in that category receive payments from the government far more generous than anything outlined in the child tax credit.

Four letters, Mr. Speaker, E-I-T-C, earned income tax credit, and it is interesting because on previous occasions when we have addressed the topic, no matter whom might make the motion here, it is as if historical and financial amnesia envelops my friends on the left. Because the thing is right now poor folks, who are hardworking people, who are paying payroll taxes, who may not pay income taxes, they are eligible for payments. However much it is a fair question, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with specifics.

For someone earning a combined salary or wage of $10,000, who is the head of the household with two children, that head of household is eligible for a refundable earned income tax credit of over $4,000. Mr. Speaker, that is current law. That exists right now.

So the question becomes if that type of effort is being made right now, why the cry that somehow what the House passed is lacking? Again, my colleagues will recall that I said it is notable what is omitted from the argument of my friend from Maryland. Let us take a closer look at their motion to instruct on this child tax credit.

This motion to instruct actually allows the child tax credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 immediately following the 2004 election. In other words, Mr. Speaker, for these families, bingo, a tax increase of $300 per child. What we have passed in the House ensures the child credit will remain at the $1,000 per child level throughout the decade.

The motion to instruct that my friend offers does not eliminate the marriage penalty and the child credit until the year 2010, and even then it does so for 1 year. Temporary relief means that when the pendulum comes back, thereto is a tax increase.

Under the motion offered by my friends, millions of children will be denied the credit because the parents are married. What we have passed in this House benefits middle-income families by taking care of this problem immediately.

My friend touched on the military concerns, as I heard earlier, and I think it is important. He asked for specifics. What have we done in terms of tax legislation to help those in the military? Military families, including those who are deployed abroad, are already receiving a refundable child credit and will continue to receive a refundable child credit under our House-passed bill. The motion they offer to instruct would only increase the refundable child credit for some families by allowing them to take into account tax free income when they compute their refundable credit.

The House-passed bill, Mr. Speaker, what we have passed in this House, provides more tax relief to military families because it includes some $806 million of military tax benefits. These provisions have already passed our House. They await action in the other body. Let me articulate for my colleagues what some of those provisions are. They include capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax free death gratuity payments, tax free dependent care assistance for members of the military. These provisions passed by this House await action in the other body.

The fact is we have a child tax credit that reaches out to America already, and the fact remains that through the earned income tax credit, the very people who some in this Chamber claim are forgotten are, in fact, helped already in existing law.

Mr. Speaker, facts are a stubborn thing. This is not an isolated incident, occurring in a vacuum. My friend from Maryland is right to this extent. It should not be our attempt today to score debating points, but it is our mission in the Congress of the United States to embrace sound policy. We have taken steps to help those who find the challenges of work and who find that they are on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, but the notion of tax credits for those who pay no income tax is something that deserves scrutiny, especially in the full light of what this government and what this House and what this Congress have already done.

That is why I would invite my colleagues to respectfully reject the arguments of my friends and vote no on this motion to instruct.

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

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

I think the point remains and, again, what has been left out of the discussion is existing tax policy. Nobody said the working poor do not pay taxes. What we said was we are offering help already, and to somehow willfully blind ourselves to the case of the head of household making $10,000 a year getting a refundable earned income tax credit of over $4,000 is to be, I believe, derelict in our duties to recognize the policy that already exists, and that is what we should remember today, that we have those programs in place to help the working poor.

To the extent my friend from Maryland champions what the other body has done and what he says is fiscal responsibility, I would simply point out there are tax increases which abound

in what came out of the other Chamber. When my colleagues move to reduce the child credit from $1,000 to $700, after the next election, they have just increased taxes on the American people, Mr. Speaker, and here I guess is the ultimate paradox.

If it is so wrong to reduce taxation, if it is so wrong, if we accept my friend's logic, that somehow it imperils growth or fiscal accountability in the country at large, why any motion to instruct? Why not just a straight ``no'' vote from my friends on the left? The logic escapes me, but the truth does not, and it is this: The working poor are championed under existing policy by the earned income tax credit. I respectfully disagree with my friend because I believe by reducing taxes, we can actually increase economic growth, and as we saw and it is no respecter of parties, on a nonpartisan basis for Jack Kennedy in the 1960s, for President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, total tax receipts to the government actually increase when there is more economic activity.

On this motion to instruct, we are ignoring the realities of what would be a tax increase following the 2004 election. Likewise, we are ignoring a policy that in previous days in this Chamber was championed by my friends in the minority, the earned income tax credit.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we have to end this selective amnesia, understand the full picture.

And in that spirit I respectfully request a ``no'' vote on the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the preceding two speakers from the other side. A few points need to be brought out because there are some classic misimpressions at work here in the House. And for the American people to understand really what is going on in terms of tax fairness, we should make these points.

Number one, no one undervalues our people in the military. They do not put on their uniforms with partisan designations. This is one fact that should be understood. Combat pay is tax free. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat that: combat pay is already tax free.

And while I heard both my friend from Virginia and my friend from California speak of going to the mailbox in July, no one on the other side, not a single speaker has refuted the point that for working folks who do pay taxes in terms of the payroll tax there already exists an earned income tax credit, taking into account the challenges of the working poor.

And the fact is if those constituents take advantage of existing law, a head of household with two kids earning only $10,000 a year, this April, after filing an income tax form on which he paid no income tax, but taking into account his other taxes, that head of household, that family, those children would have received in excess of $4,000.

Mr. Speaker, the contention remains intact: facts are stubborn things. And then to say that people are left out, to ignore the funds available that this government has made available precisely to the people who need the help, and at the same time, under a curious labeling of fiscal responsibility end the ability to continue the per- child tax credit at $1,000 per child per year, to change that and reduce that immediately following the next election, which is what the motion to instruct does, Mr. Speaker, not only leaves the American public with the wrong impression, it is dangerously flawed policy.

The question was where is the compassion? Compassion, in fact, can coexist. The earned income tax credit, already a part of our tax policy, already a part of lending a hand up rather than a hand out, helps those people. It exists today. Again there is the strange paradox of attacking tax relief and yet saying, well, we will offer it in this limited form.

On all arguments, on all counts the motion to instruct is woefully inadequate. Understand current law, embrace the policies of growth, show true compassion by saying ``no'' to this motion to instruct.

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

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

Let me congratulate my friends on the left in terms of their remarkable uniformity in talking points. But there reaches a point in time when we get past the focus groups and the pollsters and we deal with the facts. The silence is deafening from the left. There has been no answer, because I guess they really cannot offer one, to the fact that in existing law we have already made provisions for those families. We have already made provisions for the working poor to the tune of a head of household with two kids earning just $10,000, and we do not deny they are working hard, under the refundable earned income tax credit, that family would get back over $4,000. Yet the silence is deafening.

It is good in America that we have differences, and I believe the American people, once they understand the scope of the differences, can appreciate some rational tax policy.

I just heard from my friends on the left that they supposed that military families, rather than receiving cash directly tax free from the government,

would far rather see that money processed through the IRS and then wait for a year to maybe get a tax credit. That is the logic my friend from Maryland just employed when he talked about military families.

Mr. Speaker, call me old-fashioned, but I believe cash on the barrelhead to those families who have been willing to go out and defend America is a lot better, a lot quicker, to get to them right now. No, it is not the mystery of legislative terminology, Mr. Speaker. It is simple, basic fact. True compassion means making sure people have their money and get them to it and recognize extenuating circumstances. We do that already with combat pay. We do it already through the earned income tax credit. And in the final analysis, sound policy will beat political talking points every time. That is why I say this House should continue to maintain a measure of common sense and true compassion and say no to this motion to instruct conferees.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess another technique in debate is to deliberately misunderstand some assertions on the floor. In listening to the rather heated and personal comments from my friends, and righteous indignation, I would say, number one, we dare not lose what is at stake here over a notion of the checkout line in terms of Americans being willing to put their lives on the line, first of all, Mr. Speaker.

And I would hope that not entering this debate is the notion that somehow those who serve their country are taking out a tote board and a computer to adhere to the duty that they have sworn and the honor they defend and the freedom that they are defending for us all, number one. Let us dare not denigrate the military with a kind of checkout line and taking a cipher to tax policy, number one.

Number two, to hear the same tired rhetoric that tax relief only benefits the wealthy, that some who come to this Chamber and offer, even when they barely suppress a smile, the fallacy in that has to be pointed out even in the child tax credit because this credit, under existing law, is phased out for single parents with incomes over $75,000 and married couples with incomes over $110,000.

So it is interesting that a myopia envelopes one group of working Americans, but by the same token we are willing to continue this masquerade and this assertion that tax relief belongs only to the wealthy.

And still from my friends on the left, not a word, not a whit, not even an acknowledgment of existing law, the earned income tax credit specifically designed for working people who may not pay income taxes but who pay other taxes, and the largess of this government already making sure those folks receive checks in the mail. They need only apply when they file their tax returns, and yet not a word about that.

Comprehensive, true compassion rather than counterfeit compassion, that is the question today, and no matter of dramatics, no matter of sound and fury can take away from the facts and the bottom line that tax policy does not occur in a vacuum, that we supply already a practical working program for people who did not have to go to their mailbox in July; they only make the filing and take advantage of existing programs that exist for those folks. There is no attempt to clarify we are going to give this now, but we are going to pull back after 2004 and reduce the value of the child tax credit, and yet that is what the motion to instruct offers.

Again, Mr. Speaker, reject the motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting when we come to the floor to talk about the merits of policy, an interesting thing is to shift it into process. I do not have any accountability. My party made another decision as to leadership, so not having a seat at the leadership table, which pains me personally, I would tell the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), I cannot control that.

What I can say is this: that I believe if we embrace commonsense existing policies, we can get this done. And as the House has respectfully rejected this motion to instruct on numerous occasions, and I appreciate the gentleman's argument, but I believe we will move forward when we are able to get to conference, understanding that we are working right now, working on a prescription drug bill, working on an energy bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me thank my friend from Ohio for polishing his banquet remarks for the next Jefferson/Jackson Day dinner in his district. Let me also point out, however, that when I hear the rhetoric about the rich, let us see who qualifies for the per-child tax credit, Mr. Speaker.

In one of the cities I represent, Phoenix, Arizona, a nurse practitioner making $64,000 a year and her husband a principal. I guess by some tokens, they are rich, I suppose. I happen to think they are working people. In fact, their per-child credit is phased out because their economic threshold is over $110,000.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is this. We were here debating a per-child tax credit. I have my own differences with many in this House in terms of our commitment to veterans, and the record reflects I voted ``no'' on the bill that passed this House before the break so I would not assume things here in a one-size-fits-all blanket indictment. Good people can disagree and often we do and many times we agree across party lines.

But to my friends who want to embrace effective policy, again I would recognize, it does not occur in a vacuum. We have moved as a government and as a society to help the working poor. I have chronicled the payments that already go to folks who are at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, who work and play by the rules, who do not have to wait for a special provision in July, who could get thousands of dollars from the government now. They only need apply. I have made the case that there is no reason to cut back on this per-child tax credit, from $1,000 to $700 after the next election, which their motion to instruct would do and in essence be a tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply say this. This question has come before the House on previous occasions. We recognize true compassion and effective policy. I would ask my colleagues again to join me in voting ``no'' to stand up for the policy passed by this House which offers pro-growth and opportunity and, yes, funds to those Americans who are working, taking into account those working Americans who may not pay income tax in the broad scope of Federal tax policy.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It is very interesting to hear these points. I certainly again welcome my friend from Ohio to this Chamber. I appreciate honest, honest differences of opinion. But to somehow say that a head of household earning $10,000 a year who can receive in the mail a $4,000 check, to somehow denigrate that by claiming there is going to be an audit and somehow make the case that this is a strange Robin Hood in reverse when historical accuracy compels me to point out, the reason Robin Hood went to work in the first place was because the sheriff of Nottingham overtaxed the people, that is often left out of the story, and to hear this does nothing to the debate at hand and, that is, true compassion does not mean reduce this per-child tax credit after the next election. True compassion does not mean ignore what goes on or denigrate it because of the threat of audit. Effective, comprehensive, commonsense policy demands that we move forward with this per-child credit as passed in the House and that we reject the Senate-passed bill and that we reject this motion to instruct.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring attention to a very important issue for my state. My intent is to demonstrate to the government of Mexico that they must start working with us to provide great health care services for its citizens.

As you know, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires hospital emergency rooms to treat all patients who seek care, regardless of immigration status.

The cost of providing free medical care to illegal immigrants is a devastating burden particularly to hospitals in counties along Arizona's southern border. While this problem affects our national health care system, it has resulted in a health care crisis in states such as Arizona.

Many Arizona hospitals face serious financial difficulties. Some have cut back services and state residents are forced to stand in longer lines to see fewer doctors.

Last year, the U.S.-Mexico Border Counties Coalition released a report that should alarm and concern all of us. It found that health care facilities in 28 border counties lost nearly $200 million in one year in costs for the emergency medical treatment of illegal aliens, $31 million of which was lost in Arizona's border counties.

Because the federal government has failed to take financial responsibility for the costs associated with illegal immigration, much of the financial burden of emergency care for undocumented immigrants falls to state and local governments. I support efforts to ease that financial burden and I am proud to be a cosponsor of my colleague Mr. Kolbe's bill--H.R. 819--that will assist border states, localities, and health care providers. In addition, I will be sending a letter soon to Medicare conferees in support of a Senate provision that

provides $250 million a year for 4 years to reimburse state and local governments and local health care providers for emergency health services provided to undocumented aliens.

The Congressional Budget Office says helping border states deal with this problem will cost $1.45 billion a year. The United States should not have to bear this burden alone. The Government of Mexico has an obligation to provide its citizens with greater health care services and help stem the tidal wave of illegal immigrants into this country. One way the Mexican government can be helpful is to provide matching funds for projects like the Nogales Trauma Center. It seems to me that the better job the Mexican government can do to provide medical care for its own people, the fewer Mexicans will be attracted to cross the border to obtain medical care. In Arizona and other border states the Mexican government needs to do more and I will work with you to urge them to take these matters seriously.

However, if the Mexican government is unwilling or unable to work with us over the next year, I fully intend to offer an amendment next year that would eliminate all aid provided to the government of Mexico in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill and redirect those funds to states, localities, and health care providers to help deal with the crushing burden of health care costs for illegal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by Congressman Jefferson and eleven of our colleagues in introducing legislation that would clarify the tax treatment of motorsports properties under current law.

The IRS has created various categories of depreciable assets and assigned various depreciable lives to each. Since at least 1962, the IRS has listed ``entertainment facilities'' as one such class, and has excluded racetracks from its definition. However, in 1974 the IRS established a new category of assets called ``theme and amusement facilities'' that included a portion of the old entertainment facility category, but also expanded the types of assets that qualify as theme and amusement facilities. While retaining the exclusion of racetracks from the ``entertainment facilities'' category, the IRS dropped the exclusion from the theme and amusements category.

Since that time, the racetrack industry has relied on the theme and amusement facility category for depreciating investments. While it has varied over the years, today the depreciation period is seven years.

These taxpayers have made significant investments based on their reasonable reliance on the depreciation period for theme and amusement assets. Now, many years later, after many tax audits and reviews of tracks and track owners across the country, the IRS is questioning the right of motorsport facilities to be treated as theme and amusement assets.

Motorsports entertainment facilities have a tremendous positive economic impact, both regionally and nationally. Racing promotes travel and tourism, and for some venues, a race week or weekend significantly boosts the local economy by drawing tens of thousands of fans. The building and upgrading of these facilities is a capital-intensive activity--and taxpayers who make these investments deserve certainty in the manner in which our tax laws allow investments to be written off.

This clarification of the Internal Revenue Code will recognize the long-term reliance of this large and growing industry on a broadly accepted interpretation of tax law. The legislation will also provide the owners of motorsports entertainment facilities with the certainty they need to make new investments. I urge my colleagues to support this important and needed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) who served here in a previous majority that had its share of challenges in terms of a lack of modesty, and I think that is an ever-present danger for the majority.

At the same time, however, we cannot paralyze legitimate differences of public opinion, for that is the essence of the House of Representatives and debate within this body. Case in point: the upcoming motion to instruct. My friend, a Morehead Scholar at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, is a student of history and he understands that for the working poor we instituted in the 1970s an earned income tax credit so the families he wants to help are already being helped to the tune of several thousand dollars. If not, I would urge every Member of this body to inform his or her constituents of the earned income tax credit. I look forward to the upcoming debate.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. What is before the House is a classic example of not letting facts get in the way of impassioned debate. My friend from California rightly has a concern for the working poor, and I appreciate her mention of a specific family earning about $20,000 a year. Now for the rest of the story where the silence has been deafening.

Under existing law, we have the earned income tax credit specifically designed for the working poor. For a single mom with two kids earning $20,000 a year, a check is available from Uncle Sam for a total of $3,335, according to the Tax Foundation. On top of that, in the All- American Tax Act, we even expanded the child tax credit, not inconsistent with what our President has said, so even more funds are available.

It is true we expanded that child tax credit because we believe if we accept the philosophy of my friends in opposition here, if it is immoral to leave out children at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale, likewise it is unfair to limit those two-earner families, like the nurse practitioner who earns $63,000 a year and her spouse who is a school principal in the Awatukee section of Phoenix, both of these earning $64,000 a year, that should not invalidate their children either.

What this majority has done in the House is to expand the child tax credit while keeping intact the earned income tax credit. And, sadly, the silence from the minority on existing policy is deafening.

It will be interesting during the course of this debate to see if our friends will in fact acknowledge what they believed in public policy to be a triumph, but now is suddenly forgotten. I will not impugn their motives; but, Mr. Speaker, it is curious that for this entire week, my friends on the left have developed a severe case of political amnesia.

Reject the motion to instruct, embrace expansive, fair and equitable tax relief for all families, and we will work with the other body to ensure that comes to pass in conference.