Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Minnesota for

yielding me this time, and I thank my friends across this Chamber for the warm reception.

Mr. Speaker, when a prescription is written by a physician, there is not an inquiry as to partisan affiliation or political persuasion. A decision is made that a medicine is needed. The question tonight in this House is how best can that delivery be achieved. Economic conditions are the overwhelming criteria upon which this must be decided.

My friend from Arizona spoke earlier, and he was quite right. An unfair tax has been levied on Americans. We have borne the costs that should be shared with others. Oh, yes, and we already subsidize many of those costs and we also have a research and development tax credit that exists currently in the Tax Code.

Vote ``yes'' on the Gutknecht legislation. Let us seek a rational solution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in opposition to the motion to instruct, and I thank my friend from Arkansas and others who will enjoin this debate this evening, Mr. Speaker, because it gives us a marvelous opportunity to carefully review all the facts.

It was the second President of the United States, Mr. Speaker, John Adams, who first observed that facts are stubborn things, and perhaps the stirring presentation from my friend from Arkansas is most compelling for what he omitted from his motion to instruct. Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this House that the Democrat motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election.

Let me repeat that because it is very important that all who join us in this debate, in this presentation tonight, Mr. Speaker, understand clearly what would transpire. The Democrat motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 after the 2004 election. Now, Mr. Speaker, in the world of commerce, that is known as bait and switch. And as a result, millions of the people who my friend professes to champion, millions of low- and middle-income families, will receive a smaller child tax credit right after the elections.

The House-passed bill, and let us point this out too, Mr. Speaker, because my friend also omitted something that just was passed by this House, H.R. 1308, the All American Tax Relief Act of 2003, our more comprehensive bill, which was not a part of my friend's presentation, passed by this House, ensures that the child credit remains at $1,000 throughout the decade.

Mr. Speaker, there is more, and I will be happy to delineate it, but let me pause, because my friend mentioned the needs of one of his constituents in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that for all our low-income constituents who call about this, that we would inform them of four letters, EITC, Earned Income Tax Credits. That exists for people just like the constituent that was mentioned, which opens up economic prosperity and opportunity for those who do not pay a high level of taxes.

And again, understand, so expansive has been our move to reduce taxation on the American people, Mr. Speaker, that I am able to report that a family of four earning close to $40,000 a year now would pay no income taxes. And you see, really, this is the issue, Mr. Speaker. Those of us in the common sense majority say if you pay income taxes, those taxes should be reduced. Our friends on the other side say if you pay any taxes, then income taxes should be reduced.

There is a certain amount of illogic to that, speaking of dogs that will not hunt, Mr. Speaker, but let us take it a step further. What we have done in this House, through adoption of H.R. 1308, is to expand the credit to the very folks they claim to champion, to maintain that credit across the board throughout the decade. And we have gone a step further. In stark contrast to the shop-worn sloganeering of tax cuts for the rich, we have discovered something in America, and let me point to my own city of Phoenix, Arizona.

I represent the Awatukee portion of greater Phoenix. There lives a nurse practitioner making $64,000 a year, and her husband, a school principal, making $64,000 a year; both of them earning that salary. We have expanded the child tax credit, because we do not believe you should put a tax credit on children that rolls back and forth like the old-fashioned slide rule to penalize two-income families who happen to succeed. So let us then accept the premise that if we are not going to punish children at the lower end of the economic scale, certainly we should not punish families who have two-income earners. And sixty-four times two is about $128,000 in today's world, Mr. Speaker, and I would submit that that is not wealthy.

Something else that is important that I would bring to the attention of the House, Mr. Speaker. The Democratic motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, and even then it only does so for 1 year. Under the motion to instruct, millions of children will be denied the child credit simply because their parents are married. What we passed in the House benefits middle income families by eliminating this type of abridgement immediately.

The House-passed bill, which a common sense majority moved through this House, does not deny the child credit to military families. 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 the House-passed bill. The Democrat motion to commit would only increase the refundable child credit for some military families by allowing them to take into account tax-free income when they compute their refundable credit.

And the House-passed bill, which moved through, again, with a bipartisan majority, provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million of military tax benefits. We should point out that those provisions have passed the House on numerous occasions. They are awaiting action in the other body. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, while we tend to our affairs here, and I will not characterize what might transpire across this Capitol, I will simply say that a more comprehensive approach, as endorsed by this House, makes more sense for the American people.

I look forward to the other arguments, but, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that as I hear the litany from the left, it reminds me of that country song, ``That's my story and I'm sticking to it.''

Mr. Speaker, again, facts are stubborn things. Reject the motion to instruct.

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

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

I thank my friend from Georgia for offering the hand of friendship, as he characterizes it, across the aisle. I thought it was interesting that some of his remarks seemed to be insult-laden, but that is his prerogative coming to this floor. I think the American people deserve better. And I would point out to my friends on the left that again the dispute is not about tax relief. It seems that they are almost of two minds. On one hand, if tax relief is limited to some few tightly targeted, they seem to be fine with it. And, of course, we welcome the gentleman's support, Mr. Speaker, on the first tax bill and certainly appreciate that.

I am a little confused as to why he decided not to vote for even a more comprehensive child credit that we offered in H.R. 1308, but let me go back since he offered a specific criticism with reference to members of the Armed Forces. Let me again delineate what we passed. I made no such articulation nor claim about combat soldiers and, of course, Mr. Speaker, our men and women in uniform go into action without the designation Democrat nor Republican, they are Americans; and I made no assertion as to the relative status, the tax-exempt status of combat pay.

Let me, however, articulate for my friend, Mr. Speaker, and all those who join us in this debate tonight exactly what it is we have passed time and again in this House in terms of tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces included in these provisions: capital gains tax relief on home sales; tax-free death gratuity payments; tax-free dependent care assistance for members of the military. Again, I would remind my friends, Mr. Speaker, that these provisions provide $806 million of tax relief to members of the Armed Forces over the upcoming 11 years.

Again, there is something that has been a glaring omission when we come to discussing tax rates for those who do not pay income taxes. Again, Mr. Speaker, I am haunted by the assertion of my friend who sponsors this motion to instruct who speaks of a mother in the Fourth Congressional District of Arkansas, if memory serves, I believe, earning around $15,000 a year. According to the Tax Foundation, if she were a single mother with two children as the head of the household, she would receive a refundable earned income tax credit of $3,823. Her total check under earned income tax credits from Uncle Sam would be $4,273. Tax refunds as a percent of her income upon which she pays no income tax would be 28.5 percent, and the percent of her payroll tax that would be erased through the earned income tax credit, 186 percent. Again, the compelling omission.

We have already reached out to those who do not pay income taxes. We do so again, but my friends on the left find fault that we have enlarged this to include two-earner households because again we do not believe you put a price tag on the heads of children, not only those facing tough times economically but, yes, those who both are working. They likewise, those families, should deserve the child tax credit. We have expanded it, made it constant; and in stark contrast to the Democratic alternative, it remains constant. It does not drop down after the election of 2004. Important points to keep in mind, country music sloganeering notwithstanding.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I do welcome my friend from Louisiana to this House and the 108th Congress. I look forward to working with him in a spirit of bipartisanship. I thank him for his first vote for tax relief and again would point out the four letters that my friends on the left just cannot bring themselves to mention tonight, EITC, earned income tax credit.

My friend from Arkansas either cited another example or gave a different total than I thought I initially heard about his constituent. Earning $25,000 a year, let me review what that constituent, who is paying no income tax, receives through the earned income tax credit according to the Tax Foundation. That person, that head of household with two kids earning $25,000, the tax liability before the credit is $885. After the child tax credit, the $1,000 per child, there is no tax liability. The remaining refundable child tax credit, $565. The refundable earned income tax credit, $1,717. The total check from Uncle Sam to that person, the head of household with two kids earning $25,000 under the earned income tax credit, is $2,282. The percent of the payroll tax erased for that head of household is some 60 percent.

What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is simply an acknowledgment that our friends who are not paying income tax are indeed working Americans, and I find it ironic tonight that the earned income tax credit has been avoided by my friends on the left as if it were a plague. Why would that be, Mr. Speaker? I welcome the chance to certainly champion this program for working Americans, and I certainly hope that in the many mailings my friends on the left send out, they might inform their low- income constituents of the programs that already exist that can avail them of thousands of dollars. The glowing and glaring omission tonight in this motion to instruct is that my friends on the left do not even champion a program they once stood foursquare behind. They have instant amnesia. It is curious, but it is not unknown in politics.

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

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

I should note, Mr. Speaker, as you occupy the role of speaker pro tempore, you are a newcomer to the Congress from the great State of Arizona, and we welcome you as well; and I appreciate your presiding this evening.

I want to thank my friend from Texas, who in addition to being a very capable legislator, is a very accomplished attorney. And certainly we saw tonight part of his legislative domain because when one does not have the facts on his side, it is important to argue atmospherics. And we all heard about the genuine intent of the Republican Party and all of these interesting perceptions out there that I guess, from the school of politics, perceptions outweigh reality.

But then again, Mr. Speaker, it is my assertion that we owe the American people the facts. And the fact is, what this House passed is much more comprehensive, what our Democrat friends offer is much more restrictive.

We have heard no refutation of this fact, and it is as follows: The Democrat motion to instruct allows the child credit to drop from $1,000 to $700 immediately following the 2004 election. That is a curious alleged improvement in the bill. The Democrat motion to instruct does not eliminate the marriage penalty in the child credit until 2010, and even then it only does so for 1 year. We have heard no refutation of that.

The House-passed bill does not deny the child credit to military families, and indeed as I have delineated time and again, the House- passed bill provides more tax relief to military families because it includes $806 million of military tax benefits.

What else have we done in H.R. 1308, the bill that is assailed as opportunities for the wealthy, as we hear that sad and shop-worn sloganeering of the politics of envy? What we have done in this bill is, we increased the child credit to $1,000 per eligible child through 2010. That provision alone provides $57.3 billion of tax relief over 11 years.

We have eliminated the marriage penalty in the child credit. We accelerated the increase in the refundable child credit. We provide tax relief and enhanced tax fairness, as I delineated, for members of the Armed Forces. We suspend the tax exempt status of designated terrorist organizations, and we provided tax relief for the estates and the families of those brave astronauts who have perished on space missions. This is included therein.

And actually we expanded the child tax credit to include children across the board socioeconomically. We do not believe in attacking any children.

And again what we have not heard from my friends on the other side tonight, whether they stand in the center or to my left or to my far left, what we have not heard tonight are the letters EITC, earned income tax credit, something that ordinarily I thought my friends would champion, but tonight they do not talk about it. Why? Because we are sending money to those hard-working folks who do not pay income taxes, moneys that will already be supplemented under the far more generous and expansive child credit than we have offered in H.R. 1308.

So again, Mr. Speaker, failing the refutation of these salient points, whatever sloganeering about our friend Ari Fleischer, who at one point in time was our Committee on Ways and Means press secretary on the majority side, who is not here to speak for himself tonight, whatever incantations or imaginations as to the motives of the majority party, that is certainly very interesting in terms of interpretive oratory, but it brings nothing to bear on tonight's debate.

The fact remains when we review what they offer, it is inadequate. It is bait and switch. And it peddles the shop-worn sloganeering of the politics of envy, reason enough to reject this motion to instruct.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me thank my neighbor from Utah, first of all, for both of his votes on tax relief. That is perhaps the most compelling testimony we have received tonight.

It is a bit curious that we diverge on what is possible. I believe, and perhaps this is a point where those who embrace the Keynesian theory of economics can actually agree with those of us who characterize ourselves as supply-siders, at a time of economic downturn it is important to provide tax relief. Indeed, we have accepted that as an article of faith for those working families eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and, indeed, as I can point out again from the Tax Foundation, with the child tax credit, a $30,000 head-of-household with two kids is going to get over $1,000 back under previously existing law. That money is going to go back to help those folks.

Now, listen: I do not believe you gauge the art of what is possible on votes in the other body. I will leave atmospherics to the pundits and the Sunday morning shows. To me, what is possible is what is passed by a bipartisan majority, of which my friend from Utah was a part on two occasions. So, again, it is curious to note this motion to instruct.

Now, my friend from Arkansas offered some selective criticism. If you listen carefully to his critique, he spoke of the original tax bill. Of course, what we have done in H.R. 1308 is to expand and maintain the $1,000 level; not sunsetting it, but increasing it and taking it across-the-board for the next decade, the upcoming decade, to make sure it is there.

What they offer in their motion to instruct is to go back to $700 after the 2004 election. He had no critique or criticism of H.R. 1308, he was just silent on that, as he has been about the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Mr. Speaker, as we review this, the art of what is possible, and good folks can disagree, but I would maintain in this House that the art of what is possible can be achieved and that the greatest number of people can be helped to the greatest extent by this House maintaining its original position, not to accept a motion to instruct that is in fact a retreat from what has already been done in terms of promoting economic growth and allowing all Americans to keep their hard-earned money. That is what we have to deal with.

That is why it is important, and why tomorrow I know my colleagues will join me in voting no on this Democrat motion to instruct. Why take three steps backwards, when we can take a giant leap forward for all American families.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not thank my friends on the minority side for offering their points of view, including my friend from Georgia. I guess this is why we come to this great Chamber and debate many differences.

But, rather than impugn motives, I am simply going to say this: Quite to the contrary of what my friends assert, it is the opinion of this majority that the money we are talking about belongs to the American people, wherever they line up on the socio-economic scale. If you pay income taxes, you will receive an income tax reduction, and, if you are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, as I have pointed out time and again tonight, the check has been in the mail for years. That is something my friends have not dealt with tonight, and it is something that, in the spirit of candor and complete discussion, we should not so readily dismiss.

Indeed, I would ask my friends to embrace H.R. 1308 as they embraced the initial tax bill. I thank my friend from Utah for his support of both, and I appreciate the spirit in which the debate has been conducted.

I know my friend from Arkansas has the right to close. I will simply close for the majority side by saying that we need to reject this motion to instruct. We offer a bill that is far more complete for a far greater portion of the American people.

As I have demonstrated time and again tonight, we have provisions under the Earned Income Tax Credit to alleviate the needs of those who pay no income taxes, and, indeed, under our comprehensive plan of tax relief, the numbers of families who pay no income taxes continue to grow exponentially.

If you opt for genuine tax relief, the real article, as some of my friends on the minority side have done on both occasions, I would say reject the motion to instruct. Embrace the House position. We will persuade our friends on the other side of the Capitol and move forward with more meaningful tax relief for Americans.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 25 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the City of Tempe, Arizona, one of ten communities in the United States selected to receive an All-America City Award from the National Civic League. The All-America City program recognizes civic excellence in communities in which citizens, government, businesses and non-profit organizations work together to address critical local issues.

This award is yet another recognition of what Tempe has achieved through innovative public-private partnerships that have made it one of the nation's finest cities. Dynamic collaboration on the three projects presented--Tempe Town Lake, Riverside Sunset Neighborhood and the Tumbleweed Youth Services--has enabled the city to successfully address important issues like crime, education and poverty. In this respect, Tempe is certainly a model for other cities.

Tempe Town Lake was a dry riverbed and crime magnet that has been cleaned up and is now the location of community festivals, athletic and cultural events, and development. Additionally, partnership with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will restore 170 acres into a natural habitat preserve.

To address the decline of the Sunset/Riverside Neighborhood, the city developed a series of partnerships with organizations and groups such as the Boys and Girls Club, the Riverside/Sunset Neighborhood Association, Scales Elementary School, and the Arizona State University College of Nursing. This collaboration successfully revitalized the neighborhood by building the Westside Multigenerational Center and offering numerous services including crime prevention services and new housing.

The final project recognized for its outstanding contribution to the community of Tempe is one that is close to my heart because we had to defend it when its mission came under attack. The Thomas J. Pappas School for the Homeless is not only an outstanding success as an educational institution, it is currently expanding its facilities to teach, feed and clothe even more homeless children. Moreover, the Pappas School, Tumbleweed Youth Services, the Tempe Community Council, and the First Congregational Church partnered to create Tempe's first homeless resource center for teens.

Mr. Speaker, through commitment to collaboration between the private and public sector, the City of Tempe has once again proven itself to be a model community. Mayor Neil Giuliano also deserves commendation for his leadership of the Tempe delegation as well as his work to encourage private sector investment in, and cooperation with, the City of Tempe.

I am proud to represent this great community and I am honored to co- sponsor House Concurrent Resolution 230 congratulating each of the All- America cities for their exemplary grassroots community-oriented problem solving efforts. Please join me in congratulating the City of Tempe and all of the 2003 All-America cities.

Mr. Speaker, as is the case with so many colleagues past and present, I am honored to have the friendship and good counsel of the distinguished former House Republican Leader, the Honorable John J. Rhodes of Arizona. It is my personal privilege also to count John Rhodes as a constituent of the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona.

John Rhodes' many contributions to our state, to our nation, and to this institution of representative government are widely documented and recognized, most recently by his deserved selection to be among the first recipient of the congressional Distinguished Service Award last week.

The bestowment of that award inspired many congratulatory expressions about the life and career of John Rhodes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution and I do so understanding that people of goodwill can and often do disagree. I realize also that frustrations abound, indeed, as a private citizen reading of certain machinations that went on in this House when roles were reversed.

But that is not the subject here today. The subject here today is, was the chairman within his rights when order was threatened in the committee to call the Sergeant at Arms? In other words, a test of what is reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, were I in the Chair at the time when order was disrupted, when a physical threat was issued by a member of the minority party, and parliamentary rules preclude me from naming that Member, although I can say it was a very stark picture of a confrontation, you better believe, Mr. Speaker, I would have called the Sergeant at Arms to restore order.

Reject the resolution. It is dead wrong and a disservice to the House.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was absent today for medical reasons. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 368. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 369.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was absent today for medical reasons. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 360; and I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 361.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I was absent today for medical reasons. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 362.

Stated against:

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was absent today for medical reasons. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 363.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Hayworth/ King Amendment that would limit what the U.S. pays in U.N. dues to an amount no more than the highest amount paid by any other permanent U.N. Security Council member.

Let's put this amendment in perspective. In the run-up to the war against Saddam Hussein, we saw all too clearly the real goal of France in obstructing and sabotaging U.S. policy--to challenge U.S. global leadership and set itself up as the leader of a competing coalition.

By itself, however, France is incapable of countering or competing with the U.S. militarily or economically, and that situation will only grow worse as France faces a demographically-driven decline. The key to France's strategic ambition is therefore based solely on its permanent membership on the UN Security Council, or UNSC, and, most importantly, the veto power that goes with it. Without its veto, France would lose its chief claim to geopolitical relevance.

I don't mean to pick on France, Mr. Chairman, but its actions leading up to the war with Iraq make it an easy target. The truth is, the entire Security Council regularly obstructs our foreign policy goals and permanent members--China, France, Russia, and the U.K.--regularly vote the opposite of the U.S.

According to the State Department's Voting Practices in the United Nations 2002, on votes important to U.S. interests, France and the U.K. voted with us just 50 percent of the time, Russia 22 percent, and China 20 percent. Overall, the General Assembly voted the U.S. position only 32 percent of the time on important issues. Areas of specific disagreement include the Middle East, nuclear disarmament, certain human rights issues, and the International Criminal Court.

What makes all this even more galling is that even though the U.S. has no more power on the Security Council than any of the other four permanent members, it pays the lion's share of the U.N. budget. Indeed, even though the aggregate GDP of the other permanent members nearly equals that of the U.S., the U.S. contributes about $115 million more to the U.N. regular budget than those four countries combined.

What's more, U.N. dues are supposed to be based on ability to pay. Yet there are a dozen countries that in 2003 will pay more in dues than China's $24 million even though it now has the world's second largest economy. The Chinese are clearly getting a lot of bang for their U.N. buck. So are the Russians. Their 2003 assessment is a paltry $19 million, less than Canada, Holland, Australia, and Switzerland.

The Hayworth/King Amendment would restore some balance to this picture. It would limit the U.S. contribution to the regular U.N. budget to no more than the highest amount paid by any other permanent UNSC member. The rationale is simple. Our veto power should cost us no more than what China, France, Russia, or the U.K. pay for theirs.

The U.S.'s 2003 assessment for the U.N. regular budget is $341 million. Under this amendment, we would pay no more than France, which has been assessed the second-highest amount, or $100 million. This proposal would not effect U.S. payments to the U.N. for peacekeeping operations, voluntary programs, or membership organizations. It would only affect the U.N. regular budget. Even at this reduced amount the U.S. would still contribute over $1.4 billion to various U.N. programs, far more than any other country.

Aside from simple equity, enactment of my bill would hopefully lead to a reconsideration of how U.N. dues are assessed among permanent members. China and Russia are now essentially getting a free ride at our expense. The solution would be for all permanent members to pay equal amounts of the regular budget because of their veto power. France and the U.K. would have to pay a little more, Russia and China a lot more, the U.S. a lot less.

A debate over dues could also prompt a broader discussion on U.N. reform. The outrages are not limited to the meltdown over Iraq. Cuba began its recent crackdown on dissidents as the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission was holding its annual meeting in Geneva. It promptly elected Cuba to another three-year term, an act author Carl Hiaasen wrote was ``a little like naming a necktie after the Boston Strangler.'' The commission is headed by Libya and includes some of the worst abusers of human rights in the world, including Vietnam, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe.

If the U.N. does not reform itself, it risks becoming, in the words of Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, another ``Red Cross.'' The U.N. can become relevant again, but whether it does so will ultimately rest on the goodwill and magnanimity of the five permanent UNSC members who can block any reform with a veto.

As we have learned, U.N. reform takes time. Ronald Reagan pulled the U.S. out of UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, in 1984. It took 18 years for UNESCO to implement sufficient reforms for the U.S. to return. More fundamental reform could take even longer.

By approving this action today we will be sending a message that the U.S. is serious about reform at the U.N.

Support the Hayworth/King Amendment.

Mr. Chairman. As you know, I was absent today for medical reasons. If I had been in attendance, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 364; ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 365; ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 366; and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 367.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for a Member to address his comments directly to another Member, or should those comments be directed through the Chair addressing the Member?

Was it true that the preceding gentleman addressed a Member directly?

Mr. Speaker, again, as we come to the well this evening, we see a very vast difference in our visions of health care and visions of America.

Our friends on the left who later tonight will offer a $1 trillion government command-and-control approach to prescription drugs now take strong objection, to put it diplomatically, about a plan that, yes, initially is expensive. I would grant Members that billions are real dollars here, but it substantially supplements and expands the ability of people to have health insurance.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) mentioned, it gives employers more options to provide that type of insurance by embracing catastrophic plans and freeing up dollars to go to employees, and as we see in the case of health savings security accounts, and this is the key, and I would urge my colleagues to understand this, as so many have come to the well of this House on both sides of the aisle and lamented the numbers of uninsured Americans, not the medically indigent with whom we try to deal through Medicaid, but those who are working people who do not have insurance, this provides an option to those people to embrace insurance. To realize savings, yes, does require a modicum of personal responsibility, undoubtedly.

But, Mr. Speaker, certainly we have not degenerated to the point where we absolutely forsake a notion of personal responsibility in savings. What we do is offer options that will supplement health care; and despite the cat calls and poisonous partisan rhetoric, it is worth noting that this is bipartisan legislation.

So again a cautionary note to my friends on the left. If you believe you are indicting one party, stop and think; many of your colleagues who share both the party label and broad-based philosophy, as my friends on the left share in many different areas, join with us in this legislation because they understand it opens opportunity for health insurance, it opens opportunity for individuals, it opens opportunity for employers, and it will lead to more people seeking the insurance we all want to see them have. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Connecticut, and she has visited Arizona, and I know that the hour grows late and the debate grows heated and sometimes well-intentioned efforts from some are thrown in the confusion.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge this House to reject the Democratic substitute and to vote ``yes'' for H.R. 1, for reasonable, rational, clear-cut reform of Medicare that will bring Medicare into the 21st century with prescription drug coverage.

Mr. Speaker, we have read even tonight in Europe the development of a

cardiac drug that is estimated to cut heart attacks by 80 percent. We have made great gains in pharmacology; but we do not continue those gains, Mr. Speaker, if we opt for a trillion dollar travesty. And make no mistake, that is what the minority substitute is offering to us this evening.

It was interesting, my friend from Iowa, who pointed out that the deficit hawks on the other sides had flown the coop. It is interesting, so many on the left who are so quick to indict folks higher on the economic scale tonight are strangely silent when we offer a plan where we give the priorities to those who need the help first.

The irony is, my friends on the left in the trillion dollars travesty section say, do not worry. Let us break the bank. Let the good times roll. Take command and control, put it together with a trillion bucks. No worries. But we know what would happen under that plan. It is a prescription for bankruptcy. And it is a prescription to mortgage the future of the working families that my friends purport to support.

People of good will can have different opinions, and we certainly have them here in the House tonight. The question often comes down to this, when is enough enough? With the left it is never enough.

Reject insanity. Vote for rationality, ``yes'' to H.R. 1; ``no'' to the Democratic substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding me this time, and I would rise in support of this rule.

It has been interesting to hear the debate, if we could characterize it as that, thus far. We hear about an internal redistricting dispute within the State of Texas. We have the other friends predictably come to this well and somehow try to trot out the shop-worn thesis that the people's economic security at home should be invalidated by command and control spending here in Washington; and undergirding all this, Mr. Speaker, is this simple proposition for the left: it is never enough.

Indeed, if we take the debate and the dispute as it is here and in so many different areas, our same friends who come to us time and again on different issues and would have the American people believe that they are the champions of eliminating the deficit, that they are for fiscal responsibility, when it comes to spending programs, and perhaps this one especially, they begin from the thesis that there is never enough spending, not that the considerable resources that we will bring to bear in this appropriation, billions of dollars, can be utilized in judicious, concentrated fashion to bring about the desired ends. No, no.

Mr. Speaker, the resounding chorus from the left is, it is never enough, with an interesting variation. If one succeeds in America, they are to be singled out for punishment for succeeding, for paying their taxes; we want to reinstitute taxes on them because their economic security or the economic security they provide to workers they hire in small business should be invalidated for the class warfare scenario that states somehow they are unworthy because they succeed.

So my friends will offer an amendment, I suppose, later when we move this on to raise taxes; and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to this House and to my colleagues, in so doing, they are denying what is obvious and that is that there is a link between economic security for all Americans and homeland security for all Americans.

Just as we understand the best social program on Earth is a job, we get there not from the command and control of the left who believe the answer is always in bureaucratically driven jobs. We get there by allowing people to use their money to save, spend and invest to create new jobs in the private sector; and yes, we maintain a judicious and concentrated use of funds to protect our homeland and to protect the American people.

But again, Mr. Speaker, remember what the resounding chorus will be from the left: It is never enough. And there are myriad uses for your money over and beyond the saving, spending and investing of same in your family's economic security.

You see, I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, these two goals are mutually exclusive. I believe the American people need to keep more of their hard-earned money to save, spend, and invest, because I believe it will lead to higher employment and economic gains. But I also believe the bill we will consider today stands up for national security, makes a difference for this American Nation, and so I would ask my colleagues to join with me in voting in the affirmative.

Popular representation, Mr. Speaker, in our constitutional Republic is a wonderful thing. It has led some to say that the preceding speaker in the well would make a good President. It has led others to say that the preceding speaker in the well would make a good President of France.

The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that the United States of America rose up against a tyrant, not only because of weapons of mass destruction, but because the tyrant himself was a weapon of mass destruction. Take a look at the mass graves, the children buried with their dolls, the millions of people who were sacrificed by the regime of Saddam Hussein. And yet there are those, earnest in their intent, to tell us somehow that this Nation is evil, to go to sloganeering: ``No blood for oil.'' The fact remains, historically it was that tyrant who invaded Kuwait for oil, it was that tyrant who went to war with Iran for oil.

The fact is, the United States of America is a liberating Nation, not a conquering Nation. We stand here unashamedly rejoicing in that fact.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington State for yielding me this time and for the recognition.

It is interesting to hear the rhetoric so far and the lectures that come from the left and the far left on this matter. They seek to find logic in their illogic. On one hand they tell us that this only affects a very few people. Glaringly omitted from their diatribe against accomplishment is the fact that those very few people, when we take this tax in totality and look at it, account for a little more than 1 percent of total revenues to the Federal Government in any given year.

So understand that the impact here would not tear asunder the safety net as merchants of fear would have us believe. Quite the contrary. Indeed, rather than resorting to the politics of fear, why not embrace the initiatives of opportunity. Stop and think about the small businesses across America that are family owned, the people they employ. Indeed, we know in rural communities that rural areas are affected disproportionately by this.

And though my friend talks about a small percentage of family farms, I think it is safe to say that those family farms impact other businesses, such as farm machinery businesses in their town, grocery stores in their town, and other opportunities for economic advancement. There is a multiplier effect.

Indeed, as we take a look at this, the real life experiences of two Arizonans come to mind: One, a lady living down in Tucson who stopped me and said, you know, my dad had a job, and it was not that of a high- falutin tycoon. He was a milkman in Southern California. After his days in World War II he came home. She said her mom passed away, and her dad made some wise investments. He was thrifty. Then her dad found out he had a terminal illness. He had not spent years in estate planning. He was just the kind of guy for whom thrift and initiative was a byword, and his estate had accumulated to over $6 million. And now, as he had passed away from this terminal illness, this lady and her siblings were confronted with giving over half of her father's estate to the government.

Or take the example of the 1994 Democratic nominee for Governor in the State of Arizona, Eddie Basha, a proponent of eliminating the death tax. Why? Because he is in the grocery business. The grocery business is capital intensive. He wants to pass the business on to his children. Small wonder that my friend Eddie has left the Democratic party and now is a registered Independent.

But, friends, whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, or Vegetarian, you understand this: There should be no taxation without respiration. The fact is, those who work hard and save and pass their businesses down, whether in the minority community, the Hispanic community, the African American community, those respective of Chambers of Commerce embrace this idea. Because by getting the wealth down intergenerationally, we can, in fact, encourage jobs and investments. Vote ``yes'' on this measure. Put the death tax to death.