Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7 and I call for its swift adoption by the House. I think this is a piece of legislation that shows that all of us care and we are delighted to have it before the body today.

I do want to respond to a mistaken and outdated characterization that came up in previous comments about one of the provisions on forestry bonds in this piece of legislation. This is a provision that was passed by this House last March. Forestry bonds as included in H.R. 7 are a new and collaborative approach to preserving sensitive lands that are close to major population areas. Instead of wasting millions of dollars on lawsuits, which has been the case often in the past between members of the conservation community and timber owners, this proposal enables a board of trustees made up of timber executives, of conservationists and people representing the Contract Logging Association to purchase property through tax-free bonds from a willing seller. Twenty percent of the property is immediately put into conservation easements, probably the most sensitive portion of the property, around lakes and rivers and streams, for example. There is a continuation, however, of timber harvests, because the purpose of the harvests must be to pay off the bonds that are granted by an organization within the involved State. It is a broadly supported provision, broadly supported by the conservation community and also the timber community. I think it is an ideal way to provide a collaborative approach, one that will be an experiment and I think will yield great returns certainly out of this experiment, perhaps eventually something that could be used by folks all over the United States to preserve these important properties.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak on behalf of this agreement. It has been a long time coming. I am delighted to be here on the floor supporting it.

This is the first comprehensive free trade agreement between the United States and a major South American country. Passing this trade agreement will help American businesses and farmers gain better access to foreign markets.

Currently, Chile already has a trade agreement with the European Union, with Mexico and Canada, but not with the United States. As a result, American businesses and farmers do not enjoy the same preferential benefits and advantages that their counterparts in these countries do. Of course, that results consistently in our losing contracts to Canada, the EU and Mexico because we must pay the 6 percent tariff in Chile since we do not have an agreement and they, of course, pay nothing which makes the cost of their goods and services much less.

By leveling the playing field, this trade agreement will ensure that 85 percent of United States consumer and industrial products will receive tariff-free treatment in Chile immediately. For our farmers, over 75 percent of agricultural goods exported to Chile will be duty- free within 4 years. Furthermore, both nations renewed their commitment to continuing to work on resolving sanitary and phytosanitary issues so that artificial barriers will no longer be used to inhibit legitimate trade.

For the people I represent in the Pacific Northwest, this trade agreement will require Chile to comply with intellectual property rights protections beyond the current international standards and will improve enforcement against piracy and counterfeits. It is my hope that the IPR provisions in this agreement will be a model for our efforts with the Central American FTA and the impending Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations.

This agreement is not only about expanding market access; it also reflects our commitment to strengthen our relationship with our friends and our neighbors in South America. It will also underscore our commitment to move forward with a hemispheric free trade agreement through the FTAA. While two-way trade between our nations was only $6.4 billion last year, this agreement will help to expand foreign investment that will strengthen both our economies.

I urge passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. It is a comprehensive trade agreement that will provide greater market access for businesses, enhance protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, and expand investment opportunities in both countries.

While Singapore is the United States' 11th largest trading partner with two-way trade in goods and services of over $38 billion, their importance cannot be measured in trade alone. Singapore's strategic location makes it an attractive regional hub for many U.S. multinational businesses to export in Asia. This trade agreement is not only about expanding market access, but also ensuring that U.S. businesses remain strategically competitive among APEC countries and the Asia Pacific region.

The U.S.-Singapore FTA will certainly benefit those of us from the Pacific Northwest. As you are aware, Washington is the most trade dependent state in the nation, with nearly one in three jobs related to trade. In 2000, 80 percent of Washington State's $103 billion worth of trade were with APEC countries.

Let me give a few examples why the U.S.-Singapore FTA is important.

For the 25,000 Boeing workers I represent, this FTA means keeping the aircraft industry viable in our community. Nearly 90 percent of Singapore Airlines fleet is Boeing aircrafts, making the airline one of Boeing's key customers in the Asia Pacific region and the world. Over the years, Singapore Airlines has added approximately $20-$25 billion to our economy.

For our high tech firms, this FTA means strengthening intellectual property standards. I represent Microsoft's corporate campus and the software industry loses $12 billion annually due to counterfeiting and piracy. In this FTA, the Singaporean government will implement tough penalties against piracy and counterfeiting.

For our ports, increasing the volume of trade in Asia Pacific region will create high-wage jobs that would otherwise not have existed. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma handle approximately seven percent of all U.S. export and 6 percent of all imports. Without a doubt, expanded trade with Singapore will make our ports more critical and valuable to the U.S. economy.

These are just some of the benefits of this FTA. More significant than the statistics and dollar value of goods traded, the U.S.- Singapore FTA reflects a continued commitment by President Bush, Ambassador Zoellick, and Congress to reduce global trade barriers. This FTA is a reminder to other nations in the region that they need to join us in furthering trade liberalization.

Vote for this bill to implement the U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 22, 2003, I was unable to be present for rollcall votes No. 401 and No. 402 because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 401 and rollcall No. 402.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what the gentleman from Louisiana just stated. I think it is very important, since we are at the point of considering such a resolution on the floor of the House, for us to look at this situation as one in which there are two ships passing in the night.

My Democratic colleagues seem to be referring to activities that happened in the library, with which we are all familiar. We are talking about the reason that the Sergeant at Arms was called to the committee in the first place. It is a situation that is not unknown to my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman in question has created this sort of situation before, so it is not anything new. We all understand that. There have been letters written in the past, signed by members of the minority caucus, castigating the behavior of the gentleman in question. That is why the Sergeant at Arms was called to our committee. I just have to say that if I had been sitting in the Chair at that moment I would have felt constrained to call the Sergeant at Arms.

And I am sorry that the members of our wonderful committee that does most of its work with great dignity, who were missing all but one of its minority members because they were having a caucus in the library, but we who were sitting in the hearing room and all the people who were in the audience saw exactly what was going on; not the first time, not the second time, but it happened many, many times. This was a time when I believe it was entirely appropriate for the chairman to use his authority to regain order in the hearing room by calling the Sergeant at Arms.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Project BioShield Act of 2003. As the Members have heard today, Mr. Speaker, from the debate we have had on the floor, this is truly bipartisan legislation. It is also a major step towards giving Americans necessary protections to address the biological and the chemical threats that exist today. H.R. 2122 will provide for private companies the incentives they need to develop vaccines for biological agents. It also will increase our national pharmaceutical stockpile, and it will provide DHS, the Department of Homeland Security, better intelligence capabilities so that they can protect against biological and chemical attacks.

Earlier this year, President Bush announced his intentions to develop a vaccination program that would protect against an attack involving biological and chemical weapons. For months, three committees, including my committee, the Select Committee on Homeland Security, have held numerous hearings to consider the best ways to protect our constituents. I believe it is time to pass this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this bill will provide $5.6 billion over a 10-year period to develop vaccines to protect against some of the most dangerous biological agents that this country and this world has ever known. These funds are necessary to create an incentive for private companies to do research and development on drugs that might not normally be in demand in the marketplace. I believe this investment is worthwhile, considering the possible effects of a large-scale biological attack.

In addition to authorizing funds for this program, the BioShield program also addresses the sharing of intelligence. In order to develop an effective vaccination program, the Department of Homeland Security must have the intelligence capabilities to predict what the real threats are thought to be. By understanding the threats, DHS can focus its resources on those areas of highest vulnerability to the people who live in this country.

This legislation will authorize specific funds to be used by DHS for terror threat assessment. In addition, it will require other intelligence agencies such as the CIA to share timely information and threat analyses with the Department of Homeland Security.

One of the lessons we learned from the anthrax attacks during the fall of 2001 is the importance of responding to a biological attack quickly in order to minimize the damage it causes. While it is indeed tragic that during those attacks five people died, we all have to appreciate that. It could have been far worse if the vaccine had not immediately been available. H.R. 2122 will help us be prepared to respond quickly to agents such as ebola, plague and smallpox. I ask that we answer the President's call to develop the BioShield Project and that people support and that we pass H.R. 2122.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that we have this bill on the floor finally. I think it serves a real need, and it provides total flexibility to people who want to provide for the coverage of their health care expenses.

One particular provision that appeals to me is one that we used to refer to as a catch-up health savings account contribution. We now call it a health savings security account, and these are accounts that are designed particularly for people who are age 55 or older. It gives them the right to contribute additional dollars every year into their health savings accounts because of particular situations they might have faced in the past.

The flexibility of HSAs is widely known. These dollars can be used for any health-related expense as long as it is not reimbursed. For example, they can be used to pay for long-term care or for health coverage policy or doctors' bills or for prescription drugs; but what is special about the health savings security accounts is in the way it applies to people like me. Many people, particularly women, during their child-raising years took time away from the workplace and often did not add money into accounts like IRAs, or actually Social Security accounts, and ended up with big goose eggs when the time came to calculate their benefits.

In this case, the health savings accounts provide for folks who took time off during their child-raising years, or to look after an ill parent; and it allows them to add up to 25 percent in additional dollars each year to their health savings accounts. This will begin in operation as soon as this bill is enacted. An individual age 55 or older can contribute $500 a year in addition to the total health savings account. That amount will grow to $1,000 in 2009, and I think it is a very sensitively written provision to help folks who have been away from the workforce or need this additional provision.

Mr. Speaker, I for one am very proud that the President in his State of the Union address directed the Congress to put together a program that will cost about $400 billion to provide prescription drugs for seniors because I think it is time to keep our promise to the people we represent and provide a comprehensive and voluntary prescription drug benefit for all seniors.

We have all heard stories of seniors paying too much for prescription drugs. This problem is even more acute among low-income seniors, especially for women who comprise half of Medicare beneficiaries with annual incomes below 150 percent of the poverty level. In this bill we help seniors on fixed incomes and those with high drug costs. A woman, for example, with an income of less than $14,400 today, which is 150 percent of poverty, will receive assistance from the Federal Government for prescription drugs. While all seniors will benefit, nearly 11 million or 34 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will qualify for additional assistance when this bill is fully implemented.

Improving Medicare is not only about providing a drug benefit, but it is also about giving seniors access to doctors, hospitals, Medicare HMOs, and other services they need. To ensure access to doctors, we address the low reimbursements that they are receiving. We also increase funding for rural hospitals so that seniors can get the health care service they need right in their community.

For Medicare HMOs, this bill requires Medicare to accurately account for

military retirees in the formula and that means higher Medicare+Choice reimbursements in areas with military facilities. Strengthening Medicare also means improving the quality of life for every senior. For this reason I am very happy that we were able to provide preventative services like cholesterol screening, initial physical exams and chronic care management to help those seniors with serious diseases.

Seniors will also have access to innovative treatments to deal with rheumatoid arthritis and other chronic diseases. This bill provides seniors immediate access to self-injectable biologics. Besides providing the choice of which drug works best for rheumatoid arthritis, these self-injectable treatments will allow seniors to receive treatments right in their homes instead of going to the hospital or to a physician's office and will take the burden off those hospitals, clinics and doctors.

This is a real prescription drug plan, Mr. Speaker. It is one that provides up to 25 percent in drug discounts for manufacturers. It covers seniors to participate in the drug program, and it protects those with very high drug costs. It strengthens Medicare's future without compromising the benefits seniors enjoy today. I ask my colleagues to support a real prescription drug by passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, later this week, we will pass a prescription drug benefit for all seniors in Medicare that is affordable and voluntary. We will protect the poorest seniors by helping pay for their drug costs immediately. By using the same principles already used by private companies, we will lower drug costs for seniors by passing along to them bigger discounts from manufacturers.

We will also strengthen Medicare for future generations by providing preventive care such as cholesterol screening and initial physical exams, and chronic care management for seniors with serious and complicated illnesses.

We can only strengthen Medicare's future if we are able to ensure access to the services that seniors need today. In this Medicare bill, we increase payments to doctors and hospitals, especially in the rural communities, so that seniors can get better health services when they are needed.

For much too long, our parents and our grandparents have paid too much for their drugs. We have an opportunity now to change this, by passing a prescription drug bill for all seniors.

Mr. Speaker, every morning 180,000 of our fellow citizens go to work with one main thing on their mind, to prepare, to prevent and to respond to a potential terrorist attack in the United States. These people work for one of the 22 agencies that have been brought together under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland Security.

Homeland security has new meaning since September 11. We can no longer assume that we will be protected from terrorist acts. We now live in a world where we must prepare for possible attacks. For this reason, I was proud to support the President's request for the creation of a Department of Homeland Security that is solely focused, with a very laser-like focus, on the prevention and protection from terrorist attacks in this country.

Since its inception on January 24, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security has made significant strides in protecting the country from terrorist attacks. Let me give a few examples. In March 2003, the Department opened its door and then it launched Operation Liberty Shield, the first comprehensive national plan to increase protections of American citizens and national infrastructure. Homeland security funding has increased over 1,000 percent from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2004, and this has allowed States and localities to purchase new technologies and tools for first responders.

Recently the Department ran TOPOFF II, a simulated exercise in Seattle and Chicago using large-scale weapons of mass destruction. Exercises like this are very important to provide first responders the experience needed to know when the decisions are going to be made, who is going to make these decisions, and how to handle our resources.

While the Department of Homeland Security has had great success over the last 5 months, there are still many issues to be resolved. The House of Representatives took the appropriate steps at the beginning of the 108th Congress in establishing a Select Committee on Homeland Security to help Secretary Ridge in guiding and overseeing the newly created Department. As with all Federal agencies, it is very important to hold this large Department accountable to the people we represent. The Select Committee on Homeland Security will act as the people's voice to focus attention toward our security. It will listen to the first responders, it will find a better way to get the millions of dollars that have already been allocated and should have been already received by first responders, such as $45 million in grants allocated to the State of California, but not received by their first responders. We need to help solve this problem.

It will be a focal point between Congress and the administration to coordinate the necessary resources to best defend our Nation. I look forward to continuing to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) and other members of our committee to develop legislation and provide oversight that will aid the Department of Homeland Security in their mission to prepare, prevent, and respond to a terrorist attack to protect our constituents all over the country.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003.

The bill before us has been cosponsored by over 200 Members of the House from both sides of the aisle. This approach is simple. It makes elimination of the death tax permanent. Although the bill is only one short sentence, it will have a powerful impact on the millions of people we represent.

Two years ago, Congress voted to phase out and repeal the death tax. Due to the Byrd rule, however, the tax will come back in full force January 1, 2011, imposing a maximum tax of 55 percent on estates. In the last Congress, a majority of the House voted on three occasions to remove this sunset in the law and make repeal permanent. We are here today to complete this unfinished business.

I have no doubt we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from those who want to keep the death tax alive. Repeal only helps the wealthy, they will say. It will reduce charitable giving; it will increase the deficit; it will jeopardize Social Security. Time and again these arguments have been raised. The simple truth is none of them holds water.

Does repeal of the death tax help only the wealthy? The Joint Economic Committee in 1998 underscored how repeal of the death tax will help minority-owned businesses. Both the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce support repeal of the death tax.

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in 2001 that ``elimination of the estate tax will help close the wealth gap in this Nation between African American families and white families.''

Supporters of the estate tax say that it does not really affect rural communities or farmers. Mr. Speaker, I represent rural communities and timber landowners. Earlier this year experts at the United States Forest Service published findings on just how devastating the tax affected rural communities.

Over a 10-year period, 36 percent of forest estates owed the Federal estate tax. In 40 percent of the cases where a Federal estate tax was due, timber or land had to bo sold to pay part or all of that tax. The amount of forest land harvested to pay the Federal estate tax was approximately 2.6 million acres every year. Forest land sold was nearly 1.3 million acres per year; and roughly 29 percent of the land sold was developed, or it was turned into subdivisions or converted to other uses.

Supporters of the tax say just lift the exemption amount, but that does not solve the problem. As inflation erodes the value of the exemption level, it will just mean more acres will be sold or harvested or developed. This is not the answer.

They say repeal of the estate tax will reduce charitable giving. In ``The CPA Journal'' of August 2001, Arthur Schmidt said, ``Philanthropy will likely increase as a result of the repeal of the estate tax, both at death because of the greater net resources available, or during the lifetime of the taxpayer as a result of the remaining tax efficiency of the charitable income tax deduction. In either case, the net present value of philanthropy will likely increase.''

Does the estate tax really promote charitable giving? IRS statistics show that in four out of five cases of taxable estates no bequest is made. No bequest is made in four out of five cases.

Would estate tax repeal jeopardize Social Security benefits? Federal receipts as a result of the death tax represent less than 1.5 of all total revenues. None of that money goes to Social Security for the trust funds, and eliminating the tax will in no way affect Social Security benefits, not one bit.

The death tax does not prevent accumulation of wealth. It does not promote charitable giving. It does not lead to increased economic growth. It is not a tax on sin. It is a tax on virtuous activities like savings and investment, activities we should be encouraging.

It increases the cost of capital for small businesses. It affects rural communities. It imposes financial burdens on minority businessmen and -women. In sum, the case for the death tax has been made, and it has been over and over again in this House thoroughly rejected.

Woodrow Wilson signed the death tax into law in 1916, and the time has come to get rid of it for once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 8 and opposing the substitute amendment and providing small businessmen and -women, family farmers and minorities with the capital they will need to expand, to create jobs and grow the economy.

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

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

I want to remind the gentleman from California, whose State is in very financial straits, that in the year 2002 his State and estates in that State sent to the Federal Government $4,201,408. Actually that is $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government, which I am sure his State could have made use of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a great member of the Committee on Ways and Means and very much in touch with his constituents on repealing the death tax.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I think the gentleman has created not just a near miss, but a big, big miss when we speaks about family farms. Families own 99 percent of the Nation's farms and ranches, and they are capital intensive businesses. Their assets are not liquid, and so for that reason they are very much at risk at having to pay very large estate taxes. Nearly 20 percent of farmers have paid Federal estate taxes in the previous 5 years. Seventy-seven percent of farmers report that they spent money each year on estate planning.

Not only are we hitting the family farms and the people who are employed by them, but we are also wasting dollars that go into this economy not for the purpose of stimulating this economy, but to pay for life insurance policies, estate planning, and everything else that is there when there is unpredictability and they need to provide for the future of their business and the business that employs so many people throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a very strong member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been close to his folks at home on this issue and who has done a great job for us on codifying the issue in the State of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that we did vote three times on this legislation last year in different forms; and, in fact, the legislation passed each of the times by a bipartisan majority. It also passed in the other body by a bipartisan majority. But, unfortunately, because of their strange rule system, it required a 60-vote margin to pass in that body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a very prominent member of our sophomore class.

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

I want to remind the gentleman from California that his State, in the year 2002, sent $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government. And you can about double that for the cost of complying with the death tax. That is what comes out of the economy. And so his figure of $80 billion, just take that and double it and that is what has been taken out of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a wonderful contributing sophomore Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Policy Committee, a cosponsor of this bill, and a longtime supporter and leader on this bill.

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

I remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that his State in the year 2001 sent back $578 million to Washington, D.C., with about an equal amount for compliance with that law. Also as a representative of a forested district, 36 percent of forest estates owe the Federal estate tax, 29 percent of the land was sold or developed or converted to subdivisions, and 1.3 million acres per year of forestland in this Nation were sold. The amount harvested to pay the estate tax was about 2.6 million acres every single year. I respect his point of view on this particular bill, but I think that there are many people who will be affected if he does not vote for this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

As the gentleman knows, retaking my time, I have already cosponsored that measure and supported it in the committee. We have worked very hard on that and will continue to do so. It affects a number of States. It is important to get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), a very active member of the freshman class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a great member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), freshman member of our class who has been one of the most active on the repeal of the death taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has been with us from the beginning, who is a strong advocate and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to this amendment, and I want my colleagues to look at it very closely and be very clear about what this amendment would do. It establishes a permanent death tax. It is a huge tax increase on small business and family farms.

This amendment would increase taxes on farmers, on timber growers, on small businessmen and small business women, and it would not only take money from their pockets and send it to Washington, D.C.; it would practically force them to take more money from their pockets to pay lawyers, insurance salesmen, and estate planners. And why? So they will not have to send their money to Washington, D.C. to comply with this permanent death tax.

There are people who think this is a good thing. I do not understand it; I do not question their intent, I simply acknowledge that that is the case.

We have already debated the issue surrounding the death tax, but let us look closely at the impact of this amendment, because I think it puts on display the philosophy of those who want to keep the death tax.

Under current law, the tax rate for estates is due to fall in 2004, in 2005, 2006, and 2007. For 2 years, the rate would remain at 45 percent and then be totally repealed in 2010. This amendment eviscerates that tax relief.

Some estates may benefit under this amendment. If you are unlucky enough that your business is not doing well and you fall below the $3 million threshold that is in this amendment, you benefit. But what this amendment tells you is this: do not be successful. Do not save your money. Do not invest your money. Do not grow your business.

Instead, it encourages you to spend it now, sit back, consume that estate, because the government is going to take half of that estate anyway, and everybody knows how wisely the government spends our money. Because the more successful you are and the harder and the more you work, the more expensive it will be for you to hand that business on to your children.

Does the amendment promote charitable giving? No, it does not. Does it redistribute the money it raises to those who are less wealthy? No, it does not. Does it equalize income among different layers of society? No, it does not do that. Does it help pay Social Security benefits? No.

Opponents of death tax repeal make all of those charges, but when they bring forth their own proposal, we can see it for what it really is: a tax increase, pure and simple. A way to put money in the pockets of the Federal Government. And because the exemption level is not indexed, there will be free money to the Treasury. Inflation grows, but the exemption stays just the same. As the economy improves, as businesses grow, as people invest and work hard, they will be penalized, because someone in Washington, D.C. said you can only be so successful, an arbitrary limit, and then you pay.

That is what this amendment is about and that is why it ought to be voted down.

Mr. Speaker, we hear time and again the arguments of those who want to keep the death tax. We hear about equality, about Social Security, about charitable giving, about enormous concentrations of wealth. But when it comes right down to it, it is about money.

Mr. Speaker, this approach is the wrong approach. This policy has outlived its day. This philosophy is not what made our Nation great, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means, a gentleman who knows what he is talking about because he has been through it personally.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 12 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) for the purposes of control, a gentleman who has been very involved in the development of our legislation and very much a supporter of it as he has come to Congress as a freshman Member. He will present differing points of views from people who come from all over the country who are members of the freshman class.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of points in response to things I heard during the debate, and I appreciate the participation of the freshmen Members of Congress. Their viewpoint is very energetic and fresh. It is very valuable to hear what they have to say.

There has been mention in the past of the National Farmers Union, and I want to assure people listening to this debate that the American Farm Bureau, which has 5 million members, supports permanent repeal of the death tax, as do the Agricultural Retailers Association, the Alabama Farmers Federation, the American Society of Farm Managers, the Rural Appraisers, the American Soybean Association, the American Nursery and Landscape Association, the Farm Credit Bureau. I could go on and on. There is a list of 25 organizations here that support the permanent repeal of the death tax.

Why is that? The reason is they want predictability. One of the previous speakers talked about unpredictability because the act will not go into effect until 2010, 7 years from now. These farmers support permanent repeal because they do not want to have to bet on the fact that their farm will be within $3 million, which is the limit in the Pomeroy amendment. We hear talk about $6 million, and that is for two members of a family. They do not want to put those dollars into providing for estate planning and purchasing life insurance policies so liquidity will be there when the time comes that they are taken from this vale of tears and their children have to pay for the inheritance of their estate. They want to use those dollars and put that capital into their businesses and farms and into their equipment and land and into the employment of many, many people who will lose their jobs once farms close down.

Mr. Speaker, we have another speaker who would like to speak about the death tax. He is a long-time Member and very active in this debate through the years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).

(Mr. SMITH of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I think Members have a good idea of what we are going through here today. We have been through this issue before. Each time I am very happy to say that the House of Representatives has stood up to get rid of the death tax repeal permanently. Three times in the last Congress the House voted to repeal the death tax. We are here today only for one reason and that is that the rules of the other body have stymied this tax relief for small business people and for family farms.

Some of my colleagues would say we should throw in the towel. They say the Senate will never pass this legislation, so why not compromise? Why even take up the permanent repeal piece of legislation? That is the statement made by the Pomeroy substitute. We faced similar arguments not very long ago when we considered an economic growth package, but the House did not throw in the towel and the legislation that is now law reflects to a very deep degree the policy decisions that were written right here on the floor of this House of Representatives. Thanks to the tenacity and the leadership of the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the will of the House prevailed. Frankly, I am very optimistic that we will ultimately prevail on permanently repealing the death tax.

I hope Members will not be swayed by the rhetoric and the hyperbole on the other side because we have heard lots of it today. On this issue, the opposition rhetoric and reality have very little in common. Why should Members vote against this amendment? Let me tell you why. Number one, it will be a retreat from the tax relief this body voted 2 years ago. In fact, it would reinstate a permanent death tax. Number two, we need to permanently repeal the death tax so that small businesses and family farmers can plan their future and invest in their businesses. We do not need to make them spend the fruits of their labor on estate lawyers and accountants and insurance policies. Number three, this is a direct vote against the President's proposal to repeal this tax permanently and that is based on 80 percent of the American people who think that the death tax is an unfair tax.

We need to inject greater fairness into the Tax Code. Do not be swayed by the arguments of those who say this is about a tax break for the wealthy. This is a relief from a burden that takes money from middle-income people who run their small businesses and their family farms. The wealthy people can afford to hire lawyers and accountants to avoid the burden of the estate tax. This is not about charitable giving and it is not about the wealthy. It is about people who are trying to raise money for the Federal Treasury and using an abhorrently unfair, misguided tax to do that. When people argue in favor of keeping the death tax, I am reminded of a story about Samuel Johnson, the English literary critic. An acquaintance of Johnson's had been unhappily married for a long time, and when the man's wife died he almost immediately remarried. Dr. Johnson said, ``That's an example of the triumph of hope over experience.'' That is what this is about, Mr. Speaker. It is about people who are wedded to misguided hope over experience.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have had enough experience with the death tax, nearly 90 years worth since 1916, and that is why we should reject this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 248, I call up the bill (H.R. 2185) to extend the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we consider H.R. 2185 to extend unemployment benefits for millions of displaced workers. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. This bill will extend the current unemployment insurance program until December 2003 with a phase-out until March 2004.

My legislation will allow dislocated workers to receive 13 weeks of benefits in all States and an additional 13 weeks for workers who live in States with high unemployment rates such as Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The bill will help approximately 2.4 million displaced workers nationwide.

In my home State of Washington, the unemployment rate has again increased from 7.1 percent to 7.3 percent, making it the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation. Mass layoffs continue to have an adverse impact on our State's economy, especially in the aerospace industry. I represent more than 25,000 Boeing workers, many of whom have already lost their jobs.

As we work on a jobs and growth package to provide an immediate boost to our economy, we must also give displaced workers the peace of mind in knowing that they have a little time to find a job. So what does H.R. 2185 do? It achieves the following: it extends unemployment benefits until December 31, 2003, with a phase-out until March 31, 2004; it extends unemployment benefits for 13 weeks in all States for displaced workers; it extends unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks for a total of 26 weeks in high unemployment States.

This bill will cost $6.5 billion over 10 years, and it will help about 2.4 million workers nationwide. I think it is important that people realize that the Congress has done a lot to help unemployed workers. We feel this is the time to continue generosity and to help some of these folks who are trying to get jobs.

The existing unemployment extension expires at the end of this month with a phase-out until August. Congress has now extended unemployment benefits three different times: first in March 2002, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; secondly, in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; and, lastly, in April 2003 an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers.

We are extending the safety net for workers struggling to find a job while stimulating our economic growth by reducing taxes for individuals and encouraging business expansion. By extending unemployment benefits for an additional 13 weeks in all States, we can help the 2.4 million workers, and in my State, 60,000 workers, who need this kind of help.

Our unemployment system has worked well for many years, and it serves people during economic downturns. We are constantly reviewing the unemployment program to ensure that it helps those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. It is a temporary program, and now is the time to extend these benefits in a temporary way to help those folks who need to be helped.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a very valuable member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I want to remind the gentleman from New Jersey that, under this bill, 124,250 of his constituents will receive unemployment coverage.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Because they have already received Federal benefits in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a very trusted and good member of our committee.

(Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a former Governor and current valued Member.

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

I think, to put the comments of Mr. Greenspan in context, because he made them at the meeting of the Joint Economic Committee yesterday, where I was present, he said:

``I have always been of the opinion, and stated before this committee previously, that our unemployment insurance system seems to work rather well. It is not overly generous, which would induce the type of increased levels of structural unemployment which we see in other countries which have these types of things, these types of structures. But unemployment insurance is essentially restrictive because it's been our perception that we don't want to create incentives for people not to take jobs. But when you're in a period of job weakness where it is not a choice on the part of the people whether they're unemployed or unemployed, then obviously you want to be temporarily generous.''

And he says, ``If you go forward with additional extensions, I would be careful to keep the extensions relatively short and renew them again if necessary.''

That is exactly what we are doing.

He says, ``Because we're not quite clear at this stage what the path of short-term economic activity is. A number of major economic forecasters have forecasts for the third quarter, which is just about in front of us, of 4 percent growth at an annual rate. And that is a relatively long list.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the gentleman from Washington in that anybody who cannot find a job wants to, which is why we are going to pass tonight the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax Act of 2003.

I do want to also remind the gentleman from Washington that the Congress has been watching over the concerns of States like Washington that have been the recipient of many unemployed people, and we have not done nothing. The debate tonight makes it sound like the Federal Government has done nothing.

In the State of Washington specifically, we have followed up 30 weeks of State benefits that the residents of our State are eligible for with 26 weeks of federally funded benefits that we passed in March, 2002, and extended again another 26 weeks in January of 2003, and then we matched the State for 9 total weeks of Federal- and State-funded benefits. We added on 7 weeks of State benefits for aerospace and timber workers who are in training programs. If we total that all up, it comes to 65 weeks for all dislocated workers, 98 weeks for aerospace workers and 72 weeks for timber workers.

I think the extension that we are going to do today, which for the State of Washington would provide 60,000 new people with unemployment benefits, is the right thing to do. With luck, if we play our cards right and the economy responds in the way we hope it will, we will not need to extend unemployment benefits, but if we need to, we will be there and do it, as Alan Greenspan says, on a temporary basis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. Walden) who talks from experience since he is from the State with the highest unemployment.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time that remains for both sides, please?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, some of these speakers on the other side have talked about folks who have been covered in the past by Federal unemployment insurance, but they do not make that point. They make it sound as though they never have been covered.

I think it is important to reiterate that the Congress in March of 2002 extended to folks 13 weeks of Federal unemployment and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it once again in January 2003, 13 weeks for all States and 26 weeks for high unemployment States; extended it again in April 2003, an additional 26 weeks for airline and related industry workers; and that many States also have provided for unemployment benefits.

Some States have additional benefits to help those who have exhausted their Federal benefits. For example, States have the option to provide 13 weeks of extended benefits at a 50/50 State and Federal cost share. This is after the 26 weeks of State and 13/13 weeks of Federal benefits, where we matched the States.

Additional Federal funds have been given to States to provide for unemployment benefits in any way they wish. They are done under the Reid Act. In March 2002, Congress allocated $8 billion to States under the Reid Act. States have the flexibility to use this money to pay for an additional unemployment benefit if they choose to do so. At this time States still have $6 billion of unused funds under the Reid Act. Congress also provided, as I said

before, targeted additional benefits to airline and related industry sectors.

So I think it is very, very misleading to make it sound like this is the first time we have thought of people who are unemployed. We have kept very close watch over these folks, because we feel their pain and we want to make sure they are provided with the help they need to go out and get jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the high- unemployment State of Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the very valued member of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), from one of those high unemployment States.

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

I would like to do a comparison between the bill that we are talking

about on the floor tonight and the bill that the Democrats have often brought up as being a better bill.

The Democrat plan is not targeted. It guarantees 26 weeks of benefits, regardless of local economic conditions in a State. Our bill is targeted. It provides immediately 13 weeks of Federal assistance to those who need it now, and it targets additional benefits to States that have high unemployment rates.

The Democrat plan is too long in duration. That plan would extend the program through October, 2004. We might be out of this recession by October of 2004. Our goal is to create jobs. We are enacting tax relief for all Americans that will give our economy an immediate boost and create new jobs.

Our bill continues the unemployment benefits through December, 2003, with a phase-out through March, 2004. That means Congress can come back, as we have consistently done in the past, and review the economic conditions at that time and decide if we need to extend unemployment benefits.

Also, in the growth bill, in addition to these unemployment extension benefits, we will provide $20 billion of Federal assistance to States in the jobs and growth package. This is a good solid unemployment package. It should pass.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to give my speech on tax relief or Medicare, but I am going to choose tax relief tonight. I certainly do hope that the gentleman from Washington realizes that this bill is practically identical to the one that was in his committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and my committee, that we passed last week; and he should know this bill very well. Certainly we do on this side of the aisle.

Earlier this week, Alan Greenspan testified before the Joint Economic Committee on which I serve. He pointed out that taxing capital discourages investment, so when we reduce taxes on dividends and capital gains, we are encouraging saving, and we are reducing the cost of capital for companies, and we are also producing and promoting economic growth.

One of the most important issues facing our country today is the need to stimulate economic growth to create jobs. The best way we achieve this goal is to pass a jobs and growth package, one that leaves money in the pockets of individuals and families and encourages businesses to invest in business.

This package will quickly lower everybody's tax rates. It will send rebate checks to millions of parents with children, and it will assist seniors who depend on dividend income to supplement their Social Security benefits. This bill goes a long way towards promoting capital investment by allowing small businesses to deduct the cost of major purchases. It increases productivity, increases demand in our economy, and it stimulates production. In all, we expect to create over 1 million new jobs by the end of next year.

While we work to stimulate our economy, we also need to help those still seeking jobs. Unemployment in the State of Washington is above the national average. Unfortunately, in fact, we are consistently in the top three States with the highest unemployment, and I am very happy today we were able to pass legislation to extend unemployment benefits so that people will have more time to get the training and the financial assistance they need to find jobs. It is time to pass this jobs

and growth package. It helps workers, families, low-income and middle- income taxpayers. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation to strengthen our economy, to create jobs and to provide tax relief to millions of America's workers and their families. This is a sensible, thoughtful approach to stimulate economic growth and job creation.

The people I represent in Washington State are particularly aware of the need in our economy for a stimulus. Our State's unemployment rate is approximately 7 percent. My State is ranked consistently in the top three States with the highest unemployment rate in the Nation.

In this Congress we have been especially sensitive in extending numerous times unemployment benefits to provide a safety net for those workers who have lost their jobs, but we also all know that the very best safety net for our workers is to stimulate the job market so these folks can go back to work.

Estimators predict that this legislation will create over 1 million jobs by the end of 2004. In Washington State alone, this legislation would create 17,000 jobs within the next 18 months.

These jobs are going to be created largely by the millions of small businesses in our Nation. We all know that small business is the engine of our economy. Nearly 80 percent of the benefits from reducing the highest marginal tax rates will help small business owners.

Equally important, this legislation touches the lives of tens of millions of American individuals and their families. Beyond the stimulus of economic effects, we ensure that taxpayers can keep more of their own money.

By raising the child tax credit, parents can pay for the child care services their children may need.

By reducing the marginal income tax rates, individuals will have more take-home pay through lower withholding. By eliminating the marriage penalty sooner rather than later, couples can save for their first home.

By reducing the tax on dividends, we are directly helping senior citizens who depend on dividend income to supplement their Social Security payments; and by reducing capital gains taxes, we are also helping older parents whose children have moved away and who now are downsizing by selling their homes.

This constructive tax cut package will stimulate economic growth, it will create jobs, and it will leave more money with the people who earned those dollars in the first place.

This is exactly how we should help our economy, Mr. Speaker; and I urge my colleagues to join in support for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.

On behalf of The Ed Smart family, the Polly Klaas Foundation, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the thousands of families still searching for their missing children, I rise today to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, to the House leadership, and to my coauthor of the AMBER Alert, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), for working together, for joining together to make our work on AMBER Alert a reality.

The AMBER Alert program will contribute hugely to the safety and the well-being of our Nation's children. As a mother of two sons and soon- to-be grandmother, I join with all the parents and the grandparents in appreciating how critical it is to have all communities have the access and the full ability to protect their children from kidnappers who seek to harm our little ones.

To date, AMBER Alert has been credited with the safe recovery of 53 children. We know the AMBER Alert system works by allowing communities to tap into the resources of an educated public, to prepare local law enforcement, and engage the media in reuniting children with their loving families.

The media and an educated public, for example, were absolutely critical in the safe return of Elizabeth Smart to her family a few weeks ago. President Bush showed very strong and early support for our bill last year; and thanks to his good sense, he took the first steps by providing grants to States and localities to help establish local AMBER Alert programs.

It is now time for Congress to codify the AMBER Alert. We need to provide additional funding. We need to provide additional oversight to empower every single State and community with the tools and the resources to react quickly to child abductions and bring these children safely home to the arms of their parents.

I applaud the leadership and the commitment of both the House and Senate conferees for moving this bill through the legislative process so quickly so that it can arrive on the President's desk before the Easter break. All of us should be proud for enacting a law that will help prevent crimes against our most vulnerable citizens, our children. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.