Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, when the Republican transition occurred in December of 1994, I was charged with the responsibility of interviewing people and finding hires for the top five positions in the House, and one of those was Parliamentarian. I frankly came at it with some suspicion. If someone

could be working so long for the other party in control, could that person be fair? And he convinced me over two meetings that his job was not to be fair or unfair, but to know the rules. He has proven that he does, with an even hand; and I join all my colleagues in thanking him in his service to his country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time in support of H. Res. 644, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule which provides that the minority will be able to bring an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House floor for consideration by the full House. In this respect, H. Res. 644 is in line with the recent history and tradition of the House when debating tax legislation on the floor.

I urge the House to approve this rule in order to give the House the opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation.

With this in mind, I want to commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for bringing H.R. 4359 to the floor today. This bill permanently extends the full $1,000 child tax credit that the Congress and the Bush administration were able to enact in 2001 and 2003.

Failure to get this proposal signed into law means that in 2005 an estimated 34 million families, with approximately 59 million more children, face higher taxes, as the credit is lowered to $700, and eventually sinks to $500 in 2011.

Moving this bill into law will make crystal clear to the American people that President Bush and the Republican Congress are committed to protecting the tax relief that we were able to enact in 2001 and 2003. Anything less than that represents a tax hike. And clearly, based on recent economic reports, a tax hike is exactly what our economy does not need as it continues to grow.

In fact, as Treasury Secretary Snow stated this week, effective monetary and fiscal policies, ``of which the President's tax cuts are a part,'' are enabling the economy to perform very well. This President and this Congress understood that by reducing the tax burden and improving economic incentives, we can boost economic growth and increase the flow of resources into production. That is what has occurred by following the Republican tax relief plan. By removing the heavy burden of government from the backs of small businesses and families, we are creating more economic activity which means more jobs for all Americans and ultimately more revenues to the Treasury.

We need to permanently extend this tax credit for American families, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill's passage and enactment into law.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to consider the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for the defense authorization bill. In total, this rule provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate on a number of key issues affecting our military and our national defense. The underlying legislation, H.R. 4200, passed the Committee on Armed Services by a vote of 60 to 0, and it meets the challenges of a Nation whose soldiers are at work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe in the fight against terror.

Following almost 5 hours of hearings yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we have provided the opportunity for further debate by making in order 28 amendments, including 10 Democrat amendments, 15 Republican amendments, and three bipartisan.

This is a fair and traditional rule for a DoD authorization bill that will permit the House to support our Nation's men and women in uniform and ensure that our defense capabilities remain second to none while having excellent debate later today on a wide array of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this important bill falls well in line with what the Founders envisioned when they crafted article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to ``raise and support Armies,'' as well as to ``provide and maintain a Navy.''

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, our Nation bore witness to one of the most horrific crimes in history. Today, our Nation's servicemen and -women are fighting for freedom in the civilized

world on multiple fronts across the globe. Our commitment to these ideals depends on our military and our military personnel, and this bill is a statement that we will continue to defend freedom and ensure that our homeland remains safe.

First, this legislation provides the funding needed to continue the U.S. military's transition into the 21st century. H.R. 4200 authorizes nearly $2 billion for the U.S. Army to procure weapons-tracked combat vehicles; $10 billion for the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and conversion; and over $13.5 billion for the U.S. Air force to procure additional aircraft. The authorization for these and other programs will help ensure that the U.S. military remains the most efficient, most lethal, and most effective fighting force in the world.

But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly hope to maintain the level of excellence obtained by the U.S. military without the achievements of the men and women who proudly wear the uniform. I am continually impressed by the resolve, patriotism, and commitment exhibited by these heroes day in and day out. As such, this Congress must work to reinforce this strength, and H.R. 4200 makes good progress towards that end.

I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains a 3.5 percent pay increase in base pay for military personnel. H.R. 4200 also recommends the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses military personnel must contribute toward housing costs. Both of these provisions will not only help ease the burden placed on military personnel and their families but should also help to ensure that the U.S. military is able to retain these highly trained personnel.

Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that not everyone will be satisfied with this measure. What we must remember, however, is that the primary responsibility of this government is to provide for the common defense of this country. As one of the Founders put it, wise and free people direct their attentions first to their own safety.

As such, I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying measure, H.R. 4200, to not only uphold the obligations of the Congress and the Federal Government, but also to show our men and women in uniform that their service to this Nation and their fellow Americans does not now nor will it ever go unappreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this modified, closed rule, and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and traditional rule for legislation that amends the Internal Revenue Code, and I am pleased that the House will have the opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation, H.R. 4275, as well as an amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel.

Mr. Speaker, this rule before the House, H. Res. 637, will give Members of the House an opportunity to consider legislation that will spur economic growth and save taxpayers money by providing tax relief for working Americans.

I also want to commend Mr. Sessions, my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, for introducing this important legislation. H.R. 4275 would permanently preserve the 10-percent income tax bracket, which was created in the 2001 Bush tax cut in order to reduce the burden on working Americans. As a result of this tax relief, currently, the first $7,000 of individuals and $14,000 of couples' taxable income is taxed at 10-percent instead of 15-percent.

If we fail to enact H.R. 4275, tax brackets will revert to their pre- 2001 levels at the end of this year. For example, the ten percent bracket's income limits would return to $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples in 2005, causing 73 million working Americans to pay higher taxes next year.

Additionally, the ten percent bracket would disappear completely after 2010, and taxpayers could face an average tax increase of $2,400 over the next decade.

Lastly, over 24 million low-income workers will be pushed into a higher tax bracket. Therefore, compared to 2004 levels, many individuals and businesses will face higher federal taxes if we fail to enact H.R. 4275.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House will debate H. Res. 577, a resolution recognizing 50 years of relations between the United States and the European Union. I hope the House overwhelmingly approves this resolution.

The U.S. and EU not only have shared values and an indisputable friendship, but also shared global responsibilities. Responsibilities that are grave in light of the terrorist threat facing our world today. The U.S. and EU must continue to work together to root out terrorism around the world, and seek to promote peace and stability. I am pleased to note that members of the EU and the U.S. are currently working alongside each other in both Afghanistan and Iraq to combat terrorism, and to ensure that these countries successfully make the transition toward democracy.

In addition to our shared interest in promoting global security, the U.S. and the EU share economic interests. The U.S. and the EU have the largest bilateral trading and investment relationship in the world with transatlantic flows of trade and investment amounting to roughly $1 billion a day.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has stated that strong ties between America and Europe are essential to peace and the prosperity of the world. I believe that both sides will remain committed to fostering the relationship so that together the U.S. and the EU can promote their common goals and interests in the world much more effectively.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my friends in the Asian Pacific community for honoring those who have served.

I would like to spend the next hour talking a little bit about the economy and what we can do to even improve it more. We should be grateful for the growth we have seen. Four years ago, we saw the dot- com bust that cost $5 trillion in value for shareholders, we saw the beginnings of corporate fraud, which have been dealt with, and we saw a downturn in the economy which is causing losses of jobs.

President Bush, to his credit, stood tough by a decision to leave people more of the money they earn in their own pockets, and had several important tax cuts; and the American people, not government, not Congress, not us, but the American people have turned around an economy to create a boom that is going on right now, with 600,000 jobs created just in the last 2 months.

The American people deserve the credit for that, but there is still one anchor on the neck of the economy. The biggest drag on the neck of the economy is the IRS. 230 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that the market was the invisible hand of the economy. I agree with that. And 230 years later, we can say that the visible foot on the throat of the economy is the IRS code.

We spend 6.9 billion man-hours just filling out IRS paperwork. At $20 an hour, which is a $40,000-a-year job, that is $240 billion lost.

Corporate leaders tell us they spend more calculating the tax implications of a business decision. A friend of mine who was on a board of directors came back from a meeting of one of the Fortune 100 companies, and he said, ``We spent 80 percent of the entire meeting calculating the tax implications of a business decision. We should be thinking about our shareholders, our employees and our customers, and not the government.'' We believe we spend more than 6.9 billion man- hours just calculating that.

Studies have shown that we lose 18 percent of our economy to people making decisions for tax reasons instead of economic reasons. That is a $180 billion loss.

All of this is to say the following: the American people spend upwards of $500 billion a year to comply with a code to send in just four times that much to the government. And who pays it? The consumer. This is not rich corporate America or investing America. All of the bills of corporate America are paid by the final consumer, who cannot pass those costs on. The consumer picks up the entire tab.

We have studies that show for a small business to collect $100, comply with the Tax Code, remit that $100 to the Federal Government, it costs them $724. This is not an efficient way to raise our revenues.

It is time for the IRS to go away, it is time for the income tax to go away, and H.R. 25 will do just that. H.R. 25, which has tonight I think 49 cosponsors, would abolish all taxes on income, the corporate income tax, the personal income tax, the payroll tax.

Seventy-five percent of America pays more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It would get rid of the gift tax, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax for a one-time-at- the-checkout retail sales tax.

Americans would pay taxes when they choose, as much as they choose, by how they choose to spend. And to untax essentials. We would not define them; that is a political operation that would be fought in the halls here. Nor would we follow you around to make sure you spend on essentials. That is a police operation we cannot afford.

We would use the government's definition of poverty-level spending, which is that spending necessary for a given size household to buy their essentials. It is determined every January by the Department of HHS. For my mother that is $9,500 a year. For my daughter and son-in- law and four grandsons, that is $30,000 a year. For George and Laura Bush and their two daughters, that is $24,500 a year.

Their check at the beginning of every month would totally rebate the tax consequence of spending up to the poverty line. Beyond that, we are all discretionary spenders, and we all pay the same.

Over the last 9 years, Americans for Fair Taxation has raised privately and spent $25 million on economic research, market research, spreading the word. The most compelling study we have is from Dale Jurgensen, who is the head of economics at Harvard, that says today, 22 percent of what you spend at retail is the imbedded cost to the IRS.

Twenty-two percent of what we pay for at the checkout counter is paying the tax bills of America. If you take a loaf of bread that has been touched by a seed company, a farmer, a combine operation, a trucking company, a processing company, a bakery, a cardboard manufacturer, a distribution company, a retail outlet, the people who make tractors and plows, all of those companies have income tax costs and payroll tax costs, and accountants and attorneys to avoid the tax costs, and the consumer pays it. The consumer pays everything. And when you think about it, there is no mechanism for a business to pay a bill, other than through price.

In 41 years, my wife and I have built six businesses. We always looked for that ``secret drawer'' where the money just kind of piles up and you help yourself to it to pay your tax bill and your payroll taxes. It is not there.

Our patients, when I was a dentist, our customers in business, paid our labor cost, our light bill, our rent and our tax bill; and our studies say that the tax component in the price system is 22 percent of what you spend.

We say abolish that system, repeal the Tax Code, let competition quickly work that out of the system and replace it with an imbedded 23 percent, a frank and transparent tax. It will fund the government at the current level, but you get to keep your whole check, and you will all be voluntary taxpayers, as I said earlier, paying taxes when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend.

What will happen in the world? The first year we will have a 26 percent increase in exports. That is good for jobs, corporate profits and good for America. The first year you will have a 78 percent increase in capital investment.

We know in a study done from 1945 to 1995, that every time we increase capital spending, we increase real take-home wages in exactly the same proportion because workers are more productive.

We have overseas somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion floating around in Euro dollar markets because it is cheaper to borrow at 6 percent than to repatriate those dollars at 35 percent, and it is easier to spend them overseas at no tax consequences.

All of that money would come home. All that money would come home and put new liquidity into our economy and create jobs. We know it costs $100,000 to create one job in all America. All of that money would come to job creation.

We have seen studies that suggest that every major international corporation that is domiciled overseas, in Europe or Japan or Latin America, if we had no tax on capital or labor, every one of those corporations would build their next plant in the United States.

We know that DaimlerChrysler really wanted to be ChryslerDaimler; they really wanted to be in New York City, but the crushing way we treat capital in America with our tax system led them to Stuttgart.

We have a Social Security system and a Medicare system that is destined for collapse. A very recent study by Larry Kotlikoff from Boston College says that the 75-year unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare; that is to say, promises we have made for retirees in that period of time for which there is no money set aside and will not be any, a shortfall, in today's dollars, not inflated dollars, but today's dollars, the 75-year unfunded liability to those programs is $51 trillion.

To put that in perspective, if you started a business on the day Jesus Christ was born and lost $1 million a day through yesterday, it would take another 720 years to lose $1 trillion. In 75 years, we are going to have a shortfall of $51 trillion in those programs. The entire wealth of America, that is everything we own of value, our cars, our homes, our retirement programs, and our shares, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The entire wealth of America is $43.8 trillion. If we were to take everything away from every American and apply the value to the shortfall in those funds, in those two programs, we would cover 80 percent of the shortfall.

We say fund Social Security and Medicare out of the sales tax, go from 138 million workers paying into the system to 300 million Americans buying every day, paying into the system, plus 51 million visitors to our shores, and fund Social Security and Medicare off the overall size of the economy as opposed to the number of people working in it or the amount we are willing to tax those workers, and we would double the revenues to those categories in 15 years by doubling the size of the economy in 15 years, well before we need to do so.

We hear a lot of talk from people, in our Treasury Department particularly, that a tax of that amount would cause evasion of an enormous scale. My response to them is twofold. Number one, we are already paying this; it is just hidden. The cost of living is going to be about the same, but we will keep our whole check. But more importantly, currently, all you have to do to evade taxes is to lie on your tax return, put down the wrong numbers, sign it, send it in, and the chances are that nobody will know. You have a less than 1 percent chance of being audited. Under our system, you are going to have to have somebody cooperate with you, conspire with you to cheat. Now, I do not know how many friends you have

that are willing to go to jail for you. I have none. I have none. It is going to be tougher to cheat on this system, because it is going to take two to do so.

Secondly, on the evasion issue, the IRS currently tells us that they collect 75 percent of the taxes that they know are owed. They are unwilling to guess how large the underground economy is, because no one knows. Well, 6 or 8 months ago a book came out on this issue by an economist who said that three pieces of the underground economy, pornography, illegal drugs, and illegal labor, those three pieces comprise a $1 trillion economy, untaxed.

Under our system, if they wanted to buy that loaf of bread or a new house or a new car, they would pay their fair share. Always in these discussions in politics, it comes down to who is going to win and who is going to lose. My argument has been consistent: Everybody is a winner. If you can become a voluntary taxpayer and be untaxed on essentials, everybody wins. If we can give you a tax system that gives you in a free society the privilege of anonymity, no one should know as much about it as their government does, you are a winner. But in point of fact, the people coming out the best in this system are people living at or below the poverty level who are currently losing 22 percent of their purchasing power to the current system. They will have a huge increase in purchasing power.

Frankly, this is a tax on accumulated wealth. The left should love this idea. If you pay taxes on your earnings, you pay taxes on building a business, you pay capital gains tax when you sell it, this system is going to tax you one more time when you or your heirs spend the money. They should love that.

To those who have accumulated wealth, I would just say this: You are already paying this tax. But what do you think is going to happen to your nest egg if all the world's investors are going to invest in our economy with no tax consequences? I do not know, but I can tell my colleagues of two nationally known names who manage money and say, I do not know what the value of the Dow Jones would be at when you pass this bill, but in 2 years it will have doubled. All the trillions in the world would be in our economy, buying our shares, increasing the value of the nest egg, and creating jobs.

There are all kinds of reasons to do this, most important of which is freedom, giving you the freedom to make your own decisions and not be under a corrosive system. But right now, as the Secretary of the Treasury told me, this would make us the largest magnet for capital and jobs in history.

So I suggest to my colleagues, several of them who have not signed this bill, to sign it. I suggest to you that if you want to create jobs, the way to do it is to get the tax off capital and labor and the jobs would come. For the very reason today jobs are going overseas because of the Tax Code, they would come flocking to our shores tomorrow. And let us move on and build our economy.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the IRS would be gone. Our Treasury Department would have several thousand people contracting with the States to do the collecting. Forty-five States are already collecting sales tax. They have mechanisms in place to judge whether there is fraud involved.

We would contract with the States to collect the money and we would pay them a quarter of a percent for everything they brought in for doing so, just as we would pay the retailer a quarter of a percent for collecting it. Every household in the State would sign up with that State once a year or, if they had children during the year, sign up again, and list the numbers of people in the household and their Social Security numbers so we do not have people living in every household. And then the Social Security department, which currently sends out about 45,000 checks a month, would handle the rebate.

We envision the rebate to be nothing more than a computer click. This government is moving dramatically toward getting rid of checks, moving just to electronic transfers which are a nickel or a dime to make instead of the cost of taking postage and envelopes. So we think that every household will do nothing more than a computer click to put enough money in their account previous to the first day of the month; previously on spending it, that would totally untax them in terms of spending up to the poverty level.

A resident of the United States and a resident of that State.

Mr. Speaker, the 23 percent was calculated in 1995, and since we have had significant tax cuts since then, it may be less than 23 percent. We have to go back to the committees that the gentleman deals with on the Committee on Ways and Means to have new studies done on that.

But in 1995 it was revenue neutral, which means it brings in exactly the same amount of money as the current system does.

But let us point out that the average income-earner today spends 28 percent of their income to the withholding of the IRS, of the Tax Code, and another 8 percent roughly for their Social Security and Medicare. So as an individual spending, I would rather give up 23 percent of what I spend than 34 percent of what I earn. It will encourage great earnings and great savings.

Mr. Speaker, realtors would come in my office and say, we need the deductibility of home interest to calculate if they can afford to buy a house. My response has always been a little bit flip. I say, well, if you think that the deductibility of mortgage interest sells your houses, double the interest rate and you will sell twice as many houses. Well, it does not work that way. In fact, two-thirds of America uses a short form and does not use deductions anyway.

Secondly, what really sells houses is whether an individual has enough take-home pay at the end of the month to make that house payment. Currently, according to our studies, 28 percent of the cost of a new house is the embedded cost to the IRS. There are thousands of business entities that touch all the products that go into a new house, and each of them has tax costs. We think that 28 percent of the cost of that house is the embedded cost to the IRS. Under our system, it would be 23 percent of the cost of a house, so the house would be less expensive.

Secondly, if you are making $60,000 a year, you are currently taking home $3,800 a month to make the payment. Under our system, you would take home $5,000 a month, so you could make the payment easier. We also believe, our studies show that interest rates would decline by about 30 percent. So for that one-third of us that uses deductibility of home interest, you lose that, but you will not have anything to deduct against, because you will not have any income tax.

Mr. Speaker, the average income-earner, paying the 28 percent withholding and their share of the 8 percent of the payroll tax, would have a 56 percent increase in take-home pay the next day.

My understanding is, and the gentleman from Georgia could tell better than me, we spend about $34 billion a year on the earned income tax credit.

The reason it was put into place many years ago was to relieve people at lower income, $17,000 to $23,000 or $24,000 a year from the payroll tax. These people do not pay income taxes, so they are not paying for the military or the parks or the Justice Department or the FBI, and the earned income tax credit relieves them of paying for their own retirement. Nine billion dollars of that $34 billion is considered to be fraud.

Under our system, since nobody will have a payroll tax, there will be no reason to have an earned income tax, an earned income tax credit, and we will save a ton of money.

Well, as the gentleman knows, most of the companies support their governments largely on the value-added tax, which is a consumption tax.

We rebate that tax to the companies that export overseas so they come to America more competitive because they do not have much of a tax component in the tax system.

Under our system, we will be selling goods and services under the global economy, 22 percent less on average, making the same profits; but our imports to our shores will be taxed at the retail checkout counter exactly the same as the domestic competition and will be perfectly neutral, although I think we will be more competitive if we can totally get the tax component out of the tax system.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman for those comments.

Reclaiming my time, on that point, people have said to me over the years, well, will people quit consuming? The studies that we have shown from 1945 to 1995 is that the consumption economy is a very steady predictor of economic activity. People will spend so much. The biggest downturn it has had since 1945 was 3 percent in the 1970s and early 1980s.

The income economy is very volatile. We are seeing collections right now down 20 percent because of layoffs and no corporate profits; and yet if we were on the consumption economy, the revenues would have increased in 13 of the last 14 quarters because the economy grows.

This is a predictable thing to build retirement programs on. We know it is going to grow. We know if we fund the programs off the overall size of the economy, as opposed to the number of people working in it, we will be able to fund those programs.

The gentleman is right, and you study it in your committee on a regular basis. This system is destined for collapse.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Which is about the top 2 percent of incomes.

There are 8 to 12 million people living in the shadows of our life doing jobs in America that other people are not doing. You could not get a crop out of the ground in your district without some of these folks. You cannot build a house in north Georgia without some of these folks; but the biggest concern that I run into among my constituents is that they think they are not paying anything for their fair share. I think if they were paying every time they bought a loaf of bread and they were paying their share to the government, attitudes would change.

There is no question we need to find these folks and identify them, and as President Bush has suggested, know who they are; when the job is over, send them back. But if the American people knew they were equally supporting the cost of government every time they bought a loaf of bread, I think the attitudes would change.

I think your point is right.

There would be no taxes on income whatsoever.

Let me just address an issue you raised that is kind of interesting and it is a bit arcane.

Health care. We made a decision in the 1940s to allow corporations to deduct health care insurance and not have it treated as income to the employees, and so the first dollar of third-party coverage has really caused the abuse of the system.

I was with a corporation where we had a huge health care debate in 1994, and they proudly told me that they spend $1,000 per employee per month on the health care.

I said, ``You ought to be ashamed of that.'' Because they were funding everything from fertility treatments to the grave, and hair transplants and everything in between. Under our system,

that benefit, the value of that premium would be taxed as a personal consumption. And if I worked for that company that was spending $1,000 a month for me, I would start saying, ``I do not need that fertility treatment or hair transplant. I do not need AIDS coverage. I want this, this, and this, and I am willing to pay the tax on the provision of those services.'' And then I think we would have, for the first time since 1946 or 1947, American citizens shopping for and selecting their coverage benefits, and they would bring some sanity to the health care world.

That is what we are currently paying for at retail.

Absolutely.

If we could lower the cost of production in Florida of fruits and vegetables by 15 percent, Latin America could not compete with us. If we could lower it by 20 percent, we would blow them out of town.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I thank the gentleman for that.

If the gentleman will yield for a moment, Mr. Speaker, their own study, because the gentleman and I have met with them, shows the economy will grow faster under this system than the current system.

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the gentleman raised that point. I want to throw one thing in here. Seventy-four percent of the money that goes to not-for-profits come from businesses they run. Universities sell hats and mugs, the Red Cross sells blood. Eighteen percent comes from the checks we write, and the rest comes from interest earned on interest-bearing accounts.

People do not give money away to charities just for tax reasons. The great fortunes that have been given away, the Goulds, the Fricks, the Melons, the Carnegies, were given away before 1913. Carnegie funded 2,437 libraries before the Tax Code came into effect. People with a lot of money give it away because they like to give it away.

In 1980, when the value of a charitable contribution's margin was a 70 percent deduction, we gave $48 billion to charity. Over several tax changes since then, the value of charitable giving has dramatically declined, and last year we gave nearly $200 billion to charities. People give money away if they have more money. If they have more money in their pocket, we will put more money in their pocket.

Mr. Speaker, let me close with one point, and that is 47 percent of America does not pay any income taxes today. They pay payroll taxes, but we have a huge bias that is a dangerous bias in my judgment because people who do not pay taxes are disproportionate beneficiaries of government, and they want more government and more taxes because they think they do not pay them.

I want a tax system that is so fair and equal that the next time we decide we want a tax increase, my mother is willing to pay it. We had two tax increases in 1990, both promised at the top 2 percent; it works its way through the system, and we all pay. I want a system that everyone sees they are the ones paying the taxes, and they are the beneficiary.

We hear from everyone, and you talk about it, and people say it will never happen. This town responds to our constituents, and if the American people want this to pass, it will pass. There is no organized opposition to it. If the American people catch on, it will pass. But one thing that I have learned over the last 6 years on this issue, and I have been on several hundred talk radio shows, I have been in many States, the American people are so far ahead of the politicians on this it is scary. Politicians have no idea how close the American people are to throwing them out over this issue. The American people want the simplicity of it, the fairness of it, and they want it to be equal.

All of the polling and focus groups we did, they want everybody treated the same. Half of the people in the focus groups thought they were the only ones paying taxes, and everybody else had a deal. They want everybody treated the same. Cab drivers want wealthy people treated the same because they want to be wealthy one day, and they want to be treated exactly the same.

I believe there is a confluence of events occurring. The Social Security and Medicare crisis is going to force us to make some tough decisions. The fact that our revenues are not dependable, when under the sales tax and the growing economy, would not only be dependable, we may not even be facing deficits, and the projected long-term growth of the economy of a significant percentage above what we can do now. And lastly, we cannot continue to compete in a global economy with such a large tax component in our price system.

These various things are coming to bear on our economy, and I believe the American people will catch on to this. As the gentleman knows in Georgia, he cannot run for office without discussing it. We need to do that in all of the States. I believe the American people will move this country, and it will take them to move the politicians. Politicians are, more than anything, followers. They want to know where the country is going, and they want to get in front of the parade, wherever it is. We are looking for some leaders, and the American people will show the way. Yes, it will happen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all Members who have participated tonight and continue the fight. This will happen.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 619 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 619 is a modified, closed rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 4227, the Middle-Class Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2004.

It provides for one hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

H. Res. 619 also provides for the consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent.

It waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report and provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and traditional rule for the consideration of legislation amending the Internal Revenue Code, and I hope that the House will approve the rule in order to have the opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying consideration.

The Alternative Minimum Tax was originally conceived as a means of ensuring that the wealthy ``paid their fair share of taxes'' in 1969. But, as has happened so many times in the past, the law of unintended consequences has meant that the AMT has produced a very different result.

Because the AMT is not currently indexed to the inflation rate, the number of taxpayers falling into the ``AMT trap'' is growing larger and larger every year. In 1970, 19,000 people paid the AMT. Today, this number has risen to over 3 million taxpayers. According to some estimates, approximately 35 million taxpayers will come under the AMT's procedures in the next 6 years.

These taxpayers are not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination. Increasingly, the AMT is punishing hard-working, middle class families.

With this in mind, I wanted to commend the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for bringing H.R. 4227 to the floor today. This bill extends for 1 year the current limits on income exceptions from the AMT that Congress and President Bush enacted in 2001 and 2003. Notably, H.R. 4227 also indexes the limits for inflation, thereby precluding the AMT from taking an even bigger bite out of most moderate-income families' paychecks.

President Clinton's 1993 tax raise increased the AMT tax rate without adjusting the AMT exemption amount for inflation. Since then, however, the Republican majority in the Congress has repeatedly delivered AMT relief to taxpayers.

The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 increased the AMT exemption amounts, and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 further increased the AMT exemption amounts. These steps provided some relief to families, but for procedural reasons, the current law's AMT relief will expire next year if we do not enact H.R. 4227. While H.R. 4227 is a good proposal that deserves our support today because it will help provide much-needed AMT relief to workers, it is increasingly clear to me that the current income Tax Code is fatally flawed and in dire need of a fundamental overall.

To that end, I have introduced legislation, H.R. 25, that moves the Federal Government from an income tax-based system to a personal consumption system by abolishing all Federal income taxes and the IRS and replacing the Tax Code with a national retail sales tax on consumers buying new goods and services. Enacting the Fair Tax would, as just one example, solve the AMT problem for all families in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed with the debate on the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment on the gentleman's opening statement. The gentleman from Washington did not show up at the committee to pursue his proposed amendment. And it is regular order for the Committee on Rules not to allow an open amendment process in bills that come out of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Lastly, let me just applaud the gentleman for saying we should get rid of the IRS. I welcome him as a cosponsor on H.R. 25.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take enough time to remind the gentleman that the 1986 tax act was called the Bradley- Gephardt bill.

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

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

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

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

I merely point out that the majority party will be here to discuss the merits of the bill. The last debate has been on the rule, irrespective of the debate we heard from the other side, which was neither on the rule nor on anything in the rule nor on the merits of the bill. So I will urge my colleagues to come and pass the previous question, pass the rule, and get on with the debate on the bill, which is the extension of the AMT exclusion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I thank my friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a traditional rule for legislation that amends the Internal Revenue Code, and I am pleased the House will have the opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation and also an amendment from the ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Tax Code remains hopelessly complex. Just a few years ago, it was so convoluted from years of tax changes that it punished married taxpayers merely because they were married. Unfortunately, only under this current monstrosity of a Tax Code could the marriage penalty that this House eliminated reappear in the very near future. This rule before the House, H. Res. 607, will give Members of the House an opportunity to consider legislation that not only makes the Tax Code fairer but also ensures that we can halt a targeted tax increase on married Americans.

I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) for introducing this important legislation, H.R. 4181, which extends indefinitely the tax relief that the Congress and President Bush enacted in 2001 and 2003 to help married couples.

Previously, our income tax code penalized couples who got married, frequently forcing them to pay higher taxes than if they had remained single. If we fail to enact H.R. 4181, tax rates will revert to their pre-2001 levels, and the marriage tax penalty will be reinstated at the end of this year.

As a Nation built on strong families, we should promote marriage, not penalize it. Our tax system should not discourage getting married and raising a family. Therefore, it is imperative we pass H.R. 4181 today.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to debating the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and I thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Doc Hastings, for yielding me this time.

H. Res. 602 is a fair, structured rule, which House members on both sides of the aisle should strongly support. It makes in order a total of four amendments, all of them offered by members of the Minority Party. Debating these amendments will allow the House to work its will on some of the key issues raised by H.R. 2844.

I also rise in support of the underlying legislation, H.R. 2844. In his Second Treatise on Government, John Locke wrote ``the first and fundamental positive law of all commonwealths is the establishing of legislative power. Itself is the preservation of the society and of every person in it.''

Today, we examine whether the current mechanisms by which our government is created and maintained sufficiently provides for the continuation of representation in the event of a horrific disaster. Our efforts should answer the question of whether we are, in modern times, prepared to provide a rapid governmental response if and when disaster strikes that very government.

The executive branch has made contingency plans so that in a dire emergency it would be able to continue functioning on behalf of the American people. This is a prudent thing to do. The House in its opening day rules package included significant positive rules changes stemming from the recommendations made by the bipartisan Continuity of Congress Task Force.

Today, with the consideration of H.R. 2844, the U.S. House of Representatives begins to put in place a new system for ensuring the continuity of the Congress in the aftermath of a catastrophic event.

H.R. 2844 provides that, if more than 100 House Members are killed, the Speaker of the House can declare that ``extraordinary circumstances'' exist. Such a declaration would trigger expedited special elections in those districts whose Members have been killed within 45 days. The political parties are given 10 days within which to nominate candidates for these elections.

The important constitutional principle that this bill upholds is the unique nature of the People's House. The government should neither exist nor change but with the express will of the people by whom and for whom it was created. Without an elected House, legislation could be passed by a Federal Government composed entirely of the unelected. We must continue the tradition of the People's House, and H.R. 2844 does so.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 593 and urge the House to approve this rule so we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation, H.R. 3550, the highway funding bill.

As the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) described, this is a fair, structured rule that makes in order a total of 23 amendments, 14 Republican and 8 Democrat, and one very important bipartisan amendment. Thus, the Committee on Rules has crafted a rule that will allow the House to have a lively debate and work its will on a number of key issues that these amendments raise. H. Res. 593 should receive bipartisan support for doing so.

With respect to H.R. 3550, this legislation reauthorizes our Nation's highway and transit programs for the next 6 years and covers a variety of important transportation needs. While I am pleased that the House is moving forward with its consideration of the highway bill, there is one outstanding issue that concerns me, the issue of minimum guaranteed funding.

Georgia has, unfortunately, been a highway funding donor State for far too long. The two previous highway bills in 1991 and 1998 made good progress toward improving donor States' rates of return, but more still needs to be done in order to treat Georgia and other donor States more fairly.

In the 1998 Transportation Equity Act For the 21st Century, TEA 21, I worked hard, along with other key members of the Georgia delegation, to achieve the present rate of return of 90.5 percent. With these efforts, Georgia was able to raise its average rate of return from 76 percent to approximately 86 percent of their share of contributions over the 6- year life of the bill.

Unfortunately, H.R. 3550 in its current form is not a step forward toward the current goal of 95 percent. It does not even maintain the current level of minimum guaranteed funding provided under TEA 21. Although H.R. 3550 maintains the TEA 21 rate of return of 90.5 percent, the bill would mandate that only 84 percent is available for minimum guaranteed funding, unlike TEA 21, which sets aside approximately 93 percent of the Highway Trust Fund for minimum guaranteed needs.

As such, the issue of minimum guaranteed funding under H.R. 3550 must be addressed more satisfactorily. In this respect, I am very pleased that the rule we crafted in the Committee on Rules will provide Members the opportunity to consider amendments offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and others which is designed to address this very concern.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule. It provides all Members the opportunity to debate a wide variety of transportation related issues facing our Nation. I urge my colleagues to support the rule, so we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 585 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 585 is a closed rule that provides for the consideration of H. Res. 581, expressing the sense of the House regarding rates of compensation for civilian employees and members of the uniformed services of the United States.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform. The rule also provides one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to H. Res. 581, the underlying resolution, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, who has spent significant time working on this important issue for this Nation's Federal civilian employees and military personnel.

The Committee on Government Reform has held several hearings on the state of the Federal workforce. At the conclusion of those hearings, it determined that some managers may not be able to attract or retain skilled employees to the Federal workforce due to a pay gap between Federal civilian employees and their private sector counterparts.

The concept of pay parity is based on two factors: first, an acknowledgment that the pay for civilian Federal employees and military personnel has not kept pace with the private sector; and, second, a belief that there is a need to reduce the disparity in pay between civilian Federal employees and military personnel.

The pay parity issue was not addressed in the House-passed fiscal year 2005 budget resolution. Therefore, H. Res. 581 offers every Member of the House the opportunity to express their opinion on whether or not they believe that pay for civilian Federal employees should be adjusted at the same time and in the same proportion as pay for the members of the uniformed services.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule so that we may proceed to debate H. Res. 581.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting House Resolution 574, which provides for the consideration of the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution. H. Res. 574 is a fair, traditional rule for consideration of the annual budget resolution. The Rules Committee listened to hours of testimony yesterday and we have focused on making in order a selection of amendments submitted in the nature of a substitute. The rule before the House today provides for the consideration of four amendments in the nature of a substitute--three of which are Democrat substitutes--including the Blue Dog budget, the Congressional Black Caucus budget, the Democrat Leadership's and the Republican Study Committee budget.

With respect to H. Con. Res. 393, the underlying resolution, I want to commend Mr. Nussle, chairman of the Budget Committee, for all of his effort in bringing this very carefully-balanced resolution to the House floor. This budget reflects our commitment to the Nation's principles of strength, growth, and opportunity--to fund our Armed Forces and protect the people of the United States; to create jobs and strengthen the American economy; and to strengthen the foundation of this Nation that provides all Americans with unlimited opportunities, all while ensuring long-term fiscal responsibility.

H. Con. Res. 393 is an important step in the right direction toward balancing the budget. This resolution is designed to cut the deficit in half over the next 4 years. In addition, it protects President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax relief proposals in order to ensure that the economy will keep moving forward and create more jobs.

The Budget Committee's resolution is in line with President Bush's FY 2005 budget request and seeks to hold the line on higher spending for most domestic discretionary programs, while increasing defense and homeland security spending to protect our citizens.

Once the budget resolution is passed, our next challenge is making sure that the 13 regular FY 2005 appropriations bills are within this budget's limits. It is extremely important for Congress to ensure our fiscal policy is sound in order to allow the Federal Reserve to maintain its current monetary policies, which can collectively serve to encourage job creation and growth in the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate the four substitute amendments as well as H. Con. Res. 393.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), my friend and colleague, for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the rule and urge my colleagues to join me in approving it.

H. Res. 566 is a structured rule that makes in order a total of six amendments. Of that total, three are sponsored by Democrats and three by Republicans. This is a fair and balanced rule that will allow the House to work its will on a number of different issues, and this rule should be overwhelmingly approved by the House.

With respect to the underlying legislation, H.R. 1375, it would streamline the regulatory compliance process for banks, thrifts, and credit unions and would eliminate or alter outdated, ineffective, and duplicative regulations. Removing existing burdens on depository institutions has become even more necessary since the enactment of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act which mandates that depository institutions, in addition to other functions, focus compliance efforts on combating money-laundering and terrorist financing.

Some highlights of H.R. 1375's provisions relating to credit unions include streamlining procedural requirements and voluntary mergers between healthy credit unions, providing an exemption to existing law to allow private insured state-chartered credit unions to join a Federal Home Loan Bank, and increasing the general limit on the term of Federal credit union loans from 12 to 15 years.

H.R. 1375 would also remove ineffective regulations governing banks and thrifts. Under the legislation, the prohibition on national and State banks expanding across State lines to open branches would be eliminated, bank merger application requirements would be simplified, limits on thrifts for small business and auto loans would be removed, and thrifts would be given the same authority as national and State banks to make investments primarily designed to promote community development.

In conclusion, H.R. 1375, sponsored by the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), streamlines some of the outdated and ineffective regulations that have been hindering the financial and business activity of depository institutions. Removing these burdensome regulations will not only encourage productivity but will also save depository institutions valuable time and money.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3800.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and urge my colleagues to join me in approving this resolution.

H. Res. 561 will allow the House to work its will on the underlying resolution. It is an appropriate procedure, given the nature of H. Res. 557, which is a simple resolution. H. Res. 557 was introduced to recognize the Iraqi people's suffering under Saddam Hussein, the significant advancements being made in Iraq since last March, and the courage of U.S. and Coalition Forces as they strive to bring order and stability to the country.

The media is accurate in its reports of the difficulties that still face U.S. and Coalition Forces in Iraq. But there are also positive events taking place every day that deserve recognition and are largely ignored by the media. Probably the greatest accomplishment is that the Iraqis are returning to their lives and are enjoying freedoms that never could have existed under Saddam Hussein. Under his regime, the Iraqi lived in terror on a daily basis. Now, the people of Iraq have an opportunity to shape their history as they choose. The Iraqi people recently took their first step in shaping their future with the recent signing of the Iraqi interim constitution into law.

Other notable advancements in Iraq over the last year include the rise in oil production to roughly pre-March 2003 levels, the circulation of the new Iraqi currency, and the repair of critical infrastructure and roads. Additionally, the electricity supply has become more stable, and many Iraqi hospitals are up and running.

The number of Iraqis that have joined the Iraqi police force, border patrols, and army has also increased, allowing Iraqi citizens to participate in protection of their very own infrastructure.

Iraq is still a dangerous place, not only for Iraqi citizens but also for U.S. and Coalition Forces. I commend the U.S. and Coalition Forces for their dedication, sacrifice, and service in Iraq; and I salute them for helping to make our world a safer place.

The task of rebuilding Iraq will be no easy feat, and it will certainly take time. However, I am encouraged by the positive events of the last year, and I believe it is in the U.S.'s interest and the world's to persevere and create a stable and democratic Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.