Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 255 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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 purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 255 is a modified closed rule that provides for the consideration of H.J. Resolution 4, legislation proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.

This rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 255 waives all points of order against consideration of the joint resolution.

It makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute, if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) or his designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent.

Finally, this rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

With respect to the underlying legislation, H.J. Res. 4, I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for introducing this legislation and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his persistent leadership on this important legislation, of which I am proud to be a cosponsor.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) has done a fine job in bringing this legislation to the House floor in the years since my very good friend and former chairman of the Committee on Rules, the late Jerry Solomon, originally sponsored this proposal in the 104th Congress and the 105th Congress.

As it should be, House Joint Resolution 4 is a simple, straightforward measure. It proposes to add an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would simply give the Congress the authority to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States, if it chooses to exercise such power.

The proposed amendment contains a grand total of 17 words. To the credit of the House as an institution, we have passed proposed constitutional amendments of this nature with more than enough bipartisan support in the 104th Congress, the 105th Congress, the 106th Congress, and the 107th Congress. In each of those sessions, the U.S. House approved the proposed constitutional amendments with more than the two-thirds majority required to approve such modifications to the Constitution. Unfortunately, as has been the case too many times in recent years, the other Chamber has failed to approve the legislation and forward it to the States for consideration by their legislatures. Indeed, if the Senate could approve this proposed constitutional amendment, I understand from the Committee on the Judiciary that all 50 States have passed resolutions calling on the Congress to approve an amendment of this nature.

This is an ample reason to believe that if this amendment were sent to the States for ratification, more than three-quarters of the States are poised to ratify this measure, thereby making it a formal part of our Constitution.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 255 is a modified closed rule that will give the House an opportunity to work its will on a substitute put forward by the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), or his designee. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we can move on to the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, when individuals abuse the time limit, is there an arrangement by which that time can be applied against their side's total time left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

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

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

I would just like to comment that I am surprised that, for as long as the previous speaker served on the Committee on Veterans Affairs, he has allowed it to go on this long.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the sponsor of the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say that after that litany of spending measures, I believe the gentleman from Florida has forfeited any future opportunities to complain about deficits.

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet later this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1119, the Family Time Flexibility Act. The Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered the bill reported on April 9, 2003, and filed its report with the House on May 22, 2003.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 4. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 247. The Committee on Rules has listened to hours of testimony and made in order 39 total amendments, nine amendments in yesterday's first rule and 30 amendments under the new rule before us today. We made in order 22 majority amendments, 14 minority amendments, and three bipartisan amendments. And while everyone will not be pleased by these decisions, it is a fair rule that will give the House the opportunity to debate a wide variety of national security issues.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, H.R. 1588, is entirely consistent with what the founders envisioned when they wrote article I, section 8 of U.S. Constitution, to ensure that Congress shall have the power to support, maintain, and provide for military to provide for the common defense.

First, this legislation provides adequate funding to help continue the U.S. military's transition to the 21st century. H.R. 1588, for example, authorizes funding for the U.S. Army to procure weapons and tracked combat vehicles for the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and conversion and for the U.S. Air Force to procure additional aircraft, including language to maintain the important F/A-22 program.

The authorization for these programs, along with others, will help the U.S. military remain the most efficient, most lethal, and most effective fighting force on Earth. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly hope to maintain the level of excellence obtained by the U.S. military without the achievements of men and women who proudly wear the uniform.

As a former captain in the U.S. Air Force myself, I continue to draw inspiration from the resolve, patriotism, and strength of commitment exhibited by our servicemen and women. This Congress must work to reinforce that strength, and I believe H.R. 1588 works to that end.

I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains a 4.1 increase in base pay for military personnel. H.R. 1588 also recommends a reduction from 7.5 to 3.5 in the percentage of out-of-pocket expenses military personnel must contribute toward housing cost. Both of these provisions will not only help ease the burden placed on military personnel and their families, but should also help ensure that the U.S. military is able to retain these highly trained personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), my friend and colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding to me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the modified closed rule and the underlying legislation, the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. In crafting this rule, the Committee on Rules has worked to maintain the bipartisan coalition of support this important legislation has gathered while also providing the minority the opportunity to offer a substitute amendment drafted by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for the consideration of all the Members of the House.

I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) for introducing this bill and the House Committee on Resources, Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on the Judiciary for the time and effort they have invested in bringing this very important and well-crafted legislation to the House floor.

I support balanced forest management designed to protect plant and animal habitats, while ensuring that forests are still available for the enjoyment of local communities. One way I believe we can attain this goal is through President Bush's ``Healthy Forests Initiative,'' which has been introduced as H.R. 1904.

The fire seasons of 2000 and 2002 were by most standards the worst the United States has seen in the past 50 years. Many scientists argue that these wildfires occurred because many forest have unnaturally high fuel loads, such as dead trees and dense undergrowth.

Unfortunately, it currently takes Federal land managers upwards of several years to carry out forest health projects such as controlled burning and thinning, as there are various bureaucratic and judicial obstacles that must be dealt with before a project can begin. H.R. 1904 would empower local land managers with the tools they need to expeditiously carry out forest health projects and would increase the speed and efficiency with which the United States Forest Service and other Federal agencies make regulatory decisions.

Furthermore, this legislation would improve the capacity of the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to plan and conduct hazardous fuel reduction projects on National Forest System and Bureau of Land Management lands to help protect communities and forestlands from catastrophic wildfires. It would also direct Federal land managers to establish early detection programs for insect and disease infestation in forests before they reach epidemic levels.

Maintaining the health of our forests is critical and should not be impeded by needless bureaucratic obstacles. If forest health projects are not carried out, a forest will naturally cleanse itself through wildfires that can cause damage to the health of the forest ecosystems, endangered species and air and water quality.

The American people, their property, and our environment are threatened by catastrophic fires and environmental degradation. These unnaturally extreme fires are caused by a crisis of deteriorating forest and rangeland health, the result of a century of well- intentioned but misguided land management.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 230 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. 230 is a modified, closed rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 1000, the Pension Security Act of 2003. This rule provides for 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 230 provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. It waives all points of order against the bill, as amended.

The rule makes in order the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. H.R. 230 waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

With respect to H.R. 1000, I want to again commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce, for leadership that he is exhibiting to American workers who want and need enhanced retirement security here in the 21st century. To his credit, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) brought similar retirement security legislation to the House Floor in November of 2001. The House passed that bill, H.R. 2269, with a 230 to 144 vote. Unfortunately, that vote died in the Senate.

Again, in April of last year the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) brought legislation to the floor that sought to implement a series of pension reforms sought by President Bush; and the House passed that bill, H.R. 3762, with a 255-163 vote. Again, the bill died in the Senate.

Well, as the saying goes, the third time is a charm, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) has brought retirement security legislation to the House floor today which the House should promptly pass over to the Senate so that the Chamber's new leadership has a chance to move it through the body. If so, I fully expect that President Bush would sign such a bill into law.

Some of the key elements of H.R. 1000 include giving workers the flexibility and freedom to diversify the holdings within their 401(k) plans; providing workers with high-quality investment advice as they exert more and more control over their nest eggs; amending Federal law to ensure that employers have fiduciary responsibility for employees' savings during blackout periods when employees are barred from changing their 401(k) investments; requiring employers to provide quarterly benefit statements to workers about retirement accounts; and, finally, a series of reforms designed to simplify pension requirements for small businesses that want to offer their workers defined benefit plans.

All of these reforms will help enhance the retirement security of millions of American workers. I look forward to supporting this bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 230 is a modified closed rule that will

give the full House an opportunity to work its will on H.R. 1000 or the substitute put forward by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we can move on to the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), if he would like to make some comments on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is left on each side?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we just take that last comment by the gentleman from Texas and play it over and over and over, we would have today's debate, because they are concerned that people who pay taxes will get tax relief.

We have over the last 40 years removed 50 percent of the income earners from the tax rolls. This year the top 1 percent of the income earners will pay 38 percent of all the income taxes. The bottom 50 percent collectively will pay less than 3 percent. And, guess what? I do not mean to sound remedial here, but if you are going to cut taxes, the taxpayers are going to get the relief.

We have done this before in this country. In 1961 President Kennedy said, ``A rising tide lifts all boats.'' They removed the top tax bracket from 90 percent to 70 percent, and guess who got the relief? The top tax bracket.

We reduce taxes in this country for a reason, and it is an economic reason. The less burden the government places on the backs of small businesses and income earners, the more economic activity we will have, and more economic activity means more jobs, and more jobs means more taxpayers, and indeed, more revenues.

In 1980, before the Reagan tax cut, the American people contributed $519 billion to the Federal Government. After those outrageous tax cuts, 10 years later, the American people contributed $1.54 trillion. A rising tide lifts all boats.

If we want to stop this country from going into recession, if we want to build a growing economy, we simply have to remove the heavy burden of government from the backs of small business and income earners and let them create jobs, which will increase revenues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from the Committee on Rules for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 221 is a structured rule that gives the House the opportunity to consider eight amendments to the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. The Committee on Rules has attempted to be as fair as possible in crafting this rule and has made in order five Democrat amendments, two Republican amendments, and a manager's amendment. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule so we can move on to debate the underlying legislation.

With respect to H.R. 1261, I wanted to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness and chairman of the full Committee on Education and the Workforce respectively, for all of the time and effort they have invested in bringing this very important and well-crafted legislation to the House floor today.

America's economy has been through a great deal in the last few years. We experienced the shock of September 11, we have endured a recession, and we faced the uncertainty of war. In spite of all this, the American economy is growing fast, and growing faster than most of the industrialized world. To ensure that our economy meets its full potential, we must create the conditions for continued growth and prosperity.

As the economy continues to recover, hundreds of thousands of Americans are searching for good, stable jobs. We have an opportunity here to assist those Americans in finding employment, and I believe that H.R. 1261 is a positive step in the right direction.

H.R. 1261 amends the 1998 Workforce Investment Act, which authorized the Federal Government's primary programs for helping our Nation's workers gain the skills they need to succeed in today's rapidly changing workforce. The 1998 act has helped unprecedented numbers of American workers find employment by finding workforce investment services and programs through

statewide and local One-Stop Career Center systems, but it could help even more, and that is exactly what H.R. 1261 is designed to do.

H.R. 1261 aims to streamline work investment programs in order to provide more efficient and results-oriented services. It will provide also an opportunity to build on and improve the current system so that it can respond quickly and effectively to the changing needs of both workers and employers. In addition, it will eliminate duplication, improve accountability, increase State flexibility, and strengthen adult education programs.

To the credit of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), and the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), I believe H.R. 1261, combined with President Bush's jobs and growth tax relief initiative, will move us toward our goal of creating more job opportunities for our citizens and ensuring that out-of-work Americans have the access to the tools and resources they need to rejoin the workforce or retrain for better jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 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. 219 provides for the consideration of H.R. 766, the Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. H. Res. 219 provides for one hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. It further provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment section by section and that each section shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 219 is an open rule giving all Members of the House the opportunity to offer any germane amendments to H.R. 766. This rule accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. This is to simply encourage Members to take advantage of the option in order to facilitate consideration of amendments on the House floor and to inform Members of the details of any pending amendments.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 766 is an important, bipartisan bill that will encourage further nanotechnology research. A recent National Academy of Sciences review described nanotechnology as the ``relatively new ability to manipulate and characterize matter at the level of single atoms and small groups of atoms. This capability has led to the astonishing discovery that clusters of small numbers of atoms or molecules often have properties, such as strength, electrical resistivity, electrical conductivity, and optical absorption, that are significantly different from the properties of the same matter at either the single molecule scale or the bulk scale.''

Beyond this technical description, nanotechnology has the potential to have a significant impact on our lives in the coming years. Testimony before the Committee on Science, chaired by the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), indicated that in the future the American people could see great advances in medicine, manufacturing, materials, construction, computing and telecommunications as a result of this research. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) identified potential homeland security advantages as well, including information technology and sensor advances to assist us in our efforts to identify threats.

President Bush has recognized the benefits of these innovations in terms of practical applications to the American people and also to our Nation's economic growth. The National Science Foundation has predicted that the nanotechnology market could reach $1 trillion by the year 2015. But we should recognize that there will be competitors in this arena from abroad.

In an effort to ensure the benefits of this research for our citizens and for future job growth, President Bush has asked Congress to expand the nanotechnology initiative and increase funding for this emerging technology, providing grants to researchers and establishing research centers and advanced technology user facilities.

The Associate Director for Technology in the Office of Science and Technology Policy stated that the administration's commitment to furthering nanotechnology research and development has never been stronger.

I applaud the President for focusing on this potential link to future economic growth. I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the Committee on Science for forwarding a bill that will result in better planning and coordination in this area of research.

This is a very fair rule. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so we may begin on any amendments that Members may have to offer before the House today.

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

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

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, without intervention of any point of order to consider House Resolution 148;

The resolution shall be considered as read for amendment;

The amendment that I have placed at the desk (which reflects the amendment ordered reported by the Committee on House Administration) shall be considered as adopted;

The resolution, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration; and

The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution, as amended, to final adoption without intervening motion.

The Committee on Rules may meet the week of May 5 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1261, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act of 2003. The Committee on Education and the Workforce ordered the bill reported on March 27, 2003, and filed the report with the House today, May 1, 2003.

Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6th. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which is available for their review on the Web sites of both the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Rules today.

Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their

amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting this rule so we may move to debate on the underlying legislation, the Improving Education Results for Children With Disabilities Act of 2003.

This is a structured rule that makes in order a total of 14 amendments to

H.R. 1350. These amendments allow the House to work its will on a variety of important issues and topics. It is a fair rule, and I hope it is overwhelmingly approved.

With respect to H.R. 1350, I want to commend the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Education Reform, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for all of the time and effort they have invested in bringing this important, well-crafted legislation to the House floor.

Although IDEA has helped many children with special needs since it was enacted in 1975, some problems remain. The largest problem with IDEA is its focus on requiring compliance with complex rules, rather than producing the academic results that children with disabilities need. Streamlining and significant reforms are needed.

H.R. 1350 represents a step in the right direction. Not only does it strengthen accountability and results for students, it also gives States the freedom to reduce paperwork that is often duplicative and unnecessary. Doing this will allow teachers to focus less on complex forms and more on spending time in the classroom teaching students with needs.

Other reforms include greater flexibility for local school districts to improve early intervention strategies and thereby helping to lower the number of children who are improperly placed in special ed classes, and more innovative approaches to parental involvement and choice.

When the IDEA law was originally enacted in the mid-1970s, the Federal Government promised to fund 40 percent of its costs. Although the Federal Government has made dramatic improvements in the last 8 years by appropriating significantly higher funding, we are still falling short of the goal. However, to the credit of the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the full committee chairman, this bill puts the Federal Government on a glide path towards providing its full 40 percent share of IDEA costs within 7 years.

To those who would vote against a rule because it does not do what they did not do for the 22 years they controlled this House and the Senate and the White House is pure politics. It has nothing to do with children; it has nothing to do with special needs. When I came here 10 years ago, IDEA was funded to the tune of 5 percent. It is now 18, soon to be 23, and on a glide path to 40 percent; and that is real significant progress. Opposition to this bill because it does not do what was failed to have been done for 25 years is sheer politics.

I have always supported the right of children to a quality public education, and that remains a bedrock principle of mine. Unfortunately, in many local schools, special ed cannot be given the kind of treatment, attention, and care that it ought to receive. When this happens, families with special education children suffer.

H.R. 1350 will move us toward our goal of working to give families with special education children the choices and the support they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule so we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 156) extending congratulations to the United States Capitol Police on the occasion of its 175th anniversary and expressing gratitude to the men and women of the United States Capitol Police and their families for their devotion to duty and service in safeguarding the freedoms of the American people.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express the gratitude of the United States Congress to its men, women, and families of the United States Capitol Police as they celebrate its 175th anniversary. The selfless dedication of the United States Capitol Police and their commitment to safeguarding not only us but the freedoms of the American people do not go unappreciated.

Officially established in 1828 under the direction of President John Quincy Adams, the U.S. Capitol Police has grown from its humble beginnings into a first-rate, highly-professional force of over 1,700 officers and employees.

Over the course of its existence, U.S. Capitol Police has developed a number of specialized units, including K-9, Intelligence, Emergency Preparedness, Civil Disturbance, Criminal Investigation, Threat Assessment, Dignitary Protection, Physical Security, Electronic Countermeasures, Technical Security, Hazardous Devices, and the Containment and Emergency Response Team, as well as a skilled administrative staff.

We all know, however, that freedom has its sacrifices, and the U.S. Capitol Police have certainly paid its share of this price. We remember that as the first line of defense for the Nation's Capital, the United States Capitol Police Force has endured the tragic deaths of Sergeant Christopher Eney in 1984, Private First Class Jacob J. Chestnut, and Detective John Michael Gibson, both of whom were killed in 1998. All of these men were slain in the line of duty.

Mr. Speaker, every day these brave men and women put their lives on the line to protect us and this institution; and while these dangers are an unfortunate reality of their jobs, I would like for them to know that their efforts do not go unnoticed; nor are they forgotten.

Today, however, we stand here not only to recognize the sacrifice of the U.S. Capitol Police, but also to celebrate the efforts of the thousands of men and women who have served with this organization. As such, on behalf of the United States Congress, I would again like to extend a heartfelt thanks and congratulations to the men and women of the United States Capitol Police, past and present, for their 175 years of courage, strength and commitment to serve and protect the people of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of this concurrent resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 181 providing for the consideration of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2003. This is a fair but structured rule that provides for the consideration of a number of Democrat amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon. We have made in order two amendments submitted by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt). We have made one each by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

The committee heard persuasive testimony and has worked to create an amendment process that is fair and as evenhanded as possible. It is unfortunate that this bill is on the floor at this time. It is unfortunate that this Congress has to sit down and construct a law to protect a legal industry from acting legally in every State in the Nation.

For those who want to just get rid of guns, do it the right way: Propose to put a repeal of the second amendment on the floor and vote it up or down. There was a reason that our Founding Fathers fashioned the second amendment. It was for people to be able to protect themselves, in some instances, from their government.

But instead of doing it the honest way, we pick around the edges. We have lawyers willing to sue gun manufacturers who acted legally because a crime was committed with a stolen gun, and we have friendly juries willing to hand over that money. This is nothing more or less than a ripping-off of the system by a bunch of greedy people, and I want to see us have this debate in the honest way: Put their repeal of the second amendment on the floor and let us vote it up or down.

We should not have to come here every time and defend legal industries. Fifteen percent of the crimes are committed with knives. Are we going to be forced to defend the cutlery industry? Eighty percent of the crimes involve alcohol. Will we be suing distillers next? We have a tort system, a court system that has run amok. It is unfortunate that we have to sit here on the floor and protect it.

Mr. Speaker, there is simply no doubt that what we are talking about is follies, but the follies are a 45,000-page Tax Code. The Internal Revenue Code has made criminals of us all, and it is time for it to go away.

There is a bill replacing the current code, H.R. 25, that would abolish the entire IRS and all the Internal Revenue Code and replace it with a simple, straightforward retail sales tax.

We have spent $22 million in the last 7 years with economic and market research, and a study out of Harvard says, Dale Jorgenson, who was at the time the head of the Economics Department at Harvard, concluded that, on average, 22 percent of what you pay for at retail is embedded costs to the current code, which is to say you pay every company that has touched that product, their payroll taxes, their income taxes and their accountants and attorneys to avoid the taxes.

It has been estimated that in 2001 Americans spent $250 billion just complying with the code, and that was only the estimate of the man- hours it would take to fill out the paperwork. That did not include the tens or maybe hundreds of billions of dollars that corporate America spent just calculating the tax implications of a business decision. And in 2001, after spending a couple of hundred billion dollars complying with the code, corporate America sent in to the government $187 billion. This is not an efficient system for gathering revenues.

We need to start with a truth: There is not a mechanism for a business to pay a bill other than through price. The only way to pay the light bill, the labor bill and the tax bill is through price, and your customers pay it; and the only taxpayers in the world are consumers, who actually consume the product and all the embedded costs therein.

So if we have a price system that has a tax component that is 22 percent of the price system, we ought to fix it. If you abolish the code and replace it with an embedded 23 percent, your cost of living goes up 1 percent, but you get to keep your whole check. Nothing is taken out for payroll taxes or income taxes, and every American becomes a volunteer taxpayer, paying taxes when they choose, as much as they choose, by how they choose to spend.

We also have a provision in the bill that would rebate to every household, rich or poor, we are not going to know how rich they are, we are not going to have that number; it would rebate to every household a check at the beginning of every month sufficient to rebate the entire tax consequences of spending up to the poverty line. For a household of one, that is $9,500 a year. For a household of six, it is about $30,000 a year, which is to say, a household of six could spend $30,000 with no tax costs at all.

If you get the tax component out of the price system, you increase the purchasing power of everyone at or below the poverty line by 22 percent.

What will happen to our economy? We have studies that say the exports go up 26 percent in the first year. We have studies that say capital spending goes up 78 percent in the first year. We know a study taken from 1945 to 1995 shows that real take-home wages increases in exact correspondence with

increases in capital spending, because it makes them more productive and they get to take home the money.

When Bill Archer was here and chairing the Committee on Ways and Means, he had cited many times a study done by Princeton Econometrics of 500 European and Japanese international firms, and the question was asked to their leadership, what would you do in your long-term planning if America eliminated all taxes on capital and labor and taxed only personal consumption? Eighty percent said they would build their next plant in the United States. Twenty percent said they would relocate to the United States.

We have been bickering about companies relocating their mailboxes overseas to save taxes. Some years ago we complained about rich people moving to Ireland and giving up their citizenship. Those people would be flocking to our shores. We would have a problem finding workers for all the manufacturing jobs.

It is time for us to take a hard look at what we have created. The tax we have today is the flat tax on incomes, 90 years later. It started out at a single rate on the upper 2 percent, and look what it has become.

We ought not worry about punishing people who are successful. They are going to spend more money and they are going to pay their share. The single biggest reason people escape the Tax Code is bankruptcies, and quite frankly, they can still bankrupt. But if they buy a loaf of bread, they are going to pay for their share of government.

We do not know how large the underground economy is. We simply do not know. But if you want to see it, go to your regional banker any Friday afternoon at 4 o'clock and watch the contractor come out and pay off his subs in cash, and every banker in America will come out and shake his head and agree with that.

This simplified, voluntary tax system would raise the same revenues as the current system, but more important than anything else, it would make every taxpayer a voluntary taxpayer, and it would give every American in a free society the privilege of anonymity. No one should know as much about us as we know about the American citizens. No one should know that.

So this is not pie in the sky. There is a proposal that would replace the current system. It has been looked at by economists all over the country. It has been looked at by people in the last administration favorably and in the current administration favorably, and we just need to take the huge step to make it happen.

To those who are concerned about who pays, the rich or poor, let me say that the bill that is going to come due on the young working generation is the payroll tax. It is going to eat up working America, and this fixes that. It removes the payroll tax and collects the money out of the sales tax. It saves Social Security in 13 years by doubling the revenues to those categories by just doubling the size of the economy.

Last, let me say to my liberal friends, this is a tax on accumulated wealth. You ought to love this. Because if you paid taxes on the money you earned and you paid taxes on the capital gains when you sold the business and you paid taxes on the interest you earned, we are going to tax you one more time when you spend it.

Last, to those who have accumulated wealth, it is simply this: You are already paying this. It is just hidden. You are already paying this tax. Let us make it honest. Let us have a tax system that is fair, that is understandable, that is voluntary, that is neutral between industries, neutral between businesses and neutral at the border. The fair tax does it, and this is a great opportunity to talk about it.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman admit that the Joint Tax Committee made presumptions and assumptions that the bill would not pass as written, and so they changed it to the way they thought it would pass and changed the numbers entirely?

They also presumed the bill would not pass as written.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House S. 380; that the bill be considered as read for amendment; that the previous question be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except for (1) 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform; (2) the amendment numbered 1 to H.R. 735 in the Congressional Record if offered by Representative Waxman of California or his designee, which shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment or a demand for division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions; and that following passage of S. 380, H.R. 735 shall be laid upon the table.