Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, we live in a new age and it is becoming increasingly apparent that our laws must meet the challenge of protecting our children in the face of new threats and new technology.

The Internet is a powerful tool that has brought new opportunities for education, commerce and self-empowerment to millions of Americans. However, it also provides a new medium for pedophiles to reach out to our most vulnerable citizens--America's children.

This has become a growing problem and, in 2002, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that online child pornography and/or sexual exploitation are the most significant cyber-crimes against children.

I commend the efforts of Court TV and its CEO Henry Schlieff, Al Roker and the production team behind AI Roker Investigates: Katie.com for bringing attention to online sexual predators. Court TV's active role in shedding light on the issue of ``Internet deception'' will help protect America's children and raise much needed awareness to parents across the country.

As cochairman of the Congressional Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus, I join you in celebrating July 28 as Internet Safety Day in the hopes of bringing stronger awareness to the deceptive crimes against children that are being perpetrated on the Internet.

While we work in Congress to give law enforcement the tools to protect our children like the highly successful national deployment of the AMBER Alert system, the most important weapon of all is showing parents how to keep a watchful eye on the activities of their children; knowing the people who come into contact with their children in their neighborhoods, schools and online; and using plain common sense.

Mr. Speaker, I know the photo behind me looks like an average business suit. It is not. It is a weapon of mass destruction. Highly classified documents were removed from the National Archives. The Justice Department is investigating Sandy Berger, having secreted away some misplaced highly classified documents that could be potentially embarrassing to the former administration.

What in heaven's name was he thinking? Why would he risk both his reputation and possible prosecution? What is there to hide in this coat?

At the very least it is gross negligence, and at the most it is a national security crises. With his experience, no one can claim that these are the actions of a bumbling or absent-minded government employee. Sandy Berger knows better.

Since when is taking and misplacing classified documents ever an honest mistake? And we thought it was bad when the last administration was just taking the furniture.

Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago today, President Bush signed into law the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, enabling American workers, families, and businesses to keep more of their own money and laying a foundation for economic growth and job creation now and for years to come.

Eleven million individuals and families will receive an average tax cut of $1,500; 49 million married couples will have an average tax cut of $2,600.

The President's tax relief is helping American job seekers. Unemployment has fallen to 5.6, the lowest average unemployment rate of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. In my State of Florida, unemployment is at 4.7, showing jobs are being created and people are working.

The President's tax relief is helping the budget of America's families, increasing disposable income, allowing them to buy the things they need for their families and their homes. And the President's tax relief is helping America's businesses. The stock market is up 18 percent, increasing America's capital base by more than $2 trillion.

All in all, this is working, jobs are growing, the economy is strong. We salute the President for his leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I support the rule, and I support the bill and the fine work of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the chairman of our committee; and I am certain that sometime today we are going to hear more about Abu Ghraib prison. I want to put things in context about the politics of what this town has become.

Mr. Speaker, I stand amazed and disappointed in the self-righteous, politically motivated diatribes coming from the other side about Abu Ghraib for the last several months. The guilty parties in the Abu Ghraib prison incidents are currently before the military justice system. They will be tried and justice will be carried out.

This House, the other body, the President, the Vice President, the Secretaries of Defense and State, and the National Security Adviser have all gone on record to express outrage over the abuses at the prison, as they should have.

But what I find especially appalling is the deafening silence from the other side following the savage beheadings of American civilians Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.

These cowardly terrorist organizations seek to intimidate our people through barbaric acts of demonic cruelty on American citizens.

While members on the other side have mentioned Abu Ghraib by name, 45 times since January during recorded debate on the House Floor, only four times did a Democratic member utter the name Nick or Nicholas Berg. No Democrat, not one single Democrat, has even mentioned Paul Johnson, the Lockheed Martin employee kidnapped in Saudi Arabia, cruelly beheaded, and videotaped for the world to see.

We are a self-policing society. We will punish those who commit abuses at Abu Ghraib. However, I would expect the Democrats in this body to express equal outrage over the savage killings of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson.

I urge my Democratic colleagues to break their silence and end their indifference to the atrocious acts of cruelty perpetrated on innocent Americans.

Too many are playing politics with Abu Ghraib, trying to score political points, while we have 200,000 troops fighting the war on terror and standing strong for America in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will yield, not spoken on this floor. Not spoken on this floor. Not a word entered into the Record. I have checked with the Parliamentarian and the Clerk, not one mention of those names.

Mr. Speaker, like most of America, we grieve today the loss of Paul Johnson, apparently beheaded by an al Qaeda-linked Saudi militant group. He was found today in the Saudi Arabian capital. He was an American contractor living in Saudi Arabia since 1980, a Floridian who was beheaded by these terrorists: immoral, barbaric, and demonic.

I know most Muslims, Christians and Jews would join me in the feeling that

these acts are offensive in the eyes of God. This murder had no purpose except to show that these cowards had one purpose, and that is to take an innocent life. They hid behind hoods and executed a citizen of this country who loved the people of Saudi Arabia, who enjoyed working in that country to help the people of Saudi Arabia, who was an innocent, decent, kind husband and father.

This was not an execution but a barbaric and demonic act of torture. If these sadists believe this type of action will unnerve America and weaken our resolve in our war against terror, they are both stupid, as they are wrong.

I take great exception to the speech by the gentleman from Washington moments ago who tries to conclude from the 9/11 report that there is no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq. It all is of the same vein and nature. The death of Paul Johnson, the death of Nicholas Berg, the retaliation against Saudi officials, the attempt to bomb the Jordanian intelligence service, the murder of hundreds of Spanish citizens peacefully on their way in Spain are all interconnected and intertwined.

He says there is no connection. I urge people to read the Wall Street Journal today and its editorial page because there is a lot of spinning going on. Maybe there have not been enough dots to connect yet so the gentleman comes out here and alleges that the President lied, that there is absolutely no connection. If he spoke any longer, I would have assumed he would have called Saddam Hussein just a sad, old, tired man who really should have been left alone to live in peace.

He killed a million of his own citizens. He said there is no link. A citizen of my county died from anthrax. He worked at National Media, the owner of National Enquirer. It is interesting that Mohammed Atta was living in Palm Beach County, a few miles from the facility in which that citizen died in Palm Beach County.

It is interesting, in the 9/11 Report, ``al Qaeda operatives trained in Iran, and al Qaeda helped Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists obtain explosives.''

``Another revelation concerns al Qaeda and anthrax. The 9/11 panel says al Qaeda had an `ambitious' biological weapons program and ``was making advances in its ability to produce anthrax prior to September 11.' '' That is in the report, anthrax, prior to September 11.

It is telling, too, that the henchmen for the Iraqi leader agent al- Ani happened to be in Prague for meetings. Oh, lo and behold, cell phone records indicate that phone calls were placed from Florida to Mohammed Atta's cell phone at the same time he was reportedly in Prague. A coincidence, I guess. A sheer coincidence that Mohammed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijacking of planes, who was living in Delray Beach, Florida, close to where a citizen was killed by anthrax, meeting with Iraqi officials in Prague, is all coincidental, all coincidental, all sheer fantasy.

Read this editorial in the Wall Street Journal today.

Paul Johnson died at the hands of terrorists, not because we are in Iraq. They are going to kill Americans and other freedom-loving people because they resent our way of life. They resent who we are. For Members to come to this floor and say there is no link and no connection with the terrorists and Iraqis and anthrax and 9/11 have not read the entire report and are simply spinning a tale that they want America to believe.

Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would see the day on this House floor that Democrats would criticize and belittle American workers making tackle boxes and bows and arrows, hard-working citizens. They may not be as elegant as George Soros or as wealthy, but they work hard.

The very simple issue is a tackle box made in America has an excise tax; a tackle box sent from China does not. So I guess their inference is keep jobs in China, do not worry about us.

I never thought I would see the day when the Democrats would criticize a corporation like Tyco that has thousands of American workers, hard-working citizens in our community and they criticize them and call them unpatriotic, but they get up on the floor and start worrying about protecting people that owe the taxpayers money. They are afraid of collecting taxes that are due the United States Treasury. This is a perverse sense of arguments that really is almost laughable.

We have got great provisions in this bill. We have got important provisions in this bill. We have got things that will make the economy work, leasehold improvements, faster, accelerated depreciation. So they can crow all they want about this, but it is a jobs bill.

It is a fair bill, and we urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for leading this discussion.

I want to set the predicate for a moment because this Congress and this President inherited a very troubled economy. In 1999 when the Internet stock bubble burst, there was a tremendous amount of sensitivity, if you will, to the economy. People had lost lots of money in their savings accounts and IRAs and Keoghs and 401(k)s, and so psychologically the economy started heading in a negative manner from that point on.

President Bush inherited a struggling economy; and then we have all heard about September 11 and what it did to the investor psychology and what it did to the job market and what it did to the economics of places like Florida where our tourism market was ravaged. We all experienced that, so we are not reliving history; but we have to set the predicate about how important the leadership of this White House has been in setting in place the kind of economic tools necessary to develop what are now very, very hopeful numbers for people around the country.

Florida's jobs have been up. In fact, we have created 29,000 payroll jobs in April alone. We now have 168,400 more payroll jobs than a year ago. Our economy is adding good-paying jobs. More than two-thirds of Florida's payroll job growth in April was in industries that pay more than the national average. For example, the professional business service industry comprised the largest share at 11,500. The average hourly pay of a nonsupervisory job in that industry is $17.27, well above the national average of $15.59.

Unemployment was down in Florida from 5.3 a year ago to 4.6. The national average is 5.6. Florida's average unemployment rate in the 1990s was 5.9.

Personal income swelled in Florida in the last quarter by 1.3 percent to over $528 billion. Florida's housing values are up well over 11 percent in 2003 and over 53 percent in the last 4 years.

Exports have increased over $400 million for a total of $25 billion from Florida's export economy alone. And insourcing, a subject some on the other side of the aisle do not want to talk about, but we have had over 303,000 jobs in Florida from companies based in other countries. About 12.2 percent of all manufacturing jobs in Florida are with foreign companies.

So the statistics are clear, the effects of our tax reductions and our attempts to make this economy stronger and more resilient are absolutely made positive by the charts that my colleague on the Committee on Ways and Means illustrated just moments ago.

I am proud of the leadership of not only this White House but the entire Congress for recognizing that in order to get the opportunities present for people for jobs, for growth in their families' income, for more job security and for an aggressive, can-do spirit of passing very detailed and complicated legislation that has yielded in the pockets of people of the 16th Congressional District of Florida greater disposable income, greater sense of purpose, and greater job security. These are things that are not just imaginative. These are things displayed each and every day.

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) for leading this opportunity to talk to the Nation and talk to our friends. Look at the price of the Dow Jones Industrial Average today as opposed to 3 years ago, look at the unemployment numbers, look at all these factors; and I think it will bear out that the work done by this Congress is not only showing great progress but the months to come will show even more positive improvements in the lives of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor as my colleagues have before me saddened by the death of one of our Nation's greatest leaders and humbled by the far-reaching impact his life has had on millions of people throughout the world. He was a great man and a gentle spirit. Optimistic, cheerful in service and buoyed by the confidence that comes with unwavering conviction, President Reagan reignited the feeling of promise for this country.

Ronald Reagan is the reason I became a Republican. And for many Democrats, he was the pathway to the Republican Party. He reminded us all that government cannot replace individual empowerment and told us in 1995 that every dollar the Federal Government does not take from us, every decision it does not make for us will make our economy stronger, our lives more abundant, and our future more free.

We join together with people across the globe in mourning the loss of Ronald Reagan. His decisive leadership during the twilight years of the Cold War indeed made him a beacon of hope for freedom-loving people throughout the world.

Our thoughts and prayers and our love go out to Mrs. Reagan and the entire family. Because of Ronald Reagan our Nation is stronger and our future is more free. Here we honor him and are continually working toward the dreamed-of-day he spoke of when no one wields a sword and no one drags a chain.

Mr. Speaker, first, let us all give each other a round of applause for a very, very successful year here in Congress.

The first time you have actually been able to sit in the seats of Members on Congress and be on national TV. Congratulations. You really are living in a unique time in our country.

I think my colleagues have well expressed the sentiments all of us having

watched you arrive one day as very young and excited newcomers to Washington, some with fear in your eyes because you have left friends and family, others with a sense of optimism and pride that you are getting to represent your districts from around this country.

It is fun to watch the transformation from that first day to the last week. Because I see in all of you that sense of kind of reluctance to some degree to leave this place. You have met and have established lifelong friends in this very process.

What is exciting for all of us that serve here is that you truly represent the best and brightest in this country. It is very, very difficult, as you know, to become a page in the Congress. It requires a number of skill sets that will serve you in life: leadership, intelligence, personality, perseverance, and faith; and those are attributes that, as you mature and go forward in life, will serve you in phenomenal ways.

Many of you know that several Members of Congress originated in the page class. So it is not only a training and testing ground. You certainly got a long exposure to the good and bad Congress has to offer. The good is the fact that in this democracy, in this Chamber, we get to express our opinions about what goes on in the world. We get to weigh in on behalf of the district that I represent and the other Members represent, those 600-plus thousand people who count on us to come to this Nation's Capital every day to work on their behalf.

Disagreements are the joy of democracy. You get to argue and discuss and debate and create hopeful solutions that do not reflect the partisan views of the people in this Chamber but reflect the views of all Americans.

Now, I know you have one more year of high school to conclude and that probably is some degree of relief or maybe, to those you feel like you are probably well equipped to enter your first year of college, some of you, I think, in conversing with you, some are actually mature enough to enter college right away.

I want to thank you for taking time out of your life. This is a sacrifice. It is unique.

I know my page Anthony was, and is, expected to deliver the commencement speech. So a word of warning, Anthony, the 16th district is watching you very carefully.

This Member of Congress, of course, is delighted that there is an age requirement to run for the job. He lives in my community, and he certainly has to reach 25 before he campaigns for this job.

But congratulations on behalf of our district, our mutual district that you have been selected by your peers to have this high honor; and I will be looking for transcripts of that speech.

Anthony came here as a page on the recommendation of several in our community. It was kind of interesting to watch this little mini- campaign take place and those friends that he had in the northern part of my community urging and cajoling and talking to me about submitting his name to be a page. Of course, for those Members of Congress, we get to submit names, but, ultimately, it is the choice of the Page Board and the Speaker of the House that bestows on you this high honor. So you are, in essence, the Speaker's appointment.

Take with you the valuable knowledge you have gained. Never forget your friends. Stay in touch. The interesting thing is that, years from now, as you look around the country and you have your page reunions, you will see each and every one of you doing something unique and different.

Hopefully, some of you will be going on to better communities by being teachers, police officers, firefighters, members of the military, nurses, veterans, whatever your chosen profession. A few may go on to be Congressmen, Congresswomen, Governors, Senators. In fact, in this very room may be the future President of the United States. God bless you. I wish you well, have a great life, and thank you for your service to this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill

(H.R. 4109) to allow seniors with Social Security and pension income to file their income tax returns on a new Form 1040SR without regard to the amount of interest or taxable income of the senior, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first open up with the discussion on H.R. 4109 and the importance of this bill that is on the floor today, the Simple Tax For Seniors Act of 2004.

Mr. Speaker, in America, it is customary to recognize the long life and achievements of older citizens by offering a discount on rides, theater tickets, and other fees. While there are certainly many businesses that choose not to offer discounts, Federal law requires that all individuals be treated equally in public accommodations. Yet, there is an exception.

Instead of offering a discount, the IRS makes filing a tax return more difficult for seniors. Taxpayers aged 65 or older are not allowed to use the one-page form 1040EZ, even if they have a simple return and choose not to itemize deductions. Instead, seniors are required to file using the far more complicated form 1040 and its numerous schedules.

There are over 35 million seniors over the age of 65, and the IRS receives over 10 million standard tax returns from seniors each year. Due to the retirement of the baby boom generation, this number is expected to rise to 12.5 million by 2010. The IRS has taken note of this trend and, thankfully, the agency is working on a new simplified tax form for seniors. But even though the test form has been popular among a focus group of seniors, the IRS has not yet fully or finally decided to implement the new form and make it available.

The IRS estimates that the new form, assuming it is made available, will simplify tax filing for millions of seniors and their tax preparers.

This legislation will assure the IRS devises a simple form for seniors to use in filing their 2005 tax returns.

Senior taxpayers earning Social Security, retirement benefits, interest and capital gains will be able to meet their obligations on a simple tax form tailored to the specific needs of senior filers.

Because it will make tax filing easier for seniors, the bill has the strong support of the AARP, the American Association of Retired Persons, and the 60-Plus Association.

Mr. Speaker, during the past several weeks, we have addressed the marriage penalty and other problems with the tax system. Now is the time to address the senior penalty. There is little justification for denying seniors access to a means of filing that is so popular and efficient.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for championing this piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.

I also know it will be difficult for those to see, but it is a 1040EZ form. It is very, very simple; it is easy to read. It is not complicated, and it provides all the details necessary for the IRS to properly calculate either liabilities or refunds. The beauty of a form like this is that it is simple. Many know that even those who have the help of accountants find it an enormous task in completing the IRS required forms. But for the seniors to be further penalized by not being able to participate in this easy document is simply shameful. So we are very excited about the chance to bring this bill to the floor.

I have as well, and I will provide and place into the Record, the floor statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) relative to this; but I want to take a moment also to single out one of his constituents, a member of the Silver Haired Congress, Mr. Roland Boucher of California, Orange County, California. This idea germinated basically in a discussion of the Silver Haired Congress.

Many people I know say nothing ever gets through Congress. You cannot reach the people. It is hard for them to understand the difficulties people face. They are just not hearing me. Well, Mr. Boucher, your idea has merit. It has been brought to the attention of the policy committee. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) is the chairman of the policy committee and, of course, he is a member of the Congress, but also the hard working efforts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), who decided to team up together to make certain that this idea not only was vetted properly in the policy committee but was ultimately brought forward by the Committee on Ways and Means which has jurisdiction for Social Security.

So to Mr. Boucher and the Silver Haired Congress, I salute you for taking the time to bring the idea and the notion to Congress of the inequity of the current situation where seniors were not allowed to file on the simple form. It is another example of where Congress hears from constituents and legislation is enacted on this floor, the people's House, bringing these ideas forward for seniors everywhere to enjoy the simplified form.

So I place Mr. Cox's statement into the Record, who had to go to the White House for some briefings on homeland security, a very, very important topic. And I know he wants this placed in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I will also enter into the Record the 1040S form so it can be part of the testimony.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02JN04.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH02JN04.002

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

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

I would like to commend the majority. When we took control of Congress in 1994, we were very specific in sending a message to the IRS through hearings we held here in the Capitol that we wanted more simplified forms. So I do not agree to the notion that somehow we are trying to get ahead of the curve here or catch up with the IRS. It is after our pleadings with them to make the IRS more user friendly do we find ourselves now viewing the forms that they are testing. In fact, they have been tested in two locations, in Tampa and in Minneapolis, so we know that the tests are receiving very popular and positive acclamation.

Our idea is that we now further define it so that the IRS, in fact, will make this available for all seniors who choose to use them.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the author of this legislation.

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

First, let me suggest to our colleagues there are several vehicles that would help simplify the IRS completely. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has a sales tax proposal that is very thoughtful and worth studying, and I urge some Members on both sides of the aisle if they would like to actually simplify the operation of the IRS, they look at that piece of legislation. There are other proposals such as the flat tax proposal that again bears some discovery and conversation.

So as we continue to try and make the IRS as user friendly as we possibly can, I just commend my colleagues to look at that situation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Research. He is also a member of the Committee on International Relations and a sponsor of flat tax.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to make life easier for millions of American seniors who file a tax return. In view of the large number of seniors and the relatives who file on their own and the growing number of seniors, the IRS has long recognized the need to simplify tax filing for seniors.

In support of this goal, the IRS has conducted focus group meetings in Tampa, Florida and Minneapolis, Minnesota in which group members praised a test form 1040S developed by the IRS. If Congress does not act, however, there is no guarantee that the IRS will make this simple filing option available. Moreover, seniors will continue to be barred from using form 1040EZ because of their age.

The American Association For Retired Persons supports this legislation. So does 60-Plus. And the Joint Committee on Taxation has concluded that it will not cost anything in terms of revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, for bringing this measure to the floor; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the policy committee; the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the sponsor of this legislation; my colleague, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), on the Democratic side; and again a special recognition of Mr. Boucher of the Silver Haired Congress from Orange County, California, for illuminating the problem and bringing this idea to the United States House of Representatives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when Senator Chuck Hagel and I drafted the drug discount card 3 years ago, we realized at the time that it would be a very important tool for seniors to save money on their prescription drugs. It is the reason so many people join Costco, or Price Club, and so many millions of America's seniors have joined AARP, for discounts, because they save money. It is simple, it is effective, and last Monday, on May 3, when we rolled out the drug discount card as part of the Medicare legislation, over 400,000 seniors called the 1-800 Medicare number to inquire about the plan.

Interestingly enough, almost every national chain, be they a grocery store or a pharmacy, advertised that they would be offering a drug discount card. It is simple. It is easy. It is convenient. And it allows seniors the choices that they deserve: to buy from their local pharmacist, their drugstore, their Costco, their Price Club, you name it.

Medicare should be simple. Seniors 65 and older deserve discounts on their drug cards, their drug and pharmaceutical usage. They are receiving it under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 627, the resolution just agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I do take some exception, and I am here to speak on another subject, but as the author of the discount card, I find it very practical, very reasonable, and very meaningful for seniors in my district, the fifth largest Medicare-eligible population in America. We will get on that at another time.

Why I am here today is obviously having read the Roll Call this morning and seen the headlines, I am furious by the remarks that were attributed to one of my colleagues that said the war in Iraq is unwinnable. ``Unwinnable'' was the comment made.

What is more mind-boggling is the remarks are attributed to someone who has served this Nation as a veteran during the Vietnam War conflict, and we respect him immensely for his service to this country.

There are some, though, in this process who have recently spoken in the national media comparing this conflict to Vietnam. I find the comparison absurd. It is also deliberately partisan rhetoric.

But if there is one lesson we should have learned from Vietnam that should carry over here in this Chamber today, it is that disparaging what our soldiers are doing in Iraq is tantamount to giving comfort to the terrorists and comfort to the enemy.

Saying this conflict is unwinnable will make no difference one way or the other to what we do in Iraq, but it has a devastating effect on American men and women who are in Iraq now doing what we in this Congress have asked them to do. Congress voted on a resolution to go into Iraq. We are there. We have sent more troops there to bring peace and democracy to Iraq. We are not risking our lives as Members of Congress; they are, as will the thousands of other Americans who may follow to bring liberty to Iraq.

Whether anyone here agrees or disagrees with the reasons we went to Iraq in the first place, the simple fact is that we are there now and we have to accomplish the goals that free Iraqis are asking of us.

We are fighting terrorism at its doorstep. If someone disagrees with that, so be it. But no one should ever forget that what they say has a direct impact on the men and women who are in Iraq at our behest.

To tell them they are over there risking their life and limb for something unwinnable is just unbelievable. On a very basic level, it is like a coach telling his team of Little Leaguers that they do not have a chance of winning the game, but go out there and play anyway. Let us waste some time.

I know that is a poor analogy, because we are not talking about Little League. This is the big league. This is life and death. This is America's finest young men and women serving this country.

For that reason alone, I find it stunning that anyone in this body could say something that will have absolutely no effect, other than to undercut the morale of our troops in Iraq and cheer on the terrorists.

I went to a funeral in my district of a young man who was killed in Iraq 2 weeks before he was to return home and marry his high school sweetheart. It was a very, very tearful day for everyone in the room.

When I approached his parents, I felt remorse, obviously, because I had voted to send their child to that place. They did not look at me with bitterness. They were proud of their son. They were proud he died doing what he wanted to do since he was a little boy, and that was defend the flag that flies over this building.

I did not sacrifice anything in Iraq, but these people did. They knew that the cause that their son perished under was just and was noble and was right. For him and all the others who have perished in this conflict, these kinds of words of ``unwinnable'' are simply political rhetoric designed to influence the outcome of this next election.

But I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans and citizens alike, while there are people in harm's way from this country in that nation and everywhere on the globe, we respect that, and let us not make their burden more difficult by giving the enemy even an inkling that they may be winning. That succeeded in Spain during this recent election by bombing a train and killing people.

Those that say that they were attacked simply because the Spanish were in Iraq have not looked at the entirety of what is happening. Jordanians are being attacked, if you will. There were plans to attack their intelligence service. Saudi Arabia was the target last week of a terrorist attack. These things are happening because of terrorists, not because of Iraq, but because they want to undo the way of life that we respect.

So I take umbrage with the comments that this is unwinnable, and I ask us all to join in salute for our strong, brave men and women in the field.

Mr. Speaker, 7 years ago the United Nations established an Oil for Food program intended for humanitarian relief. Oil was sold to finance the purchase of food, medicine and other relief necessities for the Iraqi people.

The General Accounting Office estimates that more than $10 billion was stolen from the Oil For Food program. Money that was to help the Iraqi people went to pay off politicians and executives, build a $20 million Olympic sport facility for Uday Hussein, and spent over $50 million for promotion for the Husseins' propaganda. They may have even financed weapons that are now being used against our troops.

Oil for Food was the largest UN program in the world at one time. The Iraqi people are owed an explanation for the exploitation of their resources. And if the United Nations is to be treated credibly, they must assist in the investigation of where this money went to; $10 billion stolen from the Iraqi people. The U.N. needs to come clean on this issue and share with the people where these dollars went.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for leading the debate today. I certainly want to salute my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). He has raised this AMT issue at every one of our hearings on the Committee on Ways and Means. He has kept this issue alive. It is important for the people who are middle wage-earners in our country to get some relief.

I disagree with the past speaker on suggesting we are limping along, suggesting that the tax cuts that we put in place have not helped this economy. If we tune in to any show or read any publication, whether it is CNBC or CNN or to read Forbes Fortune or the Wall Street Journal, virtually every person who studies the economy is giving credit for this resurgence, if you will, of opportunity due to the tax cuts we have enacted.

The AMT is a burden for middle income taxpayers. We in our bill solve that burden, and we do so without raising corporate taxes. That is a good debate for a day, maybe today, maybe another day on corporate taxation, because we do understand a lot of companies take their plants and facilities overseas.

I asked the H.J. Heinz Company why they found so many countries comfortable for them to move plants to and they said we want to be close to those who are buying our goods and services. So I do not look at the Heinz Company as unpatriotic for opening Heinz of Canada, Heinz of Ireland, Heinz of France, or Heinz of whatever countries they settle in. But I do recognize that at times, companies do make decisions based on their locations, based on the Tax Code of this country.

All agree that our corporate taxes today are too high, and in the Rangel substitute, they raise them further. So we start off with a problem of substance in their bill that actually further punishes corporations who are trying to provide jobs here in America for the citizens of our country. So the administration and this committee, the Committee on Ways and Means on the Republican side, do oppose what would be a $15 billion tax increase.

We also recognize that this needs to be dealt with, and we have dealt with it. If we look back at our history, Public Law 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, we allowed the child credit, the adoption credit, the small savers credit to be counted against the AMT in 2010. We increased the exemption from 45 for 49 for married couple, and 33 to 35 for single individuals. In public law 107- 47, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, we extended through 2003 the ability to claim nonrefundable tax credits against the AMT. Public law 108-27, the Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act of 2003 again expanded the amounts and extended the amounts. The Tax Relief Act, H.R. 3521.

So there is a consistent history of our committee in a Republican-led Congress moving forward on trying to minimize the grab, if you will, of the AMT.

Now, I believe as we try to determine on this bill how to give people an understanding of how to file their taxes, how to do their taxes, simplicity is the best possible option, and I do look forward to the chance we have on our committee to talk about simplifying this very complicated Tax Code.

But today we are here to oppose the Rangel substitute and genuinely support H.R. 4227 to provide relief for American families.