Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for the DeLay-Hoyer Israel resolution and urge Congress to strongly endorse the Sharon disengagement plan. Sharon is pursuing this plan even in the face of opposition from his own party.

This disengagement plan proves once again that Israel is willing to make difficult sacrifices in order to pursue a peace agreement. Dismantling settlements has always been discussed in the context of negotiations with the Palestinians, but offered only in exchange for an end to terrorism. Unfortunately, with Arafat still in power, the continued terrorism against Israeli civilians, and the political process on hold indefinitely, Israel is willing to take action for peace on its own.

The United States is engaged in a war on terrorism to defend our nation from the relentless men and women who hate our way of life and seek our destruction. We are taking whatever steps are necessary to protect our citizens. I sincerely hope that a viable two state solution can soon be reached, but in the meantime we must allow Israel, our friend, our ally, and a strong democracy that shares our values to do the same.

Israel has enjoyed steadfast bipartisan support from Congress for years. This resolution by Mr. Delay and Mr. Hoyer will send a strong message to Israel that despite our partisan disputes on many foreign and domestic issues, the Democrats and Republicans in this Congress stand with Israel.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the annual Department of Defense appropriation bill is one that can truly be called bipartisan. It is developed on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations, and it usually enjoys bipartisan support on the floor of the House. It is a bipartisan bill because it is of importance to our country.

Providing for our national defense is one of our most important duties as Members of Congress. Providing funding for our troops to ensure their safety and success of the war on terror is our obligation.

This year's bill is no exception. The Committee on Appropriations has put together a good bill, one that that provides vital support for our troops in times of war. This bill gives our troops a much deserved 3.5 percent pay raise. It gives the Department of Defense $25 billion for emergency supplemental funding for the war on terror.

These funds directly and significantly aid our servicemen and women by providing them with the tools they need to fight the war on terror and return home safely. It will provide every soldier with body armor, allow for more armored Humvees, and increase the size of the Army to relieve the burden on our overworked soldiers.

The Department of Defense appropriations bill not only aids our troops overseas, it also helps our communities here at home. The bill before us today funds several defense and weapons programs manufactured in north Texas. Lockheed Martin will receive $4.1 billion for 24 F-22 Air Force fighter aircraft, and $4.4 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. Just over $200 million is provided for three Global Hawk High Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, a program supported by Vought Aircraft Industries in Texas. And Bell-Textron will receive over $1.1 billion for 11 V-22 aircraft.

By funding the continued development of these weapons systems, we are not only providing for the long-term support and protection of our troops, we are preserving good jobs for hard working Americans in my part of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of Congress for more than 25 years. And each and every one of these years I voted in favor of the Department of Defense appropriations bill and its rule. But this year, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has snuck a last minute provision to raise the debt limit into the bill.

The so-called ``full faith and credit'' clause will allow this House to raise the debt limit by nearly $700 billion as part of the conference report on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. $700 billion is almost twice as much as we are spending on the entire Department of Defense under this bill.

Some Members on the other sides of the aisle will tell you that this clause does not mean anything, it is just a procedural item. But I have been here long enough to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. And this House leadership is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

So this year, Mr. Speaker, although I will vote in favor of the underlying bill, I will vote against the rule. I am incensed at this underhanded move to raise the debt limit, and shortly I will attempt to defeat the previous question by offering a motion to strip this deceptive provision from this important bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me.

The defense appropriations bill has always been a bipartisan initiative. Introducing partisanship into the war on terror is absolutely inacceptable. I resent that anyone would use this bill as a political tool to raise the national debt and threaten the possibility of its passage. Shame on all of you.

A vote on the debt limit deserves a separate vote. If consideration of the defense appropriations bill is rejected or delayed because you insisted on playing petty political games, you will

be held accountable by the American people and by our troops.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to strike from this rule a provision that the Republican leadership would rather Members did not know about. When the Committee on Rules voted to report this rule last night, they slipped in an unrelated self-executing provision that allows for an increase in the debt ceiling. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) made a motion in committee to strike this provision, but it was defeated.

So Members of this House should be aware that when they vote for this rule, they will be voting to increase the statutory debt limit by almost $700 billion for the next fiscal year. It is no wonder that they do not want Members to know about this. They would rather not have a separate vote or even a debate on the inescapable fact that their budget raises our national statutory debt limit to the highest level in history, to a staggering $8 trillion, an amount that is almost incomprehensible to most of us.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there is an honest disagreement in this House over our Nation's fiscal priorities. Many of us believe that, with record deficits and the high cost of the war on terror, we need to reevaluate our budget priorities and find a better way to match our revenues with our spending needs. It seems as though my Republican colleagues do not think there is a problem. They think it is just fine to continue on with the budgetary policies that have brought us into our current fiscal mess. They seem to think it is fine to keep driving up our national debt and let our children and grandchildren figure out how to pay for it.

If that is how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to proceed, they should at least have the political courage to vote up or down on this issue instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. If you truly favor the fiscal policies that are sending the national debt through the ceiling, you should be willing to stand up on the floor of the House and vote for them.

I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Defense appropriations bill. I do not oppose that portion of this rule. A ``no'' vote will simply strip this self-executing smoke screen from the rule so that we do not slip the debt increase through the House with no debate and no separate vote. However, a ``yes'' vote will allow this record-breaking increase to be enacted without a separate up-or-down vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of my good friend and neighbor, Chris Semos, who died Monday morning at age 68. He was an even-tempered gentleman who provided leadership to his community and to his church. A long-time resident of the Oak Cliffs section of Dallas, Chris served eight terms as a Democratic member of the Texas legislature from 1966 to 1982.

Following that, he served 12 years as a member of the Dallas County Commissioner's Court. He was a thoughtful public servant who worked cordially with members of both parties to benefit his beloved Oak Cliff, his county, and his State.

Additionally, he was a nationally recognized leader of the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, he met his wife of 37 years, Tassie, at a church conference in North Carolina.

For many years, Chris operated a popular restaurant in Oak Cliff, The Torch, where we shared baklava on many occasions. The victory party for my first successful race for Congress in 1978 was in the back room of The Torch.

Chris quietly made his influence felt in many ways. He introduced the current mayor of Dallas, Laura Miller, to her husband, Steve Wolens, who succeeded Chris in the State legislature. He was recently recognized by the Oak Cliff Lions Club as its Humanitarian of the Year. We will all miss a great community leader, Chris Semos.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor President Reagan's legacy to our country. I was elected in 1978, 2 years before Ronald Reagan assumed the Presidency. I served in Congress the entire 8 years of his Presidency and had the opportunity to observe him at close range. We often disagreed on domestic policy; however, we were largely in agreement on foreign policy, and Reagan, indeed, left an indelible mark in the field of foreign affairs. He correctly understood the economic vulnerability of the Soviet Union and exploited this to win the Cold War without firing a shot. He increased U.S. defense spending, an effort which I supported, and when the Soviet Union tried to keep pace, it fell apart from the economic strain.

The watchword of his administration was peace through strength. President Reagan brought hope and optimism to our country at a time when it was sorely needed. Also, he demonstrated through word and deed that one could disagree with their domestic political adversaries and still be friends at the end of the day. This is an element that is sorely missing from today's highly charged partisan atmosphere in Washington.

Ronald Reagan won his share of battles in Congress, but he did it without lasting rancor. That was perhaps his greatest legacy. We could use a little bit of that spirit today.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the Democratic leader for bringing this resolution to the Floor this morning so that Members of the House may pay tribute to our friend Charles W. Johnson.

Charlie is taking leave of his position as Parliamentarian of the House today, exactly 40 years after he began as a young lawyer fresh out of law school in the Parliamentarian's office. On his last day in the House it is only fitting that the Members of this body can take the floor to pay tribute to him and express our gratitude and our friendship.

To say that Charlie is a creature of the House or a servant of this institution does him a disservice, for without him, many of us would never have learned the intricacies of the Rules of the House, its practices and its procedures. Without his sage advice and counsel, so many of us, as well as our staff, would be lost in the maze of legislative practice.

His office, just off this floor, is more than just an office; it has served as a focal point for discussions both pointed and prosaic, political and procedural, but always, always, non-partisan.

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, Charlie is the institution. During his 40 years as a Parliamentarian, he has served Democratic Speakers and Republican Speakers. He has shown fairness to all and malice to none. Not an easy task, where tempers can run high and where blame is easily cast.

He has served through peace and war and through times of great national triumph and tragedy. Charlie has always risen to the challenge, and in doing so, has challenged so many of us to do so as well.

Charlie took over the job as the Parliamentarian in 1994 following the retirement of his dear friend and colleague Bill Brown. Just as Bill was a voice of calm, deliberative reason, so is Charlie. Far too often we, as Members, fail to recognize the importance of those qualities in the people who ensure that the business of the House can proceed, regardless of which political party holds the majority. I know that it is often the case with regard to Charlie and the entire staff of the Office of the Parliamentarian.

Charlie is so good at what he does that he makes the job look easy. But I, for one, know it is not. But his talents, his intellect and his love for this institution have made our job as legislators all the more easy, and I am grateful.

When I was first elected to the House 26 years ago, I became only the second freshman Member in the 20th century to take a seat on the Committee on Rules. Had it not been for Bill and Charlie, my acclimation to that difficult post would have been far more difficult. I know because of their patient tutelage, their willingness to just sit down and talk, their careful guidance, my knowledge of the Rules and how to use them now runs both deep and wide.

I want to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to kind of talk about my personal experience with Charlie and his office.

From time to time, I, my staff, would go to see Charlie and we would ask very direct questions, questions that were vital to formulating strategy on our side of the aisle. What he would do would be to respond to every question and to answer every question truthfully. He did not go beyond that. He did not try to suggest what strategic steps we should take. He only answered what we asked. And I know he did that for the other side as well.

He was truly acting in the best, non-partisan position in helping us as partisans understand what we could and could not do. But he never went beyond that. He never said, ``By the way, you know, you could do this also.'' And that is the role of a Parliamentarian, to answer truthfully the questions of both sides of the aisle, and then let those Members on both sides of the aisle figure out where they go with the information.

I cannot tell you how important that is to the functioning of this body and how important it has been to me as a Member to know that I can go to someone and get an honest answer; who will answer my questions, but who will not necessarily go beyond that. And I respect that.

I know we will all miss Charlie, but I also know we all wish him well. He has earned the respect of hundreds of Members and more staff than he can count. He is a man of the House and a deep and true friend of the House. He has ensured that his office will continue to serve the House by assembling a talented staff.

I owe him so much, and there are not words to express my deep gratitude and affection. I can only wish you the best, Charlie. And while I know he has taken great pains to ensure the institution will go on without him, I know it will not be the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the former Democratic leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

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

Mr. Speaker I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a courageous serviceman who lost his life while bravely serving our country in Iraq. Jason Ludlam made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and for the American people.

In times of war, our soldiers and their families carry the gravest imaginable burden upon their shoulders. The service these brave men and women provide their country is immeasurable and will not be forgotten.

I truly sympathize with the families of fallen heroes for their terrible loss. It is my hope that many good memories help bring these families comfort in their time of need.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize and honor Jason Ludlam for the sacrifice he made and for the service he gave his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a courageous serviceman who lost his life while bravely serving our country in Iraq. Kenneth Melton made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and for the American people.

In times of war, our soldiers and their families carry the gravest imaginable burden upon their shoulders. The service these brave men and women provide their country is immeasurable and will not be forgotten.

I truly sympathize with the families of fallen heroes for their terrible loss. It is my hope that many good memories help bring these families comfort in their time of need.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize and honor Kenneth Melton for the sacrifice he made and for the service he gave his country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Tyler Street Boys Track Team of Dallas, on their 2-A State Title. The Crusaders upset the two-time defending champions, Muenster Sacred Heart, to capture the title.

The Tyler Street Relay Teams won both the 4x200 and 4x400 relays, no doubt the result of hard work throughout the season. The Tyler street track team also finished in the top three positions in the field events, including a first place finish in the shot put.

This year's championship team includes members: Bobby Lewis, Darrian Sanders, Daunte Bornen, Jared Carter, Cshammah Reed, E.J. Rusher, Richard Solis, Britt Jones, Austin Alburtis, Freddy Holland, Nicholas Wright, Cjabrione Reed, and Joshua Carter. This year's team is coached by Walter Favors.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Tyler Street Track team on their championship and also on a great season.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the annual defense authorization bill is always one of the most important bills this Congress considers. Having spent my last 25 years in Congress working hard to ensure a strong national defense, it is a bill that I have always supported, and this year the defense authorization bill is more important than ever.

This past December, I spent several days in Iraq where I had the opportunity to meet with rank-and-file soldiers on the front lines and thank them personally for their distinguished service and personal sacrifice. And I was reminded of this enormous sacrifice upon my return. The cargo plane that took us out of Baghdad carried the coffins of two American soldiers who had been killed just 3 days before Christmas.

It seems like almost every night, Americans turn on the news at home and see nothing but reports of the violence in Iraq and hear comments from politicians and pundits debating decisions made here in Washington. But when I turn on NBC News or CNN or any of the other networks, I cannot help but recall the selflessness and courage that I saw in our soldiers, and the mix of pride and sorrow I felt on that flight home.

America's sons and daughters in Iraq represent our country well, but their job continues to be very difficult and very dangerous, and it will not be over anytime soon. It is clear that American troops will be based in Iraq for at least the next year and possibly longer.

And that is why the bill before us today is so important. Before anything else, the defense authorization bill is a bill to support our troops. The funding in the bill today will keep our service men and women in Iraq and around the world safe, provide them with the tools they need to fight the war on terror, and give them and their families a better quality of life.

First and foremost, we provide $25 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to ensure that our troops have everything they need to conduct the war on terror and return home to their families safely. We provide over $1 billion for armored Humvees and body armor. We help ensure the strength of our military by adding 39,000 more Army and Marine Corps troops.

We make sure that our troops experience a good quality of life by giving them a 3.5 percent pay raise, and we help ensure that all of our fighting men and women receive health care by expanding TRICARE coverage to Reservists and their dependents.

The bill also helps those who have served our country so honorably over the years by making sure that those who are left behind when a soldier falls receive the full benefits that they deserve through the Survivor Benefit Plan.

And while there are a great many provisions here we can take pride in, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today is by no means perfect. There remain a number of serious issues that we must resolve.

This morning, in the Committee on Rules, my colleagues and I tried to offer an amendment to the rule which would have more than doubled the amount authorized for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the supplemental. Similarly, we tried to provide $414 million to provide fair pay and benefits for our troops.

There are a great many Members who support these provisions, Mr. Speaker. They have broad support throughout the House, but they were, like dozens of other important amendments offered in the Committee on Rules, denied a vote on the floor by the Republican leadership. That is a shame, Mr. Speaker, because we all want what is best for our troops.

Because this House was denied the opportunity to consider a great many important amendments, I will be voting ``no'' on today's rule. I will also be urging a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we may consider one of the amendments that was denied, the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) to provide fair pay and benefits for the troops.

That said, despite what happened at the Committee on Rules this morning, I stand in strong support of the underlying bill and our troops. There has never been any doubt that this House, this Nation, and its people stand 100 percent behind our men and women in uniform, fighting to secure peace the world over.

I hope we can soon continue the discussion on how best to provide for our service men and women and keep our Nation safe. And although I will be voting against the rule today, I will be voting for the underlying bill. It is the right thing to do, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the authorization bill today.

I only wish that the majority leadership, in the spirit of bipartisanship that normally surrounds defense measures, had permitted some very important amendments to be offered. And we will be hearing from some of my colleagues in the rest of the debate on this rule about how strongly they feel about their rights being denied here on the floor today.

When we are trying to promote our military and trying to do the right thing around the world, we should promote democracy here on the floor of the House and not stifle it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, who was denied the opportunity to offer key amendments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the time remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), the ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question and on the rule. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), which the Committee on Rules defeated on a straight party-line vote early this morning and for which unanimous consent was just denied.

Mr. Speaker, this is the second year in a row the Republican leadership has chosen to throw away the long-standing tradition of bipartisan cooperation in shaping our national defense policies. Nearly 100 amendments, most of them by Democratic Members, were shut out of the rule, including the Spratt amendment. It is a very sad day for the American people and particularly for those serving in the military.

Partisan politics have absolutely no place when it comes to protecting the brave American men and women who are serving in our military in harm's way. The Spratt amendment would provide $300 million additional dollars to give well-deserved pay raises to the sergeants and warrant officers who train and lead enlisted personnel. His amendment also guarantees military personnel serving in combat zones will have life insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be inserted in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) for a brief personal privilege matter.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Scott of Georgia was allowed to speak out of order.)

Mourning the Passing of Gloria Aaron

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) today in support of H.R. 4275, legislation to make the expanded 10 percent tax bracket permanent. In my district in north Texas and across America, scores of families work hard every day to make ends meet. By passing this bill, we will provide some much-needed tax relief to these hardworking Americans.

But I must admit, Mr. Speaker, I find it very odd that some Members of this House would champion the tax relief bill before us today when they have also at nearly every opportunity voted against other measures that would have provided significant economic benefits to a great many middle-class taxpayers. I am talking about measures like providing additional tax relief by reinstating the State sales tax deduction and ensuring overtime pay for America's police and firefighters.

I think it is important to consider these sorts of measures now, Mr. Speaker, because many of our constituents are suffering from the recent recession and the outsourcing of good American jobs overseas.

Do not get me wrong, Mr. Speaker, we all want to provide tax relief to our constituents. I voted last week in favor of the bill to provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. I voted the week before to permanently eliminate the marriage tax penalty, and I will vote today to make the expanded tax bracket permanent. The bill on the floor today is a good bill and it is the very least we can do to help families in the country, but I think the American people deserve better than our least effort.

Others may be happy to limit our efforts to help American families to this bill, but I am not, Mr. Speaker. We can improve this bill by amending the rule to allow for the consideration of H.R. 720, a bill introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady). His bill will reinstate the sales tax deduction so that citizens of States without income taxes may deduct their sales taxes from their Federal tax bill. This is a very important issue for many Americans, including my constituents in North Texas who do not pay a State income tax but have been plagued by high sales taxes which may rise even higher if some in the Texas legislature have their way.

Our State comptroller has estimated that the average Texas family would save about $300 a year on their Federal taxes under the bill offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Last week, I attempted to bring a similar measure up for consideration, but that effort was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

This is a bipartisan issue, Mr. Speaker, and I want to give the entire House an opportunity to vote on a bipartisan bill. H.R. 720 has 78 cosponsors, 47 Republicans and 31 Democrats. I have cosponsored the bill, the gentleman from Texas who is managing today's rule on the other side of the aisle has cosponsored the bill, and dozens of other well-respected Members from both parties have cosponsored the bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership indicated last week that they too support this bill.

So why do we not vote on it? Is this about politics, or is it about tax relief? Last week, Republicans defeated my amendment and said it was about politics. Well, here is a Republican bill that has strong bipartisan support and will provide millions of families with $300 a year in tax relief.

The American people deserve to find out today whether the majority party will put partisan politics aside for just a minute to pass this badly needed tax relief. I bet our constituents just cannot wait to see how their elected Representatives will vote on this issue.

In the coming weeks, I hope we will have more opportunities to help more families. But in the meantime, if Members are serious about helping their constituents, they will not only vote to extend the 10 percent tax bracket permanently, they will also vote today to defeat the previous question and allow us to consider H.R. 720, to reinstate the sales tax deduction. It is a Republican bill with Democratic support. As my colleagues realize, a no vote will be a vote against tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to insert several things in the Record. I am inserting a special report from Carole Keeton Rylander, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. In this report she says, ``Restoration of the IRS sales tax deduction should be one of Texas' main priorities in Congress. The current discriminatory treatment of Texas taxpayers is taking $701 million out of Texas pockets and costing our State more than 16,000 jobs.''

I would also at this point, Mr. Speaker, insert in the record a statement by my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), that he presented when he introduced this legislation. ``Washington should treat all States equally,'' Mr. Brady says. ``A broad bipartisan group pushes Congress to end bias against sales tax States.''

[Special Report, March 2002]

Restoration of the IRS Sales Tax Deduction Should Be One of Texas'

Main Priorities in Congress

(By Carole Keeton Rylander)

Currently, the citizens of Texas and eight other states

are discriminated against because they cannot take any tax

deduction comparable to the state and local income tax

deductions enjoyed by the citizens of 41 other states and the

District of Columbia. In an attempt to alleviate this

disparity, Comptroller Rylander proposes to restore much of

the federal sales and motor vehicle sales tax deductions that

citizens of Texas were last able to itemize on their federal

income tax returns for the 1986 tax year.

The Comptroller's plan would grant taxpayers in all states

the option of deducting either their state and local sales

and motor vehicle sales taxes or their state and local

individual income taxes on their Form 1040. While such an

option would not fully restore the original deduction, which

allowed deductions for sales as well as income taxes, it

would go a long way to restoring fundamental equity for

taxpayers in those states that no not impose income taxes on

their residents, and at minimal cost to the federal budget.

There is already legislation before Congress that closely

tracks the Comptroller's plan. Last year, Representative

Brian Baird (D-Washington) introduced H.R. 322, and Sen. Fred

Thompson (R-Tennessee) introduced a similar bill, S. 291, in

the Senate. Both bills would grant taxpayers in all states

the option of itemizing a deduction for either their sales

(including motor vehicle sales) taxes or income taxes paid,

but not for both. Both bills would limit the deduction to a

specific amount prescribed in a table (individualized for

each state) providing deductible amounts by family size and

income group. Taxpayers, however, would not have the option

of deducting actual taxes paid, as they had in 1986 and

before. The main difference between the bills is that H.R.

322 refers to state sales taxes, while S. 291 refers to state

and local sales taxes. The Senate version also would allow

the deduction against the Alternative Minimum Tax. H.R. 322

boasts among its 58 co-sponsors 18 Texans; S. 291 is co-

sponsored by both Texas senators.

Texans lost their sales tax deductions in the last-minute

deal-making behind the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Before passage

of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86), all individuals were

allowed to take separate income tax deductions for their

payments of state and local sales taxes and motor vehicle

sales taxes. For the sales tax, they were allowed to deduct

either the actual amount paid, or they could use an optional

sales tax table that provided deductible amounts for each

state (based on its rate and base) by income group and family

size. For example, a family of four with an income of $33,000

was allowed to deduct $306 in state sales taxes in Texas, but

$508 in Tennessee; and in both instances, taxpayers were

allowed to include an additional amount for local taxes paid.

TRA86 was designed to simplify the federal income tax by

eliminating many deductions, exemptions and credits while

increasing personal exemptions and standard deductions and

lowering and compressing tax rates. The deduction of state

and local sales taxes was one of the last (and most

contentious) items considered by the Senate, but the final

efforts to restore at least some vestige of the deduction,

led in part by Sen. Phil Gramm, ultimately failed. The

argument put forth by members from the states that retained

their state and local income tax deduction was that the

losses attributable to the repeal of the sales tax

deduction would be more than made up for by the increased

personal exemption, and that the sales tax deduction only

benefited the rich, because lower-income groups are less

likely to itemize.

The Comptroller's plan could be put in place for less than

1 percent of the costs of existing state and local tax

deductions. The March 26, 2001 cost estimate provided by the

Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that H.R. 322 would

decrease federal receipts by $23.1 billion over the 10-year

period 2002-2011. The annual costs were expected to average

$2.0 billion for the first three years, rising incrementally

thereafter. Putting the federal cost in perspective, the 1999

cost for the current deduction for state and local income and

property taxes was $268.9 billion. As such, reinstatement

would produce an increased cost to the federal government of

0.8 percent.

The Comptroller's plan could be put in place with virtually

no increase in complexity. Although the sales tax deductions

were eliminated in part for reasons of tax simplification,

the proposed legislation before Congress would add only one

more line to Schedule A, for those taxpayers electing to

itemize on their Form 1040. Even if actual taxes paid were

allowed to be deducted there would be an addition of only two

lines: one for general sales taxes paid, and one for motor

vehicle sales taxes paid.

Equity and fairness demand that tax discrimination against

Texans be eliminated. Reinstatement of the deduction for

sales taxes would eliminate the fundamental disparity created

by TRA86, when citizens in states with a personal income tax

were permitted to deduct such taxes, but citizens in states

without an income tax had no corresponding deduction. The net

effect of this disparity is that Texans, as well as the

citizens of the eight other states without a general

individual income tax pay a greater percentage of taxes to

the federal government than do citizens living in their

neighboring states with income taxes. In other words, the

federal tax law currently treats the same individual

differently solely on the basis of residence. Providing

individuals in all states the choice to deduct one or the

other of their sales or income taxes would restore equity and

fairness for all U.S. citizens at minimal cost.

The Comptroller's plan would put more money in Texans'

pockets. As with everything else in the IRS Code, the devil

is in the details, and even subtle differences in proposed

legislation can have major revenue implications, making any

revenue estimates of the ultimate legislation difficult.

Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately

portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax

payments, restoration of the sales tax deduction could be

expected to save Texans--in the aggregate--on the order of

$568.7 million (if only state sales taxes were exempted) to

$701.3 million (if state and local sales taxes were exempted)

in the 2002 Tax Year. The corresponding average savings per

itemizing Texas household would be $231 and $284.

While the deduction only would go to taxpayers who itemized

their deductions, more Texans at lower income levels would

find it to their benefit to itemize. Right now, only one in

five tax returns filed by Texans itemizes deductions,

compared to almost one in three nationwide. The chief reason

for this is that citizens of 41 states and the District of

Columbia enjoy a deduction that is not available to Texans.

Restoration of the deduction for sales taxes paid would go a

long way towards bringing Texas closer to the national

average. In other words, the availability of the deduction

would benefit not only those who currently itemize, but an

additional number of slightly lower-income households that

would find it to their benefit to itemize.

The Comptroller's plan would create more jobs, economic

growth, and state tax receipts with absolutely no state tax

or spending increase. Keeping as much as $701.3 million in

the hands of Texas taxpayers would provide a significant

boost to the state economy. Assuming that the legislation

passed this year and that the deduction could be taken on

income taxes filed in 2003 for the 2002 Tax Year, the tax

savings could be expected to generate 16,180 new Texas jobs,

$590 million in new Texas investment, and $874 million in

increased Texas Gross State Product in 2003. The increased

economic activity in turn could be expected to boost general

revenue by $66.5 million in the three-year period 2003-05.

Most of this revenue would come from increased sales and

motor vehicle sales tax collections.

The Comptroller's plan promises a win-win situation for all

Texans, even those who do not itemize. To the extent that

keeping more Texas income in Texas, where it belongs, instead

of sending it off to Washington, all Texans would benefit

from the increased employment opportunities and investment.

In fact, it is difficult to find a downside for Texas to the

reinstatement of the sales tax deduction.

The Comptroller's plan would be a straight-up win for the

state, a victory for tax equity among the states, and it

would provide a desirable, welcome boost to restoring

statewide economic and revenue growth.

salient features

Legislation tracking the Comptroller's plan would cost the

federal government somewhere between $2.0 to $2.5 billion per

year--less than 1 percent of the $268.9 billion 1999

deduction for state and local income and property taxes.

Texans would save as much as $701 million, or $284 per

itemizing household on their 2002 taxes.

The estimated tax savings would be expected to generate

16,180 new Texas jobs, $590 million in new Texas investment,

and $874 million in increased Gross State Product in 2003.

The increased economic activity could be expected to boost

2003-04 general revenue-related state tax receipts for the

three-year period 2003-05 by $66.5 million.

Assuming that the federal legislation fairly and accurately

portrayed Texans' sales tax and motor vehicle sales tax

payments, a family of four with an income of $60,000 would be

able to deduct an additional $1,015 to calculate taxable

income, and a single mother of one with a total income of

$35,000 could deduct an additional $641.

The current system discriminates against Texans and the

citizens of other states that have opted to finance their

budgets without personal income taxes. The Comptroller's plan

is necessary to restore fairness and equity in the treatment

of those state taxpayers who currently do not benefit from

the tax deductions enjoyed by the citizens of the other 41

states and the District of Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, my colleague from Texas talks about the legislation and, well, we will do that in all due time and all due course, in terms of the righting of the wrong that was committed 18 years ago. The sales tax deduction for my State and for six other States, it is not 17, it is 7, was eliminated by this Congress in 1986, 18 years ago.

Only a few bills come out of the Committee on Ways and Means, only a few favored bills, so we have to take the opportunity to present this very important piece of legislation on the floor today and to give the House an opportunity to vote to right this wrong on the question of the deductibility of State sales tax. There are no other opportunities to present this to the House. That is why we are presenting it today. I hope that the House will give us the opportunity to right that wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a good piece of legislation before us today that I intend to support. I think most Members of the House will support it. My only request is that, at the same time, we provide equity and justice to the residents of seven States who were denied that equity and justice in 1986.

Now, I know my colleague is a relatively junior Member and was not here in 1986 when that legislation was voted on, but I was here, and I voted against the legislation that denied the residents of my State the opportunity to deduct their sales tax, when residents of New York and California and other States could deduct their State income tax.

I feel very strongly about this issue, Mr. Speaker. As Members of this House, we can do so much to lend a helping hand to our constituents. Today we have a chance to do something good for millions of American families. We can pass the bill to make the extended 10 percent tax bracket permanent, and then we can also immediately consider the Brady legislation, H.R. 720, to restore the sales tax deduction for citizens of Texas, Florida and other States lacking a State income tax.

Now, as I mentioned earlier, last week I attempted to bring to the floor a similar bill to reinstate the sales tax deduction, but the Republican leadership indicated a preference for the Brady bill. So now we have a chance to consider the legislation that Republicans preferred. It does not matter to me which bill we consider. This is a bipartisan issue, with wide support on both sides of the aisle.

I just want to get it done.

So today, Mr. Speaker, to get it done, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on H.R. 720.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. Voting ``no'' on the previous question will not prevent this House from voting on the underlying bill. It will simply allow for the consideration of H.R. 720. A ``yes'' vote, however, will deny the House the chance to even consider the issue of reinstating the sales tax deduction.

The American people deserve to know where their elected representatives stand on the issue of restoring the sales tax deduction. This is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is about whether the citizens of Texas and other States should have to pay for the privilege of living there. I hope Members realize it today, and I hope their votes reflect this as well.

I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Congressional Record immediately before the vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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

The alternative minimum tax was originally intended to provide fairness for all taxpayers by requiring wealthy individuals to pay their fair share of taxes. Unfortunately, the alternative minimum tax is affecting more and more middle-class families. Middle-class families clearly should not be subject to the AMT, and I am glad we are looking at solutions to end this unfairness today.

But there is another tax issue that affects millions of Americans and that I think deserves the chance to be debated today, the issue of State sales tax deductibility. Since the sales tax deduction was eliminated in 1986, citizens from States that do not have State income taxes, such as my home State of Texas, have been unfairly punished. While taxpayers living in States that impose an income tax are entitled to deduct their State income taxes from their Federal tax bill, those living in States without income taxes do not receive an equivalent deduction for the sales tax. The result is that citizens of States like Texas, Florida, Washington State, and Tennessee are paying more to the IRS than are citizens of other States.

I do not think this is fair, Mr. Speaker. All taxpayers should be treated equally regardless of their State's tax system. A number of Members from both sides of the aisle have introduced measures to reinstate the sales tax deduction, and I think it is high time that this House consider their proposals.

Last night in the Committee on Rules, I offered an amendment to the rule brought forth by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird). His amendment would restore fairness to the Federal tax system by allowing taxpayers who have no State income taxes to instead deduct their State and local sales taxes. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee majority defeated my amendment. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is right. This House has debated dozens of other tax bills, but the Republican leadership will not allow this House to debate an issue that penalizes millions of American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a partisan issue. It is a matter of fairness. If this House is to be presented the tax bill of the week for the foreseeable future, I cannot understand why the Republican leadership will not allow the House to even consider an issue that will provide equity for the people of my State and six others. I think the American people deserve a full and honest debate on this matter.

Consequently, so that the House might be allowed to consider the sales tax deduction, we will attempt to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, we will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the consideration of the gentleman from Washington's proposal to reinstate the State sales tax deduction for those States that do not have a State income tax. This may well be the only chance Members have to take a stand on this issue.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that this House may consider reinstating the sales tax deduction and so our constituents know where we stand on the issue of reinstating this deduction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Israel Independence Day on the 56th Anniversary of its birth as a state.

As Americans, we all take great pride in the founding of our country. The birth of Israel also serves as a sense of pride--not only to the people of Israel, but also to Jewish people throughout the world. Almost every day, we receive news of Israelis falling victim to terrorism and tragedy, yet every day, Israel stands as a symbol not just of the Jewish faith, but of freedom loving people who have the courage, even today, to live in danger, fight for freedom and work for peace.

While Israel and America were founded in different centuries, a world away from each other, both countries share similar values which provide a foundation for a strong society. These values are rooted in educating our children, keeping our families healthy, and protecting our citizens from harm.

I applaud Israel for all it has accomplished throughout the past 56 years. It has weathered war and terrorism, and yet it still remains a democratic state committed to improving the quality of life for all its citizens. The commitment to serve its people is the mark of a great country, because only when a state wants its citizens to succeed, will it too succeed. In its short but rich history, Israel has proven its success by this unwavering dedication.

Mr. Speaker, it is with honor and respect of Israel's great history, that I congratulate the country for its successes, and look forward to a long-lasting relationship between our two countries, based on our shared values.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lions Club International founder, Melvin Jones, for his legacy of volunteerism and community service. Melvin Jones was born on January 13, 1879 at Fort Thomas, Arizona, and passed away on June 1, 1961 at the age of 82. He founded the Association of Lions Clubs in 1917, the same year they held their national convention in Dallas, TX.

Melvin Jones abandoned his job at an insurance agency to devote himself full time to the Lions. He was a dedicated individual who gave back to his community and worked hard to improve the lives of others. Melvin Jones had a vision for the Lions to expand their focus to help meet the ever-increasing needs of our global community.

Today, Lions International has over 1.4 million members in over 170 countries worldwide. As a proud member of the Oak Cliff Lions Club in Dallas, TX, I am pleased to celebrate their 75th anniversary and salute each member who graciously gives their time, skills and resources for our communities and internationally. As global members, Lions provide immediate and sustained relief in time of disaster and offer long-term assistance to those in need. Lions International has raised millions of dollars for various charitable causes, including sight conservation, diabetes awareness and cancer research. For over 85 years, Lions International has benefited countless persons by fulfilling the mission set out by Melvin Jones in the association's motto: ``We Serve.''

Mr. Speaker, and I am pleased to honor the service and commitment Melvin Jones made to build a brighter future for our country, and I know my colleagues will join me today in recognizing his valuable contributions.