Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I have a great deal of respect for both the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and for the work that they do here, and there is much in this resolution with which I agree. However, there is a lot in here that is misleading. In fact, I think that much of this resolution is an exercise in self-deception as well as an attempt to deceive others.

Let me just give my colleagues an example. We have here on page 4, the House of Representatives offers its continued support to the people and government of Iraq as they deal with the consequences of decades of misrule by the former regime of Saddam Hussein.

Well, that is interesting and right, but it does not say that we supported that regime of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein took office in 1980. It was not more than 3 years later that the government of President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Iraq to begin a relationship with that country, and the relationship resulted in the transfer of billions of dollars of American material and money to the government of Saddam Hussein right on up to the advent of the first Gulf War.

Why are we not talking about that in this resolution, how we supplied the government of Saddam Hussein with money, how we supplied the government of Saddam Hussein with both conventional, biological and chemical weapons from the United States, from France, from Germany and from Chile, all orchestrated by the government under the administration of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush? Why are we not talking about that in this resolution?

We are giving our sympathy and our condolences to the innocent people who were killed in Iraq. What about the innocent people who were killed unnecessarily as a result of this unjust, unnecessary war?

This is a war that will be a rock around the neck of this country for decades. It will be a long time before we get over the results of this. That is particularly true with regard to the treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib and Camp Cropper and others. Why are we not discussing that in this resolution?

There is much to be embarrassed about. This is not something that we should congratulate ourselves about. Try not to deceive ourselves either.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, first I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) for cosponsoring this amendment with me. This is an amendment which will protect the Yellowstone bison. The Yellowstone bison are unique, in that they are the last element that traces its genetic strain back to the American bison that roamed the great plains and prairies of America in the early years of our history and of course much before that.

In the 18th century, it is estimated that there were between 20 and 40 million American bison in the Midwest and the West of the United States between the Appalachians and the Rockies.

By the advent of the 20th century that number had dwindled to 25. The American bison was almost extinct, and it almost followed the path of the passenger pigeon, but due to the intervention of conservationists and the efforts of this House, measures were taken to preserve the American bison. As a result of that, their numbers turned around and they began to prosper once again under that protection.

The American bison has become an American icon. It was on one of our coins. It is seen across the country in a variety of ways. It represents the great freedom that was inherent in the vast plains and prairies of America.

But now the American bison, the last genetic strain that traces its history back to those that roamed this country and earlier centuries, is in great danger. It is in great danger as a result of the activities of the Park Service and the harassment of these animals out of Yellowstone National Park, west and northwest of the park and then the capture and slaughter of those animals.

The amendment that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and I offer today would restrict funding in this appropriations bill so no money could be used to carry out that capture and slaughtering process for 1 year so we will have an opportunity to look into this situation, examine it closely, see what is being done and understand it better.

Now there are some Members who contend that this slaughter is necessary because bison may transmit brucellosis to cattle on the fringes of Yellowstone. First of all, there are hardly any cattle on the fringes of Yellowstone. And what are there, most of those are trucked in in the summertime when the bison are back in the park. Furthermore, according to the National Academy of Sciences, there has never been one single example of the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle. It has never occurred.

Yes, brucellosis can be transmitted from animals in the wild, and it has been shown that brucellosis can be transmitted from elk in Yellowstone and elsewhere to cattle, but there is no program to deal with elk in any way. That causes one to wonder whether brucellosis is really a motivation here at all; I suspect it is not. There is

something else going on here, something that we need to get to the bottom of. We need to understand why these animals are being harassed and slaughtered in the way that they are.

Now, this argument comes not just from me and other people who may not be directly involved in this in a material way, it also comes from people who live out there in Montana, people who live up on Horse Butte Peninsula, for example, who have contacted my office and told us how the Park Service and people working with them harass these animals with helicopters and snowmobiles and drive them across the park and across their property and block roads.

The people who live in those communities are tired of it. We were contacted by the Chamber of Commerce in Gardiner, Montana. They told us people come out there in the wintertime to examine the wildlife of Yellowstone in winter conditions. They do not come out there to see the Yellowstone wildlife, particularly the American bison, captured and slaughtered in the way that the Park Service is doing it.

So what we want to do here is stop this outrageous activity from continuing to occur for the extent of this bill over the next year. I hope that the majority of the Members of this House will see the clear inherent benefits and the sensibilities of this and they will join us in supporting this amendment.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, if I have understood the arguments that have emanated from the other side of the aisle accurately, they seem to suggest that we should not be doing anything; that is, the government of the United States, should not be doing anything to help consumers, taxpayers, at this moment when they are paying record prices for gasoline out in the marketplace.

Well, that does not make any sense. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has offered an opportunity to do something which will hold the price of gasoline and drive it down 10, 15, 20 cents a gallon. That makes a lot of sense. Any time a person can save a dollar or two or three on a tank of gas, that means another quart of milk or another loaf of bread for some people who are having a hard time in this country making things work.

The argument that the government should not do anything to try to regulate the price of oil is absurd. Let me just take my colleagues back in history a little bit, not very far, just about a year or so, 15 months.

When the leadership of this House brought a resolution to the floor here authorizing the President of the United States to go to war in Iraq, many of us said that there would be terrible consequences and that among those consequences would be this, that that war would destabilize the Middle East and the destabilization of the Middle East would drive up the price of oil and that the American taxpayer/consumer would have to pay more for gasoline and more for heating oil as a result of that war resolution. What do my colleagues know? That is exactly what has happened. The destabilization of the Middle East has driven up the price of gasoline and the price of heating oil.

Now we are told we should not do anything about it. What are we doing in Iraq now? This government is asking the American taxpayer to subsidize the price of gasoline in Iraq. Iraqis are paying 5 cents a gallon. We are paying $500 million every quarter to subsidize the price of that gasoline at 5 cents a gallon, $2 billion a year. That comes out of the same pocket, the people who are paying record prices for gasoline today. That is a consequence of the policies of this administration and the majority party in this House.

When Halliburton can buy gasoline for 71 cents a gallon and sell it to the Army Corps of Engineers for more than $2.10 a gallon, three times the price they are paying for it, and the government of the United States, the leadership in the administration and here in the Congress, turns a blind eye to it, that drives up the price of gasoline for every American consumer and taxpayer as well. When the administration engages in economic policies which deflate the value of the dollar by 30 percent, that means that everything we buy with that dollar on the international market costs more.

So, as a result of the economic policies of this administration, which have deflated the dollar by almost one-third, the American taxpayer-consumer is paying more for gasoline and fuel oil.

These are things that this administration, the Bush administration and the leadership here in the Congress, have done to regulate the price of oil. Unfortunately, none of that has been to drive down the price of gasoline or the price of heating oil, but every bit of it has been to drive up the price of gasoline and the price of heating oil.

What the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is trying to do is just reverse that a little bit. Let us support him today.

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that there is a plan that has been agreed upon to do one more amendment this evening. I understand that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has a need and a desire to have his amendment considered before we stop our deliberations here this evening, and that the amendment that I was about to offer will be allowed to be offered first tomorrow morning.

Under those considerations, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment and bring it back tomorrow morning.

Offered By: Mr. Hinchey

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive national energy bill to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil by investing in cleaner, safer ways to power America. The bill attached to this rule absolutely fails to reduce our growing demand for oil and will only increase our vulnerability by making us more dependent on foreign oil in the future.

We need an energy policy that restores electric system reliability; keeps consumers' energy bills affordable; promotes energy conservation; provides more power from clean, renewable sources; and tackles global warming. Again, this bill fails miserably on every count.

This energy bill is the most anti-consumer, anti-environment, pro- polluter, pro-corporate welfare legislation that I have seen in the 12 years that I have served in this House. It could cost consumers as much as $136 billion in subsidies to polluting industries and corporate handouts. The bill rewards energy companies with billions in subsidies while sticking taxpayers with the bill and the pollution and the bill for that pollution, which right now comes to about $167 billion in monetized health care costs cross the country.

It eliminates consumer protections and subsidizes the construction of new nuclear power plants that most people do not want. The bill fails to take any step whatsoever to require that the Nation reduce its dependence on oil or improve the fuel economy of our cars, trucks, and SUVs. The conference even removed the Senate-passed provision to reduce U.S. energy demands by 1 billion barrels a daily.

It nullifies lawsuits by cities, States, and others filed on or after September 5, 2003, seeking compensation for contamination of groundwater by MTBE, which is a very heavily suspected carcinogen. This forces State and local communities to pay the cost that was originated by the polluters. And then the bill provides 2 billion in taxpayer dollars for these MTBE manufacturing companies to transition themselves into a new line of work, more corporate welfare.

It violates the ``polluter pays'' principle by forcing taxpayers, rather than polluters, to pay for the cleanup of contamination from leaking underground storage tanks. Taxpayers, rather than polluters, will pay another $2 billion to compensate the polluters rather than having them to pay the bill. The bill does nothing to address the serious damage caused by global warming. It dramatically increases air pollution and global warming with huge new incentives for burning fossil fuels. It allows more smog pollution for longer than the current Clean Air Act currently authorizes. This means more kids and others breathing dirty air for longer periods of time, more cases of asthma, more public health problems.

It undermines the Clean Water Act. It threatens drinking water supplies, public health, and the environment by exempting hydraulic fracturing, a drilling technique which injects chemicals into the groundwater.

This is an absolutely atrocious presentation. The rule should be defeated, and the bill should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Village of Waverly in Tioga County, New York, which is part of the 22nd Congressional District that I proudly serve. This year marks the 150th anniversary of the founding of Waverly. I am pleased to recognize the Village of Waverly and the important contributions it has made to Tioga County and to the State of New York on its sesquicentennial anniversary.

Located along the majestic Susquehanna and Chemung Rivers, the Village of Waverly is nestled in the Town of Barton and the heart of Tioga County. The Cayuga and Onondaga tribes of the Iroquois Confederacy originally inhabited present day Waverly and its surrounding areas prior to European settlement. Incorporated in 1854, Waverly was named by businessman Joseph Hallet after Sir Walter Scott's famous series of novels. Early inhabitants included settlers from Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New York. The most prominent was John Shephard, who in 1796 purchased a one thousand acre plot upon which the whole of Waverly now stands.

By the nineteenth century, Waverly had attracted a wide array of businesses, most notably the Novelty Furniture Works, the Butter and Oyster Pail Manufactory, and the Sayre Butter Package Company. Waverly was still deeply connected to agrarian life, which flourished in the form of grist and flouring mills, saw mills, creameries, and wagon and blacksmith shops.

The early twentieth century saw the brief but historic appearance of the J.E. Rodeo. In 1938, Colonel Jim Eskew bought the Loomis Farm on Talmadge Hill that would soon be known as the ``Rodeo Capital of the East.'' The opening performance was a sign of the good fortune ahead, as traffic was backed up for a mile and half prior to the show. Over the years, it was not uncommon to see authentic cowboys around the Village of Waverly. Visitors came from hundreds of miles away to see the ``Rodeo Capital of the East.'' The annual Fourth of July celebration was highlighted by a special rodeo performance and was attended by young and old alike. However, with the advent of television and the onset of WWII, the rodeo eventually faded away and now is just a happy memory for the residents of Waverly.

Waverly's vibrant history is evident today. The village boasts many beautifully restored structures, seemingly on every corner of Broad Street and beyond. Waverly continues to offer its visitors breathtaking scenery and views of the Susquehanna and Chemung Rivers. Small villages like Waverly are an essential component of our nation's past, present, and future, and deserve to be honored and recognized for their numerous contributions. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize the Village of Waverly, New York as it celebrates the 150th Anniversary of its founding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for Memorial Day to remember our fallen soldiers. On this day, we remember the outstanding men and women who gave their lives in service to this country, and to them we owe our deepest gratitude and respect. No words can express the immeasurable debt that we owe these brave people; we must never take for granted the freedom that their sacrifices made possible. This freedom manifests itself everyday, all over the world, in countries where democracy has flourished because of the commitment of our service members.

I also commend and thank the World War II veterans living in the 22nd District of New York, which I proudly represent. This spring marks the opening and dedication of the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC as well as the 60th anniversary of the D-Day forces landing on the beaches of Normandy, France. For these two significant events, our entire country takes time to reflect and thank those people involved.

The new memorial is a fitting tribute to the sacrifices that were made by members of our military during World War II, as well as by their families. I only wish that the World War II Memorial had been created sooner, so that more of the people this memorial commemorates could have been on hand to be thanked and honored by it. But we remember these citizens with our thoughts and with the tokens of appreciation placed on the memorial. The hundreds of thousands of people who came to Washington to witness the historic dedication provide evidence of the high esteem in which we hold these ordinary Americans who accomplished extraordinary things.

On this Memorial Day, we remember the fallen soldiers of all wars fought in our country's history, and humbly thank them for making the ultimate sacrifice to ensure our future.

Mr. Speaker, today is the first day that older Americans and the disabled can use their brand new prescription drug discount cards. Medicare beneficiaries, however, should use caution. Like everything else promised by the Bush administration and the Republican majority in this House, the prescription drug benefit is not all it was cracked up to be. Most seniors will find the benefits they already had through a State drug program, a Medigap plan, or coverage from a former employer may save them more money than the Medicare discount card.

Seniors' savings from the Medicare drug card will be negligible. Bush administration officials and Republican leaders have said that the Medicare drug cards would provide recipients with discounts of up to 25 percent on prescription drugs, but their friends in the pharmaceutical industry have corrected that. They say the savings will be no more than 17 percent.

But a more balanced study by the U.S. General Accounting Office pegged the savings even lower. The GAO found that the average savings produced by the Medicare drug cards was about $5 per prescription. GAO's results also reveal that seniors could usually find a better deal by shopping around. Why should seniors be asked to pay a $30 premium for these cards when they can get better deals by comparison shopping?

The meager benefits offered by the Medicare drug card were confirmed by another study, this one conducted by the minority staff of the House Committee on Government Reform, which demonstrated that the drug discount cards provide far less benefits to seniors than three simple alternatives: purchasing drugs in Canada, allowing the government to negotiate bulk purchases for seniors, and ordering through Internet pharmacies. The study found that drugs purchased with the Medicare drug card are an average of 72 percent more expensive than they would be if those same drugs were purchased in Canada. If the Federal Government negotiated the purchase of these drugs in bulk for Medicare beneficiaries, as it does for the Veterans Administration, prices then would be 75 percent less expensive than they would be with this Medicare drug card.

Seniors can get lower prices right now through Internet pharmacies, drugstore.com and costco.com, without signing up for a card and without paying an annual membership fee. Seniors could save 74 to 75 percent more than they will with the drug discount card without Federal Government spending any money at all. We could have legalized the reimportation of drugs from Canada, as a clear majority in this House voted to do. We could have allowed Medicare to negotiate fair prices for its 43 million beneficiaries. But instead, the Republican negotiators specifically put language in the bill that prevented that from happening, making it illegal.

Instead of enacting these fiscally responsible proposals that would be far more effective at reducing seniors' health care costs, the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of this Congress chose instead to protect and grow even larger the already enormous profit margins of the pharmaceutical industry.

While drug companies are required to cover at least one drug to treat most health conditions, they may not cover the drug that a beneficiary's doctor prescribes. It may not be possible to sign up with one plan that offers a discount for all of your prescriptions, but you can only sign up for one Medicare drug card at a time, and that has to last for 12 months. You cannot change for a year. The drug card will only be usable at certain pharmacies so seniors must research whether the card they are considering is accepted at a pharmacy nearby.

Some seniors will not have coverage outside of their home towns. There are a few national drug card plans, but most are regional. For seniors who travel frequently or spend part of the year in a different part of the country, the card they pick may not cover their prescriptions at all. Different drug cards will offer different prices on the same drug. Even with the same drug card plan, prices can vary from one pharmacy to another, and the drug card plans can change the drugs they cover and their prices, and they can do so every 7 days without notifying participants. This makes it nearly impossible for seniors to compare which plan gives them the best deal.

This program is intentionally and unnecessarily complicated in order to confuse seniors and reduce the benefits, even the small benefits that might be entailed in it. So this plan is too complicated, too complex, and far too expensive. There is a much better way of doing it, and we should get at it immediately.

Republicans rigged the system against seniors. The drug card--which should never have been necessary in the first place--leaves seniors with more uncertainty about their ability to afford medications than they have today.

Seniors shouldn't have to suffer through two years of uncertainty and meager benefits, before the real--though still completely inadequate-- Medicare benefit begins.

The only reason that seniors are waiting two years is money: the GOP loaded up the bill with so many hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry that they did not leave enough money to pay for seniors' benefits.

President Bush and Republican leaders said money was the reason that the drug benefit couldn't start sooner, offer more comprehensive benefits and lower out-of-pocket costs for seniors. They said that we simply couldn't afford a more generous prescription drug bill than the $400 billion they had set aside--after the Bush tax cuts and huge increases in defense spending--to pay for Medicare reform.

The truth is that we're not spending $400 billion for drugs for seniors. Republicans gave away 61 percent of that to private corporations.

$339 million of the Medicare reform bill goes to the Administration's friends in the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

$70 billion goes to private corporations for continuing to provide health care coverage to their retirees. These corporations were already providing retiree health coverage without any government subsidy. Now we'll be paying them to do what they were doing before without government support. And, because the subsidy comes with no strings attached, corporations can still drop retiree coverage entirely without warning.

$139 billion in overpayments to the pharmaceutical industry. This legislation will increase the drug industry's sales volume and profits dramatically. Because the bill specifically prohibits Medicare from harnessing the buying power of its 43 million beneficiaries to secure lower prices, Medicare dollars--and seniors' own out-of-pocket expenses--are being used to purchase drugs at inflated prices. Seniors who sign up for the drug benefit will be forced to pay higher prices than the VA or HMOs pay for the same drugs. Drug company profits-- already the highest of any segment of our economy--are expected to increase 37 percent as a result of this bill.

$130 billion in overpayments to HMOs. Managed care options were added to Medicare because they were supposed to cost less per patient than traditional Medicare. Under the new law, we'll be paying HMOs as much as 25 percent more than health care costs under traditional Medicare. Even the GAO has confirmed that HMOs are overpaid, but that didn't stop the Republican leadership from increasing their payments again in the bill. Because HMOs tend to attract the healthiest seniors, they ought to be getting paid less, not more. Like the other corporate subsidies, HMO payments come with no strings attached--HMOs can pull in and out of communities, stranding seniors, whenever they please.

Seniors deserve better than this. They deserve a comprehensive and affordable drug benefit, one that they can count on for the length of their retirement. We could afford to give them one, but the Republican majority would rather subsidize private industry than needy seniors.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I take it we are about to adjourn, and if that is the case, I am wondering if we are adjourning without doing an extension of unemployment insurance?

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

Mr. Speaker, when the national Republican Party took us to war in Iraq, the average price of gasoline across the country was $1.40 cents a gallon, and we were told that the cost of the war in Iraq would be negligible because it would be paid for by the oil in Iraq.

Now, 14 months later, the price of gasoline in America is more than $2 a gallon and the war in Iraq is costing us $200 billion. The Republican energy plan is to increase our dependence on foreign oil. Their plan for Iraq is more of the same.

With, now, almost 800 American servicemen and -women dead, 4,000 injured, it is quite obvious we need a different policy and a different leadership. It is time for a change.

Mr. Speaker, under the Bush administration, 2.6 million jobs have been lost, long term unemployment is at a record high. We have gone from $5.6 trillion surplus in the Federal budget to nearly $3 trillion in deficit; and this year, the huge budget deficit is expected to reach $500 billion primarily due to the economic plans of the President and congressional Republicans. Four million people lost their health insurance; 1.3 million more people have gone into poverty. Median income of middle class families is down $1,400. Thousands of schools are being forced to meet Federal education standards without additional Federal assistance.

Federal transportation and infrastructure programs are on life support while Republicans squabble over the transportation bill. These are serious problems that we will not be addressing today.

Reforming the alternative preliminary tax is another serious matter and it is something that Congress should take seriously. The Republican bill before us today, however, simply pushes the problem down the road. By the end of this decade, 33 million or 75 percent of families making between 75 and $100,000 will be swept up into the AMT. It is obvious that this needs to be fixed.

Republicans are to be blamed for this dilemma. Their irresponsible tax reductions fail to include any form of the AMT despite the fact that they forced, and will continue to force millions of middle income families who live in high tax States to pay the costly alternative minimum tax. What the Republican bill would do today is borrow $20 billion to provide a 1-year extension of the increased exemptions that middle income families currently rely on to avoid paying the AMT. This is not real reform. It is procrastination and it is dangerous. It adds to our deficit and effectively raises the Republican debt tax that has ballooned under President Bush.

The Democratic substitute provides more tax relief to middle income families without adding a penny to our debts. It would eliminate AMT liability for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is less than $250,000; and it would provide the framework for Congress who begin reforming AMT.

We Democrats support tax relief for lower and middle income families. Our bill does that. Democrats also are not afraid to begin addressing the serious problems facing our country. We are willing to take them head on as evidenced by this substitute.

It is time the House got serious about the issues facing our country today. Simply procrastinating, pushing off problems on to the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, that is the Republican plan. It is also unacceptable; it is immoral, and it must stop.

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. watershed protection program is a very significant piece of environmental legislation. It is part of the Federal Clean Water Act, itself being one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation ever addressed by this Congress. The issue here before us is the reauthorization of that New York City watershed protection program, and I urge the Members of this House to support that reauthorization.

The Catskill Mountains provide the protection for the New York City water supply system. That protection is a natural system. The reservoir system itself is a natural system. It is gravity-fed. There are no pumps in it at any point along the way.

The system itself is unfiltered, one of the few major water supply systems anywhere in the country that remains unfiltered. It is important that it remain so. It is important for some of the reasons that have been mentioned, costs certainly; $8 billion is an extraordinary amount of money. In addition to that, it would require another half a billion dollars a year just to operate the filtration system; but if the filtration system were to be built, that would undermine all of the protections that are inherent in this legislation that provide for natural, safe, pure protection of this water supply system.

So I want to express my appreciation to everyone who has been involved with the creation of this bill and bringing it to the floor today and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella) particularly and others on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

I would also, along with my other colleagues, urge that the other portions of the Federal Clean Water Act be addressed as well and they be addressed expeditiously. The water supplies of this country are incredibly important to the health and safety of all Americans. We value our water supply system in New York. Other communities value theirs as well.

I would urge that the remaining 13 provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act be addressed and be addressed as quickly as possible and be brought to the floor so we can deal with them in the proper fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to look at the record. Under this monolithic Republican government that we have here in Washington, 2.6 million jobs have been lost, long-term unemployment is at a record high, we have gone from a $5.6 trillion surplus in the Federal budget to a nearly $3 trillion deficit. This year alone the budget deficit is expected to reach $500 billion, primarily due to the President's and the congressional Republicans' economic program.

Mr. Speaker, 4 million people lost their health insurance, and 1.3 million people have gone into poverty. Median annual income for middle class families is down by $1,400.

Yet, instead of extending the temporary unemployment benefit program that expired in December and addressing the litany of problems that I have mentioned, the Republican bill before us today continues the kind of reckless policy that has been pursued by the Bush administration and by the leaders in this House.

The bill will cost approximately $100 billion over the next 10 years, all of which will need to be borrowed because Republicans provide no offset to pay for these tax cuts. This will further increase the debt tax that Americans must pay to ensure that our country does not go into bankruptcy. And, as is the case with most Republican tax bills, when you look at the fine print, you find even more reasons to worry.

Thirteen million middle income families, 26 percent of married couples earning between $75,000 and $100,000, and 60 percent of married couples earning between $100,000 and $200,000, receive no benefit or scanty benefits from this bill. Additionally, the Republican tax bill is shortchanging our most needy families.

While this bill makes the new $3,000 earned income tax credit permanent, it forces low-income families to wait 4 years before receiving the full benefits of the bill. All other marriage penalty relief provisions are accelerated under this bill, except the one benefit that is aimed at those people who need it the most.

When it comes to the wealthiest Americans, the Republican bill makes sure that no multimillionaire is left behind. Families with incomes over $1 million will be twice as likely as other families to collect the bill's full benefits.

The Democratic substitute, on the other hand, would make the marriage penalty relief permanent without borrowing a single dollar. The Democratic bill pays for its tax relief through a rate adjustment for married couples earning over $1 million a year. The Democratic substitute adjusts the alternative minimum tax to ensure that middle class families see all of the benefits we are promising them today. It also accelerates the phase-in of the highest earned income tax credit that is used by lower income families.

The Democrats' bill provides 13 million families with twice as much tax relief, and all married couples earning less than $1 million each year will receive more benefits under the Democratic proposal.

So the Democratic bill deals in a much fairer way, a much more equitable way, and in a way that is going to provide benefits which will be beneficial to the families who will receive them, because they will receive them now, and beneficial to our economy because we will not have to borrow the money in order to pay for it.

So if you are a multimillionaire, you are probably going to like the bill that has been presented to us by the Republican Party and the White House. If you are a middle class American, you are not going to like it, because whatever scanty benefits you do get under their bill we are going to have to borrow the money to provide those benefits, and you will have to pay back that money with interest in the near future. And to the extent that you are not paying it back, middle class families, your children will have to pay it back. That is the enormous problem with this piece of tax legislation.

We need to return to the sound fiscal policies that we had during the decade of the 1990s when people were working and we had fairness and justice in our tax policies as well.

Mr. Speaker, our great country has sustained itself for more than 2\1/4\ centuries because of the brilliant construct of our government, and the essential ingredient in that construct is the separation of powers.

Ultimate power does not reside in any one place. You have the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch, each with equal powers. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch to make the laws and then to oversee execution of those laws by the executive branch. The question that ought to be on the mind of every American today is to what extent is the legislative branch of this government, the Senate and the House of Representatives, carrying out its responsibilities under those separation of powers. I think when you begin to look at that question, you find that we are not doing a very good job at all.

The most recent example of that, of course, is the revelation that we have had in a recent book that the administration spent $700 million, apparently illegally, that was allocated for Afghanistan, took that money and spent it in preparation for the war in Iraq, when they said they were not engaging in any such preparation. That is a grave deceit. It ought to be investigated by this Congress thoroughly and completely. But it is not the only deceit with regard to the war in Iraq.

We were told when the administration sent their resolution here to the Congress that we had to go to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. We have found no weapons of mass destruction more than a year later; no stockpile of chemical weapons have been found more than a year later; no mobile weapons laboratories have been found more than a year later. There is no uranium from Niger in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein was not an imminent threat, nor was he a grave and gathering threat. He was not in league with Osama bin Laden. The two were hostile to each other and antagonistic to each other.

What we have here is a gross example of state-sponsored deception. The Founding Fathers realized that this kind of condition could express itself at one time or another during the history of our administration; and, in fact, there have been times when it has, perhaps never as gravely as it has under the present set of circumstances. But they set up a procedure to deal with it, and that procedure is in the hands of the leadership of this House of Representatives.

But, unfortunately, the separation of powers that has served this country so well for more than 2\1/4\ centuries has now morphed itself into a monolithic government, where the leadership of this House takes its orders almost on a daily basis from the White House and there is no oversight of executive actions. There apparently is little or no oversight of executive spending.

So we go on, stumbling forward, blindly. Now more than 700 American servicemen and -women killed in Iraq in this illegal, unjust and unnecessary war; thousands of Americans maimed, injuries they will carry for the rest of their lives, if indeed their lives are not shortened thereby; tens of thousands of Iraqis, perhaps hundreds of thousands, including innocent women and children, killed.

Where is the oversight? Where is the action that is supposed to come from this House of Representatives in examining these illegal, unnecessary actions on the part of the executive branch? Have we not seen enough? When are we going to go into action? When are we going to live up to our obligations under the Constitution? When are we going to do what is necessary to sustain this great democratic Republic?

We need action now. We need an end to the monolithic government and a return to the historic separation of powers which has served this country so well.