Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this Memorial Day we honored the sacrifices that every generation of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines has made to protect our country and ensure that the hope and light of liberty never dies. This includes the current generation of America's military men and women who are defending us right now, as we gather in peace and freedom.

Our troops today are following in the proud tradition of those who have gone before them to defeat tyrants and oppressors and keep America secure and free. In doing so, they have taken on great risk, putting their lives on the line to accomplish their mission. In Wisconsin and throughout our nation we have lost some of our bravest young men and women in the ongoing operations to combat terrorism and help freedom take root in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Among them, a soldier from the district I represent, Private First Class Sean Schneider, was killed in Iraq in March when a bomb hit his convoy.

Sean grew up in Janesville, Wisconsin, and graduated from Craig High School--the same school I graduated from. Sean liked to hunt, canoe, and tinker with cars and motorcycles. His high school teachers talk about what a caring individual he was and how he was the kind of student you respected. At the same time, he was an independent young man who knew what he wanted to do with his life.

Sean joined the Army in 2002 with a strong desire to serve and protect his country. In doing so, he made that incredible commitment that our military men and women and our veterans throughout history have made: he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put his life in danger to preserve our rights and freedoms.

It is because of Sean and people like him that our country remains free today. America owes Sean and all who have given their lives serving in our Armed Forces a tremendous debt that can never be repaid. We must commit to remembering forever their lives and valiant sacrifices. And we must be grateful for our veterans who have stood up, like Sean did, for our country and the cause of freedom.

Our thoughts and prayers are with our fallen servicemen and women and their families. May God bless them and all Americans serving with honor today.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) for his leadership on this issue. It is really a great tribute to all the work that he has done.

Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we are talking about these days is, how do we stop pushing jobs overseas? One of the problems we have is, we are in the time of global competition, and our manufacturers and our small businesses are really struggling to compete in the global marketplace.

One of the ways in which we push jobs overseas is by making it more expensive to do business in America and to hire people to build things in America is the cost of regulations.

This bill, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, helps make good on the promise that Congress is giving to the American people that we are going to reduce the cost of regulations. Getting the essential information on how the costs and benefits accumulate on our regulations is a critical component to our agenda to reduce the cost that our government imposes on businesses so they can be more competitive in the global marketplace so that we can keep jobs in America.

This is about jobs. It is about common sense. I urge adoption of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 637, I call up the bill (H.R. 4275) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the 10-percent individual income tax rate bracket, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the House can make the 10-percent bracket permanent for working Americans by passing this legislation, H.R. 4275. The 10-percent bracket was created in the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It has provided substantial tax relief for low-income workers by taxing the first $14,000 of married couples and $7,000 for singles at a 10-percent rate instead of a 15- percent rate. This tax relief was accelerated last year in last year's Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act. H.R. 4275 would make this tax relief permanent.

If Congress fails to act to pass this legislation, Americans will see their taxes increase starting next year. Without action, the size of the 10-percent bracket will automatically shrink next year, so that more income will be taxed at a higher rate. In fact, the 10-percent bracket will vanish altogether after the year 2010 unless we act today to make it permanent.

If H.R. 4275 is not enacted, 73 million tax filers will see a tax increase starting next year. The effect will be particularly acute after 2010 when 123 million tax filers will see an average annual tax increase of $500.

It is worth noting that more than 20 million of these returns are low-income taxpayers and families who have all of their income taxed at this lower 10 percent rate. The public deserves a solid, dependable Tax Code that provides incentives and lets working people keep their money for their own needs. The 10 percent bracket provides such an incentive, one we can and should make permanent by passing this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that people know what taxes they are going to face in the future. By having all of these uncertainties in the Tax Code, not knowing whether you are going to be in the 10 percent bracket next year, the 15 tax percent bracket next year, it makes it difficult to budget for the future.

We are talking about the taxpayers who can least afford to have a big tax increase going from 10 percent to 15 percent on their incomes next year, let alone not having the knowledge of knowing whether or not this is going to happen. It is very important, Mr. Speaker, that families know what lies ahead, that businesses know what lies ahead, and let us all remember that two-thirds of businesses in America file their taxes as if they were individuals, not as corporations, but as pass-through entities where they file on the individual rate. Making sure that small businesses, which produce 70 percent of the jobs we have in this country and low-income taxpayers know what lies ahead in the Tax Code is very important to make sure that we sustain the economic recovery we are now engaged in.

Mr. Speaker, largely because of the tax cuts that this bill enacted, largely

because of the full implementation of the tax rate reductions that occurred just this last July, our economy has taken off. Just since last August, this economy, by the most conservative estimate, has produced 1.1 million jobs. In fact, since January 1 of this year, this economy, by this most conservative payroll estimate, has produced 881,000 jobs. This is no longer a jobless recovery; this is a recovery that is producing good jobs.

Even the manufacturing sector, which is so near and dear to my heart because it is such a big issue in Wisconsin, is producing jobs. The reason we are producing jobs in this economy is because people get to keep more of their own money to spend as they see fit. Businesses are reinvesting, rehiring people. The economy is working, and we cannot snuff out this economic recovery by yanking out the tax relief that was so instrumental in getting us onto the path of growth that we are on today. That is why I urge passage of this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just mention very briefly, the gentleman who just spoke is from California, and the taxpayers just in the State of California who are now only paying that 10 percent bracket, there are 2,605,960 taxpayers in the State of California alone who would experience a huge tax increase relative to their tax burden next year if this legislation is not passed. In fact, there are over 12 million taxpayers in California alone that would experience higher taxes next year if this does not pass.

So each of us represents people who are struggling to make ends meet who are at the bottom rung of the economic ladder who are staying just afloat and paying taxes at that 10 percent bracket who are making $16,000 or less as a couple. Those are the people that we want to help, and we want them to get on the upper trajectory of prosperity. The last thing we want to do is hit them with a big tax increase. If we fail to pass this bill, that is exactly what will happen.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 2004, the House voted 333-89 to extend the exemption amounts for the AMT, to index them for inflation; and I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) voted for the AMT relief bill. We passed the bill, making sure that we can go study the problem and figure out how to comprehensively fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond. There is a lot to respond to there, though. I do not know if I have enough time to respond to all of what my friend from Washington just said. I think that it would be good to have a little economic refresher course here for some of the Members of Congress.

I just want to point out a couple of things. Number one, the soapbox derby resolution was brought by the minority whip from the other side. But, number two, I think the Member from Washington ignored a lot of good things we just did in the last week here in Congress. Today we have the association health plans bill on the floor, helping small businesses, individuals, pool together to buy their health insurance in collective nationwide buying pools to get down the cost of health insurance. Yesterday we passed the FSA rollover to help bring down the cost of health insurance and we passed medical liability reform to help bring down the cost of health insurance.

So this Congress is obviously performing. I think he may have glossed over a lot of the accomplishments. In fact, we have 87 very important, substantive bills sitting over on the doorstep of the other body waiting for action because we have outproduced and outperformed the other body on legislation.

One final point is the unemployment rate that we are experiencing in America today is lower than the average unemployment rate of the nineties, the eighties, and the seventies; 1.1 million jobs have been created, good jobs, not all good jobs but many good jobs since August. This economy is pulling out of the recession it had experienced a year ago. This economy is producing jobs. We still, yes, have a way to go; but the point of the story is when you take a look at the fact that just this year, in the last 10 months since last July, we have had lower tax rates in America. Because of that, we actually have more revenues coming into the Federal Government.

But to make the point clear, last year where we had higher tax rates on the American taxpayer, we brought in less money to the Federal Government. This year with lower tax rates, where we have more economic activity, more people keeping what they earn and a lower tax rate, we are actually bringing in more revenue to the Federal Government. We believe the way to fixing our problems is jobs and by giving people a chance to upgrade their life-styles and get jobs in the economy, we will have more tax revenue, rather than increasing taxes and increasing spending. That is not our philosophy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the esteemed gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), a high-ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown).

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

Mr. Speaker, since we are going into the debate on the substitute, I will not take too long to close, although I think some of what the gentleman from California just said bears some responding to.

I think this debate has done a pretty good job of showing those who are viewing it the differences, the differences between the two parties here

on the floor, the differences between the two approaches to fiscal responsibility, between two philosophies.

What you just heard the gentleman from California say is we have recklessly cut taxes by $500 billion over the next decade. It is important to put that in context.

Mr. Speaker, this Federal Government will spend about $2.7 trillion this year. Off the top of my head, we will be spending, with taxes coming in, about $29 trillion over that 10-year period. So we are proposing to allow the American taxpayer to keep about $500 billion out of that $29 trillion of their money we are about to spend.

It kind of comes down to this, Mr. Speaker, two points. Number one, we believe the best way to get ahold of our fiscal problems, to reduce our deficit, is to hold the line on spending and cut spending and grow the economy. The budget resolution we brought to the floor just a month or so ago was a resolution that froze spending and actually reduced spending in critical areas so we can get a handle on our Nation's finances. The other side did not vote for that budget agreement.

We also need to recognize the fact that when you cut taxes, economic growth occurs from that. One of the great stories being told right now, the success that we see in the data from this new economic recovery that is producing all these jobs, is the fact that this year, with the lower tax rates we are paying, we are getting more revenues coming in to the Federal Government.

What we see is that when you cut taxes on entrepreneurs, when you cut taxes on families, when you cut taxes on investors, they engage in more economic activity, they create jobs, and people go from being unemployed and collecting unemployment to going and working and paying taxes. That is what is happening today. That is a recipe for success.

We do not want to squelch this economic recovery. We do not want to raise taxes on people. We want to keep taxes low, watch our spending and reduce spending, and help people get work, so when they go to work they can provide for their families, and, yes, pay taxes, so that we can get the revenues we need to reduce and eliminate our deficit. That is the approach we are advocating.

What is the other side's approach? What is the substitute they are about to bring to the table? More tax increases. Okay, you can cut taxes to these people over here on the right hand, but we have to raise taxes to these people on the left. Net tax increases.

It is a fundamental difference in philosophy. Whereas they believe we have to keep taxes high and higher, that the emphasis should not be on spending, but we should raise more taxes, we believe the emphasis should always be on recognizing the fact that the taxes that this country collects is not our money, but the money of the American person, the man and woman in the marketplace, who is working hard to provide for their family, who is creating jobs, who is sweating and working every single day. It is their money, not ours.

So we do not believe philosophically, that is the root of what we believe in, that we should just cavalierly take more and more and more money out of a person's paycheck, out of their wallet. We believe they should keep more of what they earn.

What is so great about that philosophy is it is also good economic policy, and we are seeing that. We are actually getting more revenues because of lower taxes. How about that? And the good news is, this can be bipartisan. When John Kennedy did this, it worked. When Ronald Reagan did this, it worked. This has been done by Republicans and Democrats coming together in the past. When Reagan did it, it was because of good Democrats working with Jack Kemp and Bill Roth in the Congress to reduce tax rates on the American families. What happened? Economic growth was encouraged, tax rates went down and revenues went up.

This does work. It is working right now. What we are seeing in this debate is a difference in philosophies.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying one thing. If a Member of Congress comes to the floor today and votes against this bill, they are voting to increase taxes on 23 million low-income workers. They are voting to increase taxes on 23 million low-income workers by one-third, to raise their taxes by one-third. They are also voting to increase taxes on 80 million taxpayers across the country.

It is a very clear vote. If you vote for this bill, you preserve these tax cuts. If you vote against this bill, you are going to raise taxes on 23 million low-income earners, the least of whom among us should be facing this kind of a tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the substitute

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just bring three points up in respect to this substitute. Number one, my colleague from Florida sort of outlined the convoluted pay-for in this bill which will render this tax cut temporary, not permanent, by giving the decision whether or not to keep this tax cut permanent to some accountants at the Office of Management and Budget, to in 2010 speculate what is going to happen in 2014 to make sure that the tax cut becomes permanent. This is another way of saying this is a temporary tax cut, meaning they are going to increase this 10 percent bracket again.

The second point I think is important to make, they try to pay for their substitute with a tax increase. Now, what they will tell us is it is a tax increase on rich people, individuals making over 500 grand, couples making over $1 million. What they will not tell us, Mr. Speaker, is that half of those filers are small businesses. Half of those people are subchapter S corporations, partnerships, small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, small businesses create 70 percent of our jobs. Before the tax cuts that just passed last July, in this country we were taxing small businesses at a higher tax rate than we taxed the largest corporations of America. We finally now are in a fair, level playing field where we tax small businesses at the same tax rate that we tax large corporations. But they want to undo that.

They want small businesses, small mom-and-pop businesses who bring in revenues of $1 million or more, who maybe have 2 employees, 10 employees, 50 employees, to pay a higher tax rate than IBM, than Exxon, than Global Crossing, or WorldCom. That is wrong. I think that is unjust and unfair, yet they want to return to the days of taxing small businesses at higher tax rates than large corporations.

The third point is the way that they structure their Alternative Minimum Tax relief. Now, this is an issue where I think and hope we can get good bipartisanship support to fix this problem. We hear from both sides of the aisle that AMT is a problem and we have to fix it. Just last week we passed a bill to make sure that no new people fell into the trap of the AMT while we figure out at the Treasury Department and here in Congress how to really fix this mess, and I hope that we really do have bipartisan support to fix this mess.

But the way they structure it in this bill means that taxpayers are going to have to calculate their taxes three times in order to navigate their way out of the Alternative Minimum Tax. The Alternative Minimum Tax brings a lot of complexity to the Tax Code for taxpayers. This substitute makes it

more complex, more difficult to comply with. That is not the right direction, so I urge a no vote on this substitute.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I will not go through tit for tat on all of that. Only to say that now that our Chairman Greenspan was invoked, he also said in that same speech that the first thing we should do is make these tax cuts permanent because they really help achieve the economic recovery we have underway right now.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip.

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

Well, where to begin? Well, we have seen a lot of revisionist history practiced on the floor today during this debate. I think it is important to look at what this country has faced in the last few years.

What happened to this country? Well, in 2001 the President was sworn into office and we were going into a recession. What we found on September 11 of 2001 was that we were on the precipice of going into a recession. It looked inevitable that we were going to have a recession, but maybe we were going to pull out of it. But 9/11 put us into that recession.

We went into a recession where our revenues to this country dive- bombed. But what happened after that? Then we

found some people were crooked in the boardrooms of America, and we had corporate scandal after corporate scandal after corporate scandal. And what happened? We went deeper into recession and our revenues plummeted. Because we saw that Americans' faith in the corporations of America, because of the Enron scandal, the Global Crossing scandal, and the WorldCom scandal, shook the foundation of our enterprise system.

What happened also at that time? Well, Mr. Speaker, we were engaged in war in response to 9/11. We had to spend more money because we had a war in Afghanistan, we had a Department of Homeland Security to try to make ourselves harder targets to hit, to play better defense in the war on terrorism. That costs money. The fundamental and first responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the safety and security of the American people. In post 9/11 government, that means we had to spend more money on security.

So, yes, spending went up. Spending went up, I would argue, for a very important reason. And, you know what? Revenues went down. They went down because we went into a recession, we got deeper into a recession with 9/11, and we got still lower revenues and a worse recession because of these corporate scandals.

But the great story in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is the incredible resiliency of the American worker, of the American citizen, of the American economy. The American economy is rebounding from all of that. Most times in America you get hit with one of these calamities, a war, an act of terrorism, or a recession, but they happened all at the same time in this country. And what is so wonderful about this is how well we have responded to it.

Now, yes, spending went up, the debt obviously went up, and revenues went down. But the good story in all of this, Mr. Speaker, is that in large part because of the tax cuts that passed, that helped ignite this economic recovery, and we are working and growing ourselves out of this. Now, we have many problems that clearly need solving. We are still involved in a war and we see that on other TV sets every day. We still have a lot of people who need work. But it is a wonderful thing that more than a million people found work since last August. It is even better that about 300,000 people found work last month.

Mr. Speaker, we still have challenges, and that is why we are seeing what is coming to the floor this week, all of these pieces of legislation to try and get this economy back on its feet, to get people their jobs back.

One of the things we are focusing on just this week and the next 7 weeks in the House of Representatives is to do things to make it so we are more competitive in the global economy. We look at what it takes to get jobs in this economy. How do we bring the lagging manufacturing sector back on its feet? When we look at the problems facing the competitiveness of the American company, we look at the problems facing the competitiveness of the American worker, taxes, number one; health care costs, number two; regulatory costs; litigation costs with lawsuits; and energy costs.

What is this Congress doing? Well, we had a comprehensive energy policy brought through the House of Representatives to bring down the cost of energy and make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy; filibustered in the other body. Regulatory reform, we are bringing a whole week's worth of legislation down to the floor in a matter of days to work on reducing the cost of regulations. Tort reform, we have passed tort reform bill after tort reform bill after tort reform bill. Class action reform, medical liability reform, all being filibustered in the other body.

What are we doing about taxes? This is an area where this Congress has produced because we have been able to get these bills passed through the other body and signed into law by the President. So we see this recovery under way.

One of the areas where this recovery has really rebound is in small businesses. As I mentioned earlier, small businesses create 70 percent of the jobs we have in America. Small manufacturers in America today pay higher taxes than our competitors overseas, especially China and India. We have to make our small manufacturers more competitive.

What this substitute does is it takes away the very policy that is igniting this economic recovery. It puts taxes on small businesses. More importantly, if we fail to pass this underlying legislation, it will put higher taxes on low-income workers. I mentioned earlier that over half of all taxpayers hit by the surtax in the Tanner substitute are small businesses. I misspoke. Seventy-five percent of all taxpayers hit by this surtax report small business income, sole proprietorships, partnerships, men and women in America who are putting their own capital at risk to start a small business, to hire people and bring them back to work. That is the engine of economic growth that is fueling this recovery.

Why on Earth we want to hit these people, the creators of jobs in America, with a new high tax to try to pay for a temporary tax cut which we are making permanent in the base bill is beyond me.

Now, it is important that Members note the differences in philosophy here. By raising taxes, as a vote against this bill will do, takes the pressure off the need to reduce spending. If we always go for the old answer of let us just raise taxes, let us allow taxes to go back up, raise taxes on small businesses, that will bring in more revenue to the government, possibly. Possibly.

But what it for sure will do is take pressure off the Congress and our Federal Government to cut spending. We want to cut spending. I think the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) was right when he said we could have done a better job over the last 8 to 9 years in cutting spending. I very much agree with that. I think we can do a better job; but what is also important to say, which was left out, over these 8 or 9 years, in passing the spending bills we have passed in this Congress, they have always done so by defeating higher spending increases that have been proposed time after time from the other side of the aisle.

So, Mr. Speaker, what this is about is ensuring the recovery continues, making sure that 23 million low-income Americans and 73 million taxpayers do not see a big tax increase next year. What this is about is making sure that the pressure is put on Congress in the right way, not raising taxes, but keeping taxes low and cutting spending. That is the emphasis that is placed in this bill. That is what we are voting for here.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' against the Tanner tax increase substitute and vote ``yes'' for the base bill so that 23 million low- income Americans can see this tax relief in reality for the rest of their lives and so that the rest can make sure they are not going to wake up next year with a big tax increase.

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4275.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing attention to this issue.

I want to make three points. Number one, we are hearing all of this hue and cry against allowing people to roll their flexible spending accounts $500 a year over into the next year. There is a reason why it is important to allow a person to roll their money over from one year to the next: We are not getting the kind of consumer activity and consumer reforms we want in health care when we deny an employee the ability to keep the money in their account from one year to the next. What ends up happening with the flexible spending account is when there is a balance at the end of the year, the employee goes and buys a couple pairs of eyeglasses, gets their teeth cleaned a couple of times, more money is spent and it props up health care inflation.

What this reform does, it lets the employee know this is their money. More importantly, what this bill does and what the Rangel substitute denies is the ability to roll over $500 from their flexible spending account into a health savings account. They say this health savings account is a new tax shelter.

Mr. Speaker, what a health savings account does is it lets people spend money on health care tax free. We can deduct the cost of health insurance on corporate tax rates when corporations pay for health care for their employees; why cannot employees and individuals deduct the cost of their health care expenditures on their income taxes? That is what HSAs do.

Take a look at what health savings accounts have already produced, only having been in law since January 1; 37 percent of all health savings accounts sold went to people who previously were uninsured; 18 percent of those people had preexisting conditions, people who had sicker risk profiles. And 47 years old was the median age of a person who bought health savings accounts.

So to the critics that said only wealthy, only young, only insured people would be buying HSAs, all of that is being proven untrue with the results that are taking place today in the marketplace. But more importantly is the fact that the Mercer Study just did a survey and they noted that 73 percent of all firms in America who offer their employees health insurance are considering giving an additional option of health insurance through a health savings account by 2006. By denying your employees the ability to take the money that is in their flexible spending account, which is controlled by the employer, and put it in their own account, which goes to the employee, is simply saying you are not going to let the employers give this money to the employee and be part of the employee's property.

It is very important that we allow the employees to keep this money and use this money for their own health insurance and to do so tax free so we end the bias in the Tax Code right now that is against giving people the ability to spend money on health care on a tax-free basis. This is how we get the employee and the consumer back into the business of buying health care.

I urge rejection of the Rangel substitute and adoption of the base bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Is the gentleman opposed to rolling over the FSA money into an HSA?

The vote we are faced with, the Rangel substitute, is denying people the ability to keep this money. It denies people the ability to put their FSA money into an HSA.

Mr. Speaker, this week our nation lost a man of honor, courage and kindness. Private First Class Sean Schneider was killed in Iraq on Monday when a bomb hit his convoy.

Sean grew up in Janesville, Wisconsin, and graduated from Craig High School--the same school I graduated from. Sean liked to hunt, canoe, and tinker with cars and motorcycles. His high school teachers talk about what a caring individual he was and how he was the kind of student you respected. At the same time, he was an independent young man who knew what he wanted to do with his life.

Sean joined the Army in 2002 with a strong desire to serve and protect his country. In doing so, he made that incredible commitment that our military men and women and our veterans throughout history have made: he was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and put his life on the line to preserve our rights and freedoms.

It is because of Sean and people like him that our country remains free today. America owes him and his family a tremendous debt that can never be repaid. What we must do is commit to always remembering his life and the sacrifice he made on our behalf. And we must be grateful for every one of our veterans who has stood up, like Sean did, for our country and the cause of freedom.

Sean Schneider led an inspiring life and touched so many people's lives along the way. Our thoughts and prayers are with his many loved ones--especially his wife, his parents and his siblings--during this most difficult of times.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak today and rise in support of the Republican Study Committee budget because it is a wonderful budget. I also commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for doing an excellent job.

There are two things that these budgets have in common that the other budgets that came to the floor do not have in common: Number one, these budgets get us to a balance quickly, and they do so without raising taxes by holding the line on spending.

Specifically, the Study Committee budget cuts the budget in half in 3 years, and it does so by making sure that not only do we never let tax increases occur over the next decade, but also by reducing spending. This is where our priorities need to lie.

The other budgets which have been brought to the floor say they are going to balance the budget in a fairly quick time. How do they do it? They raise taxes. They are trying to make sure that the tax relief that was put out to the American people this year, that is helping encourage this economic recovery that is well under way, goes away.

We cannot afford to pull the rug out from under this economic recovery. These tax relief measures that passed, that help get recovery under way, need to stay in law. The Study Committee budget cuts spending, gets the deficit cut in half in 3 years, and makes sure that every tax cut that the American worker, the American economy, receives stays in place.

I encourage Members to vote for the Study Committee budget, and I thank the Committee on the Budget itself for doing an excellent job of producing a good, lean budget, both of which are leaner than the budget the President brought to Congress.

This is a good day for us because finally we are getting a handle on the spending in Washington. Let us pass these budgets and move on to getting this job done.

Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to recognize the life of Samuel Amasa Peer of Beloit, Wisconsin, who passed away on March 7, 2004, at 79 years of age. Sam was a courageous veteran of the Second World War, and his hard work, diligence and willingness to face the most difficult of problems have inspired those who knew him. He will be greatly missed by his family and loved ones, and I ask my colleagues to join me in sharing my thoughts and prayers with them during this difficult time.

I am honored to pay tribute to this outstanding individual and would like to read before the Congress the eloquent eulogy given by his grandson, Adam Peer.

Eulogy of Samuel Amasa Peer, March 13, 2004

My grandfather like all of us was complex, understood only

by his Creator. Early on he learned that there was little he

could expect from his own parents. Born during the midst of

the Great Depression, he was thrust into manhood when duty

called him to care for and protect his younger siblings.

It is hard for me to imagine the world he came into. When

he answered his second call to duty aboard the USS West

Virginia, a question of whether a free world would survive

was very real and very unknown. The hardship that was born

into and the war that tempered him during his youth is what

exemplified him as a self-made American in the very truest

sense of the term. And he took great pride in that.

Much of what he did to do his part in making the world safe

for democracy will be lost to antiquity. He always kept the

most essential parts of himself so private and well-guarded

that it put limits on the things he could talk about, even to

those that most desperately needing his acknowledgment and

love.

But, the unspoken gifts he leaves all of us are very real.

I have never met someone more diligent and hard-working

than my grandfather, and that lives on in my father. My

grandfather was so proud of the man you became.

I have never met someone who expresses what they feel so

passionately and with greater conviction, and that lives on

in my sister. The same passion for right over wrong and

freedom over oppression burns in her heart.

And I hope I never lose his optimism for the future; he

never met a problem that couldn't be solved.

Today, as another member of the ``greatest generation''

passes from this life to the next, we inherit what they have

instilled in us and the unfinished tasks now left to younger

hands.

It is now our charge to leave this world a better place

than we found it, and like my grandfather and his generation,

inspire another generation to great things.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his work on this budget issue as well. Only if all of us work together to bring real reform to the budget process can we actually achieve that. The prior speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), is a person who also deserves a tremendous amount of credit for his work on the budget issue. He is a person who has been around and has witnessed this budget process work and not work, and we really do look forward to working with him on this issue as well.

Madam Speaker, I want to briefly describe what the problem we have here is. Every time we bring a budget to the floor of the House of Representatives and the Senate and pass something, and we pass a budget every year, we debate about the numbers, we debate about the glidepath, the dates, all of those things. We just saw the charts of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

This week the House Committee on the Budget will be bringing a budget resolution to the floor. The problem with this entire process is, once Congress sets a budget, Congress does not have to stick to that budget. That is a big problem. Look at how we do it with our family budgets. We do not have the ability to just assume more income into our families when we set a budget for our family budget for the year. However, Congress does that. So what we have here in this current system, it marks the 30th year where we have operated under these current rules, since the 1974 Budget Act was passed, where we will pass a budget resolution, not into law, but as a resolution, binding Congress for the year to those numbers. The problem is, Congress does not have to follow those resolutions, and there are a thousand tricks out of those budget caps.

What we have proposed together, many of us, a large group of us on the Republican side of the aisle, and now we have some Democratic cosponsors on some of our bills, so that we are making this a bipartisan effort is, number one, let us make our budget binding. Let us actually pass a budget at the beginning of the session and get its top numbers signed into law by the President so that we have a budget that is legally binding on Congress. Once that is established, that can, therefore, give us the rules to enforce that budget. If we pass a budget that is not legally binding that we do not have to adhere to, it is difficult to enforce it.

So what we are proposing is, and this is something our coalition has come up with, I have introduced legislation along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) to do this as well; and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has also introduced legislation. What we are proposing is, number one, a budget that gets signed into law in its numbers by the President; and, number two, because it is a legally binding budget and a legally binding document, we can, therefore, enforce it. If Congress, if spending exceeds the budget in any given year, automatically, an across-the-board spending cut, a sequester, kicks in to bring us back into conformity with the budget if Congress does not pass a bill to bring us into conformity with the budget. If we want to break that spending, it is no longer a majority vote, which is the case today; it is a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate to actually break this legally-binding budget.

There are many other things we do in this bill, but I think it is very important that as Congress sets its track for spending, as we decide our priorities, as we determine when we hope to balance the budget, what level of spending for this, what level of taxing for that, we ought to be able to enforce that budget so we have the discipline needed to adhere to those goals and those challenges and those numbers.

Now, there are some other things that we think we need to do to address this issue, and that is there are a thousand little tricks that are employed here in Congress to get around what little spending discipline we have. For instance, we can pass an emergency spending bill, although emergencies do not have to be paid for in the current budget rules. Emergencies are things like a natural disaster like a tornado or a hurricane or a flood or, God forbid, another act of terrorism. Those things

do not have to be paid for under our current budget rules.

The problem is, Congress can declare anything an emergency. A couple of years ago in this House, we passed an emergency will that put a $2 million summit house on top of Pike's Peak during, I think, it was a flood disaster emergency bill at that time. We can declare anything an emergency today, and that is one of the often-used tricks to get around the budget rules. We need to stop that, and one of the things we have proposed in our coalition that the gentleman from Illinois (Congressman Kirk) and I are members of and the legislation we are proposing is to tightly define what an emergency is, really what an emergency is.

Madam Speaker, that is exactly right. We have a tight majority, and it is very easy for the leadership to come up with a good budget and good enforcement around that budget; but all it takes is a majority vote on the floor of the House to defeat that, and that often happens, that is often the case. Having that higher vote threshold makes it much more difficult for Congress to defeat its own budgets. Having a legally-binding budget, which automatically kicks in spending cuts across the board, forces Congress to act. And if Congress chooses not to act, then the across-the-board spending cut comes in. If two-thirds of the Members of Congress do not want that to happen, then they can make sure that that does not happen. But that is a much higher threshold.

Among the other tricks that we seek to limit here is not only do we want to tightly define what an emergency is, but we want to raise the vote threshold on emergencies to a two-thirds vote, so that that too is a protected procedure, not another game that can be used to get around the budget spending caps that we have. But also, we want to set aside money for emergencies. We often have emergencies in this country that need quick attention by Congress. That is why we are proposing to set up a rainy day fund. Several State legislatures and State governments do the same thing. Congress also should set money aside to budget for the inevitable emergencies that occur every single year. Clearly, we are not going to be able to plan for every emergency. We spent $40 billion, as we needed to, after 9-11 to address that emergency. That was a lot of money; clearly, more than we have for our average tornado or natural disaster. But we can still try and budget for the inevitable emergencies we will incur here this year.

Another thing that really happens that is a big problem in part of our appropriation process is in addition to the fact that the appropriations bills can form huge bills where they put seven to 10 appropriations bills in one giant omnibus bill, they can tack in spending items that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Let us take, for example, one spending item that we voted against just this last December, $50 million for a rain forest museum in Iowa City. They were going to build a rain forest under a glass bubble for $50 million. That was tucked inside of an omnibus appropriations bill in the part that went to Labor and Health and Human Services. A $50 million rain forest museum in the middle of Iowa has nothing to do with health, human services, or labor, the Labor Department. However, it was stuck into that portion of the bill.

Now, if we had the ability which, in this case, we did not in the House, to go to the floor, pass an amendment to defeat that $50 million from going to that rain forest project, we could do that. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) and I could bring an amendment to the floor saying, we should not be putting $50 million into a boondoggle rain forest museum in Iowa; let us pass an amendment to defeat that. We could pass that amendment. But by the rules of this institution, by the laws of the 1974 Budget Act, that $50 million would have to be respent somewhere else in the Federal Government. It could not be saved. So that is another thing we want to fix.

Another huge, glaring glitch in the budget process is we want to be able to come to the floor of Congress, identify wasteful spending, make sure that this kind of pork does not happen again and not only defeat the pork, not only get these projects not funded, but save the money so we can use it to reduce taxes or to reduce deficits or reduce debt. That is another reform we put inside of our bill and inside the coalition of principles that we have all agreed to subscribe ourselves too.

We do. That is a very important point that the gentleman from Illinois raises. If my colleague recalls, the line-item veto was knocked down by the Supreme Court a few years ago, for good reason, which was it is anticonstitutional, it was unconstitutional for Congress to delegate its lawmaking power to the executive branch; and the Supreme Court aptly knocked down that line-item veto law.

So what we have come up with in place of it is the ability for the executive, the President of the United States, when he receives these big spending bills, to pull out pieces of spending, pork barrel spending and through an expedited procedure send those pieces of spending, those pork barrel projects back to Congress for an up-or-down vote on each of these procedures, each of these pork barrel projects. We have a procedure here where the President can make sure that he gets that vote. We cannot stonewall, we cannot filibuster it; we have to have a vote on this wasteful spending that the President can take out of these bills and send back to the Congress so we have another up-or- down vote to make sure that we have another chance, a redundant system to go after this wasteful spending. It accomplishes the same thing that a line-item veto does, but it retains the constitutional authority of the lawmaking body and the legislative branch that the Constitution and the Supreme Court calls for.

That is correct. And that is why some of the other forms that we are calling for, which is automatically, they just assume that we are going to keep raising spending. One of the things we see around here is a lot of Members of Congress come to the floor and say we are cutting spending on programs, when actually what is occurring, if at all, is reducing the rate of growth of programs. What we believe is we should go back to zero-based budgeting, and we can go back to not baseline budgeting, but a zero-based budgeting whereby a dollar extra for a program the next year is an increase in spending. We do not want to have a baseline that constantly inflates and puts spending on auto pilot for all parts of our government. We want to make sure that we are more frugal with our constituents' dollars and that an extra dollar in an extra year is an extra dollar of spending, not a reduction in spending.

One of the other things that we do not account for here in the accrual accounting is the costs of the pension that the Federal

Government owes to its employees and many of the other Federal Government's liabilities. If the accountants of the Federal Government had to subscribe to the laws that we have placed upon the private sector, we would make the accountants at Enron look like saints. We would not be able to adhere to the common private sector accounting principles that are employed in the marketplace today.

What we wanted to accomplish is a full, clear accounting for all of the Federal Government's debts and liabilities. And that is another thing because if you take a look at the way the Federal budget is displayed and presented to Congress, it does not fully reflect all of the Federal Government's debts and liabilities. That is misleading. We need a clear and accurate picture of truly what taxpayers are on the hook for, not a rosy scenario, not a disguised scenario, not one that makes the situation look better than it actually is.

That is right. One of the problems we have in this particular body, in the House Chamber, unlike the other body, is all the budget points of order that seek to protect our budget, to enforce our budget, are easily waived before they even get to the floor.

We have a Committee on Rules that sets the parameters of debate, the rules for the kinds of amendments that will be considered here. And the Committee on Rules, they can waive budget points of order. Therefore, if the Budget Enforcement Act of 1974 has a number in it that we miss and hit, and we break our budget, we are supposed to be able to have a point of order that defeats legislation coming to the floor that breaks our budget.

All it takes is a Committee on Rules to waive that point of order before it even gets to the floor and we pass a rule with a majority vote without even having to vote on whether or not we are going to break that point of order.

So the rules are so easily circumvented here on the floor that what we are doing is, we are making sure that these points of order are still maintained as points that Members individually can bring up. They cannot be waived in the Committee on Rules. They take a two-thirds vote. This is our preference in our particular legislation in order to waive these budget points of order.

Members of Congress need to be empowered with the rules so that they can raise the awareness that we are breaking our budget and they can force a vote to make sure we conform with the budget, and it takes two- thirds to break that.

Yes, I would like to ask the gentleman a few questions about his bill as well.

I thank the gentleman for the mike. He has given me a lot of time to talk about ours.

Our bill is what we call The Family Budget Protection Act. Number one, our bill does change the rules of the House so that you cannot waive these budget points of order, meaning you cannot just break the spending caps and not even have a vote on whether we did that or not on the floor of Congress.

First, we make a binding budget so it is signed into law by the President.

Second, if Congress is going to break the budget, it takes a two- thirds vote in order to break that budget. If we do not vote that two- thirds, then we have an obligation to reduce spending to bring it back into conformity with the budget. If we do not do that, an across-the- board spending cut comes into play.

But also the games that are played in the appropriations process, putting nongermane spending items in the bills where they should not be, we tighten up what we call the germaneness standards so we cannot put those kinds of things in appropriations bills.

It is important that we are honest with the American people in how we spend their money. It is important that we make sure we set a budget and stick to it. And it is also important that we have a budget process that is at least neutral toward higher taxes and higher spending.

The 30-year anniversary of the 1974 Budget Act paints one very clear picture, and that is the rules that run the budgeting in Congress are clearly biased toward higher taxing and higher spending. And they tie both hands behind your back if your goal is to bring sense to the budget system, bring fiscal discipline and hold the line on taxes.

What we are seeking to achieve in our legislation is simply to make the rules at least neutral toward taxing and spending, not biased for higher taxing and spending. And that is something that we all have to work together on.

What I am very encouraged about year, and this is my sixth year in Congress; I have been working on this ever since I got here. What I am especially encouraged about is the new coalition that we have been able to form.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) has been a leader in this new coalition to fix this budget process, and only by linking arms and building a team can we get these kinds of things passed. So I would like for the gentleman to tell me some of his ideas about what he hopes to achieve in this budget process, which are all part of the broader principles that we signed on o and how exactly does the gentleman's bill work.

That is right. I applaud that.

One of the things that we have to keep in mind is that the demographics of America are changing. And as the baby boomers begin to retire, we have to take into account the fact that we have 40 million retirees today; when the boomers are fully retired, we will have 80 million retirees. And so many of our programs are geared towards senior citizens, namely, Social Security and Medicare, Medicaid as well. So we have a tremendous fiscal pressure staring us in the face.

In order to prepare for those moments, not only do we need to reform these programs so we can improve them and make sure they are solvent, but we have to be able to pass a budget that we can stick to and enforce to get us to that solvency date, to make these programs viable for the baby boomers and for our generation, the generation afterwards.

That is right. I also think it is very important

to recognize that a lot of Members have worked on this issue. It is one thing to pass a budget under the current rules and talk about the great accomplishments we have in it; they are good accomplishments.

We are bringing a good budget resolution to the floor tomorrow, freezing domestic spending, getting to a balanced budget even faster than the President proposed, and he gave us a lean budget, making sure that we are not going to have huge tax increases hitting the American family just as the economic recovery is under way.

But the point of all this is, the current budget system, it is so easy to circumvent these budget rules, to circumvent the budget. So even though we are bringing what we think is a pretty good budget to the floor, actually a very good budget to the floor this week, we can easily circumvent it next month.

That is why we need to have a budget process that is honest, that has integrity, that is clear, that is transparent, that is honest with the American people, that has honest accounting, that makes sure that you cannot have these bills that we get a day before we vote on them, that are this thick, and have so many little programs tucked into them that are pork barrel projects that raise the total of spending for the Federal Government, but waste a lot of money and also have nothing to do with the issue at hand that we are trying to legislate on.

One of the things, and I notice that there are some gentlemen coming in that I want to recognize when they all get in the room, that are in the gallery, that I think is very fitting for the House to recognize, but before I get to that, because I see some of them are still coming in, I think it is very important for them to recognize, and for those who are listening to this debate, we do not have the tools that we need to cut wasteful spending in Congress.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I apologize, Madam Chair. I simply wanted to recognize the fact that we have a group of Special Operations Forces in the gallery that just came back from Iraq. And I simply want to say to those, and I realize we have rules, that we are very proud of what you have done for our country, and we want to salute you for your sacrifice to our Nation and to thank you for making us a safer and more secure world and country. Thank you for what you have done for us.

Will I be admonished for that?

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your indulgence.

I simply want to conclude by saying, I thank the gentleman for his leadership in this because he has been one of the linchpin people in Congress to bring together this coalition. You cannot have a handful of fiscal conservatives to try to change rules that have not been changed for 30 years. It takes a lot of people from a broad coalition to do this. There are a lot of people who have been in Congress for decades, longer than the gentleman and I have been living in some cases.

A lot of people like the way things are done today. They like the current rules. It makes it easier to filter power through your committee, to filter power through this institution. But these rules have really accomplished one thing. The budgets we set for the Federal Government every year we pass a budget resolution are very easily and very quickly circumvented. They do not stick. They do not count, and they do not work.

If we can fix our budget process, bring common sense back to it, real legal enforcement measures so that the budget is easy to enforce, we can accomplish these goals of not only balancing the budget, making sure huge tax increases do not hit the American people, but prepare our entitlement programs for that baby boom retirement without having to resort to deep benefit cuts or huge tax increases.

We have to avoid the kind of malaise and troubles that other countries like those in Europe have fallen into where they have to keep taxing and taxing and taxing their people with payroll taxes and business taxes and value added taxes, and they have chronic unemployment of 9 to 12 percent.

We do not want to go down that road. We have to prepare to make sure we do not go down that road as these demographics confront us with the retirement of the baby boomers. If we are going to confront that, if we are going to pass legislation to do that, we have to budget for it. And we have to have a budget that is enforceable. The current rules make that nearly impossible. That is why you have this great coalition in Congress that is serious about doing this this year to enforce these rules.

I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk) for his leadership in bringing a whole host of Members of Congress to the table to take this issue seriously. I look forward to working with my colleague from Illinois to working on this as soon as this budget resolution is done, to move a bill through the Committee on the Budget, and to get it to the House floor and to fight those interests who like the status quo.

I think we can prevail. I know we can prevail and I sure hope we do. And it is only with this kind of coalition that the gentleman has helped assemble that will give us a chance of prevailing.

That is right.

Madam Speaker, I only wanted to say that we have now added some Members from the other side of the aisle to our legislation so they have become true pieces of bipartisanship. That is the right step in the right direction. That is the critical ingredient we need to get critical mass to pass these things.

But I also wanted to recognize our colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) as well, who is also a very, very strident Member in making sure that we live within our means, a good fiscal conservative. I wanted to ask the gentleman from New Jersey if there are any comments he would like to make on this subject.

Madam Speaker, could the gentleman share with us what the budget that was passed out does with respect to the deficit over the next 5 years?

And that was done without raising taxes?

There is more money coming into the Federal Government because more people are working and paying taxes.

Mr. Speaker, on February 1, 2003, the tragic accident of the Space Shuttle Columbia took the lives of seven of our finest Americans. One year later, this sad event remains fresh in our minds, and we continue to share in the sorrow of those who lost their loved ones and family members that terrible day.

Among the brave astronauts aboard the Columbia was Dr. Laurel Clark of Racine, Wisconsin. All of those who knew Laurel were touched by her extraordinary life and are still coping with the pain that her absence has caused. It is very difficult to lose a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister and a friend, and our thoughts should be with Laurel's family and loved ones s they continue to honor her memory.

Although Laurel Clark lived only 41 years on this earth, she was accomplished as a doctor, a scientist and a mother. She poured her energy into her many pursuits and showed us that with focus, passion and dedication, it is possible to achieve your dreams. Laurel also never forgot the importance of family, and it is impossible to quantify the joy that she brought to those closest to her.

Unwavering in her efforts to improve the world, Laurel began with those around her. In the end, she made the ultimate sacrifice in the name of this cause, hoping that the scientific research she conducted in space could provide a better world for all humanity. As we honor the life of Laurel Clark, we must never forget the joy, happiness and everlasting inspiration that she brought to the world, and we should strive to live our lives as she did.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 3652) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the taxation of imported archery products, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, along with my colleague, Representative Matheson, I am pleased to introduce the Archery Revenue Reform and Opportunity for Workers Act of 2003 (ARROW Act).

Our bill will protect Americans jobs by fixing a mistake in the tax code that allows archery equipment to be imported into the United States without paying the excise tax that American manufacturers pay. Our bill will close this loophole now.

The excise tax on domestically produced arrows is 12.4 percent. The revenue from this excise tax is dedicated to the Pittman-Robertson Aid for Wildlife Restoration Fund that finances the States' wildlife conservation and habitat restoration programs. In 1997, a change in the excise tax inadvertently created a loophole that allows arrows manufactured outside of the United States to be sold in the United States without paying the tax paid by American manufacturers.

Sales of imported arrows and arrow shafts have increased from less than $1 million in 1997 to over $12 million in 2002. By avoiding the excise tax, foreign manufacturers have displaced more than one-third of our domestic production.

The loss of U.S. jobs and the negative impact on domestic small businesses will continue to accelerate, as year-to-date imports through June 30 have increased 35 percent over the same time period in 2002. In addition to the loss of jobs, this loophole is draining funding from the States' conservation and game management programs.

This legislation will close the loophole that allows imported arrows to avoid the excise tax paid by domestic manufacturers. While keeping the current 12.4 percent tax on arrow components, the proposal will impose a tax of 12 percent on the first sale of an arrow assembled from untaxed components. U.S. manufacturers and foreign manufacturers will be treated equally.

Current law also taxes non-hunters, contrary to congressional intent. To relieve non-hunters from the requirement to pay for wildlife management, the legislation would eliminate the current-law tax on bows with draw weights of less than 30 pounds. Those bows are not suitable or, in many States, legal for hunting. To preserve the revenue for the Wildlife Restoration Fund, the bill would retain the current tax on bows that are suitable for hunting.

Finally, the ARROW Act will clarify that broadheads are an accessory taxed at 11 percent rather than as an arrow component taxed at 12.4 percent. This will correct the ambiguity in the 1997 act that led to the misclassification of broadheads.

I urge my colleagues to pass the Archery Revenue Reform and Opportunity for Workers Act today. This bill will save American jobs and protect funding for the Wildlife Restoration Program (the Pittman- Robertson fund) by simplifying administration and compliance with the excise tax and closing the unintended loophole that allows arrows assembled outside the United States to avoid the excise tax imposed on domestic manufacturers.

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3652.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from Wisconsin and would like to comment on a few of the comments my colleague from Michigan said. He basically said the procurement process is done. This is an end run around the system.

It is very important that we note we have had Buy American provisions in many, many Defense Department contracts. On issues of national security and on issues of homeland security, this Congress has, time over time over time, stipulated that we need to keep our U.S. manufacturing base intact so that when it comes to these matters of national and homeland security, we have the infrastructure and economy in this country to produce these goods that we need.

This is simply being consistent with our Buy American language that we have had in other bills. We have had provisions for these kinds of purchases of these kinds of engines in the Defense Department appropriations bill. So it is very consistent that this language be included in this particular authorization bill, because this exact language has been included in other bills, namely Defense appropriations.

We are not asking for something that is new and novel and different. The one thing we are asking for is we think it is important that this Congress does make a statement, and that statement is that, especially in areas of homeland and national security, we work to make sure we still have a manufacturing base in this country that can produce the kinds of goods and services we need to keep our country secure, to keep our borders secure.

These engines that are going into these ships to protect our homeland, it is very important that we keep this industry alive in this country, because who knows what could happen down the road when we have to rely on other countries to help us protect our own country? They may not be there in the future. That is why this is important.

It is also important because we are losing manufacturing jobs in this economy. Many areas of this economy are growing very well. We had 7.2 percent economic growth in the last quarter. That is the fastest in 19 years. But, and the big ``but'' is, we are still losing manufacturing jobs. This provision would keep and maintain manufacturing jobs in America, not in Germany.

We are not against manufacturing jobs in Germany, we are just more for manufacturing jobs in America, especially in matters of homeland and national security.

I urge adoption of this amendment. It is consistent with many other policies this Congress has passed in the very recent past, and, because of that, I urge its passage.

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

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

Let me take a few moments to comment on the past speakers. First, I would like to fill in the gaps in the history that was rendered earlier here.

My information says that this is the 17th motion to instruct, not the 25th. We will see. We will have to look into the Congressional Record to find that out. Nevertheless, I get a great sense of deja vu right now. But all joking aside, Mr. Speaker, one thing that the speakers who just spoke failed to mention was that on June 12 of this year, the House did pass legislation making the child tax credit immediately refundable going back this year for these families in question.

So one gets the impression from having listened to these speakers that we did not do anything, that we did not pass anything. That is not true.

What this motion to instruct is encouraging is passage of an inferior tax bill from the Senate. What do I mean when I say inferior, Mr. Speaker? They want the child tax credit to go up to $1,000 for these families and then they want to take it away after the next election. It will go up for this year. It will go up for next year, and then the bill that they are advocating to take it away after the next election.

The bill we passed on this floor not only gives these families the full $1,000-per-child tax credit this year, next year but also for the rest of the decade. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, we also do

away with the marriage tax penalty, which the bill they are advocating does not address. So I just want to fill in the full story as to what is occurring here.

Now, the other issue that we are hearing about is that we are not doing anything for the military, the kids whose parent are in the military. Now, the most recent history on this issue goes back to about 1 hour ago when we just passed a bill unanimously off the floor of this House to give $1.2 billion in tax cuts to our men and women in uniform who are serving and fighting for us overseas. We just passed the Military Tax Fairness Act probably not even an hour ago off of this floor, and it is now going to the President's desk to be signed into law. So to suggest that the men and women in the military are all of the sudden being left out of tax relief is just not true, it is not accurate; and an hour ago we just fixed those problems. So that is an issue I just also thought would be important to fill in the gaps of the historical rendition that we have been hearing today.

Now, as to the issue of, and this is an accuracy that I think needs to be pointed out, as to the issue of whether or not these families are paying the taxes and they deserve the tax credit or not, these families, mind you, Mr. Speaker, do not pay Federal taxes. Their FICA taxes are offset by the earned income credit. They do not pay income taxes. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the bill the House passed on June 12 did give these families, regardless of the fact that they do not pay FICA taxes which are offset by the EIC or income taxes, a cash benefit or bonus in the form of a refundable tax credit to the tune of $1,000. Again, not this year and next year, but for the rest of the decade.

Now, the other issues that have been brought to the floor were more general issues about the tax bills. You have heard the things about tax cuts for the wealthy and that tax cuts hurt the economy. Let us go back into the revision of history that we just heard about the tax law that passed earlier this summer.

Now, it is important to note that two-thirds of the top income tax bracket, the people who filed those taxes are not millionaires sitting on their yachts sipping champagne. Two-thirds of the top income tax bracket are small businesses who are the driving force of job creation in this economy. Seventy percent of the jobs we get out of this economy come from small businesses. Two-thirds of that tax bracket are small businesses. We were taxing small businesses at a tax rate higher than what we taxed large corporations in America. So before the last tax bill went into place on July 1, we taxed small businesses at a rate of about 40 percent, when we taxed IBM and General Motors and Chrysler and all these other companies at 35 percent. That was ridiculous.

Why should we be taxing small businesses in this country who are the engine of economic growth and jobs in this country at a higher tax rate than we are taxing the largest corporations in America? That is why we cut the tax across the board on individual income taxes. That was good. That is a good thing to do. It is not a tax cut for people who own yachts. It is a tax cut for people who have jobs and provide jobs in this economy.

Now, what has happened since that tax bill passed? Many of the speakers have been saying it is driving a hole in the deficit; it is actually hurting the economy. That tax bill passed on July 1. The third quarter of this economy started on July 1 and ended on September 30. What happened immediately after that tax bill passed? The economy grew at 7.2 percent. I repeat: during that period, the third quarter, the economy grew at 7.2 percent. That is the fastest economic growth quarter in this country in 19 years, in 19 years, Mr. Speaker.

Our economy grew right after this tax cut passed into law in the fastest quarterly growth in 19 years. That creates jobs. What happened to the deficit at that period, Mr. Speaker? The deficit went down by $80 billion. So what we see when that happened was when we cut taxes, not only did the economy grow, not only did a lot of wealth that was lost in the stock market come back because the stock market grew, but because the economy grew because people are going back to work because 72,000 people got jobs last month, people are paying taxes. The economy is growing and more remedies are coming into the Federal Government and the deficit is going down.

So just look at the facts and you can tell that tax relief works, that tax relief across the board, especially on small businesses, works; and the proof is in the statistics. The economy is growing. It is growing very fast. Jobs are being created. Jobs are coming back, and people are paying taxes who otherwise were not paying taxes and the deficit is going down.

Now, we have got to keep that going. And the last thing we want to do is roll back these tax cuts. What this motion to recommit is suggesting to do is pass these tax cuts and then yank them out from under the taxpayers after the election. The last thing we want to do in this economy is in the year 2005 raise taxes on people. Take the child tax credit down by $500 and stop that tax payment to all of these families.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the 17th time we have had this motion. Whether it is the 17th time or the 25th time, what we are trying to accomplish is tax relief. We passed the bill. It is a better bill. That is the bill we are trying to get into law. I hope the gentleman who is a good guy, who is my friend on the Committee on Ways and Means, would join us. If we linked arms, we could get all of these things done and make a difference, and these families could have this tax cut for the rest of the decade, not just until the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Just a point of clarification. The reason that costs much more money is because we make those tax cuts permanent throughout the decade, and we do not yank them back at the end of the election. We actually put these tax cuts, like repealing the marriage penalty and the child tax credit, in place for 10 years. That is why the bill costs so much more money.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue and for bringing this resolution, to which I am a cosponsor, to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this is a dire issue for America. I come from Wisconsin, which arguably has the most manufacturing jobs lost per capita to any other State in the country.

There is a fact that the economic recovery that is under way in America is not necessarily going through manufacturing. We have bled manufacturing jobs, especially over the last couple of years. And when you boil it down and look at what is going on in manufacturing, there are two areas we have to focus on.

Number one, we have to stop pushing jobs overseas. We have to lower health care costs, lower the tax rates on American manufacturers, cut down the regulatory and lawsuit costs, make energy costs cheaper and more affordable and more reliable. But we also have to work at stopping countries from unfairly taking jobs overseas. That is what this resolution is all about.

What this resolution does is express what we in Congress think needs to happen, and what we believe needs to happen is, number one, I am glad that China is in the WTO, because before a year-and-a-half ago, we did not have China signing up to a treaty to play by fair trade rules, we did not have the means to hold China accountable.

Now that China is in the WTO, they have signed on the dotted line, they have said they would play fairly, they would obey international fair trade standards, and they are not doing that. What this resolution does is it says enough. Congress is serious. China needs to obey and play by the rules that they themselves signed up to play by just a year-and-a-half ago.

Now, in Congress, we cannot change China's laws; only they can do that. But we can speak with unity here in this body, Republicans and Democrats, saying that we need to make sure that China upholds their commitments, that they need to play by the rules they themselves signed up to, that we urge and encourage our administration to hold them accountable with our trading partners who are similarly affected by devaluing their currency, pegging their currency at a discount, stealing our intellectual property rights, subsidizing their business sectors.

This is an opportunity for Congress to speak with one voice against these abuses that need to change, and change today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue.