Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize the town of Sutton, MA on the occasion of its 300th anniversary. I am honored to represent Sutton and to have had the opportunity to help it celebrate this important milestone by participating in the Anniversary Parade on September 12, 2004.

Located in the beautiful Blackstone River Valley in central Massachusetts, it retains the rolling farmlands and wooded hills for which it has long been known, which it is committed to preserving as part of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The Heritage Corridor and the Purgatory Chasm State Reservation, also located in Sutton, offer visitors a way to explore the natural beauty of Massachusetts.

Sutton's rich history began when the town was chartered in 1704. It was first settled in 1716 by the intrepid families of Benjamin Marsh, Elisha Johnson and Nathaniel Johnson, who braved the harsh winter of 1716-1717 in log cabins, which were sometimes entirely covered by the deep snows. These three families laid the groundwork for what is now a thriving community of more than eight thousand.

Today, tourists who come to the five villages of Sutton can visit the Eight Lots Schoolhouse, built in the 1780s, see blacksmithing demonstrations in the M.M. Sherman Blacksmith Shop, and enjoy local candies and produce. They can also explore the history of the region through a trip to the Sutton Museum.

The rich culture and history of Sutton make it a wonderful addition to any region, and I am proud to represent it in the United States Congress. Once again, I would like to congratulate the town on its 300th anniversary and to say job well done to all the organizers who made the commemoration of this momentous occasion such a great success.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). He does a terrific job with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) on a bipartisan basis to ensure that every opinion is heard on the Subcommittee on Trade over at the Committee on Ways and Means. I think oftentimes that is

why we have the final product that we do.

Let me use this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to explain why I will be voting in favor of this bilateral free trade agreement between the United States and Morocco, even though there are several aspects of the agreement that trouble me.

My chief disappointment with the agreement is that, once again, the administration refused to specifically require our trading partner to abide by the five most basic internationally recognized labor standards.

The International Labor Organization has identified those principles as the right to associate and bargain collectively, and prohibitions on forced labor, discrimination and child labor.

Instead of assuring these minimal protections for foreign workers, our recent trade agreements have imposed a different standard. They require our partners to enforce whatever labor laws exist in that particular country, regardless of how lax those laws might be.

While I strongly believe that this is the wrong negotiating tack as a general matter, in the specific case of Morocco, the country's labor laws more than surpass international minimum standards; and by all accounts, it appears that the government is making a genuine and conscientious effort to work with unions, workers, and employers to bolster its worker protections even further, including the right to strike. The labor provisions of this agreement are not perfect, but they represent a workable starting point.

Although this agreement is not what I would ideally like to see, it represents an important first step. Fundamentally, I believe that the U.S. can improve its international standing and its national security by expanding trade and strengthening its relationships with moderate Muslim countries. Unfortunately, more and more Muslim voices are calling for boycotts of the United States and its products. That makes it all the more critical for us to reach out to those who are eager to form a partnership with us.

Over the long term, I believe that agreements with nations such as Morocco are mutually beneficial from an economic standpoint. They also represent an opportunity to help mend international relations that have endured a great deal of strain over the last several years.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement could be better. Certainly I would have negotiated it differently, but it will pave the way for progress in a region that is critically important to the United States, and so it does have my support.

Mr. Speaker, I think everybody in this institution knows the high personal regard in which we hold the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), and we certainly regret that he is moving on to other things.

That applause there was singular.

Mr. Speaker, there is another issue that draws us to this floor today, and I have heard the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) is a good enough guy. He said a couple of times today, he said, Well, this is not a silver bullet.

Well, when I was a kid, if my father was witnessing something that he thought was particularly outrageous or he was looking at some sort of a question that he thought lacked proper definition, he would say, Well, at least Jesse James had the honor to wear a mask. And when I hear these folks on the other side come to the floor today and talk about simplification, it is outrageous.

Let me remind Members of this body that in 1994 the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means said emphatically he was going to ``pull the Tax Code up by its roots.'' Then, of course, the charade was perpetrated on the rest of the committee when others said, Well, not to be outdone, we are going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code. And then another one said, Well, we are going to have a long funeral procession for the Tax Code.

Well, to those of you who filled out your own tax forms in the last round, that Tax Code is more complicated than ever. There has been no effort to simplify that Tax Code, but we know there is an election that is going to take place 15 weeks from yesterday, so we are going to be on the side of tax simplification.

I would submit to you today that this is the easiest thing in this body that could be done with Democrats and Republicans to simplify the Tax Code. But the rhetoric does not fit public policy, because we have got to get people psyched up and convince them in this short span that we are going to simplify the Tax Code. We will be back next year, and we will not simplify the Tax Code because once again it is inconsistent with the rhetoric, as opposed to the policy that is necessary.

Let me talk today about something we could do to really simplify the Tax Code.

While I am disappointed with the context of the bill, simply because I think it could have been expanded in an effort to achieve simplification, we examine the four provisions that are put to us today. So we are going to clarify how to classify people who were born on January 1.

Then the second section is going to replace the phrase ``head of household'' with a phrase that says ``single head of household'' throughout the Tax Code.

The third provision is going to instruct the IRS to make the EZ available to more people; but my colleagues know what, the IRS already has the authority to do that. That could be done short of what we are undertaking at this moment.

The final provision deletes some parts of the Tax Code that no longer has any legal effect. My goodness, I can feel the heartland of America today, boy, the satisfaction they must feel that we are taking up this major piece of legislation that, in the end, really does very little for them.

It is easy to talk about tax simplification, and we all know it is very difficult to accomplish; but for the last three Congresses, I have offered a tax simplification bill that would include a paid-for repeal of alternative minimum tax. If this body is serious about making it easier for Americans to file their taxes, there is no better place to start.

The alternative minimum tax was designed to prevent the very wealthiest Americans from overusing certain tax benefits to avoid most of their tax burden. Today, we all know it does not accomplish that goal any longer. Today, it ensnares millions of ordinary middle-class taxpayers, and I spoke to the American Manufacturing Association last night, and they were enraged by what has happened, and by the way, they generally support the other party.

By the end of this decade, the AMT will apply to over 30 million taxpayers, including more than three-quarters of taxpayers with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. In fact, unless we change the tax laws, in 2005, married couples with four children will be subject to the alternative minimum tax as soon as their incomes reach $58,500. What used to be a class tax has now become a mass tax.

Now, I understand the reasons for the original imposition of AMT, but it no longer makes any sense. It no longer solves the problem that it was supposed to correct. It, in fact, creates a new problem. It doubles the amount of work that millions of Americans have to do to determine how much they owe.

Because of the AMT, these taxpayers have to fill out two tax forms. The process has become so complex that it now takes an average middle- class family 19 hours to fill out their tax forms. That is 7\1/2\ hours longer than it took in 1994 when they were going to

pull the Tax Code up by its roots or drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code.

The American people could be hardly more clear on the message they are sending to all of us. They need help navigating this process. It has become much too complicated. Sixty percent of the individuals hire a professional today to prepare their taxes, an increase of 50 percent from 1994 when they were going to drive a stake through the heart of the Tax Code, when they were going to have a long funeral procession for the Tax Code, when they were going to pull the Tax Code up by its roots.

If my colleagues really want to do something in this institution, we do not have to talk about tax increases or tax cuts. What we could do is talk about tax simplification. Work with me on this AMT proposal that I have had. It could be done in a bipartisan manner. I wish the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) was staying because we have had success working on bills in a bipartisan manner, the two of us; and I regret his departure precisely because of that, and I believe that we could still do a tax simplification in the next session of this Congress without a great deal of difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a friendly observation?

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 16 years, and I have never been involved in an issue where people congratulated me more for bringing it forward and did less about it than the alternative minimum tax issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor today to pay tribute to Dr. Frederick S. Conlin, Jr., DDS. Dr. Frederick S. Conlin, Jr., DDS will retire this June from both politics and his practice in dentistry after more than 30 years. Dr. Conlin has had a general practice in dentistry for 38 years in West Springfield, MA, and has been a model citizen in our city. He held many honors in both of these fields, including being elected to the Valley District Dental Society as Vice President for 2 years.

Dr. Conlin graduated from the College of Holy Cross with an A.B. degree in 1953. He later attended the American International College for Post Graduate studies from 1958 to 1959. Frederick Conlin received his DDS from the New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry in 1963.

Conlin has also served in the armed forces for his country. From 1954 until 1956 Dr. Conlin proudly served as a 1st Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. However, Lieutenant Conlin has also given to his country through his participation in local politics, having held many elected positions in his local community.

Dr. Conlin was elected as a Town Meeting Member for 25 years. He was also elected to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Board of Selectman both for 6 years respectively. He was also chosen to be on the Board of Health for 5 years. Dr. Conlin served as Vice President of the City Council for 3 years.

In addition to being elected to numerous organizations by his peers, Dr. Conlin also has volunteered to donate his time and talents to a plethora of other boards and organizations; including, the Town Government Study committee for 15 years, the American Legion Post 207 for 15 years, the Ramapogue Historical Society for 6 years, and served on the Board

of Directors of the Friends of Seniors for 4 years. He also was a co- founder and member of the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee for 10 years, and served on the West Springfield Veterans Council for 2 years. Always staying involved in politics, Dr. Conlin served 30 years on the Republican Town Committee.

Dr. Conlin is a citizen of Springfield that we are extremely proud of and we wish him nothing but the best in his retirement. Dr. Conlin has been a member of St. Thomas Church for 50 years. He has been blessed with his wife the former Barbara Crowley for 26 years, and has one son, Rick, who currently attends Temple University School of Medicine. We wish you the best of luck and good health Dr. Conlin.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor today to pay tribute to Dr. Frederick S. Conlin, Jr., DDS. Dr. Frederick S. Colin, Jr., DDS will retire this June from both politics and his practice in dentistry after more than 30 years. Dr. Conlin has had a general practice in dentistry for 38 years in West Springfield, MA, and has been a model citizen in our city. He held many honors in both of these fields, including being

elected to the Valley District Dental Society as Vice President for 2 years.

Dr. Conlin graduated from the College of Holy Cross with an A.B. degree in 1953. He later attended the American International College for Post Graduate studies from 1958 to 1959. Frederick Conlin received his DDS from the New Jersey College of Medicine and Dentistry in 1963.

Conlin has also served in the Armed Forces for his country. From 1954 until 1956 Dr. Conlin proudly served as a 1st Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. However, Lieutenant Conlin has also given to his country through his participation in local politics, having held many elected positions in his local community.

Dr. Conlin was elected as a Town Meeting Member for 25 years. He was also elected to the Park and Recreation Commission and the Board of Selectman both for 6 years respectively. He was also chosen to be on the Board of Health for 5 years. Dr. Conlin served as Vice President of the City Council for 3 years.

In addition to being elected to numerous organizations by his peers, Dr. Conlin also has volunteered to donate his time and talents to a plethora of other boards and organizations; including, the Town Government Study committee for 15 years, the American Legion Post 207 for 15 years, the Ramapogue Historical Society for 6 years, and served on the Board of Directors of the Friends of Seniors for 4 years. He also was a co-founder and member of the St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee for 10 years, and served on the West Springfield Veterans Council for 2 years. Always staying involved in politics, Dr. Conlin served 30 years on the Republican Town Committee.

Dr. Conlin is a citizen of Springfield that we are extremely proud of and we wish him nothing but the best in his retirement. Dr. Conlin has been a member of St. Thomas Church for 50 years. He has been blessed with his wife the former Barbara Crowley for 26 years, and has one son, Rick, who currently attends Temple University School of Medicine. We wish you the best of luck and good health, Dr. Conlin.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are two things to remember: Bermuda is not part of the WTO; and, secondly, President Bush said he would never check with another country before deciding about American national security.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say something to the gentleman who spoke a moment ago about the ``beating on your chest'' about this issue. I have brought this issue up now in the Committee on Ways and Means consistently for 3 years. We cannot even get a vote on it. This is not an appropriations issue in the end; this is really a tax issue.

The gentleman from Virginia said a moment ago there are no employees from Accenture in Bermuda. That is the point. That is precisely the point. It is merely a post office box rented for $27,000. Does anybody believe that Tyco is a Bermuda-based company?

Why are we here today debating this issue? Joint Tax has said, and listen to this carefully, $5 billion would come to the American Treasury if we would simply send these folks their tax bill.

I want to ask Members of this body today this question as you vote: What would the IRS do to you next Monday if you renounced your citizenship and said you were really a citizen of Bermuda?

This is not an argument about patriotism. This is an argument about that woman on Wall Street who said, ``Maybe it is time that patriotism took a back seat to profits.'' Tell that to the moms and dads of 134,000 kids in Iraq, 20,000 kids in Afghanistan, troops committed to Haiti and Bosnia as well. And these people do not want to pay their corporate taxes? They are protected by these men and women, these soldiers who serve honorably and with distinction every day.

You know what this argument is about, because the American people know what this argument is about, it is about money. That is all it is about, money.

Then the argument becomes, well, let us give those who left, went to Bermuda, moved money to the Cayman Islands, and Luxembourg, let us give them a permanent advantage competitively over those who have chosen to stay, like Stanley Works in Connecticut, and ask them to compete in a bidding process where one side does not have to worry about corporate taxes.

This is indeed an argument about patriotism, and it is an argument about the fact that these companies do not have, and I repeat, do not have employees in Bermuda. They have instead a post office box. $27,000 is what it costs to open a post office box in Bermuda and avoid millions in U.S. taxes. It is indeed about money.

We ought to have the backbone here to stand up and say, once and for all, very simply, like the American people who send their sons and daughters off to war, either you are in or you are out. That is what this argument is about. It is not about the WTO and the bidding process. Bermuda is not in the WTO.

But I know this: when the sun sets on this argument today, the Committee on Ways and Means still will not take this issue up. And I would say this to the people that are on the other side on this issue, put this question in front of this body in an open, fair vote with an opportunity for all of us to express ourselves, and I will tell you what: I will eat the piece of paper it is on if we do not get 350 votes to end this practice. And you know it, and you stop it from coming to the floor time and again.

You can do something about this today with a small start and then do something about it permanently.

When I hear these folks say this is not about patriotism, tell that to the moms and dads of those kids who are over in Afghanistan and Iraq that these companies do not want to pay their corporate taxes to support them and give them the best equipment they need.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is no question. This is about the failure of Congress.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) was the mayor of Alexandria, Virginia. Did the gentleman ever void a contract that had been competitively bid?

How about when they were not all legitimately considered?

Across this country every day mayors void contracts.

Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed privilege to note the exceptional achievement of eco/Springfield, LLC, Agawam, Massachusetts as the recipient of the highest honor bestowed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to small worksites, the approval as a Safety and Health Achievement Recognition Program (SHARP) participant in the consultation program. Currently fewer than 750 worksites in the country share this honor of SHARP recognition.

SHARP is a program created to provide incentives and support to smaller business owners who meet and exceed the OSHA standards, eco/ Springfield, LLC is a strong example of such a business. With the recognition in this OSHA consultation program comes several services at no additional cost to the business owner. These services include recognizing hazards in the workplace, providing a written report that summarizes the findings of this analysis, assisting in developing and maintaining an effective safety and health program, and offering training and education to the employer and employees at the worksite.

I am very proud of all my constituents in this workforce for their tremendous efforts in working with the Massachusetts Consultation Program to receive this honor. Once again, congratulations to all of the men and women who work hard each day at the eco/Springfield, LLC, in Agawam, Massachusetts.

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

Mr. Speaker, remember that old commercial, when E.F. Hutton talks, people listen? Well, I hope no one on Wall Street is listening today, and I certainly hope that Alan Greenspan is not listening or watching because this Republican budget is $8 trillion of debt. Yes, Members heard me correctly.

If this budget passes for the third time in as many years on a Republican rule, we are not bringing down the national debt. What we did so successfully under the years of Clinton and Rubin, we are undoing during this administration's time. No, our vote today increases yet again the debt of this Nation. How we could have gone from $5 trillion in budget surpluses under Clinton-Rubin to $8 trillion in debt ought to be shocking to all.

Surpluses as far as the eye could see, we were suggesting just a few years ago. Today, $2 trillion in revenue cuts; and now 4 years later, surpluses are but a memory, and we have debt as far as the eye can see.

Well, here is the simple strategy: we will have two wars with three tax cuts. A billion dollars a week for Iraq, do not worry about it, we need a tax cut.

A billion dollars a month in Afghanistan. Do not worry about it. We need a tax cut.

Troops to Haiti? Let us have a tax cut.

That is government by declaration. Things are always getting better even though we do not see any evidence of that. And then we hear from the party that built its base in American history on fiscal responsibility, increased spending and cut taxes. The evidence is there for all to see.

Then we are told on this floor that they inherited a recession. Everybody in America knows they inherited the best economy in the history of America, all due, I believe, to what at that time was bipartisan relationships in this House. They are nonexistent now. These Members on the other side come to the floor day after day and insist on tax cuts while fighting two wars at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak specifically to the issue here, let me offer an opinion just briefly based upon what the gentleman from Florida just said. We have got to pay for this war in Iraq. There ought to be some truth to what we do here. After this election, regardless of who is selected as the next President, it is going to cost another $100 billion at least. That will be pushed off until after the election. So last year it was $60 billion. Earlier this year it was $87 billion. Now as part of the rollout, it is $25 billion. We all know that number is too low. $1 billion a week for Iraq and now more than $1 billion a month for Afghanistan. 135,000 troops in Iraq. They need equipment. We are going to have to increase that base at some point.

The answer here is this: we are going to fight two wars with three tax cuts, and the markets are reflecting it. I appreciate the analogy that was drawn by the gentleman about raising prices, but we are engaged in two wars across the ocean. The Republican Party in American history used to take fiscal prudence as the cornerstone of their existence. Today they take the position that we can cut taxes time and again because at some point we are not going to have to pay.

We are going to have to pay for these two wars, and rather than taking the response that we have in this institution week after week of just simply saying we are going to have another tax cut, there ought to be some truth to what it is that we attempt to do here.

In addition, it is an honor to be on the Committee on Ways and Means in this institution. It is really an honor. Why can these bills not come to the committee to be vetted the way they are supposed to be? Why are these bills brought to the floor around one of the prestigious committees in the Congress? I ask the appropriators who are watching in their offices now what they would do if legislation was brought to the floor that had not been vetted in their subcommittees or that had not been brought to the floor and discussed in the full committee before being brought to the floor in this institution for a vote. They would reject it. They would be up in arms.

In addition, the other phenomenon that we have witnessed here, Mr. Speaker, which is equally troubling, is that Members who do not even belong to the committee are now brought to the floor for this instantaneous solution to help them through the election cycle. That is not the way that committee is supposed to be run. The people on both sides are well regarded by other Members of this institution, and yet we move right around the process.

The substitute bills that have been offered by the Democratic minority in this House have been fiscally responsible. We would ask that these opportunities be put in place for us to discuss these bills in the committee where they are supposed to be discussed. That is what the Committee on Ways and Means does. And yet they are brought to the floor so that we can get ourselves through the next election cycle. It is an ill considered way to bring legislation to this floor, but most importantly, given the financial realities of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is irresponsible to do what we are doing now week after week.

I would remind people even with this legislation that is on the floor today, very simply, one third of the people through the clawback provisions of the Alternative Minimum Tax will not see any tax relief despite what they are saying today. We have got to deal with that alternative minimum tax issue; and the tax cuts they put in place week after week now, without a lot of thought incidentally, do not speak to the heart of the issue of Alternative Minimum Tax. It costs $600 billion to fix. Let us fix that and give middle-income taxpayers the relief that they need.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time.

One of the problems here in having a dialogue is that sometimes the facts do not square with the dialogue. Now, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) is one of the better people in this House; a good Member of the Congress and a very nice guy to work with. But where is the sympathy for those companies that stayed here? What about those companies that pay their taxes every day? What about those who did not attempt to escape in the dark of night to Bermuda for the purpose of avoiding American corporate taxes? Where is the sympathy for them? Their competitors can go offshore with a phony post office box for $27,000 a year, and then they avoid any share of the burden that the rest of the American taxpayers face for financing small things like Social Security and Medicare and paying for this war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would like to put this issue in front of those 134,000 troops in Iraq for a vote and see where we go on that issue. We hear about these companies that have been gone for 30 or 40 years. Let us get something straight, Tyco has been gone since 1997, Ma and Pa Tyco, that avoid paying $400 million a year in corporate taxes. Tell that to the parents of those men and women and wives and husbands of those men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We make it sound as though these companies are under great duress when they avoid paying corporate taxes. I would ask this for the listening audience today as well. What do you think the IRS would do to you on Monday if you got up and said as an individual that you were going to Bermuda for the purpose of denying American citizenship, but only for the real purpose of avoiding your share of taxes in America? That is what we are asking today.

This is a decent proposal that is before us. All we are saying on our side is let us discuss how you pay for it. That is the important reminder for all of us.

The Rangel substitute with flexible spending accounts is not only a popular employee benefit because it allows pretax dollars to be used for dependent care expenses or medical expenditures not covered by insurance, but in fact, except for the staff of this Republican-run House, most of the employees of the Federal Government have had the opportunity to indeed utilize FSAs.

But today we could be debating whether FSAs might even be more flexible, allowing employees to roll over unused funds from one year to the next. But the leadership has decided that once again we are going to come to the aid of their favorite constituency, the healthy and the wealthy. We never have time in this institution to take up anything that might be of benefit to middle-income taxpayers, to the working poor of this country every day who do not have any health benefits; but we find plenty of time for the purpose of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans.

And let me just go back to this subject again, and I hope people are paying attention in this sense: we are now fighting two wars, and the answer of this Congress to two wars: three tax cuts. We are going to come in with a $25 billion request now because we all know what the real cost of that incursion into Iraq is going to be, not only in terms of human life but, just as importantly, in terms of the financial

burden it will be to the American people. So we roll it out in small increments.

We should begin to pay for some of these initiatives that come through this House. By the way, that used to be the historic position the Republican Party adopted. Today, it is borrow and spend.

The Rangel substitute would allow workers to roll over their FSA money from one year to the next without any budget impact that is negative. But because this benefit costs money, the Rangel substitute would pay for it by closing down a loophole.

All I ask is this, Mr. Speaker. If the position that I have adopted on these companies that go to Bermuda is so bad, why is it that almost 2\1/2\ years later the majority will not give me an up-or-down vote in this institution? Put this in front of the body here. Square it with those men and women in Iraq. Close down this Bermuda loophole, and let everybody pay what they are supposed to pay.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Rangel substitute. Flexible Spending Accounts have proven to be a popular employee benefit, allowing pre-tax collars to be used for dependent care expenses or medical expenditures not covered by insurance. In fact, except for the staff of this Republican-run House, most of the employees of the federal government have had the opportunity to utilize FSA's. Today, we could have been debating whether FSA's should be even more flexible--allowing employees to roll-over unused funds from one year to the next. However, the leadership has decided to instead to once again prop-up its favorite tax shelter for healthy workers.

The Rangel substitute would allow workers to roll over FSA money from one year to the next and would do so without any negative budget impact.

Because this tax benefit costs money, the Rangel substitute would pay for this worker benefit by closing the loophole allowing former American companies to move their headquarters offshore for tax avoidance.

Corporate expatriation accounts for $5 billion in lost taxpayer revenue over the next decade. Today, we debate a substitute that shows us exactly what we could be doing with that money: providing greater employee benefits. Why should the workers of America be supporting corporate tax dodgers? Consider that in 1997, Tyco renounced its corporate citizenship and changed its mailing address to Bermuda to avoid paying nearly $400 million a year in U.S. taxes.

While many in the House have expressed outrage since this loophole was first exposed two years ago, the Leadership has done nothing but cement the loophole with legislation protecting Tyco and those that have already left.

Since I first filed the bipartisan Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act to end this tax subsidy, these corporate expatriates have enjoyed almost one billion dollars in U.S. federal government contracts annually, 70 percent of which are defense or homeland security related. Our colleagues in the Senate have passed as recently as yesterday legislation to close this loophole affecting those that are considering the island tax havens and those that are already exploiting this loophole. But in this Congress, we wait.

For those that profess to care about the exploding budget deficit, for those that claim to hear Chairman Greenspan's warning about the harm this historical budget deficit is doing to our economy, you must at some point decide that bills that pile on more federal debt are wrong. I urge my colleagues to support the fiscally responsible Rangel substitute, which makes the corporate tax cheats and those that forsake America in a time of war pay for improving benefits for American workers.

Mr. Speaker, it is my esteemed privilege to honor the city of Northampton, MA, and its residents as they celebrate the 350th anniversary of its European settlement in 2004. This occasion presents a wonderful opportunity for this community rich in history to reflect on its achievements, to celebrate its quality of life, and to join in ensuring this legacy for future generations.

Northampton was founded in 1654 on lands previously known as ``Nonotuck'' or ``Norwottuck.'' This fertile Connecticut River Valley has been inhabited for more than 10,000 years by native peoples who began their agricultural industry. The fur trade was later established in the 1630s, upon the arrival of the Europeans. Once beavers grew scarce, the Pocumtuck and Mohican leaders began transferring lands to pay off debts to traders. Northampton became an established trade and marketing center in the 18th century.

Present day citizens of Northampton are proud to follow in the footsteps of an esteemed heritage. Famous Northampton native Jonathan Edwards sparked the religious revival of the Great Awakening in the 1740s with his enthused ministry. This historic city produced heroes such as General Seth Pomeroy of the Revolutionary War who was a delegate from Northampton to the First and Second Provincial Congresses, a major general in the Massachusetts Militia and fought at Bunker Hill. There was much economic unrest following the Revolutionary War that led to Daniel Shay leading his rebellion before the Constitutional Convention. Caleb Strong, who was a delegate to the Convention, became Massachusetts' first senator and an 11-term governor.

The dawn of the 19th century welcomed new economic opportunities. The New Haven canal promised to be profitable, however, the beginning of the American Railroad system and the shareholders failure to recoup their investments prevented this from thriving. Northampton provided an enriching environment for many industries, including education, with the foundation of the Northampton Association of Education and Industry. This association combined a radical abolitionism with a communally owned and operated silk mill, including members such as Sojourner Truth, William Lloyd Garrison, and Frederick Douglas in its inner circle.

Northampton continues to thrive in education. George Bancroft established the Round Hill School in 1823. Author George Washington Cable founded the Home Culture Clubs in 1884. The Hill Institute created one of the first kindergartens in the United States. The prestigious Smith College was founded here in 1871, and the North Hampton Law School claims such alumni as Franklin Pierce.

Probably one of the most famous natives is former President Calvin Coolidge, who took office in 1923. Described by Jenny Lind as the ``paradise of America,'' she was one of many who were drawn to the beauty of Northampton. Other famous visitors over the centuries include famous poet Ralph Waldo Emerson, Marquis de La Fayette, and Henry James who chose Northampton as the setting of his first novel. Artist Thomas Cole captured its beauty in art and called the city ``picturesque.'' Also poet Sylvia Plath found inspiration in Northampton. Sylvester Graham, a diet and health food enthusiast, hails from Northampton as well and is the inventor of the Graham cracker. Also Lydia Maria Child, an abolitionist, poet and writer, was born in Medford in 1802.

Northampton prides itself on its long and distinguished past, and its claim as one of the oldest cities in the United States. With such prominent and influential figures dotting its rich history, it is evident as to why Northampton is such a thriving and vivacious city today.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) is a good friend of mine. He is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and he really is a very decent guy, but he is really wrong in what he said earlier. To suggest that these tax cuts and this mania that we have witnessed now for tax cuts for the last 3 years has not had a substantial impact on the size of Federal deficit is to really put our heads in the sand. Let me remind Members of this House we are now fighting two wars with three tax cuts, and the mathematics are there for everybody to see.

An announcement this morning by Secretary Rumsfeld that 135,000 troops now are going to stay in Iraq for an extended tour of duty, well into the year 2005, and let us be honest with the American people, they are there for 2006 and 2007 and maybe through 2010. That is the reality that we confront. We are going to a $500 billion deficit this year after coming out of the Clinton years when we not only balanced the budget but projected surpluses for years to come.

I want to remind ``all is well'' that this proposal from the gentleman from Connecticut today has never even been vetted in the Committee on Ways and Means. Maybe I am mistaken, but I believe after having served in that committee for 12 years that the Committee on Ways and Means has a responsibility for tax revenue issues. So this is being brought to us by an individual who is not on the committee and indeed it has not been aired in the committee. There has been no public hearing on the proposal that we are going to vote on in an hour. So we find ourselves having this debate about alternative minimum tax.

And I want to say something. I think my hands are clean on this issue. I have heard them say that the Democrats put this in place in the reform of the Tax Act of 1986. That may well be the case, but let me tell the Members something. I am in favor of repealing it. I think there ought to be some intellectual honesty as it relates to AMT. It has outlived its usefulness. It has outlived its purpose, and now middle-income taxpayers are now being asked to carry its burden.

We have a game of kind of hocus-pocus here. The Republicans stand up and say, well, we are going to give AMT relief. They are not giving AMT to the number of people they could and should be giving AMT relief to, largely because it does not square with the tax cuts that the administration has proposed, and once again Republicans in this House go along with very few questions asked about any issue. The administration says it is so, they just go along with it, no questions asked, even if the evidence a few weeks, months,

years later turns a contrary conclusion.

Let me speak specifically, if I can, to this issue as it relates to this debate today. The alternative minimum tax was originally designed to make sure that everyone paid their fair share. Who among us can argue with that? The second notion of the proposal that we have offered today is that we want to grant some relief to the burden that the Republican Party has put on middle-income tax earners. If they, in fact, take advantage of certain credits in the Tax Code and they have a lot of children, they are penalized by their proposal. Do the Members know why? It is very simple, because the philosophy of the majority in of this body is that the only people in America that ought to have tax relief are the wealthy.

And to the credit of the wealthy 3 years ago, they were not even asking for tax relief. They wanted to pay down the debt, and public opinion polling concludes, once again, they still think that paying down the deficits are a far better use of taxpayer money than giving tax relief to even those who might benefit most from it.

They promised that they were going to do something about tax reform as it relates to AMT. But what they did not tell them was that they are going to give them tax relief on one hand and then if they sit down to do their tax forms, they are going to take it away from them if they have four or five children. If people desire to use the HOPE credit, they are going to take it away from them. If they try to take advantage of the child credit, they are going to take it away from them. So they give it to them on one hand and they take it back on the other. So in the end, there really is no tax relief as it relates to alternative minimum tax.

I want the Members to listen to this. Half, half of the promised benefits that we voted on last week under the marriage penalty bill, we were told we were going to provide relief to those folks as well, they are taken back to the Treasury by alternative minimum tax.

I have offered time and again, Mr. Speaker, a couple of very easy proposals in this body. Let us get rid of AMT. Let us scale back the size of the tax cuts the administration offered. Let us pay down the deficit. Let us pay for these two wars. Let us fix Social Security. Let us fix Medicare, as American people clearly desire. And let us give tax relief to middle-income Americans, particularly from alternative minimum tax.

I hope in the next few minutes as we engage this debate, we will have a chance to put the magnifying glass on the proposal that is before us today. And I have got to tell the Members, as a member of the oldest committee in this House, a committee that I believe is so desirable to sit on, a committee whose history is so profound as it relates to this Republic, they did not even have enough regard for the Committee on Ways and Means to hold a hearing on this proposal in the committee. This is the introduction to their proposal today on the House floor. Nobody has seen it until about an hour and a half ago.

So let us engage this debate. Let us have an opportunity to draw some attention to what it is that they are saying but, most importantly, to what it is that they are doing.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, anytime that we can ask those companies that have moved to Bermuda to avoid paying American taxes with 134,000 troops in Iraq to pay their share, I am happy to have my fingerprints on that issue.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the Republican Members a year ago in the Committee on Ways and Means they had a chance to vote for my AMT bill, which would have done exactly some of the things we are proposing to do today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I am just curious, and I would ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) or perhaps the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), since this was never aired in the committee, this proposal has not been brought up in front of the committee, will the author of this proposal, will he be taking his picture with the Committee on Ways and Means later on at 2 o'clock? Will we have him there for the photograph for history and posterity? I was just wondering, since we now have nonmembers of the committee bringing these proposals forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, a quick reminder to the previous speaker. More than half of the promised benefits last week of the marriage tax penalty are taken back under alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman you cannot fix this on a long- term basis without doing something about the tax cuts that the gentleman was heralding a couple of minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire as to how much time is left.

Is the gentleman prepared to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the time that is left.

Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate now in this House for a long period of time. For Members on the majority side to say, well, this was a Democratic proposal in 1986 and then to conveniently forget or suggest that during their 10 years that they have not had sufficient opportunity, working, by the way, with a willing minority to fix the issue, really does not make a great deal of sense. This issue is hanging out there. It is waiting for a solution. There ought to be an opportunity in a bipartisan manner to fix it.

I have said flatly I am in favor of repealing the alternative minimum tax. Let us get rid of it. There is a revenue gap to make up, $600 billion, that has to be found somewhere; but when we offer the suggestion, it goes nowhere, because it does not square, Mr. Speaker, with the tax cuts that the administration has offered and that the compliant Members of the majority have gone along with without ever, ever, ever asking a question.

Forbes magazine has suggested that the tax cuts that the Republican majority and the administration have offered only make the alternative minimum tax issue worse for middle-income Americans. We have heard today a suggestion that issues of war in the Middle East and in Afghanistan are irrelevant to these discussions. How are we going to pay for the troops, 134,000 that are in Iraq and 12,000 that are in Afghanistan, and support this war effort? How are we going to pay for, first, the Defense budget that goes to $421 billion at the conclusion of this session, $41 billion for homeland security? They are off by $140 billion in their prescription drug bill proposal; and the answer is, to all of this, tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, we can fix the alternative minimum tax issue in a bipartisan manner. I am more than happy to offer my support to try to get that under way. Support the Democratic alternative today. It, in the end, is responsible tax policy, and show those people at Enron and show those people in Bermuda that they ought to pay like the rest of the American people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill was summed up perfectly by my friend the gentleman from Illinois when he said that this bill was introduced last week. So the bill was introduced last week and now it is on the floor this week, a complicated tax bill? I think the oldest committee in the Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means, would have had an opportunity to digest the details of this legislation, but this must be some new mechanism that we have developed here whereby on a very important tax matter the legislation is introduced last week and it is on the floor today for discussion without incidentally having gone through the committee, which for people like myself happen to believe that this is the basis of the Congress, sending legislation through the committee so it might be vetted properly and there might be an opportunity for people to examine the details of the legislation before it is brought to the floor.

Let me speak specifically to the tax cut mania that we are hearing in this institution. What is striking about this proposal, Mr. Speaker, is that, I want to remind people, we have 130,000 troops in Iraq who are serving with honor and distinction every single day. We have 12,000 more troops in Afghanistan who likewise are serving this country admirably day in and day out. So here is the strategy in the modern Congress.

We are simultaneously fighting two wars with three tax cuts.

One of the things that I am most proud of during my time on the Committee on Ways and Means is that we

were able to put together the details that balanced the budget of the United States for the first time, I believe, in about 3\1/2\ decades, and then we projected surpluses where we may well have had the opportunity to repair Social Security, to repair Medicare, to spend some money on education and to have done the things that we all desire in terms of improving our environment. But the strategy afoot today in the modern Congress is you introduce the bill last week, and then you bring it to the floor for a debate without even going through the committee process. So two wars, three tax cuts, $500 billion in deficit, and there is no vetting of this process in front of our committees?

Let me speak specifically, if I can, to the proposal of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). Let me tell the gentleman, I know people like the Hallihans. Here is the problem with this proposal: What we give to them with this hand, the alternative minimum tax takes away with the other hand. For a family who already has discovered a couple of weeks ago how ferocious the alternative minimum tax can be, they are going to discover that with the headlines of marriage penalty relief that there is a take-back provision.

So we are going to give them the benefit today of what we deem to be or call marriage penalty relief, and, guess what, Mr. Speaker? The Hallihans are about to discover that if they are a married couple with two children who make $72,000 a year, they are not going to get any relief in this proposal because of the alternative minimum tax.

Now, I along with others have been talking about the problem of the alternative minimum tax for the last few years around here. I said recently seldom have I ever been part of any issue in the 16 years in which I have had the honor to serve here where people said to me, keep up the good work, we appreciate what you are doing on both sides of the aisle, and then we do not do anything about it.

So let me go back to the Hallihans for a second, because I expect that they are going to know about alternative minimum tax very quickly. If they have two children and they take the standard deduction with income of $72,000 a year, let me repeat, they are not going to get any tax relief with this proposal. Part of the problem is AMT, and part of the problem happens to be the President's tax cut proposals.

I am going to go back to what I said at the beginning. How can we be fighting two wars with three tax cuts? That is what we ought to be discussing and deliberating here. We passed $87 billion for the war in Iraq, that on top of $60 billion, and everybody in this institution knows that after the election we are going to need more money for the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war.

Where are we going to go to get it? I do not know any businessman or businesswoman in America that could hope to run their company the way that we are undertaking tax cut legislation in the modern Congress.

Then on top of that, we stand at the microphones and tell people, you are going to get relief under this proposal, and more relief under this provision. Then they get their tax bill; and they discover not only is there not any more relief, but, because of alternative minimum tax, they are going to pay more.

There are two issues that we should all be able to agree on in this Congress: tax simplification, there ought to be an appetite here for getting it done; and the second part of this issue, we should be fixing permanently the alternative minimum tax. That is what we should be doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), who was elected on the same day as I was. I would point out he is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, which generally is in a position to take up these sorts of issues.

Mr. Speaker, there are 10 million people, married households who are going to get no benefits from this proposal; 3 million more are only going to get part of the benefits. That means we are denying 13 million married households a benefit that is being promised to them today because of alternative minimum tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a contrast between the two parties. To suggest that this is not about paying for Iraq and Afghanistan is ridiculous. Of course it is. We are borrowing the money to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan: $87 billion. Of course this is entirely relevant.

Also, I do not believe that the Committee on Ways and Means brought this issue up. Maybe I was not there that day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) earlier spoke of the need for tax relief, and other speakers on the other side have offered different proposals suggesting that we should proceed down this road of tax cuts regardless of whether or not we are going to need this money for Iraq and for Afghanistan.

Now, let me go back to the point that I raised earlier in this debate, and I hope people are listening. Without batting an eye in this institution, we borrowed $87.5 billion for the war in Iraq. Now, the only reason we did not hear the real cost of the war in Iraq is because people would have reacted very differently. Everybody in this institution today, the people that are watching, the people that are here as guests, they know you are going to need more money for Iraq and Afghanistan. Tens of billions of dollars more will be needed for Iraq and Afghanistan.

For years Democrats were accused of being the party of fiscal irresponsibility even though we set the Nation on the right course in the mid-nineties with record surpluses, record economic growth, unparalleled prosperity, and we demonstrated you could balance the

budget and still fix Social Security and Medicare.

Today we are, and I want people to listen to this carefully, we are borrowing the money for this tax proposal before us today, borrowing the money and sending the bill to our children. We are fighting two wars. For the first time in our history we are having tax cuts at the same time that we are fighting two wars. We watch the red ink everywhere, $500 billion this year in deficit, and the answer here is let us add more to it.

The President comes forward with a proposal to finance the war in Iraq, which I voted for because I thought those soldiers needed the best equipment and best supplies we could provide them with, but we borrowed the money to do it. And the answer today is, let us borrow money for tax cuts to pay for these proposals. And then people like myself who have been talking about alternative minimum tax for years here were told, well, do not worry because we are just going to do this in a couple of weeks. We are going to fix the alternative minimum tax in a couple of weeks.

The alternative minimum tax problem is going to cost $500 billion to $600 billion to fix. We will not fix it in 2 or 3 weeks here. Everybody knows it. We will have the tax cut of the week in an effort to massage the numbers.

Let me give you another specific quick example of what we seek. The AMT problem reaches in to more families based upon the more kids you have. So the families who take the standard deduction and have four kids with incomes of $64,000, they are not getting any benefit from this proposal today because what they are offering them on one hand, they are taking away on the other. So they suggest we will give you marriage penalty relief, and then the IRS is going to say, aha, take those deductions for those children, take the HOPE credit, and let us tell you what is going to come of it.

What is going to come of it is you are bumped into alternative minimum tax and you will be hit with a bigger bill than you originally would have had.

Now, let me offer some of my political DNA on this issue as a Democrat. I have proposed getting rid, outright, of alternative minimum tax. Just repealing it. That would force this institution and the other body to speak specifically to the issue of the tax cuts that we have seen here, reckless disregard for the future of this Nation's financial security. We are going to need that money for the international commitment that we have made in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the war on terror.

We will need to fix Social Security. We will need to fix Medicare for generations to come. That is not irresponsible to have used those surpluses during the Clinton-Rubin years to pay for the basic requests of the American people.

This is not an issue that is 20 years off. The baby boomers begin to retire in 2011. We are going to need the resources for that. And to the question that was referenced earlier, the suggestion that we are proposing a $206 billion tax increase, we are going to need $300 billion for the war in Iraq.

I will remind this body, General Shinseki said, You need tens of thousands of more troops. He got fired for his wisdom. Lawrence Lindsey, by the way, the architect of the President's economic policies, said 200- to $300 million. He got fired because he had the audacity to suggest the truth to our respective bodies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first introduced legislation to repeal the individual alternative minimum tax on April 14, 1999, and have been warning about the dangers of letting this problem fester ever since. While the broad problem has since become better known (albeit not addressed in any meaningful way), little attention has been paid to the plethora of nagging problems caused by the neglect of the Bush Administration of this issue--problems I have addressed one at a time in additional legislation over the years.

The latest example of the cost of this Administration's neglect is the impact the alternative minimum tax is having, and will have, on private activity bonds; as discussed in an insightful analysis by John Buckley (Minority Chief Tax Counsel, Committee on Ways and Means) published in BNA's The Daily Tax Report March 1st. As a leader, along with Rep. Amo Houghton, in expanding the use of private activity bonds for low and moderate income housing, I am particularly sensitive to the adverse affect the AMT is having on the market for housing bonds.

The failure of the Bush Administration to address the issue of the AMT meaningfully means that the number of families subject to the minimum tax is skyrocketing. Without further action by Congress, 78.6 percent of families with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000, and 95 percent of all families with incomes between $100,000 and $500,000, will pay the minimum tax in the future. While the impact of the alternative minimum tax has become widely known, few recognize its impact on private activity bonds. Approximately 75 percent of all tax- exempt bonds are held directly or indirectly by individual investors. These investors generally have annual incomes that in the future will, as indicated above, almost guarantee that they will pay the alternative minimum tax. As a result, the individual market for tax-exempt private activity bonds is quickly eroding and could disappear entirely in the future.

Already the financial markets have begun to recognize this serious problem. Not only have some mutual funds reportedly announced their intention of not investing in bonds subject to the AMT, but higher interest rates are being offered in connection with these bonds. In 2000, private activity bonds were issued at average interest rates of about 104 percent of the rate offered on tax-exempt general obligation bonds, presumably reflecting slightly greater risk. In 2003, the average interest rate had increased on tax-exempt bonds to about 110 percent of the rate offered on tax-exempt general obligation bonds.

Some will argue that this is a problem that can wait for another day since the number of individuals subject to the minimum tax will explode only in the future. They are wrong. Tax-exempt bonds quite often are issued for terms as long as 30 years. The fact that an exemption may have value today but not in five years, will affect the interest rate at which those obligations are currently being issued.

Mr. Speaker, this country is now being forced to face the consequences of the Bush tax cut agenda. The deficit has exploded while the Administration swats at flies in non-defense discretionary spending, the value of our currency is declining as investors both here and abroad lose faith in our fiscal policies, and the International Monetary Fund recently criticized the fiscal policies of the Bush Administration in terms that previously had been used only in the context of developing nations. We are again seeing growing income inequalities as the wages paid to average workers stagnate and jobs flee the country.

These are some of the economic issues that divide the two parties in Congress, and we can and will vigorously debate them in the future. However, I believe that we should attempt to take action on a bipartisan basis to limit the adverse and unintended impacts of the alternative minimum tax. The bill I am introducing today, along with my colleague from New York Steve Israel, simply removes tax-exempt interest on private activity bonds from the individual alternative minimum tax. While failure to act would mean that Congress does not place as much emphasis on providing decent housing for the less fortunate as it seems to, I am confident that that is not the case. However, I am worried that this problem, as other problems involving the minimum tax, will simply be band aided over until that mythical time in the future when we tackle the AMT problem as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, while the House today takes up a budget resolution to fund important programs for education, national defense, health care, homeland security, environment and veterans, let me point out that there is another vote taking place today. That is the vote of the shareholders of the Tyco corporation. They are going to continue to shirk their responsibilities, apparently.

In 1997, New Hampshire-based Tyco, International renounced its corporate citizenship and changed its mailing address to Bermuda to avoid paying $400 million in U.S. taxes. Today, shareholders will be asked to vote on a resolution that will change that. My hunch--it is going to fail.

This is unfortunate for all Americans because they are being asked to make sacrifices during a wartime economy. We have 134,000 troops in Afghanistan and Iraq while Tyco, International and the Bermuda-based companies, all for the price of a $27,000 post office box they do not want to contribute, and the other side does not want to do anything about it.

I am the sponsor of the Corporate Patriot Enforcement Act which would deny tax benefits to former American companies that reincorporate offshore simply to avoid paying the same taxes the rest of us do. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, we could save $4 billion just asking these folks to pay their fair share.