Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring of the majority leader the schedule for the coming week.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for informing us of that schedule.

Mr. Leader, tomorrow is a day on which the conference report on the budget is supposed to be adopted, as you well know. However, the House is yet to appoint conferees. When might we appoint conferees, given the fact that we are already behind schedule?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. Obviously he articulates reasons that he believes this bill is an important piece of legislation.

In light of the fact that the Speaker has not yet decided who he wants to appoint as conferees, does the gentleman have any thought as to when we might contemplate having the conference committee meet and then, of course, the conference report on the floor? I ask that from two perspectives: one, as the representative of the party who would like to know what is going on, as I am sure the gentleman would as well; and, secondly as an appropriator.

As the gentleman knows, until the conference committee report is adopted, it has the appropriations committees somewhat in limbo as it relates to allocations to the committees and then allowing us to make the 302(b) allocations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield further to my friend in terms of what expectations he might have as to timing from this point to when we might adopt a budget, in light of the fact it is my understanding from the staff of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) that there is hope that we will start to mark up bills sometime in mid-May. I do not know whether the majority leader has the same understanding or not.

I would be pleased to yield to my friend, the gentleman from California, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's observation.

My presumption is then, Mr. Chairman, before he leaves the floor, my presumption would be, for the Members of the House and also for the members of the Committee on Appropriations, that the Committee on Appropriations will proceed as if the House numbers were the numbers? Am I correct on that? I yield to the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, the business that the gentleman from Texas has set forth for next week is the energy business. Given the schedule the gentleman has just announced, would the gentleman expect the bill to be on the floor both Wednesday and Thursday?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the leader.

Given the time that is allocated to this bill, I presume, as the Leader has apparently indicated, that it is the expectation of the Committee on Rules to have a full amendatory process. My expectation is you are not going to have a fully open rule but that you would have some modified open rule. Am I correct on that?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, some of us do not believe that is quite as obvious as the gentleman does.

I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the Leader's observation. I know that, on our side, we had a discussion on that bill this morning. All of us believe the energy bill is a very, very important piece of legislation. All of us are concerned about the gas prices that are confronting all of our constituents. I have a number of employees who commute significant distances. Although they live relatively close by, it is a 45-minute commute in traffic and a lot of gas, and they spend a lot of money on gasoline. In addition to that, energy independence, of course, is part of our national security. So we are hopeful that we will fashion a bill in a bipartisan way that we can see passed and signed by the President.

Mr. Speaker, the last item I would ask the Majority Leader about is, as the gentleman knows, the ethics process in the House is essentially at a standstill. The gentleman has made that observation, obviously; and we have made that observation as well. Efforts to move the ethics process forward have failed so far, both in committee and on the floor, when virtually all of the Members on the gentleman's side of the aisle, now twice, have voted to table motions that would have provided for the appointment of a bipartisan task force to make recommendations to restore public confidence in the ethics process.

As the gentleman knows, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), he was sitting to my left here, although he is now to my right; maybe he is running for office and wants to position himself; but the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and Mr. Livingston performed an outstanding service for this House in coming together and adopting and presenting, proposing a bipartisan ethics process. We had that in place, as the gentleman knows, and it was changed, we believe, in a partisan fashion.

We oppose that change, as the gentleman knows, as does the former chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). He and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have a bill, and that bipartisan resolution has now 207 cosponsors, and that would simply return the ethics rules to where they were, adopted bipartisanly, proposed bipartisanly by the Livingston-Cardin Committee, and it would return to a place where we believe the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would not be at impasse.

We are also concerned about, as the gentleman knows, the chairman's proposition that we have a partisan division now of the ethics staff, which heretofore has been a bipartisan, I might even say nonpartisan, staff.

I would respectfully inquire, given that background, which the gentleman knows, of course, if and when we might see House Joint Resolution 131 on the floor. As I say, it has 207 cosponsors. It reflects the bipartisan agreement of the Livingston-Cardin committee and the bipartisan vote of this House some years ago in adopting the Livingston-Cardin option.

In the alternative, of course, when we might find an opportunity to support a bipartisan commission that could again look at this and try to get us off the dime.

I know I have mentioned a number of points, Mr. Leader, but I know that the gentleman believes it is important personally and institutionally. I have worked with the gentleman institutionally. We want to see this institution not mired in ethical questions of our side or of the gentleman's side. I think that either direction might get us there.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader respectfully if he thinks that we might proceed in either direction, or perhaps both, and I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the Leader for his thoughtful response. We have a difference of view on the change that was made from the Livingston-Cardin and House-adopted ethics rules which provided for an investigation of any Member to go forward unless a majority of the committee disposed of it. That meant, as the gentleman knows, that it would have to be bipartisan, because the committee is equally divided, so we would have to have at least one other Member, assuming one party was united on either side, one other Member of the other party to join in the disposition of a case. And if that disposition did not occur, an investigation would go forward.

Unfortunately, it is our perception, I say to the gentleman, that what the Speaker, because the gentleman said the Speaker wanted to protect the Members, what the Speaker has done from our perspective and, we think, from the perspective of many is created a process where on the inaction of the committee, based upon a tie vote so that a partisan group can stop an investigation, that the investigation will thereby be dismissed. So it turned the process 180 degrees, from having a bipartisan vote to dismiss to now having a partisan vote or a bipartisan vote necessary to proceed.

We believe that undermines the protection of the institution. We believe that that was not necessary in order to protect individuals and Members, which we think is an appropriate due-process protection.

I certainly will, but let me make one additional point. Every previous change that I know of, and you and I have been here about the same time. I have been here perhaps a couple of years longer than you. Every change that I know of in the ethics rules have been affected by a bipartisan agreement until this one. There were only a few votes, I think we were almost unanimous on our side, which is not unusual, which is why the ethics rules has historically been separate and apart, perhaps in the rules package, but agreed to in a bipartisan fashion. And that is my concern.

And I will be glad to yield my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank again the gentleman for his thoughtful remarks. We see it differently, Mr. Leader. What we have created is the ability of both sides to stop investigations in their tracks. Both sides. Our side, if we block up, and our five say you are not going to investigate Steny Hoyer, they can do it. Formerly they could not do that. And I believe your analogy is not apt, and I want to tell you why I think so, Mr. Leader.

The investigation is the gathering of facts, not the charging, not the finding of involvement. We do not use the term ``guilt,'' but the finding of involvement. It is an investigation to gather the facts from which the decision-makers, whether it be a grand jury or a petit jury, whether it be a judge or whether it be a prosecutor who determines whether to bring an indictment. Once those decision-makers have the facts, they can then make a rational decision, we hope.

What we have done, however, in changing the rules, which were adopted in a bipartisan fashion, is to allow either side to preclude the investigator from gathering the facts. That is as if we could preclude the police or the FBI or others from gathering facts that they would then, in turn, submit to a decision-maker, whether a grand jury to bring an indictment, a prosecutor to bring a charge, a petit jury to bring a conviction. I think that is inaccurate

I certainly will yield to the leader, but before I do, do you see my point, Mr. Leader? Either one of us could protect ourselves. Either one of us, your side could protect yourselves by your five holding firm. Our side could protect ourselves by holding firm. That may protect us individually, but our position is it does not protect the institution, and that is what our concern is. I yield to my friend.

No, sir. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader.

I want to apologize to the gentleman.

I will yield back to him.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I would reclaim my time and certainly yield to the leader.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, just for 1 minute.

Very briefly.

I would be glad to yield to the leader.

Mr. Leader, we obviously have a disagreement in the perceptions as to what the rule does and does not do. I think both you and I are very concerned about the reputation and integrity of this House. I think you share that view and I share that view. It is my suggestion that resolving this in a way that is bipartisan will be productive for the House.

Mr. Hefley, the former chairman, I do not agree with Mr. Hefley on a lot of things, but I do agree with his perception of how we protect the integrity of the House. There may be people on my side of the aisle who agree with your perception and not mine. I understand that. The fact is, though, that it would be in the best interest of this House and this country for us to resolve these matters in a bipartisan way either through, as our leader has proposed, a commission to be a joint commission equally divided, as was the Livingston-Cardin commission, or, in the alternative, to consider H.R. 131.

The leader is absolutely right, and I made that aside, as you recall. We did vote against the rules package, but we had agreed to the components, and there was no controversy about the ethics component in the rules package. There were other things with which we disagreed, obviously, but that was an agreement, and it was reached in a bipartisan fashion.

This was not reached in a bipartisan fashion. And, yes, as both parties usually did, I can remember, it is getting more difficult to remember, but I can remember when we were in charge and your side used to vote unanimously against our rules package and we pretty much do the same because we have some disagreements. But there was agreement on the rules package as it related to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and the reason for that is because both sides felt it to be very important.

Reclaiming my time, I think we both agree on that.

The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) wanted to say something, but I wanted to say you were right on the process. I was incorrect on the process. It was a separate vote on a separate package, and you are right that I and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and others voted against it. It was not on these provisions as you know because a change was made, not in a partisan sense, according to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) to explain his perception and recollection of the process.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I thank you for taking the time. I know you did not have to, and you have been considerate of this discussion because you and I know it is an important discussion. Because it is an important discussion, I would hope that we could move forward to try to get us off this impasse that we have for whatever reasons. And whatever is right or wrong, it needs to be resolved.

There are two suggestions here of how to resolve it. There may be other ways to resolve it. But I would hope that in the coming days we could move towards, in a bipartisan fashion, move towards resolving this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the last presentation. The bottom line was, he did not pay a tax. All that story, all those facts, and he did not pay a tax. He did pay his accountant some money to go through and make sure that he was doing what was right. He did that because the Tax Code is extraordinarily complicated and has been made 25 percent more complicated by the Republican majority over just the last 48 months.

Mr. Speaker, let us be absolutely crystal clear: This Republican proposal is nothing but a tax increase. Hear me, this is a tax increase disguised as a tax cut.

``Who are you, Mr. Hoyer? Lewis Carroll? What is this gibberish that you are talking about?''

It would raise taxes for thousands of families and thousands of family farmers and small businesses. There are no two ways about it.

For years, House Republicans have proclaimed that the elimination of the inheritance tax, a tax, now hear me on this side of the aisle, I know you want to hear this, a tax first proposed by Theodore Roosevelt in 1906. Now for those of you who may not be quite fully cognizant of our history, Theodore Roosevelt, of course, was a Republican President of the United States of America. It was intended to save family farms and small businesses.

But, today, not according to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), not according to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), not according to all the Democrats in this House or in the Senate, according to the Republican Department of Agriculture, I tell my friend from Missouri, the Republican Department of Agriculture says more farm estates would have increased tax liability from the carryover basis rules in this bill than would benefit from repeal of the inheritance tax. In other words, if we pass this bill, family farmers and small businesses are going to pay more taxes.

Now, I am for the Pomeroy alternative. First of all, we do not have that complicated look-back to find out what the basis was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago. We do as we do now, what is the basis now when you get it?

But we exempt under the substitute offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) $7 million. That means that 99.7 percent of the people in America would never pay an estate tax. I am for that. So this argument, I tell my friend from Missouri, is about the three- tenths of 1 percent of the very largest estates in America. Because if you vote for Pomeroy, 99.7 percent are exempt. So, as we have been doing for the last 4 years, we have been talking about the upper 1 percent. That is who we are talking about.

Now we are pretty well off in Congress. The American people do pretty well by us, very frankly. I am doing well enough. I paid a little bit of Alternative Minimum Tax this year. It shocked me, but my accountant pointed out that I did. So we are doing pretty well.

But there are a whole lot of people that are not doing nearly as well as we are doing, and we are not helping them at all by simply giving away revenue that we could spend on the education of their kids and the defense of their country, which we are borrowing for, of course, so that their kids will pay the debts.

Mr. Speaker, under current law, the Joint Economic Committee estimates that only 7,500 estates, in a Nation of 290 million people where some 3 million people die every year, 7,500 estates out of the 3 million people that die would have any estate tax liability in 2009. However, the permanent switch to carryover basis rules, rules that are used to calculate cap gains, would impact an estimated 71,000 additional estates, and many of those estates would face capital gains tax increases.

Now even as this bill increases the capital gains tax on many farm estates and small businesses, I tell my friend, it still adheres to what seems to be the Republican Party's core economic principle: fiscal irresponsibility.

The gentleman says this tax, that tax, and he is right. There are a lot of taxes on all of us, and we have a lot of services in this country. And, frankly, for the most part, as the gentleman knows, particularly if you take the industrialized nations, our tax structure at the Federal level is lower. But, still, they are high, and we would like to see them reduced.

But the fact of the matter is, I have three children, three daughters, they are wonderful people, and they provided me with three grandchildren. And I am buying stuff. I am buying defense against terrorists, I am buying stabilizing Iraq, I am buying education, I am buying health care, I am buying roads. All of us are buying that.

I do not want to have to say to my grandchildren, look, I am going to use it, but you pay for it. That is an immoral policy as well as a fiscally irresponsible one, an unwillingness to pay our bills.

Now, this is $290 billion. Just $29 billion a year over 10 years. No sweat. Shoot, we are borrowing all the Social Security money right now that the Republicans said they were not going to spend a nickel of. They are going to spend $170 billion of Social Security money this year alone. How do we do that? We borrowed $118 billion last February, from foreigners mostly, which we are putting our kids deeply in hock to China, to Japan, to Germany.

At a time of record budget deficits of nearly half a trillion dollars, this Republican bill would cost nearly $1 trillion over the first 10 years of full repeal. It would irresponsibly drive our Nation even further into debt and immorally force our children to continue to be liable for our bills.

In sharp contrast, I tell my friend from Missouri, and I wish there were more people on this floor, but it is only giving away, you know, $250 billion to $1 trillion. What do we care? We have given away trillions of dollars over the last 4 years as we go trillions of dollars into debt. As a matter of fact, $9 trillion into debt.

The substitute offered by the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) is excellent. It costs less than

one-third of this Republican bill. It would permanently increase the current exclusion amounts to $3.5 million per individual and $7 million for couples. Three-tenths of the estates would be left in 2009 and, as a result, exempt 99.7 percent of all estates from estate tax liability.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for this alternative. It solves the problems of small farmers, it solves the problems of small businesses, it solves the problems of pretty significant but nevertheless smaller estates, to make sure that the hard work of mom and dad can be passed along to their daughter and their son and their son's and daughter's families.

We agree with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) that that is a good objective, but we also agree that we ought to have fiscally responsible policies.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, whose debt is it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about tax reform and tax simplification, but one of our newest Members has had the opportunity to have the floor for the previous hour and talk about Social Security. I know that he is very worried about Social Security and, as a result, has been addressing that. But I am constrained to say that he talked about personal accounts with reference to Social Security. Of course, what he did not say is that Social Security has nothing to do with the solvency of Social Security. He talked about a moral responsibility. The President of the United States and his party indicated they were not going to spend any money of Social Security. In fact, in the last 4 years, they have spent and continue to spend every nickel of Social Security. I am sure my young friend will acknowledge that point at some point in time, but that is not the subject tonight of our Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that millions of Americans will not be saying at the end of this week is, TGIF, thank goodness it is Friday. Friday is the day, of course, April 15, the annual deadline for filing Federal income tax returns, a duty of citizenship that provokes anxiety, confusion, and, yes, even anger in many taxpayers every year. Without question, the Internal Revenue Code has become a maze of complexity that confounds millions of Americans, including, I think, all of us who will speak. It treats many taxpayers unfairly; and it creates an opportunity, some would say an incentive, for those who would exploit its complexity to avoid compliance, thus placing an unfair share on others.

As Nina Olson, Mr. Speaker, said, the National Taxpayer Advocate stated in December in her annual report to Congress: ``The most serious problem facing taxpayers and the IRS alike is the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. The only meaningful way to reduce these compliance burdens is to simplify the Tax Code enormously.'' So said Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate.

All of us, of course, bear some responsibility for the complexity of our Tax Code, Democrats and Republicans and every American who believes that the tax preferences that he or she utilizes are worthwhile. Considered individually, the tax preferences that clutter the code certainly can be rationalized and explained. Collectively, however, they are a jumble of confusion that have a corrosive effect on our democracy.

As Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury said, ``One of the unseen consequences of the Tax Code's complexity is the sense it leaves taxpayers that the system is unfair, and that others pay less tax because of special advantages.'' Almost every American, I think, feels that, including those who take special advantage.

A few facts illustrate the scope of the problem, Mr. Speaker. In 1913, the Tax Code was a mere 500 pages in length. Today, the code and regulations total more than 60,000 pages. Four common forms, form 1040 and schedules A, B, and D, take an estimated 28 hours and 30 minutes to prepare. Think of that. They are relatively simple forms. When the IRS started tracking this information in 1988, the average paperwork burden was 17 hours and 7 minutes, about 11 hours less. Even the simplest form in the IRS inventory, a 1040 EZ, perhaps misnamed, now requires 3 hours and 43 minutes for the average taxpayer to prepare, up from 1 hour and 31 minutes in 1988.

Complexity costs more than $100 billion. That cost is in accounting fees and the value of taxpayers' time to complete their returns. This is roughly equivalent to what we spend to run the Department of Education, Homeland Security, and State. Think of it: the cost of complexity for our taxpayers, $100 billion more than we spend on the Department of Education, Homeland Security, and the Department of State. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, more Americans than ever rely on tax professionals. I know I do. Nearly 60 percent rely on tax professionals today compared to 48 percent in 1990.

If the administrative burden does not convince you that reform is crucial, the crisis in noncompliance should. The IRS has estimated there is a $311 billion annual tax gap due to underreporting, underpayment, and nonfiling. Think of that, $311 billion. The bad news is that the budget deficits we are running up under this administration and the Republican leadership this coming year will be over $400 billion. So even if we collected every nickel of that that was due and owing, we still would not solve our budget deficit, but it would help.

Now, leaders in the Republican Party have repeatedly proclaimed their commitment to tax reform and simplification. We have heard that. The party that wants to bring down taxes wants to simplify the code. Both of us can share that objective. However, let us look at the facts.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader, stated in April of 2001, ``We are pushing forward with our campaign to reform the Tax Code. We are making it fairer, flatter, simpler, and less burdensome to the American people.'' That is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said in 2001, that they were making the Tax Code fairer, flatter, simpler, and less burdensome. But the facts, unfortunately, and no one should glory in these facts, but, unfortunately, the facts say otherwise. Republican tax bills during the last 4 years have added, added more than 10,000 pages to the code and regulations. In fact, during the 108th Congress, the Republicans orchestrated nearly 900 changes in the Tax Code.

Now, those of us that have been here as long as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) and I will remember passing a tax reform package which was designed to protect the taxpayer. And a report of our colleague, our Republican colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), who is now going to be our trade negotiator, that report said that one of the things that Congress had to stop doing if the IRS was going to be able to efficiently and effectively administer the Tax Code was to stop changing it every year. We have changed it every 4 years of this administration. And, of course, today on the floor of the House of Representatives, we changed it again. We made it more complex. In fact, many of us argued that what we did was really raise the taxes on really thousands of farmers and small business people as a result of the change we made.

Just one bill, the Republicans' so-called American Jobs Creation Act, resulted in 561 changes to the Tax Code, requiring more than 250 pages of tax law changes. Is it any wonder why it takes Americans so long to fill out their forms? The Joint Economic Committee notes how this one new law will require more than 10 percent of all small businesses to keep additional records, result in more disputes with the IRS, increase tax preparation costs, and require additional complex calculations.

Clearly, our tax system must be made simpler, fairer, and more efficient for the sake of every American, for every family.

Now, there are some people, frankly, who are wealthy and can afford unlimited accounting services to make sure that they take every advantage of the Tax Code, but the overwhelming majority of Americans are not in that position. Because of that, it is incumbent upon the Congress of the United States and each one of us individually to ensure that the Tax Code is fairer, simpler, and more efficient and that Americans can understand it and take much less time to fulfill their obligations to their country.

I think President Bush has taken an important first step in this effort by appointing the bipartisan Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform. I applaud him for doing that. It is chaired by former Senators Connie Mack, who served in this body as well; and John Breaux, who also served in the House of Representatives.

The panel, in my opinion, must present options for reforming the Internal Revenue Code. The requirement to do so is prior to July 31. I am hopeful that Congress can act on this important issue during the 109th Congress. I believe there is an increasing momentum, Mr. Speaker, among taxpayers for real reform; and Democrats intend to join and lead this fight. Democrats want to see reform to the Tax Code. Democrats are committed to a fairer, simpler, more efficient Tax Code.

For example, we need to diffuse the middle-class time bomb, the alternative minimum tax. Now, the alternative minimum tax was adopted for people who were making hundreds of millions of dollars, corporations making hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe billions, but were paying no taxes at all. So what the Congress said some decade and a half ago, was that, look, everybody in our country needs to contribute to its defense and its support. Therefore, we will have an alternative minimum tax.

That was never intended to adversely impact middle-income earners, not in the million dollar category, but far less than that. It was not intended for them. But Americans are now finding, two-earner families doing reasonably well, but just making their college tuition payments for their child, paying for their cars so that they can get to and from work, and paying for their mortgage payment because maybe they had to get a new house and housing prices have gone up; they are not having an easy time, and what they are finding now is they are getting caught in the web.

We should have fixed this 4 years ago. We should have fixed it 3 years ago. We should have fixed it 2 years ago. We should have fixed it last year. We should fix it this year. We are not going to. The President has not proposed fixing it, and the Republicans do not want to fix it either. Why? Because it is a secret stealth tax increase on middle-income and upper-middle income Americans.

That is why we do not fix it, so that the majority party can posture that they are cutting taxes while at the same time raising taxes. The AMT, or the Alternative Minimum Tax, will hit an estimated three million taxpayers this year, requiring them to pay $6,000 or more on average than they would otherwise owe, and which, when this was adopted, was not intended to have any effect on them. And the number of taxpayers subject to this tax will explode.

Listen to this, my friends. All of our constituents ought to know this. It will go from the three million who are adversely affected today to 35 million taxpayers.

Now let us say, just for the sake of argument, that there are only 15 million families there. So 50 million families, in other words, 35 million taxpayers who have a wife and children, so maybe as many as 50 or 60 million people, 35 million taxpayers will be included in the provisions of the Alternate Minimum Tax by 2010.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, because the AMT was not indexed for inflation, that is the way we could have protected the middle-income folks, we did not do it. We should be doing it now. We should have done it in 2001, we should have done it in 2002, we should have done it in 2003, we should have done it in 2004, and we should have done it this year. We are not doing it. It ensnares more and more middle-income taxpayers because it was not indexed.

We also, Mr. Speaker, need to take a hard look at moving toward a return-free income tax system, a system that would say to most taxpayers, you do not have to get involved in paperwork. Here is the deal. You can file very easily because the tax system will be much simpler and much fairer.

Think how much better Americans would feel, not that they are going to feel great about paying their taxes. None of us feel great about paying our taxes. But all of us understand, as a democracy, that it is necessary if we are going to have a national defense and if we are going to have other services in this country.

We need to simplify, Mr. Speaker, as well tax rules for small businesses. No reason small businesses ought to be under a mountain of rules and regulations and tax requirements. We ought to stop individuals and corporations, however, from gaming the system, which means that small businesses and individuals have to pay more than their fair share. We need to consider overhauling the corporate income tax and focus on eliminating tax breaks that actually encourage American companies to move jobs overseas.

The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) has been very involved in this entire issue, and perhaps he will discuss it when I yield to him. Overseas, rather than giving tax incentives to corporations and businesses, to create and keep jobs here in America for Americans.

The American people are acutely aware of the unnecessary complexity and dire need for real tax reform in America today. The Republican party has not led on this issue. And the President can call a commission together, but for 5 years they have taken

no action. The American people need and deserve a tax system that is simpler, fairer and efficient.

I would like to yield now to some of my colleagues who are here. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) has been here for a long time waiting to speak, and I thank him for being here. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks and for his restating the commitment the Democrats have to ensuring that Americans get a fairer, simpler and more efficient tax system that treats them fairly and treats everybody else fairly as well.

Now it is my great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to introduce or to yield to one of the senior members of the House of Representatives, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, mayor of his town before he came here, and as a member of the Ways and Means Committee has been in the leadership of opposing complicating the Tax Code, opposing making it less fair and opposing tax legislation which sent jobs overseas. He has been a true giant in the leadership on this effort, and I am pleased to join with him in this effort that we join tonight. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). That is our pledge. The Democrats are going to work. We are going to work hard, and we will work with the President if the President wants to work, and we will work with the other side of the aisle to make this a fair, simpler, more efficient tax system. We owe that to the American public. We want to be the party of reforming our tax system so that Americans will say, I understand it, nobody likes to pay taxes but I am paying a fair share.

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). It is now my honor to yield to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Cleveland, Ohio (Mrs. Jones), who has done such an extraordinary job during her tenure here and is now a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her comments. I think her reading of the letter is an example of all that we are hearing from Americans: Congressman, this Tax Code I cannot understand. Congressman, this Tax Code costs me a lot of money and a lot of time to comply. And I want to comply and I want to be honest and help my country but, golly day, I am having trouble figuring it out. Will you please make it fair? Will you please make it simpler and just make it work better for me, for my family, and for the country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to someone who is working very hard to do just that for his constituents and all Americans, the newest member of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who does an extraordinary job.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I congratulate him for those clinics. I think that is a wonderful idea. I think very frankly we ought to have similar clinics and cooperate with a number of the people in our communities who could help people, particularly the EITC is difficult to understand for Members, much less those who it is designed for, to make sure people at the very poor end of the income scale have enough resources to support their kids. That is what it is all about, and this is what we think ought to be done.

So I thank the gentleman. I also want to thank him for the simplification of all the child tax credits that are now available because if we can get that just one item, as you pointed out, down from those 200-plus questions down to 10 or 12 questions, we are going to save a lot of money, a lot of time and a lot of mistakes, a lot of mistakes. The EITC is complicated, but there are a lot of mistakes made, not by people who want to commit fraud but who simply make mistakes.

I am glad that we are joined now by, in my view, one of the real stars of the new class in the Congress. She has been sent to us from south Florida, an area where I used to live, and she is doing an extraordinary job. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and she left me a beautiful segue into the closing of our action matching our words. That is what ought to happen, and when that does not happen, people get pretty cynical. Let me refer to some words.

In 1996, Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of this House and he said, ``The current system is indefensible,'' referring to the tax code. He was right. ``It is riddled with special interest tax breaks. Today's tax code is so complex that many Americans despair that only someone with an advanced degree in rocket science could figure it out. They are wrong. Even a certified genius such as Albert Einstein needed help in figuring out this Form 1040.'' In 1996, 8 years ago, the Republicans were in charge of this House, and Mr. Gingrich was our Speaker.

A year later, Mr. Gingrich said this as the Speaker of the House, ``So we want to move towards a simpler tax code that takes less time to fill out, that is easier for the American people,'' 1997.

In the last 7 years, the Speaker's party, the Republican party, has made the tax code 25 percent more complicated than it was in 1997, moving in exactly the opposite direction.

In 2001, 4 years later, 2001, President Bush said, Americans want our tax code to be reasonable and simple and fair. He was absolutely right. That is what I want. That is what every American wants. These are goals that have shaped my plan. What plan? No plan, no plan here, no plan in the Committee on Ways and Means, no plan from the White House.

And then in 2004, fast forward 3 years, just last year: ``The administration has made tax simplification a priority, and we look forward to working with Congress to achieve it. A simpler code is something we owe honest taxpayers, and the worst thing of all for the tax cheat.''

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the President, but what did we do today? This very day, we made the Tax Code more complicated, not to mention costing many small farmers and small businessmen more money than they otherwise would have paid with existing policy.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends, my Democratic friends, on behalf of the Democratic Party, I pledge that we are going to fight to reform a system that is complicated, that is unfair, and that is inefficient so that Americans will say, as painful as April 15 may be, at least it was easier to fill out, at least I think it was fair, and at least I think it will be handled in an efficient way.

Democrats are committed to reforming this Tax Code so it will be simpler, fairer, and more efficient.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock and 47 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 14, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), thank him for his leadership on this issue, and thank him for his commitment to firefighters throughout this country.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of our Nation's firefighters. I am proud to have cosponsored this resolution. I am even more proud of my work with the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, which I have been privileged to cochair with the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), who started that caucus, and who is, I think, probably the most ardent spokesperson on behalf of firefighters and firefighting safety in this country.

The Fire Services Caucus, Madam Speaker, has long championed initiatives to include the safety and well-being of our Nation's firefighters and to enhance their ability to protect our communities.

Specifically, we have worked to establish and fund the assistance to the firefighters grant program, which has provided more than $2 billion in equipment and training grants for career and volunteer fire departments across the country.

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that we recognize the extraordinary contribution to the passage of that act. Indeed, he was the author of that act, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell). I want to thank him for his leadership which is untiring, unflagging and so effective on behalf of our firefighters and the emergency response personnel all over this country. I thank him.

Madam Speaker, more recently we have worked to authorize and fund the SAFER program, which the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) also talked about, and perhaps others have as well, which provides much- needed assistance to allow career and volunteer departments to hire and recruit additional personnel. Understaffing is not only a safety problem for our neighborhoods, but a safety problem for our men and women who risk their lives in our defense.

It is appropriate that we work tirelessly on behalf of the 1.1 million men and women serving as our domestic defenders. We send men and women abroad to defend freedom, to defend democracy. We are tragically losing some of those people in Iraq today and perhaps Afghanistan. They do so as volunteers. They do so because they believe in our country, in its ideals and in freedom.

Very frankly, here at home we are kept safe by men and women in uniform as well, our police and our firefighters and our emergency responders. We owe them not only a debt of gratitude, but we owe investing in their enterprise to keep them safe and to keep our neighborhoods and communities safe.

We ask far too many of them to risk their lives in our defense every day with outdated equipment, Madam Speaker, insufficient training and inadequate staffing, and we have an obligation to provide them the necessary resources to perform their jobs as safely and effectively as possible.

By honoring this obligation and supporting programs like the SAFER Act and the fire grants, we not only ensure they will go home to their loved ones at the end of the day, we also enable them to better perform their job by protecting us and our loved ones every day.

Madam Speaker, we will all vote for this resolution. It is easy to vote for resolutions. It is appropriate to vote for this resolution, but if we really mean what we say in honoring these firefighters, men and women, volunteers and career, if we really mean that, the gentleman from New Jersey is correct, and I am sure, I have not heard others speak, but I am sure the observation was made as well, we need to invest our resources behind the work that they do. This resolution, while appropriate and while important, it will not be as meaningful as it otherwise would be.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for the coming week. I yield to the majority leader, Mr. DeLay, for the purposes of informing us of the schedule.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information.

I would ask the majority leader if he knows which days we will be considering bankruptcy and which day we will be considering the estate tax bill? I yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, in any event, both bills will be on the calendar next week?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the budget resolution which we have passed, I know the Senate has appointed conferees, but we have not yet appointed conferees. Does the leader know when we might appoint conferees for the budget conference? I yield to the leader.

I would ask the majority leader, he is confident that we will have a conference?

One additional question. I presume the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) will be invited to the conference at some point in time, along with others?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that assurance. As the gentleman knows, we have had some problems, at least from our perspective, in being included in the conferences from time to time. That is an important one.

Our citizens are confronting, as my colleague knows, very high gas prices, $2.20, $2.30, $2.50 in some areas of the country. I understand that the committees of jurisdiction are expected to be marking up next week or are in the process of marking up the energy bill. Can the gentleman tell me when that bill might be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information.

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and if the majority leader will answer a question, it is my understanding that we have an agreement that there will be, pursuant to this unanimous consent request, debate on the pending piece of business, the House bill or the Senate Bill containing the House language, between 9 p.m. and 12 midnight this day; is that accurate?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the majority leader anticipated my next question.

And I appreciate your comments. This is, obviously, a very serious issue and we are prepared to deal with it seriously. We appreciate the fact that this provides for sufficient time in debate for the issues to be raised and addressed by the House of Representatives.

My second question, which you have anticipated, is that in fact Members can expect at 12 midnight, at the conclusion of the 3 hours of debate between 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, for the vote to occur on the pending legislation; is that accurate?

I thank the gentleman for that answer. It is also my understanding, Mr. Leader, that although we will recess to the call of the Chair, it would be, as I understand it, the intention of the Chair not to recall the House until 9 p.m. tonight.

I thank the gentleman for those comments and would make it clear to the House, Mr. Speaker, that of course one of the considerations is Members are trying to get back. They have had 17 hours notice of reconvening and with the vote to occur at 12, obviously, 9 o'clock will have been 14 hours, and the reason we did not want to go sooner is because there are Members on either side of this question who would want to make their positions known. So that is the reason for our concern.

So I appreciate the gentleman's comment, and my expectation then is that we will go back in at 9.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection under those representations.

The SPEAKER? Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

Mr. Speaker, this has been an extraordinarily serious debate. It has been in many ways a real debate, with each Member rising and understanding the seriousness of the issues which we consider. On the one hand, we consider the life of one young woman, a young woman struck by tragedy, shared by her family and by her friends and by her country.

One of the striking facts of American life and American culture is the great importance that America puts on the individual: One life, one swallow that God cares for and plans for. We are here as colleagues who have almost to a person experienced the same kind of pain and trauma that the Schiavo family now faces.

The gentlewoman from Ohio correctly stated that Terri is loved by her husband, by her parents, by her brother, by others in her family. Those of us who have been in that place know how difficult it is.

I had not expected, as my colleagues had not expected, to be back in this House to consider this legislation. When we were called back by the Speaker, and the leader and I discussed the circumstances under which the call would come, trying to accommodate Members as best as possible, I did what I presumed many of you did. I referred to the facts that I could find.

On the one hand, my reaction was that I am concerned that we appear to be a Congress that is flexible on the jurisdiction of courts. When we agree with the decisions that courts make, we leave them jurisdiction. When we think they may make a decision that we want, we try to give them additional jurisdiction. But when we disagree with the courts, we have had legislation on this floor in recent months to take from them jurisdiction. If we pursue that course as a country, I suggest to you that we will become a Nation of men and of politicians, not a Nation of laws.

The fact that we are a Nation of laws has distinguished us very greatly from many other nations of the world, and we have held up that distinction as a critically important one. We now have troops arrayed in Iraq to support that principle, of the individual, of freedom, and of law.

So I believe tonight, Mr. Speaker, that every Member will vote on behalf of Terri Schiavo tonight, but they will see their responsibility in that act differently. I believe, Mr. Speaker, they will see it honestly and sincerely, and realizing the duty they have by lifting their hand and swearing an oath to our constitution and to our country.

So, Mr. Speaker, I did, as I said what I suppose many have done, I went to the proceedings that have occurred in the Terri Schiavo case, caused by the absence of a written directive. I have three daughters, Mr. Speaker. They are all adults. They do not live with me now, but I see them regularly and I love them dearly. And since the loss of their mother, we have become even more close. And I heard the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) speak, and as I heard her speak I felt a tear when she referred to Mr. Wolfson, whom I do not know, but whose report I have read.

Mr. Wolfson was asked not by the mother and father, not by the husband, but by the State to try to determine as best he could what the medical evidence led him to conclude. He was not an advocate of the parents or of the husband. He perceived himself correctly as the advocate of Terri Schiavo. His report is a compelling one.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) said that she knows Mr. Wolfson, and knows him to be a man of wisdom and deep compassion and with a sense of responsibility. Then she spoke of her own daughter and such a condition, and the discussion she had with her daughter, and I hope many of you heard her say this, that her daughter said to her that if she was in that state she would not want to be left in that state by her mother, and she said, ``No, Mom, if you really loved me, you would let me go to my rest and be with God.''

If I thought the Florida courts had dealt with this in a superficial and uncareful way, perhaps, perhaps I would feel that we ought to interpose our view. But no fair reading of the court's decision at the lower court, no fair reading of the disposition by the District Court of the United States, in which they said in quoting Judge Altobrand of the Supreme Court of Florida, ``Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any similar cases, have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.''

This report is approximately 50 pages long that was issued by Mr. Wolfson. I urge my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) to read this. He said he had not. All of us ought to read it. This case, tragically, is not alone in the circumstances that have occurred. The report says that the Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa's family had been told of her intention, the family members, mom and dad, had been told of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it.

All of us can understand that, hopefully. The wrenching decision that it would be for a parent to take an action which would inevitably lead to the loss of life of their daughter. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, Mr. Wolfson went on, the family acknowledged that Teresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.

The report seems to indicate to me that any fair reading of it would say that very careful consideration had been given. I know that there are some doctors among us who have looked at reports and perhaps looked at tapes and concluded, contrary to the doctors who have examined her, that this was not the case.

The court, however, in an evidentiary hearing and after due consideration said clear and convincing evidence at the time of trial supported a determination that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen in February 2000 to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures, so that it has been concluded by all of the fact finders in the court systems of the United States, in the State of Florida, under the statutes, as the chairman has pointed out, established by the State of Florida to deal with this extraordinarily difficult human issue because, like birth, death will come to us all.

To some of us it will come in a way that will not raise such wrenching questions, but some few of us will individually and with our families have to face this decision; and properly the system should be followed to protect us so that neither a husband nor a mother nor a father nor anybody else can make that decision in a manner that is not fair, that does not have due process and does not protect us as individuals.

In reading the record, Mr. Speaker, I have concluded that the State of Florida in its wisdom provided for that process and accomplished that end. Because of that and because I care about our Federal system and because I care about our Constitution and, yes, because I care not knowing her individually but because I care for her as a child of God, I believe that this legislation should not pass.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this Republican budget conclusively demonstrates one thing: that when it comes to audacity, our friends on the other side of the aisle have an unlimited supply.

Yesterday Republican leaders, including the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader; and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, claimed on this floor that the policies adopted by the Republican Party last year reduced last year's budget deficit by $109 billion. What an extraordinary Lewis Carroll ``Alice in Wonderland'' representation.

You incurred over $350 billion of deficit, as you well know. The only thing you reduced was the inflated figure the White House came with at the beginning of the year. A figure that, by the way, was supposed to be zero, as I recall, the 2001 budget.

On the Republican Party's watch, the Federal Government recorded the worst budget deficit in American history, $412 billion in fiscal year 2004. Four hundred and twelve billion dollars of deficit spending, and that is counting using every nickel of Social Security, which you said you were not going to do, which the President said you were not going to do. And you had a ``lockbox.'' It is a sieve box.

Our Republican friends, it appears, are the only people who believe that a $412 billion deficit is something to brag about. For years they have preened as fiscal conservatives, but in less than 48 months they have turned the projected 10-year budget surplus, a $5.6 trillion surplus that they were handed, that President Bush from this rostrum said we had as a result of the 8 years of the Clinton administration, $5.6 trillion, into a deficit today in 48 months. I will put up 8. Forty-eight months, $4 trillion dollars. That is a $9.6 trillion turnaround or $2 trillion plus a year.

We ought to be ashamed of that. We ought to be ashamed to tell our children that that is what we have done to them. We ought to be ashamed to tell our grandchildren, of which I have three, that that is what we have done to them and their generation. We have added more than $2.2 trillion to the national debt in 48 months. The entire debt of the United States of America from 1789 to 1981, when I came to Congress, was $985 billion, cumulative debt. From 1789 to 1981, $985 billion. Last year we raised the debt $984 billion in one year. That is the height of fiscal irresponsibility, and I suggest it is also a fiscally immoral act and is the abuse of our children and grandchildren and generations yet to come, who in their time will face a challenge perhaps like Iraq, perhaps like AIDS, perhaps a tsunami or other natural disaster, and they will look around for resources to respond to their crisis in their time and say, oh, my goodness, the resources were spent by this Congress and by the previous Congress. What a shame.

The Democratic budget that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) offers has balance by 2012. It has the PAYGO system, which Mr. Greenspan is for, but you are not for because you do not want to pay. You talk about cutting taxes or raising taxes, but what you are really saying is you do not want to pay for what you are buying. And you buy because all the spending that we have incurred is in your budgets. All of the spending is in budgets. We cannot control the budgets. So all of the spending, but there is very little of the pain. That is fiscally irresponsible.

I would like to see who is going to vote for the bankruptcy bill when it comes on the floor that want responsible borrowers.

I will vote for the Spratt alternative because it is a responsible alternative, and I will enthusiastically and proudly and morally vote against the Republican alternative.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield for a question?

Mr. Chairman, I just went back to my office after I spoke, and I heard the gentleman speaking just now. And he talked about waste, fraud and abuse. And my question to the gentleman is, you have been through the budget hearings. Why do you suppose it is that the Bush administration over the last 50 months has not rooted out that waste, fraud, and abuse?

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, that occurred to me as well. I thank the gentleman for his response.

Mr. Speaker, the integrity of the people's House supersedes the interests of any individual Member who is privileged to serve here, of either political party.

We bear an individual duty, as well as a collective obligation, to abide by the highest ethical standards and to conduct ourselves in a manner that instills public confidence in this institution.

Yet, today, the ethics process in this House is at a standstill. Our bipartisan process to address alleged ethics violations has been stymied by a partisan roadblock that is inconsistent with the purpose and history of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct.

The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, has introduced a resolution that would remove this roadblock and restore the ethics rules that were adopted on a bipartisan basis in 1997. I urge my colleagues to support the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Mollohan) resolution.

Let us restore the ethics rules that guided us for the last four Congresses. Let us ensure that our ethics process is bipartisan and commands the respect of the American people. We ought to expect no less of ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, and I thank our new chairman and congratulate him on his new position.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote for this supplemental appropriations bill, because I believe it is imperative to support our men and women in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and to continue our Nation's important work there. Our Nation must finish what it has begun. We cannot disregard the bravery of millions of Iraqi citizens who turned out to vote in January. Failure there, in my opinion, is not and should not be an option.

This legislation also is a recognition of the bravery and courage of our service men and women, more than 1,500 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice for freedom.

As Tom Friedman pointed out in the New York Times in February: ``There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq.'' I share that view.

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is more than mere coincidence that over the last several months the winds of democratic reform have begun to blow, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Palestinian Authority. But we must harbor no illusions about the prospects for democratic reform in lands that have never known it. However, I believe that it is in our Nation's interests to encourage and promote it.

Mr. Chairman, I also want to note that this legislation includes funding for food and humanitarian assistance in Sudan, as well as tsunami relief.

However, despite these important funding requests, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this bill is far from perfect. In many respects it is troubling.

This Congress has a constitutional obligation, a duty, on behalf of the voters who elected us to serve here to hold the administration accountable for such expenditures. We have asked for a report. We have not gotten that report yet.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) mentioned that in our markup. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) mentioned that in our markup.

The American public wants to support this effort but wants to do so in an effective, honest and efficient manner. It is our responsibility to ensure that.

It is clear that the administration has included many measures in addition that are not emergencies. We understand that practice. It has happened before. But I believe with all due respect that we have not met our oversight requirements.

This bill is approximately $82 billion. In talking to staff, and maybe I stand to be corrected, but I believe that there are only two appropriations bills, Defense and Labor and Health that are larger than this $82 billion bill. Now there may be another one. I think VA-HUD used to be but we do not have VA-HUD. What does that mean? That means we are passing the third largest appropriations bill that we will pass in the Congress.

What does that mean? We are passing the third largest appropriations bill through this House without a single hearing, not one. There was no hearing in subcommittee, any of the subcommittees. There was no hearing in the full committee. We had 2\1/2\ hours of consideration in the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we literally hold hundreds, perhaps thousands of hours of hearings on the individual bills. As a result, individual Members have the opportunity to ask questions, to make sure themselves that the money that is asked for is being spent appropriately.

As I said, I will support this bill. I do not hold our new chairman responsible for this. This is a supplemental. It came down relatively late. Our men

and women are at risk. We need to get this money moving. I understand that. But I suggest to my colleagues that oversight is critical, and I would urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), that as we proceed with further consideration of these items that we exercise oversight carefully in the coming months to assure ourselves that this money is being spent as we intend it to be.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in tribute to Virginia Saunders, Program Operations and Evaluation Specialist for Congressional Documents, in the Office of Congressional Publishing Services at the Government Printing Office, as she approaches her 60th anniversary of dedicated Federal service, May 26, 2005.

Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a habit: Ten years ago, on the occasion of Ms. Saunders' 50th anniversary of Federal service, I rose to recognize Ms. Saunders' achievements, and I expect to do so again ten years from now. Born Virginia R. Frisbie in Darlington, Maryland, on October 11, 1926, Ms. Saunders spent her entire career in service to her fellow Americans. After working briefly at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, she came to the Government Printing Office on February 4, 1946, as a war service junior clerk-typist in the division of public documents, stock section. Two years later, she was promoted to the division of public documents reference section. In February 1951, Ms. Saunders was promoted to indexing clerk and earned subsequent promotions in the same classification. In July 1958, she was promoted to library technician. Becoming a congressional documents specialist in April 1970, she was then promoted to supervisor of the congressional documents section in July 1974. In October 1983, Ms. Saunders assumed the position of congressional documents specialist in the congressional printing management division, customer services, and in September 2004 she was promoted to her current position.

As I pointed out ten years ago, although one may not yet recognize the name of this outstanding GPO employee, the end product of her dedicated efforts is certainly familiar. Ms. Saunders has primary responsibility for the Congressional Serial Set, which is a compilation of all the House and Senate documents and reports issued for each session of Congress. Dummy volumes establishing the format for each edition are prepared and assigned a serial number following each session of Congress. The actual books are produced by GPO's binding division, often as many as 100 volumes per set for each session of Congress. As a chronicle of work of the Congress over the years, the Congressional Serial Set is rivaled only by the Congressional Record. While the Serial Set records behind-the-scenes legislative activities for the United States, the Congressional Record reflects the ``in- session'' proceedings. Distributed to the House and Senate libraries, the Archives, the Library of Congress, and depository libraries, the Congressional Serial Set joins the Congressional Record in offering students and historians a rich insight into the American system of government. Virginia Saunders makes all that possible.

In late 1989, Ms. Saunders recognized the importance of the depository library program in informing the Nation, and drew upon her then-43 years of GPO experience to submit an employee suggestion regarding the appendix to the Iran-Contra Report to Congress. She suggested that this 40-volume publication, which was printed as both a Senate and House report, be bound only once for the serial set volumes of House and Senate reports that are sent to depository libraries. She further suggested that the Schedule of Volumes, a listing of the bound volumes, contain a notation explaining the missing serial number volumes. The implementation of this suggestion resulted in a reduction of 13,740 book volumes to be bound, saving the Federal Government over $600,000. In recognition of these efforts, she received GPO's top monetary Suggestion Award for that year. In ceremonies held on January 9, 1991, Ms. Saunders received a Presidential letter of commendation under the Quality and Management Improvement Award Program. In his letter to Ms. Saunders, President George H.W. Bush noted, ``You have demonstrated to an exceptional degree my belief that Federal employees have the knowledge, ability, and desire to make a difference.'' As one with the privilege of representing tens of thousands of Marylanders in Federal service, I know this to be true.

In tribute to her work on the Congressional Serial Set, in 1999 Ms. Saunders received the James Bennett Childs Award from the Government Documents Roundtable of the American Library Association. The ALA honored Ms. Saunders' ``distinguished contribution to documents librarianship,'' and paid ``grateful recognition'' of a lifetime of exceptional achievements in this important field of endeavor.

I know my colleagues and Ms. Saunders' family, friends, and co- workers join me in congratulating her on 60 years of exemplary Federal service. See you in 10 years, Virginia!

Mr Speaker, for the purpose of informing us of the schedule of the week to come, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Let me say that I am pleased, and I know our side is and I am sure the gentleman's side is as well and I know the Governors and county officials throughout the country are pleased, to see that the transportation bill is on the floor. This was a bill, as the majority leader knows, that expired, I think, September 30, 2003, and we have done extensions since that time.

It is scheduled for 2 days on the calendar, as I understand, and we just heard the announcement of the Committee on Rules chairman that there may be limitations to amendments in the bill. In light of the fact that I know there are still some substantial questions, this bill was reported out on voice vote unanimously but with one of the most contentious issues, as I understand it, left unresolved in terms of donor/donee States.

Can the majority leader amplify, perhaps, on what the Committee on Rules chairman said in terms of whether we will have general debate on one day and amendments on the next, or does he think he will start considering amendments on the first day of consideration.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. And I think the gentleman is correct. There were a substantial number of amendments. I would hope that those Members on either side of the aisle who have substantive amendments to offer, in light of the fact that we have been waiting on this bill for some time, would have ample opportunity on either side of the aisle, and I appreciate the leader's focus on that.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, if I can, can the majority leader tell us what his thoughts are in terms of scheduling, we have 2 weeks left before the Easter work period, with reference to either the supplemental appropriation and/or the budget?

So, Mr. Speaker, it would be his expectation that we would consider both those bills before the break?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for his answers.

Mr. Speaker, in the constantly changing world of Capitol Hill, all of us who are privileged to serve here recognize that people come and go--Members, staff, journalists, lobbyists and others.

And, if you work hard and have some luck, you can make your mark and make a difference in this great city and the life of our Nation.

Today, we mourn the loss of a truly wonderful woman who clearly did just that by establishing, along with her husband, one of Washington's enduring institutions--the Monocle restaurant. For 25 years, Helen Anton Valanos and her husband, Conrad (``Connie''), operated the Monocle, which the Washingtonian magazine recently said ``remains a Hollywood East of political stars,'' and ``a sort of political refuge flying a white flag . . . a place where Republicans and Democrats mix over food and drink and the bad blood between political parties seems to get bottled and checked at the door.''

Mrs. Valanos passed away on January 4th in Boca Raton, Florida, where she had lived since 1985. But the memories of her--like the political lore that has been generated at the Monocle for more than four decades--will always be with us.

She was born in Anderson, Indiana, and graduated from the University of Miami before settling in Washington with Connie in 1950. She worked with her husband in their accounting firm, and then, in 1960, they opened the Monocle. As the Washingtonian recounted: ``The Monocle opened with no advertising, no sign outside and all 86 seats filled for lunch.'' And thus was born, in September 1960, a place to see and be seen.

Today, says John Valanos, who since 1989 has run the restaurant that his parents started, three-quarters of his customers are ``people coming to the Hill to do business or to show friends or family what Washington is all about. They stop to see the photos on the wall, to experience some of the history that makes us unique. They say this is where JFK dined, where Mark Russell taped his CNN shows.''

During much of that time, as The Washington Post recently noted: ``Mrs. Valanos, a stylish presence at the restaurant for 25 years, would leave her bookkeeping duties upstairs, enter the restaurant and sweep through the room, greeting customers and making sure the regulars had a momentary chat with the owner.''

The secret to the Monocle's success is not only its proximity to Capitol Hill, its great food and its unique ambience, but also the fact that Connie and Helen--and now their son John--have nurtured a politically nonpartisan establishment and worked to protect the privacy of the public figures who dined there. Personally, I remember going to the Monocle when I was still a Congressional aide in the 1960s, and still go there for dinner and political fund-raisers.

I know that I speak for literally thousands of Members and others in offering my deepest condolences to Connie, John, the Valanos' other son, George, and the entire Valanos family for their loss.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this resolution, H. Con. Res. 45, recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education programs.

I have long been a strong advocate for music education programs, both in my home state of Maryland and nationally. I believe that music education should be available to students of all ages and a part of every student's academic experience.

Music education programs enrich the whole student, and are a critical component to a well-rounded academic curriculum. In my home state of Maryland, educators and administrators have worked to integrate music and arts programs into academic curriculums in order to provide students with these important benefits. At a time when education programs are struggling for adequate funding and state and local governments across the country face tremendous budget pressures, it is more important than ever to highlight and emphasize the importance of music education programs.

Music education can also enhance intellectual development and skills integral to improved learning. Skills learned through the study of music help children become better students. Skills learned through music transfer to improve study skills, communication skills, and cognitive skills. Also, studies have shown that students involved in music classes are less likely to be disruptive, have better attendance, and are more likely to receive academic honors and awards.

Studies have also shown that participation in school-based music education can increase student success. For example, in 2001 the College-Bound Seniors National Report showed that students with coursework in music performance and music appreciation scored notably higher on the SATs than students with no arts participation. Studies have shown that participation in music classes correlate with increased proficiency in mathematics and success in science.

We must place a high value on music education. I am pleased to support this resolution supporting the importance of music education programs and urging that the benefits of music education should be available to every student.