Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

For those of us who met this extraordinary young man, it was really in many ways a life-enriching experience. It is hard to believe that someone as young as Mattie had such a depth of understanding of life. His mother is a wonderful lady who transferred to Mattie her own courage, and he had that in great abundance.

But it was his wisdom far beyond his years that impressed everyone who met with him.

When you listened to Mattie, he spoke as a child; but when you listened to what he said, he spoke as a very wise man.

Mr. Speaker, Mattie Stepanek was someone who enriched the lives of all with whom he came in contact. I had an opportunity to see him every year for a number of years at the softball tournament that the International Association of Firefighters conducted in Prince George's County on behalf of Jerry Lewis' telethon on muscular dystrophy. Mattie would attend and he would speak, and everyone there came to hear Mattie. The rest of us were simply surplus.

I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for introducing this resolution and thank everyone who has been involved in making sure that this resolution comes to the floor and that we observe the passing of an extraordinary American, an extraordinary young man, an extraordinary child of God.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for acting. We are acting too late, but it is never too late to do the right thing.

We live in a new world, a world in which it is impossible to say that we do not know, that we have not seen, that we have not heard. Because we live in such a world, to remain silent and inactive is an immoral act; it is an act of indifference and negligence that condemns us as human beings.

The Second World War and the Holocaust have been referenced, the Holocaust appropriately so, because that was an act of eliminating a people because of the fact that they existed. This is an act of trying to eliminate a people, not because they are aggressors, not because they are a danger, but because they exist.

It is incumbent upon not just the United States, but on all the world to act when it is confronted with genocide. It is an act of self- preservation for us to recognize what is being done and to act, for if we do not, we will not live in either a safe or a civilized international community.

Very frankly, we watched in the past decade a genocide occur in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we interviewed some blue helmets who were there on the ground and reported back that, yes, they had seen atrocities committed, but their assignment there was to report, not to act.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) mentioned Dante's reference to those who maintain their neutrality in the face of moral outrage.

This is an important act we take, but it is not enough, because words will not save those children. Words alone will not protect those women from assault and ravage. Words will not feed those people. Words will not prevent the death; but words hopefully will be the beginning of action, a call to morality, a call to civilization, a call to the international community to live out the promises that it included in the United Nations charter, with hope of a new and better and safer and more moral world. That is what this resolution is about.

I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). I thank him for his commitment, his leadership, and his steadfastness. I urge all of my colleagues, all of us, everyone, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, north, east, south and west, to affirm this commitment, this definition, this call to action, this call to a moral world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Michigan that I was very interested in his remarks, and I agreed with a lot of his remarks. Where we would disagree is our responsibility is if we are going to buy things to pay for them. And I would say, with all due respect to my friend, for the last 40 months we have not been doing that.

We continue to buy and we are not paying. And that is why that half- a-trillion-dollar debt to which he referred has been accumulated, and this year it may be a little less or a little more, but I agree with his general proposition that we need to come together, and if we are going to buy, pay for it and not pass it along to future generations, because as the gentleman so correctly pointed out, if we incur debt today, it is inevitably taxes tomorrow.

It is, I think, appropriate that we transit from a discussion about the deficit that confronts us, the obligations confront us, and talk about the way we pay for what government is asked to provide.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be leading this Democratic special order tonight on an issue that confronts millions of Americans every single year, the unbelievable complexity of our tax laws.

All of us, of course, bear some responsibility for the complexity of our Tax Code. Democrats and Republicans and every American, every American who believes that the tax preferences that he or she utilizes are worthwhile. Considered individually, the tax preferences that are part of the code, of course, can be rationalized: the charitable deduction, a very worthwhile effort; the mortgage interest deduction, which has provided for America being now one of the largest home-owning countries in the world, a good provision.

Collectively, however, they are a jumble of confusion that causes unfair results and has a corrosive effect on our democracy. As Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, who is no longer with us, perhaps because of candor, said, ``One of the unseen consequences of our Tax Code's complexity

is the sense it leaves with taxpayers that the system is unfair and that others pay less tax because of special advantages.''

A few facts, Mr. Speaker, illustrate the scope of the problem. In 1913, the Tax Code was a mere 500 pages. 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.

There is a lot of talk about simplification, but we have not moved towards simplification, and Americans are rightly frustrated. Americans are rightly angry about this annual challenge that they have to pay correctly the taxes toward supporting their government.

When the IRS started tracking this information in 1988, that is how long it took to fill out forms, the average paperwork burden was 17 hours, 7 minutes. Even the simplest form in the IRS inventory, the 1040EZ, now requires 3 hours and 43 minutes to prepare, up from 1 hour and 34 minutes in 1988. It is called EZ. There are a whole lot of Americans who do not believe it is easy.

Complexity costs more than $100 billion a year in accounting fees and the value of taxpayers' time to complete their returns. This is roughly equivalent, Mr. Speaker, to what we spend to run the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, and State. Think of that. The dollars that we spend to fill out our forms are equal to what it costs us to run the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Education.

Not surprisingly, more Americans than ever rely on tax professionals, 56 percent, in fact, compared to 48 percent just 14 years ago, in 1990. But even tax professionals cannot guarantee accuracy. The General Accounting Office recently found that 2 million taxpayers who used a preparer took the standard deduction when they would have been better off itemizing. That says something about our system and perhaps something about preparers.

If the administrative burden does not convince people that the form is crucial, the crisis in noncompliance surely should. The IRS has estimated that there is a $311 billion annual tax gap due to underreporting, underpayment, and nonfiling, $311 billion owed but not collected. What does that mean? That means that somebody has to pick up that slack. Frankly, today nobody is picking it up because we have a deficit larger than that $311 billion, which means, as the gentleman from Michigan said earlier, that future generations are going to pick up that gap. They are going to pay that bill. And, in fact, all of us pay higher rates because too many pay not their fair share of that $311 billion.

In March, Nancy Killefer, the chairwoman of the IRS Oversight Board, told the House Committee on Ways and Means, ``The IRS does not have the resources needed to accomplish its mission.''

Let me repeat that. ``The IRS does not have the resources necessary to accomplish its mission.'' What is its mission? To collect the revenues from each of us to pay for the government that we ask for.

John Kennedy said that taxes were the price of freedom. That is correct. We have established an agency to collect those revenues. Nancy Killefer says it does not have the resources to do so. She went on to say, ``It continues to be out gunned and outmanned.'' By whom? By those who want to avoid paying their fair share.

That same month, Deputy Treasure Secretary Sam Bodman informed Congress that the IRS intended to walk away from more than 2 million delinquents tax accounts last year that total nearly $16.5 billion dollars.

What message does noncompliance and lack of enforcement send? What does it result in? For too many the answer is clear, that it may pay to cheat. In fact, an IRS survey found last year that 17 percent of taxpayers, nearly one in five, believe it is acceptable to cheat, up from 11 percent just 4 years earlier.

Now, just like the people who go into a store and they take something off the shelf, put it in their pocket and walk out and do not pay for it, guess who pays for that item? All of us who come behind and buy that product, because we build in the price of cheating.

Well, there is no difference here. While more people believe that cheating is acceptable, fewer and fewer face audits. In 2003, individuals were audited at a rate of 6.5 per 1,000 returns, and 75 percent of those were computer-generated, non-personal audits. Compare that to the audit rate of 12.8 percent in 1997, or even 9.9 percent in 1998, the year Congress passed tax reform legislation. Audits for business also are down, from three per 1,000 returns to two in 1,000 in 2003.

Mr. Speaker, if they caught only two speeders out of every 1,000 speeders, what kind of enforcement would that be? What kind of constraint would there be to stay within the law?

Leaders in the Republican Party have repeatedly proclaimed their commitment to tax reform and simplification. For example, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader, stated in April 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.

But the facts, Mr. Speaker, clearly demonstrate otherwise. Since 2001, Republicans have made 227 changes to the Tax Code and added more than 10,000 pages to the code in regulations.

Mr. Speaker, I want the camera to go right to the end of my finger here. This is 10,000 pages. In 40 months, this is just \1/2\0th of those 10,000 pages, 500 pages. That is the number of pages the Republican Party has added to the Tax Code and regulations in just the last 40 months.

Today on the floor, of course, we spent about an hour on tax simplification. Wonderful. By the way, in passing that tax simplification, we added more pages to its complexity.

We need to do better. We Democrats believe that we can do better, and we intend to do better.

Additionally, the Republicans propose another 109 provisions in the FSC ETI bill, the bill that tries to fix the problem found in unfair competition in the WTO, the trade scenario. So we passed a bill to solve a $4 billion problem that cost us $150 billion, which we did not pay $35 billion of. That is the party that wants to make our code more simple, less complex, fairer. It was a grab-bag of special interest provisions, just as most of these pages are as well.

Just today, our Republican friends considered two bills as part of their tax reform and simplification week. But let us be honest. As I said, they spent 40 months complicating the code. They devoted 40 minutes to making it simpler.

Today, there is an increasing momentum among taxpayers for real reform. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will take the lead on this issue when we regain the House majority in November. We are going to make it simpler. We need to defuse the middle-class time bomb. We talk about it, but we have not acted on it, the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is no longer serving its purpose, at least not as intended. We need to take a hard look at looking toward a return-free income tax system, simplify tax rules for small businesses, stop individuals and corporations from gaming the system and reform international tax laws that encourage American companies to move jobs overseas.

The American people, Mr. Speaker, are acutely aware of the unnecessary complexity and dire need for real tax reform in America today. We Democrats have been talking about that. When we are in charge, we are going to do it, not talk about it, as our friends in the Republican Party have done.

The American people need, the American people deserve, a tax system that is simpler, fairer and more efficient.

I want to look at some of these quotes.

Newt Gingrich, 1997: ``So we want to move towards a simpler Tax Code that takes less time to fill out, that is easier for the American people.'' 10,000 pages since that time, and, indeed, more, added to the Tax Code.

President Bush, March 17, 2001: ``Americans want our Tax Code to be reasonable and simple and fair. These are the goals that unite our country, and these are the goals that have shaped my plan.''

My plan? My plan? What plan? There has been no plan submitted to the Congress of the United States. There is no plan in front of the Committee on Ways and Means to which the President referred. There has been no simplification. There has just been these 10,000 pages of additional special interest provisions added to the code. No plan, Mr. President. But, then again, you only said that 40 months ago.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a month after the President said his simplification plan was on its way: ``Because of the Tax Code's mind-numbing complexity, millions of hard-working men and women waste countless hours every April. 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.''

10,000 pages have been added to the Tax Code since the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said he was bringing us a fairer, simpler Tax Code.

John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury, this 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.''

Amen, Mr. Secretary. Where is the plan? Nobody here has seen it. Is it in the Treasury Department? Is it in the White House? Or perhaps it is on its way down Pennsylvania Avenue. Where is the plan?

Lastly, Scott McClellan, the President's Press Secretary: ``The President is committed to making the Tax Code more simple and fair.'' February 2004.

No plan, no fairness, no simple plan. 10,000 additional pages.

I now would like to yield to some of my colleagues to speak on particular aspects of how we can make this fairer, simpler and a better code.

I yield to my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a new Member of Congress, but a veteran of 20 years in the Georgia Senate and one of our most able legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for the passion that he brings to the effort to make this a simpler, fairer Tax Code for the welfare of our people, for small business, and all of those who must comply with a system that has become extraordinarily complicated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, is that the movie in which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) starred?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his remarks. And then that, of course, as the gentleman points out, is the purpose. The tax simplification purpose of ours is not going to be just tonight, it was not just 3 days ago when I gave a statement to the press and to others; it is a commitment that we have for all Americans to make this a fairer, simpler system for them and their families, and for every small businessperson in America so that they can feel that we are not placing an extraordinary burden on them.

Paying is burden enough. Complicating the system and causing them hours and hours and costs to comply is too much for them to expect, and we need to change it, and we Democrats are going to change it. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his remarks.

I now am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanual), who has been very involved in our efforts to focus on tax simplification and who is a leader in this effort.

Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for his contribution tonight, but more importantly, for his contribution to spurring the effort of tax simplification and tax fairness for middle-class Americans, but I would suggest to him that those families, of course, cannot site an offshore post office box and therefore avoid taxes. But to some degree, we ourselves have created 10,000 pages in which Americans normally look to how do I reduce my obligation in taxes. That is a normal thing for people to do, and the fact that we have made it so complicated allows some people to take advantage of loopholes that perhaps were not contemplated but exist; and the unfairness then is not only to our working-class, middle-class families but also to those competitors of theirs who do not take advantage of those loopholes, who keep jobs in America, who are paying their fair share of taxes here in America.

So tax fairness is not only tax fairness in terms of middle-class taxpayers but, frankly, all taxpayers so they can have the confidence that their liability based upon the income that they make will be proportionately the same as their competitor, as their fellow citizen.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield to another member of the Committee on Ways and Means, extraordinarily able member of our caucus, who does an extraordinary job in focusing on fairness to working families, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) for his comments and very important observations.

Clearly he is correct. We need to not talk about simplification; we need to do simplification. We need to do fairness so that the American public is better served by their system and better able to support themselves and their families.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the very important Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his very important contribution to this discussion.

In closing, let me say that we are committed to working, not only on our side of the aisle but working with our Republican colleagues as well, towards simplifying this code, making it fairer, reducing these 10,000 pages so that the anomalies of which the gentleman from Texas just spoke in terms of the deduction for the Hummer and for the Porsche will not make our tax code unfair so that the average working American who goes to work every day, and as Bill Clinton said, plays by the rules, will not have an undue tax burden placed upon them because so many others take advantage of one of the loopholes included in these 10,000 pages and do not pay their fair share.

That is not fair. That is not good tax policy. That is not good for America. So we are pledged as Democrats, as Americans, as Members of this House sent up by our neighbors here to represent them, to work unceasingly and tirelessly on making this code simpler, making it fairer, making it more efficient, making for a better code, a better America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sandra Feldman, who has retired as president of the American Federation of teachers.

A union activist for nearly 40 years, Sandy started her career as a teacher, and was elected AFT president in 1997 after serving as president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City for more than a decade.

Under her tenure, the AFT continued its strong advocacy for educational reforms, but also expanded its efforts into educational research. The AFT released major studies on the teaching of reading, and on how to improve teacher training.

She also personally advocated for more aggressive early childhood efforts, including ``Kindergarten-Plus'' which would allow disadvantages children to start kindergarten in the summer, and keep them in school during the summer before first grade.

In addition to her work on strengthening and reforming public education, Sandy has been a tremendous advocate for the right to collectively bargain, and has worked to strengthen health care and retirement benefits for her members.

Her dedication to her members and their families is legendary. She has left an enduring imprint on the lives of generation of union workers. Her tireless efforts to secure a better quality of life for working people is a testament to her tremendous energy and commitment to others. Her experience, determination and vision will be greatly missed.

Mr. Chairman, when President Bush was campaigning for office, he said that if we were humble and treated our allies and other nations with respect, that they would relate well to us.

I chaired the Helsinki Commission of this Congress from 1985 to 1995 and have served as the ranking member until this past year when I became the whip. I will tell my friend from Indiana, I went to country after country after country and said to them, you need to accept election monitors, because you need to ensure that the world is confident that your elections are honest and aboveboard.

I will tell my friend from Indiana that I believe America's elections will be aboveboard, but our Nation, I tell my friend from Indiana, ought to be too big, too confident, too proud to say to somebody, you cannot come to the United States and see for yourself. Because if we ask of others that they accept monitors, are we too proud, too arrogant, too self-satisfied to say to the world, but you cannot come to America, the freest, most open, most democratic land on the face of the earth?

I say to my friend from Indiana, I hope my colleagues reject this amendment, not because as some here will assert there is wrongdoing in America but because America ought to be proud to invite all of the world to come to America and see how democracy works.

Do we make mistakes? We do. But are we proud of our democracy? We are.

Come to America. See us act. See our democracy. Be proud.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, for the purposes of informing us of next week's schedule.

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

Mr. Speaker, the majority leader mentioned two appropriations bills, the District of Columbia and the Military Construction bill. Can the gentleman give me an estimate, if he knows, of what days those two bills will be considered?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said the Morocco Free Trade will be early or later?

Later.

The gentleman anticipated my two questions, I see.

The conference reports, will we be considering the DOD appropriations conference report next week?

I yield to my friend.

Mr. Leader, there has been a lot of discussion, and I have read some things in the newspaper and heard discussions, about the child tax credit bill which has been pending for some time in conference.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is an intention to move that out of conference; and, if so, what condition will it be in in terms of what will there be in the bill, if the gentleman knows, in addition to the originally passed child tax credit? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have a view that if there was some disagreement and an agreement could not be reached on the other matters above and beyond the child tax credit, would the gentleman's expectation be that the child tax credit might be moved independently? Could the gentleman see a scenario that would result in that? I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3313, what day does the gentleman anticipate we will consider this bill? That is the Defense of Marriage Act. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would hope that during the consideration of the child tax credit, assuming the conference is going to meet, that our conferees be included in that conference. As the gentleman knows, we feel pretty strongly about the fact that if conferences are held, those Democratic conferees that have been appointed by the Speaker need to be invited and to be able to participate in those. So I would urge that to occur when and if that conference is convened.

I am glad to yield.

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this important Free Trade Agreement will enhance the already strong economic ties that exist between the United States and Australia. I support this agreement and will vote in favor of the required implementing legislation.

This pact has been called the ``manufacturing FTA'' because of the extent to which the United States manufacturing sector will benefit from the expanded market access provided by this agreement. Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Speaker, more than 99 percent of remaining Australian duties on U.S.-manufactured goods will be lifted the day the agreement takes effect. It is estimated that this immediate tariff elimination will result in an additional $2 billion in annual exports to Australia, already one of the world's largest single markets for U.S. goods. This improved market access will benefit American companies, ranging from aircraft manufacturers to automakers to construction equipment suppliers.

Manufacturers, however, will not be the only beneficiaries of this agreement. All U.S. agricultural exports to Australia will receive immediate duty-free access, and market access will be provided to American telecommunications, computer, energy, and financial services companies, among others.

Mr. Speaker, I have and will continue to support free trade agreements that balance the need for expanding markets for American companies with the importance of providing a level playing field for American workers and protection for the environment. We must consider the specific labor and environmental conditions that exist in the countries that we seek to trade with as well as the provisions included in the agreements to protect workers both here and in other countries and environmental concerns as well.

I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that these goals will be met with respect to Australia. Australia is almost a mirror economy of the United States; and, in that context, I think we can have real confidence that this will be an agreement that will benefit America, benefit Australia, and benefit our workers as well.

Mr. Speaker, I take this time, as much as may be required, to inquire of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules, of the schedule for next week.

I yield to the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information and appreciate his being open to additional questions.

To clarify the schedule for the appropriation bills the gentleman has listed for next week, does the gentleman anticipate on Monday that we will complete the Legislative Branch bill?

So on Tuesday the gentleman expects we will complete the Ag bill?

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have a feel for when we will consider the Foreign Ops appropriation bill?

Will we consider the BioShield bill on that day as well?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Now, on the Australia Free Trade Agreement, or any other trade bill, what day does the gentleman anticipate we will be considering the Australia Free Trade bill?

All right. I thank the gentleman. On the appropriation bills that we will consider, will they be considered under the usual rule? I understand perhaps the legislative rule may be a restrictive rule.

And I yield to the gentleman, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my friend for the information.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to get deeply into this, but can we anticipate votes on any of these? And if we can anticipate votes on them, will they be in the approximate range of 15 to 20 to 25 minutes? Or does the gentleman have any idea what our plan is?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that explanation, I suppose is the kindest adjective to apply. I appreciate the gentleman's observation. I will say that the gentleman treats gingerly the changing of opinions. That is, obviously, as the gentleman noted in his closing argument, the subject of debate and also subject to discussion that goes on on this floor, which is clearly appropriate.

But I will tell the gentleman that his party believed that the keeping of the votes open for an extended period of time, i.e. in excess of 20 minutes, was corrupt, and the Vice President said it was corrupt. The Vice President said it undermines civility. The Vice President, when he then had my job, minority whip, said that it was undemocratic.

The gentleman has indicated that we did, in fact, from time to time, keep the vote open for longer than 20 minutes. The gentleman is absolutely accurate. But we did not claim it was undemocratic, undermining civility or corrupt. It was the gentleman's side that claimed that.

In just one second.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose, then, the question becomes, in the context of situational ethics, has something changed that has brought about this recognition of it as a lack of corruption, lack of undermining the democratic process, and a lack of undermining civility? And I yield to my friend.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, was the Vice President, acting as the minority whip, wrong when he said this was a corrupt practice?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the assertion of the lack of experience in the majority, but my question was: Was the Vice President wrong?

Mr. Speaker, I want to say very seriously I have served along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for over 2 decades in this institution. I care a great deal about this institution, and the attacks made on this institution for the 14 years that I was in the majority and the assertions that were made and the characterization which I did not fully express on the floor that the minority whip made of Mr. Wright, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the names or the epithets that were used against him, there has never been an apology for that, notwithstanding this new information and new perspective that the Republican Party has gained now that they are in the majority and perhaps see the necessity to take actions that at some point in time they thought were corrupt, undemocratic, and undermining of civility.

We are not going to resolve this, but I will state that the gentleman and I have had discussions about comments the gentleman made about open rules, about amendments, about motions to recommit, about time for debate, about time for consideration prior to the Committee on Rules meeting and reporting out bills, and that perspective, as has been noted in our discussions in the Committee on Rules, has somewhat changed.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, prolonging this will not be very educational for Members or others who might be interested, but I will observe that oftentimes the offering of a motion to recommit without the provision for the waivers that are given to the majority in terms of the germaneness of those motions to recommit with instructions essentially precludes the minority party from offering the alternative which they believe is the best alternative.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, is that the same bill on which the committee refused to have a hearing on that very critically important issue, the alternative offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird)?

My question was for this year. There was no hearing, am I correct?

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the manager of the Democratic team, is not on the floor, but I know he would want me to congratulate you. As painful as defeat is, we graciously acknowledge that the second inning was devastating in which you scored 9, 10, 11 runs. It is going up, 10 runs, I guess. And it would be not as gracious to observe that other than that second inning, the game was pretty good. But I congratulate the gentleman on behalf of the somewhat gracious losers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of pride to announce to the Members of the House the election of our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), as president of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe's Parliamentary Assembly.

That assembly, Mr. Speaker, is an assembly of 55 signatory states to the Helsinki Final Act. Those 55 nations were represented by over 300 parliamentarians at their annual meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, this past week.

Earlier today, Edinburgh time, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) received on the first ballot over 55 percent of the votes. This is a historic occasion. He is the first American ever elected president of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. Not only that, he is the first minority to be elected president of the Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe and, based upon the information I have, I believe the first and only African American to ever be elected president of one of the interparliamentary assemblies, combining Europe and the United States.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a distinguished member of our body, has served on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe since 2001 and has been vice president of the OSCE for the past 2 years. He also has gained important experience in international affairs as a

member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) is now serving his seventh term in the Congress of the United States.

I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the bipartisan delegation. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) serves in this body and is a Democrat; but he ran as an American, and he was supported by the American delegation, Republicans and Democrats. And I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for his leadership of our delegation, the chairman of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe Commission here in the Congress.

The gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), in his letter supporting the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), said, ``Never one to retreat from a challenge, Alcee Hastings possesses an instinctive ability to identify solutions and build common ground for their implementation.''

It was that ability, that quality, that determination that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) had which led to his overwhelming election. Gert Weisskirchen, in Germantown, who withdrew in favor of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) this week, said to the Palm Beach Post that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) represents the best of the United States. Now, Mr. Weisskirchen and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) have served together for almost a decade in the organization's parliamentary assembly, so his observations are well founded and based upon his experience.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) will bring credit to our country, credit to our Congress, and credit to the Parliamentary Assembly. I will tell my colleagues that the United States has the privilege next year in July on our July 4 break of hosting the 55 nations that make up the Parliamentary Assembly. I know that all of us look forward to welcoming our colleagues from throughout Europe and Canada, the signatory states, with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) as the president of that organization to our Capitol city and showing them American hospitality, while at the same time cementing a relationship with our allies and raising very significant and important issues to international security, peace, and economic well-being.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this time to honor our colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), on this historic election as president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago we passed an act. It was called the PATRIOT Act. It was voted upon by the overwhelming majority of us. The objective then was to ensure the safety of democracy and the survival of freedom. That was the objective of the PATRIOT Act.

Now, there are many in this House, indeed the majority, who believed that there were provisions in that act that undermined democracy. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) and the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and others raised a very specific provision of that PATRIOT Act as undermining of our democracy, of our civil liberties, and of our freedom.

The vote was called on that amendment, and at the expiration of 15 minutes, the majority of the House indicated that they supported the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), and others. And then the vote continued, and it continued, and it continued, for over twice as long as the Speaker of the House early this year indicated votes would be held; indeed, for 38 minutes.

Now, I say to my colleagues, let me remind my colleagues of the remarks of our Vice President in 1987, when a similar tactic was employed, and I am quoting the remarks of the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, who at that point in time was a Member of this House. ``The Democrats,'' he said, ``have just performed the most grievous insult inflicted on Republicans in my time in the House, a vote held open for a shorter period of time.'' He went on to say that it was ``the most arrogant, heavy-handed abuse of power I have ever seen in the 10 years that I have been here.'' He went on to say, referring to the Speaker of the House of Representatives at that time, Jim Wright from the State of Texas, ``He is a heavy-handed son,'' and I will delete the next two words, ``and he doesn't know any other way to operate, and he will do anything he can to win at any price. There is no sense of comity left,'' said the Vice President, Dick Cheney, then a Member of the House of Representatives.

Perhaps he felt better after he said that.

But my friends, if you campaign on changing the tone in Washington, if your objective was to bring comity to this House, if your objective, by voting for the PATRIOT Act, was to protect democracy, then protect it here. Protect it here in the People's House. Protect it here where every one of you has an opportunity to say that we will have a fair vote in a fair time frame, and the majority will prevail, not the intimidated will prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), the sponsor of the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his statement. I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) for his leadership on the Help America Vote Act. Without his leadership and strong support, it would not have passed. Indeed, the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) of the Committee on Appropriations and others were critically important in its passage and funding.

I want to rise with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) in strong support of report language that was offered by the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) during the June 23 markup of the bill before us today. I applaud the Committee on Appropriations for including it in the report. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their leadership and attention to this very important matter.

That report language reads: ``The committee strongly urges NIST to give priority consideration to Help America Vote Act outreach to the election community; expediting work on a new voting standards accreditation program; and its work with the Technical Guidelines Development Committee working with the Election Assistance Commission. NIST is directed to provide in advance of the fiscal 2006 hearings a report detailing what steps must be taken to bring its activities in line with the timetable established by the act.''

The gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) indicated that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) had worked with us. In fact, of course, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) was the principal sponsor in assuring that NIST was included as an integral part of the Help America Vote Act.

Obviously, technology is one of the critical issues in the HAVA proposal, which funds new technology for voting around the country. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) correctly said that we ought to have the best possible advice regarding technology, and NIST was the agency to provide that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, of which I and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) were sponsors, NIST is required to conduct several important research and technical projects connected to election reform. NIST is already busy working with the new Election Assistance Commission to advance HAVA's objectives. However, much more must be done if NIST is to fulfill its important role.

As we learned in the controversial 2000 election, voting systems in many parts of the country are antiquated and obsolete. There continues to be controversy about various technologies. NIST can make a critical difference.

As the 2004 election fast approaches, there are concerns in some quarters about the security and reliability of some voting systems. Properly directed, NIST will make a significant contribution, ensuring that new voting systems are rigorously tested, easy to use and maintain, and secure.

I strongly urge NIST to follow the spirit and substance of the report language and give priority consideration to the Help America Vote Act in fiscal year 2005.

Mr. Chairman, I would follow up with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) that I look forward to working with him and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) as we consider the Transportation-Treasury bill and the additional appropriations for the Election Assistance Commission to attempt to get some of the money that NIST needs for 2005 out of the funds that are authorized for the Election Assistance Commission.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of this subcommittee, and I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the ranking Democrat, for their leadership and assistance in this effort, and I thank the gentleman for his leadership and for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I want to thank him for his continuing comments and again express, this was probably the most substantive bipartisan bill that passed in the last Congress. The Speaker indicated that and others have as well. If we, however, fail to fund it properly, it will be a promise unfulfilled, and our democracy will not be as well served as all of us hoped when we supported the Help America Vote Act.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, and I thank the gentleman from New York as well. He and I have talked about this amendment.

I am a very strong supporter of the COPS program, I have been and continue to be a very strong supporter of the COPS program. And what the gentleman's amendment does is dramatically point out that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) do not have sufficient funds to properly reach the levels that would be appropriate for funding for some very, very worthwhile programs.

On the other hand, when you are in this position, obviously you have to make choices. If you are going to have a zero sum game, that is, add no additional dollars, which would not be allowed, you have to take from some place if you want to increase in another place. The problem with this amendment, as I have told my friend from New York, is not its objective, which is an excellent one, but it is the means that it employs to attain that objective, which will have very serious adverse results, in my opinion.

Now, the gentleman has indicated that he is confident it will have no adverse effect on employment levels. I think that is not the case. It is not the information I have. Now, as I have told the gentleman, obviously, I, as a matter of fact, went to high school a mile down the road from the Census Bureau, so I know something about the Census Bureau. It will, according to the Census Bureau, result in possibly as many as 1,000 RIFs. Now, that is a lot of people.

Now, in addition to adversely affecting the people, the gentleman's amendment will affect the product adversely. Now, what is the product? The product is getting ready for the census of 2010. Now, that sounds very simple, but in fact it is a multiyear process. And if you slow it down, you can never get back that time.

Therefore, although I strongly support the gentleman's objective, I cannot support and will therefore oppose his amendment, the means he employs to obtain that objective. I hope this amendment is defeated not because we should not be expanding the COPS program, but because we should not be doing it in this particular way.

Mr. Speaker, this June 22nd, a courageous young man was taken from our midst. Thirteen-year-old Matthew Stepanek was full of life, happiness, and brilliance.

Mattie, as he liked to be called, had a lifelong struggle with muscular dystrophy, but never let the disease curb his enthusiasm, nor hinder his creativity. In 2001, Mattie courageously stated, ``My life mission is to spread peace to the world.'' Despite losing his battle with muscular dystrophy at such a young age, Mattie managed to spread happiness to the world through his poems.

Mattie began writing poetry at age three to cope with the death of a brother. In his short life, this tireless young man wrote five volumes of poetry that sold millions of copies. Three of the volumes reached the New York Times' best-seller list.

Mattie is survived by his loving mother Jeni, who first recognized Mattie's talent and wrote down his poems for him. Unfortunately, Jeni also suffers from the adult-onset form of the disease. The disease also took the lives of his two brothers and sister.

Mr. Speaker, today, I ask this House to celebrate and remember the life of Mattie Stepanek. He was a brave young man whose genius impacted everyone who encountered him. His selflessness, courage, and talent are something we can all honor and admire.

Mr. Speaker, the Republicans in this House believe if you say something enough, long enough, somebody somewhere will believe it. I have heard on this floor somebody refer to the famous Russell Long, who said, ``Don't tax me. Don't tax thee. Tax the man behind the tree.'' They did so, of course, properly with derision, and the public who hears that must hear it with derision as well; but my friends, the Republicans have found out how to do that; and during the 8 years of the Reagan administration, they plunged this Nation deeper and deeper and deeper into debt, and during the 4 years of the Bush One administration, they plunged this country deeper, deeper, deeper into debt.

And then in 1993 those Republicans who were here came on the floor and said those Democrats are proposing a program that will plunge us deeper into debt, cause large unemployment and destroy our economy. You have heard me say it before on the floor. They were 180 degrees wrong, absolutely, incontrovertibly wrong. And they are wrong today.

The Republicans have said charge overseas. Spend more money overseas, $25 billion in a bill just yesterday. Did we pay for it? We did not. Who was the man behind the tree who will pay for it? My three daughters and my three grandchildren. They are the man behind the tree. They will pay this bill, because you continue to spend. You spend more than was spent before. You create more debt than was created before. In fact, in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never once raised the debt. Not once. Because we had a responsible economic policy. But you will raise it $2.1 trillion in 4 years. That is a pretty stark difference, my friends.

What the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) says is we need to invest in America. If we are going to invest overseas, if we need to help the people in Iraq, that is fine, but do not leave behind America's children. Do not leave behind America's veterans. Do not leave behind America's infrastructure while we help those overseas.

That is what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying. And the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is saying, yes, we have a problem. Terrorism needs to be confronted, needs to be defeated, and America needs to be kept safe. So what does the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) say?

Let us follow what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Republican chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Democratic ranking member, said we ought to do 2 years ago: invest further funds in the safety of our people here in America. Invest in homeland security.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard it and the public has heard it. Eighty- three percent of the small businesses are going to be affected by that. That is baloney, baloney. That is the politest word I can think to use at this present period of time. The IRS says there are 3.8 percent of small businesses who claim more than $1 million in taxable income. That is almost as much of a mistake as you made on your Medicare bill and almost as much of a mistake as this administration made in terms of telling us how much their Medicare bill was going to cost. They only missed by 25 percent.

And we heard about waste, fraud, and abuse, as if somebody else is in charge of Washington. For 40 months, 40 months, the Republicans have had the Presidency, the Senate, and the House; and there is still waste in Washington.

What is wrong with your administration? We have a larger infrastructure than we had when you took office. You talk about smaller government. It was smaller under President Clinton.

Mr. Speaker, vote for the Obey amendment. Vote for honesty and investment in America and Americans.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, for the first time since 1974, it appears that Congress will not adopt a budget when the same political party controls the House, the Senate, and the White House. In other words, in 28 years we have not been in this position of not being able to pass a budget.

Why can the Republican majority not fulfill one of the most basic tests of effective government, adopting a budget? Because they cling to the fiction that we can rein in record deficits and runaway debt by applying pay-as-you-go budget rules to mandatory spending only. They do this as they preside over record budget deficits, and, just this week, trying to hide a $690 billion increase in the debt ceiling in the rule on the Defense appropriation bill.

As the New York Times stated this morning, applying PAYGO rules to spending, but not taxes, is ``like swearing off demon rum while continuing to binge on vodka martinis.'' Even some Republicans reject this dilution, to wit, four Members of the other body.

Earlier this year, my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, whom I have so much respect for, speaking for our committee, but more, much more, importantly, speaking for fiscal responsibility, said, ``No one should expect significant deficit reduction as a result of austere, non-defense discretionary spending limits. The numbers simply do not add up.'' The chairman was right.

The fact is, we could eliminate all nondefense discretionary spending, and we would still be running deficits of more than $100 billion. That is how much we put our country into the red.

Perhaps the height of irony, perhaps the height of irony, is that just 7 years ago, in 1997, 193 Republicans voted for a pay-as-you-go affecting spending and revenues, or taxes. That included the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), who voted for PAYGO affecting both; the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay); the conference chairwoman, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce); the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle); and the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas). And the Bush administration itself endorsed pay-as-you-go rules affecting both revenues and expenditures in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

I have here next to me the language of the fiscal 2002 budget. I hope it is on the screen. The Bush administration endorsed it, as you can see, affecting both spending and tax legislation. In fact, I will quote. It states: ``The President also proposes to extend the PAYGO requirement for entitlement spending and tax legislation.''

Why? Because he knew you could not do what you say you can do. And for 3 years he stuck to that principle. This is the first year he has not.

I would hope that those who believe in fiscal responsibility would vote for this Democratic substitute, which would restore the original PAYGO rules adopted in 1990 that apply to mandatory spending and taxes as they were originally established on a bipartisan basis, as we did in 1997 when the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) and I both voted for a balanced budget proposal, which, in fact, was very helpful in assuring that balance.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we ought to let our majority colleagues get away with this charade. Do not let them preen as deficit hawks, as some of you perceive yourselves to be, and not apply discipline to both expenditures and revenues.

I tell my colleagues, it is oh, so easy. I have been in a legislative body for 35 years, and every year I have found it so easy to vote for tax reductions, but so difficult to vote for cuts in spending.

Let us have discipline. Vote for this substitute. Do not pretend your PAYGO has any effect.

Mr. Chairman, had I had the time, I would have simply asked, why did the gentleman vote for this in 1997?