Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I pay special tribute to Maryland State Trooper Anthony Jones who was killed last week while on duty assisting another trooper. Trooper First Class (Tfc.) Jones every day exemplified the service and sacrifice that we honor in our law enforcement officers. As the recipient of awards for his valor and bravery, and as the anticipated recipient of the ``Top Cop'' award from the College Park Barracks this month, Trooper Jones demonstrated a commitment to public service and a sincere dedication to protecting and serving our community.

Tfc. Jones joined the state police after retiring from the U.S. Air Force in 1998. He spent his entire police career working as a road patrol trooper. He was on patrol when he stopped shortly after 2 a.m. to assist another trooper working at the scene of a single-vehicle crash in Prince George's County. Investigators said Jones crossed the four-lane highway on foot to remove a tire that was part of the accident debris and was making his way back across the road--using a flashlight to warn oncoming traffic--when he was struck and killed.

Every day, law enforcement officials like Trooper Jones risk their lives in dangerous situations on our highways and roads to protect the citizens who travel along our roadways. Last week we joined together in commemorating Trooper Jones and all of the law enforcement officers whose brave deeds led them to make the ultimate sacrifice, or left them disabled.

Trooper Jones is the 39th Maryland trooper to die in the line of duty, and we say a special prayer for his family, friends, and fellow officers of the Maryland State Police. The Joneses must know that a grateful nation mourns their loss and shares their pain.

We honor Tfc. Jones for his service to our country and to his community. I am confident that he will long be remembered with the utmost gratitude and respect. He willingly answered the call to duty, sacrificing his own safety for the safety and security of his community. We shall never forget that sacrifice and will bear witness to future generations the honor and courage Tfc. Jones exhibited as he served the State of Maryland.

Although we don't often thank them for it, officers like Trooper Jones help protect our most cherished rights as laid out by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We owe these fine and hard working people a great deal for their contribution to our freedom and security.

The words of John F. Kennedy strike a chord this week, ``a nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.'' As these valiant men and women died because they made it their duty to protect and serve, it is our duty to honor and remember them for their selfless contribution to our communities.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about the economy on that side of the aisle. I do not blame them. I would not talk about this budget either. I, frankly, would not talk much about the economy either. A net loss of jobs to this date. Does anybody want to dispute that? Apparently not.

Let none of us be mistaken about what we are witnessing here on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, as important as the budget debate is at a time of record deficits, at a time of exploding debt, at a time of war, this debate is about far more than the budget. This debate marks the death, in time and place, of the so-called Republican revolution.

Ten years ago, the Republican Party recaptured the majority on a pledge of reform and a wave of hot rhetoric. Today, with this, and I use this word advisedly, dishonest, phony, political Band-Aid that the majority wants to call a budget, they, for all intents and purposes, are raising the white flag of surrender and announcing to all of America: We Republicans simply cannot govern. We Republicans simply cannot fulfill one of our most basic responsibilities, to pass a real, honest budget. We Republicans have been so blinded by our tax cut ideology, that we do not recognize the irresponsibility and, yes, the immorality of policies that force our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.

Mr. Speaker, this 1-year Republican budget is simply not credible. It brazenly attempts to conceal the record deficits that Republican policies have created and the fact that they have no plan to rein in those deficits. In fact, for the 1 year it does cover, it projects a deficit of $367 billion.

It conceals the fact that Republicans are robbing the Social Security trust fund to pay for Republican tax cuts skewed toward the highest- income taxpayers.

It conceals the fact they would freeze domestic priorities, such as health care and the environment, and cut them drastically in the future.

And it conceals the fact that this conference report would increase the statutory debt limit by $690 billion.

And not one of my colleagues on that side of the aisle has the courage to stand up and vote for that increase. Not one.

I have been here long enough to hear my colleagues railing about increasing the debt. Last year, my colleagues increased it even more, without a vote. It was increased to almost as much as the entire debt from 1789 to 1981 at the time I came to Congress. It was $981 billion then, and my Republican colleagues increased it $940-plus billion last year and another $670 in this budget.

So, Republicans, my friends, when you vote on this budget, know that you are voting to increase the debt by $670 billion.

This budget also conceals the fact that this conference report would lead us into further debt of $8 trillion.

Yet under the Hastert rule, there will be no debate and no vote on that action.

Mr. Speaker, with this conference report, the majority demonstrates its inability to govern and refuses to address the problems that its own policies have created. This is the last gasp of the revolution. I do not think that they will accept it on the other side, certainly they should not; and I do not think they will. I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Mr. Speaker, in February, the former majority leader in this House, Dick Armey, stated the obvious: ``I am sitting here and I am upset about the deficit, and I am upset about spending,'' said the former Republican leader. And he added, ``There is no way I can pin that on the Democrats. Republicans own the town now.''

Yes, they do, Mr. Speaker, the House, the Senate, and the White House. Yet, under Republican leadership this Congress has become a quicksand of ideology and intransigence that is swallowing up America's priorities and performing a disservice to the American people.

The annual budget is a blueprint of our Nation's priorities and values. But with a Memorial Day recess approaching and the April 15 budget deadline long passed, House Republicans have tied the process in knots.

They refuse to pay for tax cuts even as they have run up the largest budget deficit and deficits as far as the eye can see in American history.

Republicans' intraparty bickering continues to get in the way of other priorities. In addition to the budget, two job creation bills, a tax measure for domestic manufacturing called the FSC/ETI bill, and a major transportation bill have been stymied, held up, not moving since last year. The transportation bill could create millions of jobs in a tough job market, and the FSC bill would end harmful European Union sanctions against struggling American manufacturers. Both of these bills could have been passed, should have been passed last year with broad support in both Houses of Congress. But with House Republicans it is my way or the highway.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have even rejected progress on an issue that has broad bipartisan support, tax cuts for the middle-class and working families. They have done so not once, not twice, but three times in 3 weeks. And they are poised to do so for a fourth time this week.

By refusing to offset the cost of their tax bills, Republicans are not only endangering support for tax cuts which Members on both sides want to see become law, but also putting themselves on record in favor of placing an enormous debt tax on future generation of American children.

House Republican leaders may be content with inertia in the people's House. Democrats are not.

Last week the Washington Post shined a light on the Republican strategy of biding their time until the election. The Post story observed that, and I quote, ``Despite the burgeoning scandal over U.S. treatment of Iraqi prisoners and persistent concerns about the economy and the deficit, the House has been keeping banking hours.'' Frankly, the bank would be bankrupt if it kept our hours.

In contrast to Republican leaders of the other body, House Republican leaders have refused to fully investigate the abuse of Iraqi prisoners. This is just the latest example of an abdication of this body's constitutional responsibility to oversee the executive branch.

Even a prominent Republican from the other body has said, and I quote, ``We Republicans have never quite reached the level of competent oversight that the Democrats developed over their 40 years that they controlled Congress.''

He continued, major Republican leader, ``We tried to emphasize legislating and we have delegated so much authority to the executive branch of government and we ought to devote more time to oversight than we do.''

This House must not abdicate its constitutional responsibility as an independent, coequal branch of government. Failure in this regard is not an option.

Failure is not an option in Iraq. And Democrats will support the funding necessary to support our troops and finish the job. But we want to see where that money is spent, how it is spent, and how effectively it is being used. But there is absolutely no question that Democrats as well as Republicans should want to hold this administration accountable for how it is spending tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in so many different areas.

As a senior member of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Speaker, I will continue my efforts to attach accountability to the billions of dollars being spent on the war in Iraq. There are no checks and no balances in Washington today. Right now we need to focus on the oversight responsibility that our Founding Fathers expected, particularly the people's House, to exercise.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding the performance of the first 5 months, we will soon see such responsibility exercised.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman certainly makes a point that we do not want to delegate to the executive branch. I think the gentleman makes a good point: We ought not to delegate.

Of course, the gentleman knows something else is coming.

My good friend knows me well.

The fact of the matter is we have been debating for some time the way we can internally, Congress can control this spending, and reaching what the gentleman says is a good thing, a balanced budget. And that, of course, is doing what we did all through the 1990s: applying the pay-as-you-go provision to both revenues and taxes, which is the discipline that this body placed on itself so we did not have to rely on the executive branch.

Absolutely, that is my point. And if the gentleman would support pay-as-you-go, perhaps we would not have to look to other ways to try to get to balance.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I really could take 30 minutes to try to correct what the gentleman from Wisconsin has been saying.

First of all, he is a very bright young man. I like him. And it is your money, he says. Now, that is the mantra, and that mantra I have heard for 20-plus years. And, of course, it is your money. And by the way, it is my money, too. I pay more taxes effectively than the Vice President of the United States, who made almost 10 times as much as I make, but I am not poor-mouthing that. And, by the way, the gentleman talks about these large corporations. They do not really care what the rate is because, as we notice, I say to the gentleman, 60 percent of them do not pay any taxes because of their preference items.

An aside that the Republican majority has made the Tax Code extraordinarily more complicated over the last 3\1/2\ years, extraordinarily more complicated over the last 3\1/2\ years, let me call to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), some facts.

A, Mr. Armey said you own this town. You have the President, you have the Senate, you have the House. Now, I have been here a lot longer than the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

He talks about debt. Under Ronald Reagan, we raised the debt level 17 times. Under George Bush, the first, in 4 years we raised the debt limit 10 times. Under this President, we have raised the debt limit by $1.5 trillion over 3 years. Over 8 years, under President Clinton we raised the debt limit five times for $1.58 trillion. The difference, however, is that under Ronald Reagan and George Bush, the first, we added about $2 trillion to the debt. Under this President, we have added about $1.5 trillion to the debt, and under Bill Clinton, over 8 years, less debt and net $79 billion worth of debt, not trillions, net. Why? Because for 4 years of the last 4 years of the Clinton administration we created surpluses.

Secondly, the gentleman and all the Republicans talk about it is spending that is the problem. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) says that spending is the problem. I would like to have the gentleman's attention because I know he is going to find these figures very edifying and interesting because he talked about spending, that is a legitimate issue to raise; and I want to call the gentleman's attention to the administration's budget numbers.

We have it from 1962 to today. Under Ronald Reagan's Presidency, a, we spent 22.5 percent of GDP on average, some years higher, some years a little lower, under Ronald Reagan, never below 21 percent. Let me remind my colleagues that not a penny was spent in America during Ronald Reagan's term of office without his signature, not one. We never overrode a veto. The Democrats never imposed spending that the President did not sign off, not once. So we understand nondefense discretionary spending was 3.4 percent under Ronald Reagan.

Under George Bush, the first, it was 21.9 percent of GDP. Again, he never had a bill veto overridden stopping spending. He signed every nickel of that expenditure, 3.3 percent on nondefense discretionary spending.

Under George Bush, the second, we have done 19.85, almost 20 percent, and 3.5 percent, Dick Armey, they control this town, 3.5 percent of that was on nondefense discretionary spending. I will tell my friend from Wisconsin this fact is going to amaze him. We spent less GDP under Clinton for 8 years and we spent less on discretionary spending, less on discretionary spending, and I heard the gentlewoman from Tennessee about an hour ago saying we have created 1 million jobs since last August. We created 23 million jobs in 8 years or about 4 million a year on average under Bill Clinton.

So, when we are talking about the facts, we ought to know the facts because the facts belie what the gentleman from Wisconsin is proposing. That is why we are here, because we believe my colleagues' policy is not only fiscally wrong but it is also immoral. My friends on the Republican side want to create the impression that they are the only ones who support this 10 percent bracket. They are not. We want to make it permanent, but we do not want to impose a tax.

He talked about various people who are going to get tax increases. Under their bill, 290 million Americans are going to get a tax increase, but guess what. They will not get it immediately. We are going to delay it a little bit, not only past the next election but maybe past a couple of elections after that. Why? Because interest rates are going to go up, taxes are going to go up to pay the interest on this debt that my colleagues are creating, over $200 billion of additional debt in this bill alone.

That is all we are saying. We are for this policy. We are for keeping this 10 percent bracket. We want to assist those at the bottom rungs in our society, build themselves up, grow their families, have a better opportunity to pay for the education of their children and their mortgage payments and buy their cars and have a better quality of life. We want that, but we do not want to give them a bill for it 10 years from now that says guess what, you have got a big interest that you have got to pay.

I would urge my colleagues to look at the facts. Look at what we did under a piece of legislation passed in 1993, one passed in 1990 and, yes, one passed in a bipartisan way in 1997, which led to the creation of surpluses.

Let me close by this, and I do not have as much time as I would like, but Chairman Greenspan said just the other day, who is not a Democrat, ``Our fiscal prospects are, in my judgment, a significant obstacle to long-term stability because the budget deficit is not readily subject to correction by market forces that stabilize other imbalances. The free lunch has still to be invented.''

Vote for this substitute. My colleagues will vote for the policy and responsible fiscal policy at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, because I understand what the gentleman is saying, I think it is important to note that every working person in America pays taxes. We call it FICA tax, and 50 percent of Americans pay more FICA tax than they do, but we are using, as the gentleman knows, part of their taxes because there is a surplus in the Social Security account for general expenditures. So in that sense, the overwhelming majority of employees are paying.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished majority leader for the purposes of informing us of the schedule for the week to come.

On the last issue, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act to which the gentleman referred, and he indicates that it will expand the number of families eligible for the credit, we had discussed this last week. Am I correct in presuming that that means that those under $26,000 will be covered as well as those over $26,000. As was the case with the Senate amendment that came over to the House?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if it does we will be pleased, and I presume the Senate would be ready to approve that, assuming that it is paid for.

Under the procedures of these bills, in terms of the OSHA legislation and the paperwork reduction, can the gentleman tell us under what procedures they will be considered, and will substitute amendments be allowed?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I am sorry. Declined or inclined?

I thank the gentleman. I was not quite sure whether it was an ``in'' or a ``de.''

The articulation I missed. That was the problem.

With respect to the budget, do we expect to see a budget next week? It is not on the list, and I know we have been waiting with bated breath for many weeks now for the budget, as has the leader. Can the leader comment on the status of the budget?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. Clearly, all of us know that the pay-as-you-go provision has been apparently the stumbling block in the reaching of an agreement between the two Houses. There was, as I understand it, our expectation was that there would be a freestanding bill coming to the floor on the pay-go issue. Can the leader tell us whether that is still contemplated or whether we might see that at any time in the near future?

I yield to the gentleman.

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

If one assumes that perhaps we do not adopt a budget resolution, would it still be the intent of the majority to bring forth an enforcement bill, the one that has been considered in committee, or is it a condition for that bill coming to the floor that the budget pass?

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. I share his view on that issue that whether or not we have a budget or not, the enforcement bill ought to come to the floor.

Can I ask him another question about that particular bill? Would the gentleman know or be inclined to assure us that we would have an alternative? As he knows, the dispute on the pay-as-you-go is whether it affects taxes as well as spending. We believe that is a very substantive issue that ought to be considered and voted upon by all the Members. Would the majority leader be inclined to ensure that that alternative will be in order for us to offer at the time, if it is not included in the bill that is reported out of committee, at the time it is considered on the floor?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader for that representation.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, we passed some weeks ago the transportation reauthorization bill. I think both sides feel that is a critical piece of legislation. We have noted that there seems to be some disagreement between the White House and the House and the Senate on this piece of legislation, but we are very concerned that it has not moved forward. We believe that this is, as the gentleman knows, the single most important piece of jobs legislation that we have under consideration by this Congress. And I am wondering if he can give us some thought as to when that bill may come to the floor and under what form it will come to the floor. We would very much like to see it on the floor, and we think, frankly, that given the votes on the bill as it passed the House, with well over 300 voting for it and with a very substantial vote in the other body, that clearly we have the votes to pass a bill, whether it is at 275, 318, or, frankly, the gentleman from Alaska's (Mr. Young) 375.

But I would like to have some information because we think this is, and I know the gentleman does as well, a very critical piece of legislation which is now 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, I guess, past the date that we hoped to pass it on and we are in 60-day extensions, which we have a very distinguished Governor on the floor. I do not know whether I am in order by saying this, but I am going to say it anyway. I want to acknowledge the presence of our former colleague, Governor Ehrlich, on the floor, but I know he is very concerned about it because he and I have worked on a lot of transportation issues in our State, and I am sure that as soon as we finish the colloquy, he would like to talk to the gentleman about this bill.

I yield to the gentleman on his response to where the bill is.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the leader's observation. It is my understanding that the Senate, certainly on the minority side, will agree to go to conference as soon as we are given a number as to what we are going to conference. My understanding is, however, that the gentleman's side of the aisle cannot agree with the White House on what that number ought to be. So in fairness, there seems to be a disagreement on the number that the President will sign, and, I think accurately, that is the reason for the hold-up because I think, frankly, the Senate could agree to the 318 and I would hope we can agree to the 318. I would be for a higher number personally, but I would hope that we could agree to that. The problem is, I understand, the executive does not.

But I would suggest to the leader, with all due respect, that this body can and should act independently and send the legislation that it deems to be appropriate and if the executive disagrees, he has the option of vetoing that bill and sending it back to the House. As one of the Senators on the gentleman's side of the aisle observed, that is the way the process is supposed to work. And I would think, because we share the view that this is very important, we believe it is a jobs bill, that we could pass a bill relatively easily with overwhelming votes and certainly votes significant enough to show the President that at least two-thirds of the Members of this body and the other body believe it is an appropriate bill to pass forthwith.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, quoting the majority leader of last week, I do not see it that way. Clearly, as the gentleman has just pointed out, there is not agreement. I think we could get agreement if we could allow the minority to have some

sense that they knew the parameters of where we were going, and I think that is all the minority is asking for. I think that is a fair request. But in any event, I think we ought to move this bill, and the gentleman's side is in charge and we would hope that would happen.

Reclaiming my time, I want the leader to know how happy I am to hear that that is the purpose of conferences and that nobody would want to reach outside deals outside of the configuration of a conference. He will recall, I think, we had months of discussion about the prescription drug conference to which no Democrats on this side were invited. That is the concern. Mr. Daschle was not invited. Mr. Reid was not invited. Other Members were not invited. There were a couple of people who participated. But that is our concern. We could go back and forth.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time just for a minute for accuracy's sake, all of them wanted a Medicare prescription bill. They wanted a different kind of bill. That is what he says conference is trying to iron out. That is my point. I think he makes it.

As was yours almost, as I recall.

The hope is that we will, in fact, move this piece of legislation and that there will be a bipartisan attempt made to move this legislation which is critical to our country, and a bipartisan agreement would be reached, as the leader points out, with the minority, giving them confidence that they will play a full role in the conference. I am hopeful that that happens.

I thank the gentleman for his observations.

Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the legislation that will be considered on the floor this week, I want to comment briefly on the continuing revelations about the abuse of Iraqi detainees in American custody and the need for vigorous congressional oversight through full and open committee hearings.

I could not disagree with my friend, the majority leader, more when he says the idea of a congressional investigation is like, and I quote, ``saying we need an investigation every time there is police brutality on the street.''

The abuse of Iraqi detainees, as we are learning, is, unfortunately, not isolated, and responsibility extends up and down the military chain of command. We must not abdicate our constitutional responsibility as an independent, coequal branch of government, as some Members of the other body have stated.

For example, the Senate majority leader is quoted today in Congressional Quarterly as saying, ``The Senate will continue to do its duty. We had several hearings last week. We will continue to maintain a close watch on the unfolding situation.'' In fact, they are having hearings this week.

This shocking episode demands a full and open inquiry. It demands a bipartisan approach. I urge the Republican leadership to work with this side of the aisle in getting to the bottom of these abuses, in holding the responsible parties accountable and ensuring that it never happens again. The world expects no less, and we should expect no less ourselves.

Now, Mr. Speaker, while the other body exercises vigorous oversight, this body will consider a Republican bill that will actually increase the budget deficit, which is projected at more than half a trillion dollars this year alone, and three health care bills that would do virtually nothing to help the uninsured.

This Republican majority is not responding to America's needs. We can, we must, do better.

The Republican bill to make the 10 percent income tax bracket permanent could win overwhelming, perhaps unanimous, support if it were paid for. Instead, it would add an estimated $218 billion to the national debt. Our children and grandchildren will pay that debt.

The Democratic substitute, in contrast, is paid for. Unfortunately, Republican leaders believe that tax cuts are a freebie. In fact, the chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), said in March, and I quote, ``We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts.''

It is that mathematically challenged philosophy, that denial of reality that continues to stall negotiations on the 2005 budget. House Republicans refuse to pay for tax cuts. House Democrats, a bipartisan majority of the Senate and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. Greenspan, fully support pay-as-you-go budget rules. In fact, if my Republican friends missed the comment of Chairman Greenspan last week, let me repeat it. He said, ``The free lunch has still not been invented.''

This week, the Republican leadership will also put three health care bills on the floor, apparently in recognition of Cover the Uninsured Week.

Today in America, the richest, most powerful Nation on the face of the Earth, 44 million Americans do not have health insurance; and that figure has increased by 4 million since President Bush took office. Yet none of the Republican health care bills directly addresses this growing problem.

We have already passed two of these three bills, on medical liability and associated health plans, almost in exactly the same form; so we are simply repeating that which we have already done, presumably for political purposes as opposed to substance. The third, on Flexible Savings Accounts, would mostly benefit those who are already insured.

House Democrats, by comparison, will introduce three health care bills this week that, together, would provide health insurance for more than half of the 44 million uninsured. These bills are aimed, Mr. Speaker, at three growing groups of uninsured: those with low income, retirees, and small businesses and the self-employed.

I say to my friends on the Republican side, our constituents did not send us here to pretend to legislate, to repeatedly pass legislation so that it could go to the Senate. They sent us here to solve problems and fulfill our duty. This week, there is ample evidence that we are doing neither.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to do a Special Order today that I will not be able to do, but I join the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and the rest of my colleagues on the occasion of Asian American Heritage Month. During this month, we celebrate the important contributions Asian Pacific Americans have made to our great country.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) is head of the Asian Pacific Caucus, and the gentleman has helped all of us learn more about the concerns and issues facing Asian Americans and the Pacific Islander community, and I salute the gentleman's work on these issues.

More importantly, I thank every Asian American for the extraordinary contribution they have made to this country. I have a list which I will not have time to read, but it will be included in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, suffice it to say I am pleased that the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) took out this very appropriate Special Order to honor Asian Americans during Asian American Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker. Today I join my distinguished friend from California, Mr. Honda, and the rest of my colleagues on the occasion of Asian Pacific American Heritage Month.

During this month, we recognize and celebrate the important contributions Asian Pacific Americans have made to our great country.

Mr. Honda, as the leader of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, has helped all of us learn more about the concerns and issues facing the Asian American and Pacific Islander Community and I salute his work on these issues.

I would also like to commend the leadership of Representative Robert Matsui, who has devoted his time and energy not just to the excellent representation of his constituents, but also to assisting the Democratic Caucus as chairman of the Democratic Congressional campaign committee.

Mr. Speaker, this year's theme, ``Freedom for all, a nation we can call our own'', speaks to both the hopes and the challenges Asian Pacific Americans face in America.

Asian Pacific American families, whether they have lived in this country for generations, or have recently emigrated, have worked as farmers, teachers, and business people, pioneering in the sciences and arts, and serving with distinction on the battlefield.

But achieving the American dream is not always easy for any group of immigrants seeking to establish roots in the United States.

Asian Pacific Americans have fought to overcome discrimination, language and cultural barriers, and even internment by their own government.

Today the Asian Pacific American Community is rightly proud of their rich heritage and the innumerable contributions they have made to the development of our nation.

During the last century, as America's frontier expanded west, hundreds of thousands of Asian citizens worked to build the first transcontinental railroad.

And Chinese and Japanese immigrants answered the need for laborers and agriculture workers in California and Hawaii.

The descendants of these settlers are now leaders in virtually every industry in the United States, from medical research to music education to professional athletics.

In fact, Asian Pacific Americans have the highest proportion of college graduates of any race or ethnic group.

Mr. Speaker, there are now more than 11 million Asian American and Pacific Islanders in America, comprising 5 percent of the total U.S. population.

Over 213,000 Asian Pacific Americans live in my home state of Maryland.

Immigrants from the countries of Asia and native peoples of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands form one of the fastest growing minority groups in the United States today.

And Asian Pacific Americans have the most diverse background of any minority population, tracing their roots to almost 50 different countries and ethnic groups.

The impressive list of notable Asian Pacific Americans is far too lengthy to read here.

To name just a few: First, The Honorable Patsy Mink, the first Asian Pacific American woman elected to Congress, who many of us had the honor to know.

Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianole, who in 1903 was the first native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander to serve in Congress.

Maya Lin, the accomplished architect, whose striking memorial to those killed in Vietnam lies close by on the National Mall.

Yo-Yo Ma, the internationally acclaimed cellist.

Tiger Woods and Michelle Kwan, both young champion athletes.

Charles Wang, chairman emeritus of Computer Associates and co-owner of the New York Islanders.

Jerry Yang, who co-founded Yahoo.com in his 20s.

In every profession, it seems, Asian Pacific Americans have made their mark.

Mr. Speaker, let me again say that it gives me great pleasure today to recognize the significant advances and contributions made by the Asian Pacific American Community to our country during Asian Pacific Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that we are on this floor today considering a resolution condemning outrageous conduct by American soldiers and perhaps some civilians against defenseless Iraqi detainees is an unmitigated and shameful embarrassment for this Nation. This abuse, which is as criminal as it is un-American, demands full accountability. And full accountability must be demanded not just at the bottom of the military chain of command, but for the highest ranking military and civilian officials who knew or should have known about this behavior and either turned a blind eye to it or failed to immediately address it.

Let us be clear. The buck should not and it must not stop with a 20- year-old enlisted man or woman who may well have thought they were acting within the framework of a psychology that permitted them to demean and deny basic decency of treatment to detainees.

Mr. Speaker, 43 years ago, I stood in front of this Capitol building as President Kennedy told the American people in one of the most famous inaugural addresses in our history that Americans, he said, are ``unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed and to which,'' he said, ``we are committed today at home and around the world.''

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are still committed to those. That is the America that every Member of this body knows and loves; an America that stands for the rights and dignity of every human being; an American America that fights oppression, inhumanity, and intolerance wherever it rears its head.

This Congress, the elected representatives of 290 million Americans, must fulfill its constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government and demand accountability for these criminal acts. This means that we must hold hearings so that the American people and all the world know the truth about this episode.

I am pleased to see the chairman of the committee is holding hearings. Some 4 days ago, he said they were not necessary and the leader of his party said they were not necessary. Those who perpetrated these criminal acts and those who created the environment in which such acts were thought to be acceptable should be, must be, held accountable.

Today we learn that the Secretary of Defense has known for months that prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan have been humiliated, beaten, tortured, and even murdered. Twenty-five prisoners have died in U.S. custody. And, still, there is virtually no accountability for those deaths. No House congressional inquiry, no presidential or secretarial condemnation, and no end.

The buck must stop somewhere. Private admonishments are not sufficient. Full public accountability must be demanded. If the Secretary of Defense failed to perform his duty, he should be held responsible. If anybody below him failed to perform their responsibility, they too should be held responsible, as should those perpetrators.

Mr. Speaker, it is nothing short of tragic that this indefensible conduct threatens to overshadow the extraordinary courage and sacrifice of our brave men and women in our Armed Forces. I have supported their efforts and supported the President in removing Saddam Hussein. We have liberated 25 million Iraqis from the clutches of a ruthless dictator. How proud we are of our men and women in uniform.

The only way we can remove that dark cloud that now hangs over their noble efforts is to ensure that those who have acted outside the law are required to answer to it and those who allowed it to go unchecked and unpunished are removed from positions of responsibility.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the damage inflicted upon our image and standing in the world is incalculable. As Tom Friedman pointed out in the New York Times this morning, it has been quoted before but let me quote it again: ``We are in danger,'' he said, ``of losing something much more important than just the war in Iraq. We are in danger of losing America as an instrument of moral authority and inspiration in the world.''

I will offer a motion to recommit, which makes more clear our outrage and more pointed our demand for full investigation and responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, first, let me say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) that I associate myself with his remarks and thank him for those comments. Let me say to my friend, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, he and I voted together probably 95 percent on issues of defense.

I will tell my friend, he has repeated the fact that we knew this in January at least four or five times, that I have heard. If that is the case, and I take him at his word, frankly, I did not focus on it, the chairman did not focus on it, there have been no hearings, there have been no investigations. It is a shameful reality that perhaps some knew this as early as January, and we are here today, some 4 months later, with the public getting that information and the Members of Congress being energized by it. And this resolution did not come from your committee, I say to my friend, until almost mid-May, notwithstanding the fact that you read that disclosure over and over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

I do.

Mr. Speaker, is it the contention that the rule, as presented and as passed by the majority, prevents the minority from offering a substantive substitute under the rule so that the alternative felt to be preferable by the minority may not be heard? Is that the condition under which the rule places the minority?

I understand that, Mr. Speaker. My question is, does that preclude us, therefore, from offering an alternative that gives an alternative proposal to have that proposal be considered on the floor?

I thank the Speaker. He has answered my question.

I withdraw my reservation because, under the rule, we have been gagged.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

That means not only can it not be considered on the floor, but it cannot even be disclosed to the Members?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter the motion into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire of the majority leader the schedule for next week.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. Leader, you have listed for next week legislation regarding the 10 percent tax bracket expansion. Is it safe to assume the bill will not be considered in the Committee on Ways and Means, but will come directly to the floor instead, just as was the case with the AMT bill last week and the marriage penalty bill the week before that?

Will we be able to offer a substitute as we have in the past?

I appreciate the gentleman's observation. However, I might say that we believe fair is not gracious, but fair and appropriate.

We appreciate their graciousness from time to time. I am trying to remember when that last happened. We appreciate the fact that it has been done and hope it will continue to be done.

Am I correct in assuming that the week after next the child tax credit will be on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, we are going to do the 10 percent bracket next week. Would it be safe to assume the week following we will do the child tax credit?

With respect to the associated health plans, the medical malpractice, and the flexible savings account bills, can you tell us what procedures will be employed for consideration of these three bills?

Mr. Leader, can you tell me whether these bills will be in exactly the same form as they were when they passed the House last year.

Mr. Leader, can you call me when you do read them.

Mr. Leader, would it be fair, and I see the chairman is on the floor, would it be fair to assume that these bills will not be considered in committee again?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, although we have considered them before, you are not sure whether they are going to be in exactly the same form as when they last passed the House last year?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. Before yielding back my time and with the leader on the floor, Mr. Leader, I have said this before, I mean it as sincerely as I can say it: this side of the aisle intends to participate to the extent we are allowed in a bipartisan way to put forth and enhance the interests of this country.

There are many of us on this side of the aisle who are supportive of our efforts in Iraq. We now have had, unfortunately, two instances, the instance we just dealt with today and the instance of support of the troops some weeks ago, in which essentially this side of the aisle was not included in those deliberations. This is not an issue about process. It is an issue about substance because substantively we want to project to the world the unanimity that you have indicated on the floor you would like to effect as well.

In light of that, Mr. Leader, I would respectfully request that as we consider issues of great importance and gravity as it relates to the prosecution of our efforts in fighting terrorism and in Iraq, efforts which we ought to be united on notwithstanding our differences in terms of implementation and success of our troops and our objectives, that you and the leaders on your side of the aisle give us the time and the opportunity to be included so that they may in fact be, notwithstanding the votes, but in actuality be bipartisan. I thank the gentleman for consideration of that.

We have been disappointed that that has not occurred. We have lamented that fact on numerous pieces of legislation. We do not believe it is in the best interest of the American public; but when we are dealing with domestic issues, that is not as important. But it is critically important in dealing with the issues of international policy of our troops abroad, their safety, security, and the support we give to them. So we would urge that those items perhaps be treated more sensitively as it relates to the interests of the minority and the role of the minority in forging those resolutions and policy statements. I appreciate the majority leader's consideration of that request.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will take a back seat to no one. You, Mr. Leader, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), or anybody else in this House on support of the troops, support of our efforts, and support of this country, period. But we do see things differently, Mr. Leader.

I think I have a reputation in this body of being able to work in a bipartisan fashion with the speaker, with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) with whom I worked as ranking member on the Committee on House Administration, with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and with others.

And, yes, Mr. Leader, with you on some very issues of great importance to this institution. And I continue to be in that posture, but, yes, we do see it differently. The leader got, at 10 p.m. last night, the opportunity to review this in a meaningful way

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, this was of great import. Every speaker that came to the floor expressed outrage, expressed deep concern about what this had done and the impact it would have on America and our image abroad but, more importantly than our image, on our ability to continue to lead on issues of freedom and justice and human rights throughout the world. At 10 p.m., whether it was same time he got it or not, I would suggest to the leader is not a time frame in which we can thoughtfully try to reach a bipartisan agreement.

We do not expect nor do we ask for you to accept without question our position or our changes. But we do expect to have the opportunity to discuss them. I did not have an opportunity to discuss it with you, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), or the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). I saw the resolution at 9 a.m. this morning. I had no ability to put input nor did others. And the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), I think, is on the floor and I would be glad to yield to him if he would want to make a comment.

If not, in my discussions with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), he believes there was not the full opportunity that he would have liked to have considered in a bipartisan fashion. And that committee, as you well know, and that gentleman from Missouri has been one of the most bipartisan Members of the House.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have been in a position where I was one of four voting against something if I thought it was appropriate to do. So he can keep saying there were only 50 as long he wants. There should have been zero. His side believes that and our side believes that. Our side is as deeply committed to supporting the troops as is his side. That is good news of this day. Everyone has expressed that.

It does not serve our purposes further, related to staff here, they did not get a draft from their perspective until after 6 p.m. last night when, as you know, we had adjourned. I was at the Fire Service Caucus with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), with whom I work in lockstep, and have for 13 to 14 years in a bipartisan way. We understand bipartisanship. We have a Fire Service bill on this floor totally bipartisan.

So I understand bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker. It does not serve our purpose to further discuss procedures. I agree on that. We have a different view. But what it does serve our purposes for is trying to come together not in a way that will divide the House, but in a way that will bring the House together. That, I believe, is the best interest of our country. I would hope we could do that, and I will work with the gentleman to accomplish that objective, and I presume he will work with me as well.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this debate on the alternative minimum tax epitomizes, unfortunately, precisely what is wrong in this House today: the Republican leadership's refusal to seize bipartisan opportunities where they exist, and its desire to turn every tax bill into a decisive political bludgeon.

Let us be honest: every Member of this House, without exception, recognizes that we must fix the alternative minimum tax. That is not what this debate is about. When the AMT was enacted in 1969, it was supposed to ensure that wealthy taxpayers paid a fair share, that is to say, that you did not have your accountants figure out 17 ways to Sunday that you would not pay any taxes to support this democracy, this Republic, this great Nation.

We said in a bipartisan way, you ought to pay something. But because it was not indexed for inflation, the AMT today ensnares more and more middle-income taxpayers. That was not the intent of any Member of this House. It forces them to pay more than they would under the regular tax schedule. But rather than trying to find a bipartisan solution to this growing and vexing problem, the majority has offered the legislative equivalent of a Band-Aid that would only drive us further into debt.

Make no mistake: the Democratic substitute drafted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is vastly superior. Where the Republican bill would extend current AMT exemptions for taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is less than $40,250, or $58,000 for married couples, the Democratic substitute would say to individuals making $125,000 or couples making $250,000, the Alternative Minimum Tax was not meant for you. You will pay your regular taxes. It was meant for the very wealthy who exempted themselves from taxes.

I want you to know that I paid 10 percent more of my income, which is about one-eighth of Dick Cheney's income, the Vice President's. Why? Because he has an extraordinary preference item, $625,000 in income from municipal bonds. Zero taxes. But the soldiers who are defending the assets of those municipal bonds, CDC is protecting the health of those in those municipalities, as well as Mr. Cheney's and mine.

Not one nickel of cost in the Republican bill is paid for. Not one nickel. My friends on the Republican side, you are raising taxes, but you are slick; you are doing it by the back door. You are increasing the debt. As a result of increasing the debt, my kids are going to have to pay higher taxes.

That is pretty slick. Why do I say it is slick? My kids happen to be voting; but my grandchildren, who are going to have to pay more taxes, are not voting, so they are not focused on what you are doing, this shell game you are playing of pretending you are cutting taxes.

You are delaying taxes, is what you are doing; and you are increasing them at the same time. The fact is, the Democratic substitute provides a simpler and broader relief. It is fiscally responsible. That used to be the mantra of your party. Many of your folks talk about it today. They do not vote that way, however.

It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, that this Republican majority, which talks about tax fairness and simplification, in the last 3\1/2\ years has only made our Tax Code much more complicated.

Let us not perpetuate tax confusion and complexity. Let us help those who need help. Let us pay for what we do. That is the responsible policy. That would make this Congress responsible. We can do so in a bipartisan way. Vote for this substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I have a prepared statement. I am not going to give it.

Perhaps the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and perhaps the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) believe if you say something enough, somebody will believe it.

I refer the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) to page 22 of the administration's budget document on receipts. For 8 years under Clinton, receipts went up. After we passed the 1993 bill, the economy went up and deficits went down. However, for the 12 years of Reagan and Bush, deficits went up, and under this administration, deficits have soared. And I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), check out page 22. Receipts have gone down, my friend. Down.

Starting with 2000, $2.25 trillion; 2001, $1.9 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), he is not listening to these figures. I know he wants to know the truth. I know he wants to know the facts. I am trying to give them to him so he will not misstate again. I want him to hear these facts, and then he can respond. This is the administration's book, not mine.

I will give them to the gentleman again. In 2000, $2.25 trillion; 2001 $1.9 trillion; 2002, 1.8 trillion; 2003, 1.7 trillion.

So to not tell us and the American public that resources are going up, they are not. This graph reflects what the Republican budget book says.

Now, with respect to spending, I say to my friend, we are spending less on discretionary spending than we spent in 1962 of GDP. But you all talk about that. Why? Because it is easy to talk about that. It is 17 percent of the budget; you do not talk about the other 83 percent.

What the gentleman from Kansas is saying, I say to my colleagues, is do not pass these tax cuts for which there is no money to give anybody. You are taking it from Social Security. You are taking it from Medicare. And, more importantly, I will tell my colleagues who is going to pay for these tax cuts: my children, my grandchildren, and the generations yet to come. That is not only intellectually wrong, it is an immoral fiscal policy.

Mr. Speaker, if the vote on this motion to instruct budget conferees is anything like the first one on March 30, then someone should summon the house physician because there may be some very sore arms on the Republican side of the aisle.

Certainly, we remember that five-minute vote? The Republican leadership held it open for 28 minutes so that it could (quote/unquote) persuade eight Republicans to change their votes from yes to no, and defeat the motion on a tie vote.

As David Broder, the syndicated columnist, pointed out (and I quote):

Clearly, on a free vote of conscience, narrow majorities in

both the House and Senate would be prepared to impose this

degree of self-discipline [meaning pay-as-you-go budget

rules].

The simple fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget projects that our Nation will run a record budget deficit of $521 billion this year. That figure does not include the costs of fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an estimated $50 billion to $75 billion.

The 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion that George W. Bush inherited when he took office has been turned into a projected deficit of more than $4 trillion in just 3 short years.

And now, our Republican friends want to drive us even deeper into debt with tax cuts that are not paid for.

Perhaps Mr. Nussle, the chairman of the Budget Committee, summed up the Republican philosophy best. In March, he said (and I quote):

We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts.

Well, my Republican friends, you don't. But our children and grandchildren surely will.

That's why the list of those supporting pay-as-you-go rules includes, among others, House Democrats, a bipartisan majority of the Senate, Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, the Concord Coalition, the Committee for Economic Development, and the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget.

Republicans have not always believed that tax cuts are sacrosanct.

In fact, the majority leader himself even said in 1997 of Jack Kemp, a former member of this body (and I quote):

Jack Kemp worships at the altar of tax cuts. Jack has

always said that deficits don't matter. We think that

deficits do matter.

Mr. Speaker, PAYGO rules will not preclude tax cuts.

They simply recognize that, with a fiscal crisis looming, it is irresponsible--indeed immoral--to force the next generation to pay our bills.

I urge my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I got up to my office, and I heard the comments of the gentleman from Pennsylvania. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) both said not the perspective you thought revenues were going to increase, but that they had increased. That was not accurate. That was my point, and I think your review of the book indicates that I was accurate.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I understand his analysis of the last 6 months; we have had a good growth in the last 6 months. Not as good, contrary to what the gentleman says, as we had in terms of the Clinton years, because where we grew 23 million new jobs, we have still lost jobs. The gentleman pointed out we raised 300,000 jobs. As he knows, 100,000 of those were returning workers from the strikes around the country.

But the point I would make is that in 1993 when we adopted the Clinton economic program, Mr. Armey and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I cannot say the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), but Mr. Kasich was then the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, they said that program was going to destroy America's economy, we would lose jobs, have high deficits and high unemployment and high interest rates. In fact, exactly the opposite happened, and we had the best economy we have had in the history of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is a shame we cannot have a longer, more substantive debate on this. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) got up and criticized the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) for his inconsistency. He is for middle-class tax cuts, as I am; but he wants to pay for them. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) in 1997 voted for the Balanced Budget Amendment, as I did, which had exactly the same PAYGO as is included in the Moore motion to instruct.

Hear me, I say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) voted for exactly the same PAYGO as did 193 Republicans. Stick with your original convictions.

Mr. Speaker, while all of us rightly focused on the continuing effort to secure and stabilize Iraq, none of us can close our eyes to the ominous and growing danger posed by the government of Iran.

That is why I strongly support this important bipartisan resolution brought to the floor today by the chairman and ranking democrat on the Committee on International Relations (Mr. Hyde and Mr. Lantos).

This resolution condemns in the strongest possible terms Iran's continuing deceptions and falsehoods to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community about its nuclear programs and activities.

For example, Iran failed to properly disclose the existence of a fuel enrichment plant and facility at Natanz, until both were revealed by an opposition group.

It confirmed that it had conducted research on uranium conversion processes, but only after it denied doing so.

According to a February report by the director general of the IAEA, Iran continues to engage in deception regarding its nuclear activities.

This resolution also calls on the United States, as well as all state parties to the treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to use (and I quote) ``All appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.''

The fact is, our national security demands that we do everything in our power to prevent Iran from developing and acquiring nuclear weapons.

The Iranian government is hostile to the interests of the United States. It is a state sponsor of terrorism.

It is a committed enemy of the state of Israel, our staunch ally and the lone democracy in this most volatile region.

It is vital that we speak with one voice on this issue of utmost gravity. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), for yielding. I also want to thank my good friend from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette), the chairman of this subcommittee, for last year trying to give me the opportunity to speak on my bill. I remember that and recall that well. I thank him very much.

I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), the ranking Democrat, and the extraordinary staff assistant that he has on this subcommittee, Susan Brita.

Mr. Speaker, for the past 12 years I have sponsored a resolution for the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby to hold its race on the Capitol Grounds along Constitution Avenue. Once again, I am proud to have sponsored such a resolution to permit the 63rd running of the Soap Box Derby races scheduled to take place on Saturday, June 19.

The resolution authorizes the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Police Board, and the Greater Washington Soap Box Derby Association to negotiate the necessary arrangements for conducting the race in complete compliance with the rules and regulations governing the use of the Capitol Grounds.

Therefore, I request my colleagues to join with me and other co- sponsors, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen), in supporting this resolution.

The Soap Box Derby has been held in the Washington D.C. area since 1991. It has attracted over 50 participants each of these years ranging in age from 9 to 16. The participants work very hard, as all of us know, to prepare their own race cars from the kit provided by the All American Soap Box Derby program.

The contestants are given an opportunity to learn basic skills of workmanship and to enhance their building expertise while creating their own style car. Winners of these levels of the local race become eligible to compete in the National Soap Box Derby races held in the district of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) in Akron.

Prior to the national races, they attend a week of camps in Derbytown where they make lasting friendships while participating in a variety of sporting activities. The national races are held in July and give the participants a chance to win scholarships and merchandise prizes.

Mr. Speaker, this event has been called, and I quote, ``the greatest amateur racing event in the world.'' I am not sure that it is the greatest, but it is certainly one of the very best and certainly gives to young people the values of self-reliance, of enterprise, of innovation, and of competition.

This is a wonderful opportunity for our children from the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to venture into the world of science while experiencing the spirit of competition.

I again thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) for their leadership in bringing this to the floor.

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

The previous speaker was very animated on the fact that we ought not to bring back the marriage penalty. Is it not wonderful that 435 people agree on that? That is not a dispute in this debate. All of us want to give relief. All of us want to make it permanent. Some of us believe, however, there is a free lunch and we want to pass it along to our children and grandchildren. To that extent, it will be a free lunch for us but not for them.

Mr. Speaker, the marriage penalty bill that the House Republicans put on the floor today is divorced from the fiscal reality that confronts this Nation. Just think, in 3\1/2\ years the Republican Party has turned a projected budget surplus of $5.6 trillion over 10 years, according to President Bush that is what we had when he spoke to the joint session of Congress, and they have turned it into a deficit of $4 trillion in less than 4 years. This year alone the Federal Government is expected to run a record deficit of half a trillion dollars. That figure does not even include the $50- to $75 billion that virtually everyone agrees will be needed for our war efforts.

So what do our Republican friends propose here today? A tax bill that will cost an estimated $105 billion over the next decade. Now it is $200 billion, and then guess what, they take $100 billion back. That is called a shell game where I come from. Not one nickel of that 105 net is paid for, not one nickel. That is right, with a fiscal crisis looming House Republicans would drive us deeper into debt because, as the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) said in March, ``We don't believe that you should have to pay for tax cuts.''

They are for free, supply-side, free lunch. Somebody will pay, and it will be our children and grandchildren. My Republican friends do not but our children and grandchildren will surely do so.

Make no mistake, Democrats strongly support marriage penalty relief because married couples should not have to pay more in taxes than they would if unmarried.

That is fair. We are for that principle. Everybody is for that principle on this floor.

As a result, Members have a choice today. They can vote for the fiscally irresponsible Republican bill, or they can vote for the superior Democratic substitute, every penny of which is paid for and will give marriage relief to all Americans. The Democratic substitute is fiscally responsible, and it ensures the benefits of the bill are not nullified by the alternative minimum tax, that shell game of which I talked.

I know the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is not playing a shell game, but we have this AMT. It is a fancy phrase, but it simply means if an individual is below a certain degree of obligation, they make a certain income, we are going to take more. So what they say is, we are going to give you $200; but, guess what, we are taking $100 back. We do not do that.

That is why they talk about 205. But it is paid for, and as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) must admit, it does not add a single nickel to the deficit or the debt. Perhaps when he rises to speak, he will deny that. I hope not, because it is the fact.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute, vote for marriage penalty relief, and vote for fiscal responsibility. The failure to pay for tax cuts not only threatens our economic future but also is an immoral abdication of our responsibility to our children and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Will the gentleman yield?

If my friend will yield, I was wondering who is in charge of this splurge of spending that the gentleman is concerned about?