Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to yield to the majority leader for the purposes of informing us of the proposed schedule for next week.

I thank the gentleman for providing us with that information. The leader points out that the Medicare prescription drug bill will be on the floor.

First I would like to know, Mr. Leader, if you know which day of the week or days of the week can we expect to see the Medicare prescription drug bill on the floor?

It would be the intention of the leader to have this bill finished prior to the end of next week?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, obviously this will be one of the most important bills that we consider during this session of the Congress of the United States, and I would ask if it is the gentleman's intention and the leadership on your side's intention to provide a rule which will allow the minority to offer such amendments as it deems to be appropriate, to offer a substitute that it deems to be appropriate, and to provide sufficient time to debate those amendments?

I yield further to the gentleman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, we appreciate the fact that the gentleman will be, I am not sure I heard you, you will be giving us a substitute or you will consider giving us a substitute. I am not sure I understood.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, we understand that, but everybody on this floor, every Member, perhaps not the American public, but every Member knows that the majority, when it needs a waiver of the rules to present something on the floor that it wants to present, waives those rules.

So when I said something that the minority wants to offer, I meant that, very frankly, if the democratic process is going to operate openly and effectively so that there can be different alternatives considered, alternatives that we believe are appropriate, as well as, obviously, the majority can present the alternatives it deems to be appropriate. Clearly, if one fashions a bill so that the alternative we believe is appropriate is not consistent with those rules and will not give us a waiver, you effectively have precluded us from offering that substitute or those amendments. I mentioned the substitute, but I also would hope that there would be a willingness to make in order numerous amendments from the minority side of the House.

As I have pointed out, Mr. Leader, we represent approximately 140 million Americans on this side; you represent approximately 150 million Americans. That is pretty close. The Americans who sent us here obviously would want to see their alternatives considered by the full House. And if they are rejected, so be it. But I would urge the leader, particularly on a bill as important as this, as controversial as this, having such ramifications to 40 million Americans on Medicare, that you would be, you and the Speaker and the whip on your side, would urge the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules to be as broad in their approval of alternatives as they could be.

I see the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is on the floor. I carry around with me, as he knows, quotes. I do not know how many people carry around quotes of the gentleman from California, but I carry around quotes of the gentleman from California in my pocket. From time to time I bring them out. He made the point as a minority Member that a Member ought to be given the ability to offer alternatives; and if they lose, they lose. But in a democratic institution that prides itself on being the people's House, all of the people's representatives ought to be given an option to offer their alternatives.

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments. As we all know, the Committee on Rules is the least representative committee in terms of distribution of numbers, and that was true when we were in charge, so I understand that. It is not a criticism. That is the way the Committee on Rules is run. It is an agent, if you will, of the majority. It is how the majority runs the House.

We are not deluded on our side, anymore than you were when you were in the minority, deluded to the fact that you would be able to make an impact in committee. So very frankly, taking under consideration seriously our request is interesting and we are appreciative that you will take it under consideration.

But more basically than that, the gentleman has sole authority to do it. You can do it any way you want. We understand that. But our expectation is that on a bill of this magnitude and importance, that we will be allowed not only to offer a substitute, but amendments.

I will tell the gentleman that we understand the strictures of the Republican budget and, by the way, our budget, both of which have close numbers, we had $528 billion and I think you had $5 billion in terms of a number of items in your budget. But the fact is, we understand those strictures. And if those are the only strictures which we are confronted with, we will work within those restraints.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his representation. Let me, reclaiming my time, make another observation.

In times past, the defense bill being, for instance, the authorization bill which we passed very quickly a few weeks ago, we had spent 6 days, 7 days on that piece of legislation. This legislation is going to have an extraordinary impact on millions of Americans, and we would hope that there would be sufficient time to debate the bill and, again, substitutes and amendments, so that we could fully air its ramifications to those millions of people, and to Medicare itself.

Obviously, there are different points of view on how to get to where we all want to get, or at least most of us want to get. I think there is a substantial difference on whether or not we want to see a program in a viable, ongoing, healthy Medicare, or whether or not Medicare is eliminated or shrunk very substantially and the private sector is in charge of whether or not to offer such benefits. That is a significant policy difference between us, I think; and it needs to be debated.

So not only would I urge that we be given the amendments and substitutes that we seek, but also the time to develop those amendments and positions

on those amendments, as it is appropriate for the American public to understand the perspectives of the parties and of the individuals offering amendments.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I think we have made our point. I do hope that the chairman, although we may differ on intents, but in any event, I think the gentleman is absolutely correct, nobody has introduced something like that. Nobody has been so bold as to introduce a specific proposal, although many have been bold enough to discuss that objective and result, I say to my friend from California. Some have been that bold to discuss that result, if not introducing such a bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

On the appropriation bills, again, this is a concern that we have, because we have heard some discussions, Mr. Leader, about having restrained rules for appropriations. As the gentleman knows, more often than not, when we were in the majority, we brought many appropriation bills to the floor without a rule. As the gentleman knows, under the rules, appropriation bills do not need a rule.

Can the gentleman tell me what the majority contemplates for appropriation bills as they come to the floor and the rules that they may be coming to the floor under?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's assertion of what we have done in the past and that he hopes we can continue to do that.

The intelligence authorization, when does the gentleman believe that that would be coming up? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I saw a grimace, and I thought I would give time for communication between the people who know what is going on like our staff here and the gentleman and myself.

Okay. Fine.

The MSA bill. When does the gentleman expect that? We are trying to get sort of the flow of bills so we can be prepared. The Medicare bill we assume is going to come late Wednesday and Thursday, and then these other bills will come earlier. The MSA bill, when does the gentleman think that will come?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the leader.

Now, Mr. Leader, one of the things I was very concerned about in hearing the schedule, it has now been just short of 7 days that we passed the child tax credit legislation that many of us have expressed real concern about. We went to conference that same day, as the gentleman knows.

Can the gentleman tell me whether or not the conference is meeting? Can the gentleman tell me whether we expect to consider a conference report so that prior to July the 6.5 million families and the 12 million children that were left out when it came out of conference might be helped? Can the gentleman tell me whether or not there is either the conference proceeding or whether or not there is any expectation that we will take a conference report up on the floor next week prior to going home for the July 4th break? I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that information. I also thank him for his excitement and because he is so excited about passing this, I want to tell him, and I say this very seriously on behalf of our leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and myself, we are prepared to give you unanimous consent to take the Senate bill from the desk, put it on the floor and pass it by unanimous consent. We were excited about it, too. But much more than being excited about it, we think it is an essential act of fairness to assist some of the neediest working tax-paying families in America who were left on the cutting room floor when it came out of conference. And if you share, as I think you do, or at least you express that excitement and enthusiasm for accomplishing that objective, we may not be able to accomplish everything. But we can accomplish some things. And we ought not to have everything fail or some things fail because we could not do everything.

And I say very sincerely to the leader, on our side, we are prepared to give unanimous consent on Monday night, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday or Saturday or as long as we want to stay here next week for the purposes of passing that, so those families who were included but cut out in the conference would be included and would participate in the advantages under the tax bill that has already been signed by the President.

I will tell you, Mr. Leader, very seriously that these 6\1/2\ million families, these 12 million children will, frankly, not understand that the perfect of what you just spoke was the enemy of the extraordinarily good, which is included in the Senate bill. And I will tell the gentleman further, during the Senate bill, unlike the bill that we passed in the House, the men and women in combat who fall within the income constraints which were covered in the Senate bill were not covered in the House bill. And while we certainly agree with you on helping all of the military who qualify, we certainly believe that the folks in combat whose combat pay is now counted against them for qualifications under this bill, would be helped by the Senate bill. So I think we could help the men and women in combat first.

And I will tell you also, Mr. Leader, we are prepared to offer unanimous consent for a companion know bill as we pass the Senate bill to fix the problem or address the problem of which you have spoken with reference to the military. But we ought not to, Mr. Leader, with all due sincerity, if we are excited, if we believe this is an important thing to do, if you wanted to make it permanent, you could have done so, of course, you did not make it permanent. You did it 5 more years than we did it. We were in the constraints of the Senate bill.

We would like to make it permanent as well. However, what we would not like to do is have July come and there be no relief for these families which is going to happen if the perfect, if the objective of doing everything defeats us in doing something.

Well, the bill passed, I think we disagree on some of the information, Mr. Leader, that you have just said. I do not think you are accurate on some of that information, but be that as it may.

The gentleman is accurate on that. As you know, in the Senate bill, we increased from 10 to 15 percent the credit that would be available to them. That was dropped, as you know, in the conference.

That is correct.

That is correct.

The House bill has not been taken up, Mr. Leader. It is very nice to say and, reclaiming my time, that it is in the House bill. It is permanent in the House bill. We do a lot of things in the House bill. On our side, we did not believe the House bill was going to be taken up, and we said that, which is why we said we ought to take up the Senate bill and pass it and do something, even though we were not doing everything, and we still maintain that position. And as I am reminded, and I would remind the leader, this House voted to instruct the conferees to take the Senate bill.

So we are simply giving unanimous consent to do what the House has already voted on that same day last Thursday to do, and that is, pass the Senate bill. That is what we instructed the conferees to do. So it is not as if we are asking for something that the House has not voted on to do and to accelerate the passage of this legislation so we can help these families.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Leader, I hope we are not going to give people the impression that a body that passed a bill 94 to 2 would not agree to us passing their bill because, frankly, I do not think that is the case.

I understand what you are saying, and I understand that they have been told you are not going to take the Senate bill; and, therefore, they need to go to conference. So they are bowing to practicality. What I am saying is we ought to bow to needs and to practicality and pass the bill. And I am saying to you that we can give you and will give you unanimous consent to do exactly that so that these folks can get that which they will not get, and that is, the additional payment which was provided for in the conference but not reported out of the conference, and, therefore, we are going to leave 200,000 armed services personnel not advantaged as others were in the bill.

We are going to leave 6\1/2\ million families with 12 million children not advantaged, as was the intent of the Senate, and I think most of the House.

Beware, working men and women of America. The Republicans from Washington are in town and they are here to help you. Beware.

Mr. Speaker, our Republican friends may think they are burying the estate tax today but they actually are burying our children under a mountain of debt. They see a problem. We Democrats see a problem. We solve a problem without burying our children under a mountain of debt. The GOP bill would create a fiscal Frankenstein that would haunt this Nation for decades to come. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates this bill will cost $162 billion. The young people of America are going to pick up that bill. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities projects that its costs will explode to more than $800 billion in the decade after that. So if you are about 15, watch out.

Our Nation will run a record budget deficit of more than $400 billion this year. At the same time the Republican majority has acceded to the largest increase in the debt limit in American history, $950 billion- plus in 1 year, which was what the deficit was in its entirety in 1980.

So what does the GOP propose today? Legislation that would drive us even deeper into debt. For whom? For three-tenths of 1 percent of the decedents in America. 99.7 percent of the decedents in America who owe estate tax would be exempted under our option without blowing a hole in the deficit. The fact is repealing the estate tax would only benefit the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of the estates in America. Think of that. For three-tenths we are going to blow a continuing hole in the deficit.

Let us remember, it was Republican President Theodore Roosevelt who called for an inheritance tax in 1906 saying, and I want to quote this Republican President.

``There is every reason why . . . the national government should impose a graduated inheritance tax.'' Teddy Roosevelt himself, a man of great means, explained: ``The prime object should be to put a constantly increasing burden on the inheritance of those swollen fortunes which it is certainly of no benefit to this country to perpetuate.'' Warren Buffett, one of the wealthiest people in the world, agrees

totally with that. The bill has nothing to do with tax fairness or stimulating the economy. It has everything to do with paying homage to the GOP's reckless tax cut theology and misplaced priorities.

Today, the GOP genuflects at the tax cut alter, but the rest of us ought to be the ones saying a prayer. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic alternative. We talk about personal responsibility. Be personally responsible today.

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Washington State, what we hear over here is enmity, enmity towards the common wheel. I do not mean towards government, I mean towards us coming together as a people to invest in America, to invest in our children, to leave no child behind, to make sure our environment is clean, to make sure that we have the resources to invest in national defense.

Now, those of you who go to work every day and work for a living and get a salary check and have deductions from that salary check, to help your government have a national defense, have the programs for education and health care and NIH research to make our society better, hear me now. Those of you who work every day, let me tell you what the objective of this provision is.

First, we are going to exempt three-tenths of a percent; not exempt 99.7 which the Pomeroy bill does, and it speaks to those small farmers and those small business people who have grown America, who we want to exempt. We are for that. But what it does not do is add gargantuan amounts to the debt and then, let me tell my colleagues what this does. I have $100 million that I inherited from my dad, hooray for me. I will never, ever pay taxes again under the Republican program.

Never, unless it happens to be a sales tax or an excise tax. I will not pay income tax, because this is inherited dollars, and I will have it invested in corporate or savings accounts, and the Republicans want to exempt both dividends from taxation and interest on savings from taxation. So I will never pay taxes again. And, by the way, they also want to exempt capital gains.

Now, if you get most of your income from capital gains, or you get most of your income from dividends, or you get most of your income from interest, you may be for this. But if, however, you are like the overwhelming majority of Americans who get up every day, play

by the rules, work hard, and get a salary check, this undermines you, your children, and your families.

Vote for the Pomeroy substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Patuxent High School in Calvert County, Maryland for its ranking among the Nation's top 700 most demanding public schools as reported by Newsweek. I would like to commend Patuxent High School on incorporating a curriculum that challenges and advances the abilities of all students who attend this public school.

The Challenge Index rated each school by analyzing the number of advanced placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by students in the high school and the number graduating from that school in a given year. Those schools that received a rating of 1.0, which meant that the number of students graduating was less than the number of tests given, were considered above average and included in the index. Based on this ratings scale, Patuxent High School achieved the ranking of 697th of schools across the Nation who met this 1.0 rating.

The Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB), a European based program, are courses students can take which have a challenging curriculum and prepare the students for their endeavors at the collegiate level. In addition, these exams allow the individual students to earn college credits depending on what score they receive on the exam.

In 2003 the Patuxent High School student body numbered 1775 students with a senior class of 371. It offers fifteen AP courses as well as numerous honors courses that challenge their students. This year twenty-seven percent of the graduating class will attend a four-year college or university with forty percent attending a two-year college. In 2001, Patuxent High School was honored for receiving the top average SAT scores in Calvert County.

Principal Robert F. Dredger along with the four Vice Principals: Nancy Highsmith, Steve King, Christian Hodge, and Robert Lawrence, have established an environment that motivates and challenges each and every student. Without the hard work of the administration, staff, and students this honor could not have been obtained.

Mr. Speaker, Patuxent High School has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to its entire student body by offering numerous courses that provoke the minds of each and every student. I would like to congratulate Patuxent High School on achieving such an honor and wish the faculty, staff, and students continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Thomas Stone High School in Charles County Maryland, for its ranking among the nation's top 700 most demanding public schools as reported in Newsweek. I would like to commend Thomas Stone High School on incorporating a curriculum that challenges and advances the abilities of all students who attend this public school.

The 2003 Challenge Index rated each school by analyzing the number of advanced placement or International Baccalaureate tests taken by students in the high school and the number of graduating seniors from that school in a given year. Those schools who received a rating of 1.0, which meant that the number of students graduating was less than the number of tests given, were considered above average and included in the index. Based on this ratings scale, Thomas Stone High School achieved the ranking of 364th in schools across the nation who met this 1.0 rating.

The Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB), a European based program, are courses students can take which have a more challenging curriculum and prepare the students for their endeavors at the collegiate level. In addition to this, these exams also allow the individual students to earn college credit depending on the score they receive on the exam.

Thomas Stone High School includes 1916 students with 392 of those graduating this year. Out of those 392 students graduating, the school expects 72 percent to attend a college or university. To aid students in continuing their education the school estimates that nearly 4.2 million dollars has been spent on scholarships. Students are allowed to participate in nineteen Advanced Placement courses, as well as scholar's courses and the JROTC. Thomas Stone High School has a student who sits on the State Board of Education as well as the County Board of Education. The school has Board Certified teachers and the Principal, Mr. Heath Morrison, was named the Maryland Association of Student Council's Principal of the Year. It is easy to

see how such remarkable students can thrive at Thomas Stone High School.

The faculty and staff, along with the students, are responsible for this honor. Principal Heath Morrison as well as the five Vice Principals: Janice Johnson, Ellen Linton, Curry Werkheiser, Wendell Martin, and Frazier Nelson all helped to encourage the students to strive for and achieve their goals.

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Stone High School has demonstrated an outstanding commitment to its entire student body by offering numerous courses that provoke the minds of each and every student. I would like to congratulate Thomas Stone High School on achieving such an honor and wish the faculty, staff, and students continued success in the future.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this substitute and reiterate what the distinguished gentleman from Texas said.

Obviously, adversely affecting pending cases, in my opinion, is extraordinarily bad policy and precedent that we should not follow. Have we done it from time to time? We have. Have I opposed it? I have. I think that is not the way we ought to go.

Now, I think that legislation in this area is appropriate. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) I think has offered an appropriate substitute. Are there abuses in our system of civil justice specifically regarding class action lawsuits? I want to tell the gentleman that I believe there are, and we need to write legislation that addresses and remedies those problems.

However, the bill offered on the floor today, if not amended, in my opinion, does not do that. Instead, its provisions would apply to pending class actions, making it more difficult for shareholders, retirees, and former employees frankly to hold companies such as Enron, WorldCom and Arthur Andersen accountable for their alleged wrongdoing. We ought not to, because of our desire to protect those cases, therefore not address other corporate citizens who are responsible and who are doing a good job and who want to be ought to be subject, obviously, to suits, but ought to be subject to suits that are legitimate.

The addition of this retroactivity provision is a major change. Let me stress that, Mr. Chairman. This is a major change from the class action bill considered in the last Congress. I do not know who it is in there to protect. I do not know who came forward and said we need protection; it is not a question of reform in the future, but we need protection.

We have seen a few reports of that, from people who want protection. Maybe that is what that retroactivity is for. As matter of fact, invariably in my plus-30 years of service in legislative bodies, when retroactive provisions are included in the bill, invariably it is there to protect somebody. And it is very bad policy. Congress should not be changing the rules that govern this resolution of civil disputes in midstream.

Furthermore, this legislation would give defendants in class actions vast new opportunities to delay cases for 2 years or more and stay discovery during the same period. Again, these rule changes would apply retroactively to pending cases.

H.R. 1115 also would force our Federal courts to handle State class actions, in addition to their large caseload and judicial vacancy rate. Thus, it is not surprising, I tell my colleagues, that both Federal and State judges oppose this measure. In fact, the Federal Judicial Conference, which is headed by Chief Justice Rehnquist, recently wrote a letter in which it ``strongly cautions Congress to uphold principles of federalism and to not increase the workload of the already overburdened Federal courts.''

In sharp contrast to this overreaching GOP bill, Democrats have offered legislation that, among other things, would base attorneys' fees on the amount redeemed by class members rather than the amount of the settlement. I think that is appropriate.

I understand the concerns of corporate leaders when they say the attorneys get all the money, and the aggrieved parties get a piece of paper saying that they may get something prospectively if they buy another product. That is a legitimate concern. This substitute speaks to it.

Our bill would require courts to determine that a class action settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to the class. That is a protection against specious suits and those who would misuse the system.

This substitute would bar litigants from sealing court records and documents under protective orders unless a court finds that it is necessary to protect a trade or business secret and it is in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this substitute and then support its passage. We need reform. This is the appropriate step for us to take.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary observation.

Mr. Speaker, I would make a parliamentary observation. If we keep raising the debt as fast as we are raising it----

Well, I am, because it will be a moot point, because there will not be enough room in the Chamber to make the display.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) talked about averages. Beware of averages.

If the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) gets $100,000 tax cut and I get a zero tax cut, that means the two of us got a $50,000 average tax cut. Beware of Republicans quoting average tax cuts.

The GOP's intransigence is on full display with the self-executing rule on this legislation to allow low-income working American families to benefit from the increase in the child tax credit.

Let there be no mistake: With this rule, the GOP leadership wants to send this legislation into conference committee where it hopes to tie up the bill and watch it die a slow death.

Two days ago, when the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) unveiled the House GOP's fiscally irresponsible version of this bill, he had the audacity to say, ``We are not in the business of politics, but rather policy.''

Well, I ask, is the United States Senate playing politics with this issue?

That body passed a responsible bipartisan bill, 94 Senators voting for it, giving relief to 12 million children and 6.5

million families. I ask, is the President of the United States playing politics when he said he would sign the Senate bill and urged us to pass it? And the Democratic Caucus on this side of the aisle, every one of whom is prepared to vote for the bill that the President says he will sign that will give immediate relief to 12 million children and 6.5 million working families.

So we all know who is really playing politics on this issue. And it is not Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats, House Democrats, and President Bush who support the immediate passage of the Senate bill. It is the House Republicans who have proposed an irresponsible, $82 billion bill that is not paid for, that would drive us even deeper into debt and possibly prevent low-income working families from receiving this benefit.

I have said on this floor before, when you did not allow us to offer a substitute, that you did not have the courage of your convictions. I have said on this floor before when you did not allow us to offer amendments, that you did not have the courage of your convictions. Now, you not only do not allow us to offer a substitute, you do not allow us to offer amendments, you do not even have the courage to put your own bill on the floor.

The public probably does not understand that. This is a rule. Not the bill. We are not debating the bill. And, as a matter of fact, the committee whose jurisdiction has this bill is not even on the floor and they have not spoken on this bill. The leadership of the committee has not come forward and said that it is good bill. They have handled it on a procedural matter. Why? To muzzle us and to muzzle their folks who they do not rely on to vote on the substance of this bill, but hope and pray they will get enough of their people on the procedural end of this bill to carry the day. That is unfortunate.

Eighty-two billion dollars of deficit that Americans are going to have to pay for, my children are going to have to pay for, my grandchildren are going to have to pay for; and we do not even have the courage to put the bill on the floor, but this rule ruse is what we are confronted with.

Vote no on the previous question. Vote no on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the distinguished majority whip the schedule for tomorrow, and I will be pleased to yield to my friend, the distinguished majority whip.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the information he provided us. I would like to ask a number of questions about bills that we see on the horizon, to see whether or not they may be scheduled in the near future.

The Associated Health Plans, can you tell us what day we might consider that bill, and how the bill will be considered, and whether or not we will be allowed a substitute and/or amendment?

Does the gentleman have any information as to whether or not the minority would be allowed a substitute to that bill?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and I hope that we will be able to get a substitute and such amendments as we might deem to be appropriate to be considered by the full House.

On the State tax bill, can you tell us when we might consider that bill and also the status of any rule?

Do you know which would come first, the associated health plans or the State tax?

The IRS Accountability Act, can you tell us what day we might consider that bill and under what type of rule?

Medicare prescription drugs, there has been a lot of activity on that, and I know that a lot of work is going on in the Senate and here in the House. Can you tell us about when we can expect to see the Medicare prescription drug legislation considered in the committee of jurisdiction and then on the floor?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Appropriations bills, I know we have started to mark up appropriations bills in the committee. When do you expect the first appropriations bills may come to the floor, now that some of the subcommittees are beginning to mark up their bills, and how many bills do you expect to consider before the July 4 district work period?

Lastly, Mr. Whip, the child tax credit, we have just instructed the conference committee to pass the Senate bill out of conference on a bipartisan vote. I do not see the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, but is there any feel when that bill might come out of conference?

Mr. Speaker, would it be fair to expect that we would consider that conference committee prior to the July 4 district work period?

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I would simply say from our side of the aisle, and I know I speak for the leader and myself, in light of the fact that the House has urged the conference committee to report out the Senate bill, and in light of the fact that the Senate passed it 94-2, it would seem to be a relatively easy matter if the conferees followed the instructions of the House to pass the Senate bill. I believe the Senate would probably concur in that judgment, and we could have a bill out of here perhaps as early as next week.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Reclaiming my time, I do not know about everybody else, but of course had the gentleman who complained made the vote, we would have had one more vote on our side, as the gentleman indicated.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Speaker, it is almost an avalanche of support for the position of this side, and some enlightened souls on your side of the aisle, and so perhaps we ought to conclude before we have such an overwhelming majority that there will be no alternative but to follow those instructions.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Oregon and thank the chairman. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the

gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) for a provision in this bill which I think is very important.

I represent three general aviation airports that are within the 15- mile radius of the White House. As a result, they were shut down. They were not shut down because they were not operating safely and fairly; they were shut down because it was the perception and the belief of those in charge of our national security that they posed a risk.

Obviously, they are all owned privately. They are not public airports. As a result, there was a very substantial adverse financial impact to many people, both who own the airports and who had concessions at the airports.

There is authorized in this bill $100 million for the purpose of, both at National and other surrounding airports, not only here but throughout the country, those who suffered damage as a result of 9-11 in a very real financial sense, for them to be not made whole, because that would be impossible at this point in time, but to be compensated for the losses they sustained.

I want to thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) for their leadership, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in getting this authorization effected. I appreciate it. I know they appreciate it. It is the right thing to do.

I talked to Sean O'Keefe, of course, who now heads NASA, but was deputy director of OMB at the time of 9-11. He said he thought we ought to do this. It has taken us some time to get it done. I appreciate the leadership shown by the committee to effect this. I enthusiastically support the bill and this provision.

In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration issued temporary flight restrictions on the small aircraft of general aviation as part of its effort to make commercial air travel safer and to restore the public's confidence in the security of our Nation's airways and airports.

Unfortunately, while those restrictions were lifted for general aviation in the rest of the country, small airports in the Washington metropolitan area have continued to languish under binding restrictions on their operations. In fact, the only airports in the country that are closed to incoming and outgoing general aviation are Reagan National and the three D.C. area general aviation airports. As a result, these small airports, specifically College Park Airport, Potomac Airfield, and Washington Executive, are on the brink of financial ruin. These airports have been forced to nearly cease their operations, effectively, endangering the livelihood of their employees who have lost income and jobs and airport owners who have lost income and jobs and airport owners who have lost long-time customers and revenue. In speaking with airport managers at all three of these airports, I have heard their disturbing reports on loss of operations, reductions in fuel sales, and loss of revenue since these flight restrictions were put in place.

Lee Schiek, manager of the College Park Airport, reported earlier this year that flights in and out of College Park plummeted from about 1,800 per month before September 11 to 164 per month at the beginning of 2003, and 55 of the airport's 87 based aircraft have left for other airports.

There is no doubt that we must stem this tide of economic decline for general aviation. This industry is a proven, integral part of the nation's economy, providing vital services and economic stability to individuals, families, churches, hospitals, colleges, industry, small businesses, and communities. Aviation transportation in Maryland is a $1.3 billion industry, an industry too large and too important to be hobbled any further in an already weak economy.

Today, the House of Representatives passed the FAA reauthorization bill that will provide $100 million to general aviation to help alleviate the cost incurred in meeting security requirements and the revenue lost because of the interruption in operations.

The $100 million grant gives the Congress an opportunity to do for general aviation, small airports, and small business, and the independent pilot what we did for the airlines, large airports, and the insurance industry in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. This shows that we recognize the sacrifice that general aviation has made in the effort to make us more secure. Let's not forget: the Federal Government imposed the restrictions on general aviation, and the Federal Government should do its part to help ease the financial burden those restrictions have caused. This is a fair restitution that will start the process of a return to financial health of general aviation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. A question was posed and unanswered. We can wait for an answer, if my colleagues have one.

Is there no answer to the question?

Apparently, there is no answer, I tell the gentlewoman from Connecticut, to the question she posed. Let me tell her and my colleagues why.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday syndicated columnist Arianna Huffington, no Democrat and no liberal, and very wealthy, said this in the Los Angeles Times, and I quote: ``A magnetic compass always points north; a moral compass should always point out that heaping billions on the rich while ensuring that one out of six American children do not get a penny is dead wrong.''

Dead wrong. Arianna Huffington. Not the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), not the Democrats, not those fuzzy-headed liberals my Republican colleagues like to talk about, but Arianna Huffington. She continued: ``But that's exactly what congressional Republicans did in pushing through tax cut legislation last month, and that's what President Bush signed off on.'' Arianna Huffington.

Mr. Speaker, America now knows that the GOP's moral compass lies shattered on the conference room floor where the final deals on the Republican tax bill were cut 2 weeks ago.

Why did the majority leader leave the floor? The majority leader left the floor because he used an example just above the $28,000, where he would have been wrong. My colleagues, the moral compass is absent.

There was a report that showed that the policies in 2001 and 2003 are leading to a $44.4 trillion deficit. Who did that? Two people in the Bush administration asked to do that report and OMB. And guess what? They stonewalled the report. Why? Because they did not want the magnitude of the debt tax that we are imposing on every American family known while at the same time, when they had no lobbyist in that hall, those 12 million children, who did not have somebody highly paid to sit in that hallway and say do not cut us, found themselves cut out of the bill that in the still and dark of the night, with no Democrats present, was brought out to this floor, pages and pages of bill, with minutes to review it.

Arianna Huffington is correct. Shame, shame, shame.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, and I am glad to see him on the floor, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the leader, for the purpose of inquiring about the schedule for next week.

I thank the leader for his informing us of the schedule that is contemplated for next week.

Mr. Leader, I do not see Child Tax Credit legislation listed on next week's schedule. I did not hear you talk about that.

We have a bill, as I think you probably know, the Rangel/DeLauro/ Davis bill, that will make sure working families and our service members left out of the recently enacted tax bill get the child tax credit they should have. We have sought unanimous consent to bring this bill up, but we have been denied and not successful. There is apparently agreement in the Senate, as we understand it, to take this matter up perhaps today.

When do you expect that we might be able to consider child tax credit legislation on the floor, Mr. Leader?

I thank the gentleman. He and I may disagree as to the fact that the Senate left it out. It was left out. We agree on that. The Senate, of course, had it in its bill. We did not.

Am I correct then that there are no plans next week to have on the floor of the House as far as you know a child tax credit bill?

I thank the gentleman for his observation. I take it then that if the Senate does not pass something over here, that we would have no thought that that would be on the schedule for next week?

Reclaiming my time, without taking this further, than perhaps we need to go in a colloquy of this type on the schedule, Mr. Leader. In a serious vein, the minority on the Committee on Ways and Means would love to participate in the process. I would tell the leader, with all due respect and very sincerely, the minority in the Committee on Ways and Means does not believe it is included in the process; and that is of concern to us.

If perhaps you could talk with the chairman, with your persuasive powers, perhaps, in fact, we could participate in the process and perhaps we would be able to offer such an amendment; and, clearly, if that would happen, we would offer such an amendment, I assure the leader. So if he could help us with the chairman of the

committee, that would be greatly appreciated.

Medicare prescription drugs, Mr. Leader, what can you tell us about when we can expect to see Medicare prescription drug legislation considered in the committees of jurisdiction and then on the floor?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

Lastly, I would ask the gentleman, I have served on the Committee on Appropriations for many years. We have not marked up yet, as the gentleman knows, any bills in subcommittee nor, obviously, in full committee at this point in time. In fact, we have not been given 302(b) allocation, as the leader knows. Would the leader be able to tell us what schedule he now foresees for appropriations bills and when we might do the 302(b) allocations?

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Reclaiming my time, obviously, last year the discussion was the failure to pass a budget undermined the appropriations process. Of course, we have passed a budget, I would say somewhat facetiously. That probably undermines the appropriations process as well, but, nevertheless, we are behind, as the gentleman indicates. We are concerned that we get so far behind that we are unable to pass appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year, and I am pleased to hear that perhaps we are moving ahead to start giving the allocation for the subcommittees and having mark-ups perhaps as soon as next week. I thank the gentleman for the information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the chairman; and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for bringing this important resolution to the floor today. Like all Members, I will strongly support this resolution; but let none of us forget, while the battle of Baghdad has been won, the peace that all of us hope for in Iraq is yet to be achieved and our brave men and women in uniform and our allies are still in harm's way.

Today, The Washington Post reports that another American soldier died on Tuesday after being attacked by a small arms fire and rocket- propelled grenade at an Army checkpoint 50 miles north of Baghdad. May God bless his soul and provide comfort to his family. Our grateful Nation will forever be indebted to his service and sacrifice, as it is to the service and sacrifice of those comrades mentioned by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) who also lost their lives and were injured in the defense of freedom.

Mr. Speaker, having witnessed Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq, there can be little doubt that the United States of America has the finest, best-led, best- equipped and best-educated fighting force in the history of the world. Our military is smarter, faster, and more lethal than it was 12 years ago during Desert Storm, and it was very good then. It took 250,000 troops to topple Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people. Twelve years ago, it took 500,000 troops to oust him from Kuwait. About 90 percent of our bombs and missiles were precision-guided in Operation Iraqi Freedom. In Desert Storm, that figure was 10 percent.

I want to congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter); I want to congratulate the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all the members of the Committee on Armed Services for giving our troops the tools to become better, better equipped, better able to defend freedom and protect themselves.

It is evident, therefore, that assertions regarding the American military being in decline, hollowed out, are not ready, are and always were patently wrong. Moreover, only an uninformed person, I think, would deny that our Commander in Chief led a fighting force which was bequeathed to him by his predecessor President Clinton and bequeathed to him by his predecessor George Bush and also by President Reagan.

As Vice President Cheney remarked at the Air Force Academy 2 years ago, ``No President ever deploys the force he builds. There is nothing quick about preparation.'' That is a message that we must always remain ready, that we must always support the strength of our military and the safety of our personnel.

As the Taliban or the Hussein regime could attest, the myth of a hollowed-out American military is nothing more than that, a myth. I rise with my colleagues to thank, to support and commend our brave men and women in the Armed Forces of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, first, let us stipulate, I hope, that no one on this floor is pro-abortion any more than George Bush is pro-war. I supported President Bush, and I am not pro-war. There are times, though, when the health of the mother, her life, and, yes, her psychological health require and dictate, and the Supreme Court has upheld her right to seek, the termination of a pregnancy.

I do not believe that anyone here truly believes in his or her heart that abortion is a desired outcome to a woman's pregnancy. And I think, Mr. Speaker, without question, that this belief is even stronger when an abortion is obtained in the late stages of pregnancy. Yet the authors of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act cannot escape the indisputable fact that their legislation would not prevent one late- term abortion or, I suggest, any other abortion at any other time, period. Not simply because the legislation they offer is undoubtedly unconstitutional, but also because there are alternative ways to terminate a pregnancy.

If my colleagues' interpretation of their legislation is that it precludes all types of termination of pregnancy, then they ought to state it as such. If, however, as they state, it is simply the elimination of a procedure, with admittedly alternative procedures available, then it does not prevent any abortion.

Mr. Speaker, on an issue of this magnitude, an issue that is fraught with emotion, that is susceptible to demagoguery and that requires us to balance a woman's right to personal autonomy with the rights of an unborn fetus, this House should seize what common ground exists.

Common ground, we do not find common ground in this House very often. We ought to find it on this issue. That is precisely what this bipartisan substitute, the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act would do.

In short, this substitute addresses the very heart of the matter in this contentious debate, the termination of viable fetuses in the late stages of pregnancy. Unlike the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, this bill focuses on when abortions are performed rather than how they are performed. It would ban all late-term abortions. Hear me: It would ban all late-term abortions constitutionally. That is to say, the Supreme Court has articulated exceptions that must be in legislation; specifically, protection of the life of the mother and the health of the mother. Thus, this substitute comports with the constitutional requirements articulated in Stenberg v. Carhart.

Recall that the Court in Stenberg struck down a Nebraska law prescribing partial-birth abortions because it, one, lacked the requisite exceptions, and two, impermissibly placed an undue burden upon a woman's right to choose. It is evident that where the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act is constitutional, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which deliberately excludes an exception for the health of the mother, is not.

The authors of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act recognize the constitutional infirmity of their bill and thus seek to alter the facts upon which Stenberg was decided. Specifically, they reject the court's findings that partial-birth abortion may in some circumstances be the safest abortion procedure, and they state that partial-birth abortion is never necessary. But let me read to my distinguished friend a justice that I do not usually support the opinion of. In this case I think he is absolutely correct.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a different context, says if Congress ``could make a statute constitutional simply by finding that black is white or freedom, slavery, judicial review would be an elaborate farce.'' It is not an elaborate farce and, therefore, we cannot simply state that this is constitutional or this is not necessary. That will be subject to proof and the Court's determination.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this substitute, which resembles the law in 41 States of the Nation, including the

chairman's State and my own. Let us not be driven further apart by our differences, but seize what common ground exists in this daunting debate.

I would tell my friend that our statute is not a criminal statute. If my friend will read it, it is a civil statute, a civil penalty, and, therefore, the burden of proof would be much less. And I say that in this context: If the doctor is a charlatan, if the doctor is not going to follow the law, no matter what we pass will make no difference. However, it will make a difference in the final analysis because the court, the jury, the finder of fact and the finder of the law will in fact be able to make a determination that there was not the risk of serious adverse health consequences to the mother and, therefore, in that instance, a late-term abortion was not appropriate.

I am not for late-term abortion except in an instance where the life of the mother must be saved or serious health care consequences must be avoided. But let me say this. Not all of my colleagues, some are, I think, intellectually consistent, but some give credence to an exception for abortion if it results from rape or incest. That, of course, is a psychological exception not a physical exception.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I ask this because I believe it is the nub of the debate. Does the gentleman from Georgia believe there is a procedure to terminate a pregnancy that is more humane or more appropriate than the partial- birth abortion?

Do you believe there is a procedure that is more humane or more acceptable than partial birth for the termination of a pregnancy?

Reclaiming my time, and obviously I do not have more time, I wish I had more time because this is an important debate. My question to you is, A; let me ask you this, yes or no, if you can. Do you believe the only way to terminate an abortion is late-term, the procedure referred to in this bill?

In late term than this? Is that correct?

In late term, this is the only way to terminate a pregnancy?

In which case, reclaiming my time, the child would not be live; am I correct?

You believe that that is more humane.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. Speaker, the AMA opposes this bill. The Organization of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, you heard their statement. We are speaking past one another and we are not speaking to the American public.

Your bill is unconstitutional. You know it. You tried in 17 or 18 pages to restore it. You cannot do it, because you do not include what the Supreme Court requires, protecting the health of the mother.

Our bill is constitutional, and, except for the premise that you make that

doctors are charlatans and will not be held accountable for breaking this law, which has to be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence, you say this law does nothing. In fact, it is the only statute on this floor which will preclude abortions at late-term being performed by any procedure; by any procedure.

Now, I tried to get the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) to respond. He would not respond. Why would he not respond? Because my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for whom I have unrestrained respect, believes the termination of a pregnancy, the taking of a life of a fetus, is wrong, however you do it. He is shaking his head affirmatively. That is an intellectually honest position. I respect it.

Partial-birth as described is an awful procedure. Abortion is an awful procedure. I accept that. And I personally oppose late-term abortions. When I am accused of being for abortion on demand at the 8th month, 29th day, I am not. We ought to protect those lives. But we have to balance it. That is what the Court says, that is what the Constitution of the United States says.

Support the Greenwood-Hoyer alternative. It is the only legislation that will be effective in trying to make some sense of this issue that so vexes America.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been said before and will be said again that everyone who speaks on this amendment loves this flag that hangs behind me as a symbol of the greatest democracy on the face of the earth, as a symbol of the country that has demonstrated throughout history the greatest countenance in the principles for which that flag stands.

It gives me absolutely no pleasure to oppose this proposed constitutional amendment providing the physical desecration of our flag. I believe people ought not to engage in that kind of activity, but our flag is more than mere cloth. It is a universal symbol for freedom, democracy and liberty, and it will continue to be so for so long as the symbols for which it stands flies high in the hearts of every American. That is where it needs to fly high, in our hearts and in our intellect.

Those who would desecrate it only seek to grab attention for themselves and inflame the passions of patriotic Americans. Without doubt, they deserve both our contempt and our pity for their stupidity, but while I appreciate and respect the motivations of those who offer and support this amendment, I will oppose it for the reasons so eloquently articulated by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) and Senator McConnell of Kentucky.

In opposing a similar amendment a few years ago, Senator McConnell stated that it ``rips the fabric of our Constitution at its very center, the first amendment.'' That was Senator McConnell. He added, ``Our respect and reverence for the flag should not provoke us to damage our Constitution, even in the name of patriotism.''

The question before us today is how we, the United States of America, the greatest democracy the world has ever known, the greatest bastion of freedom the world has ever known, a bastion of freedom that remains free because of the efforts of the Duke Cunninghams and the Sam Johnsons and so many others who risked their lives to maintain that freedom, the question before us is how to deal with those individuals who dishonor our Nation in this manner.

Mr. Speaker, a constitutional amendment, in my opinion, is neither the appropriate nor the best method for dealing with these malcontents. As the late Justice Brennan wrote in the Supreme Court of Texas v. Johnson, ``The way to preserve the flag's special role is not to punish those who feel differently about these matters. It is to persuade them that they are wrong.''

That is what Thomas Jefferson talked about, that the best response to wrong speech was right speech, not prohibiting speech.

Our traditions, our values, our democratic principles, all embodied in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, should not be overridden to prohibit this particularly offensive manner of speech, no matter how much we may disagree with it or how much contempt we may have for those who would express themselves in such an inappropriate and negative way.

The inflammatory actions of a few misfits cannot extinguish, it must not extinguish, our ideals. We can only do that ourselves, and I submit that a constitutional amendment to restrict speech, even speech as this, is the surest way to stoke the embers of those who will push for even more restrictions.

``America'' is one of the great songs, and one of the lines from that song is ``Long may thy land be bright with freedom's holy light.'' Freedom is not allowing those with whom we agree to express their opinion; it is allowing those with whom we deeply disagree to express theirs.

Long may this land be bright with freedom's holy light. That is our responsibility. That is our oath.

Mr. Speaker, on April 26, President Bush stated in his weekly radio address, ``My jobs and growth plan would reduce the tax rates of everyone who pays income tax,'' ``everyone who pays income tax.''

On May 29, after the GOP tax bill, which included the provision of the President's plan, in full or in part, had been passed by Congress, now, one ought to understand that it was delivered at 8:45 p.m., a very large tax bill,

all sorts of provisions that had never been seen in full by any Member of this House reported out at 8:45. We were called back at approximately 10:30. It was passed at 1:55 a.m. in the morning, in the dark of night because in my opinion the majority wanted to hide this bill. They wanted to take credit for the tax cut, but they wanted to hide the specifics of the bill.

It was signed by the President. The White House Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer, stated, ``This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.''

Now, my friend, the gentleman from Texas, not the gentleman who just came on the floor but who previously spoke, a new Member of the House, reiterated that mantra, that everyone who paid taxes was going to get a reduction.

Let there be no mistake, these statements are blatantly and unabashedly wrong. As the Tax Policy Center has reported, more than 8 million lower- and middle-income taxpayers who pay billions of dollars in taxes a year will receive absolutely no tax reduction under the GOP tax bill. That figure, Mr. Speaker, includes 1.8 million taxpayers who pay more than $1,000 in income tax. They will receive no relief.

In the unkindest cut of all, 6.5 million minimum-wage families with nearly 12 million children will not receive the $400 per child increase in the child tax credit in the GOP bill. Why did that happen? It happened because they said that they were going to leave their bill at a $350 billion cut. Why? Because they needed to get some Republican members of the Senate to vote for it, and they could not get them to vote for any number larger than that.

So who do they look to to cut out? Did they look at Warren Buffett? Frankly, did they look at the gentleman from Maryland (Steny Hoyer)? I could have afforded it. No, they did not look at us. They did not look at the wealthy; they looked at the poorest Americans and cut them out of this bill.

As a matter of fact, most of us probably did not know that, and the President has now said he is going to fix it. But frankly, he did not offer it in his tax bill. The Republicans did not offer it in their tax bill that passed the House. It was a Democratic amendment offered by Senator Lincoln, adopted, and was in the conference. We all thought it was going to stay in the conference, but it was dropped in the dead of night without any Democrats in the room and unbeknownst to most Members.

Mr. Speaker, we could have extended the child tax credit to all families, as we sought, simply by limiting the reduction in the highest marginal income tax rate to 35.3 percent rather than 35 percent. We needed to pay for it, and we could have done it.

Now, that same gentleman from Texas observed that we needed to reduce the taxes because we needed to get the economy moving. We had a plan. It was fast-acting, fair to all Americans, and fiscally responsible. It did not harm us in the long term.

That plan was not allowed to be offered. The plan that was offered, however, was not fair, was not fast-acting, and is not fiscally responsible. In fact, we have gone from $5.6 trillion purported surpluses that the President told us we had to a, now, almost $3 trillion deficit, and we are going to be facing what they say is a $44 trillion deficit in the future. That will be a substantial tax increase for many children in America and many children unborn who will have to pay the interest on that incredible debt that we are incurring.

But lo and behold, in the clearest possible demonstration of the majority's values and priorities, the GOP has shown once again that when push comes to shove, it will fight for the Bush class over the working class every single time. The GOP's mantra really ought to be, leave no millionaire behind.

Mr. Speaker, on April 26th, President Bush stated in his weekly radio address: ``My jobs and growth plan would reduce the tax rates of everyone who pays income tax.''

And on May 29th, after the GOP tax bill--which included the provisions of the President's plan in full or in part--had been passed by Congress and signed by the President, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated: ``This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes.''

Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake: These statements are brazenly, blatantly and unabashedly false. As the Tax Policy Center has reported, more than 8 million lower and middle-income taxpayers who pay billions of dollars a year in income taxes will receive absolutely no tax reduction under this GOP tax bill.

That figure includes 1.8 million taxpayers who pay more than $1,000 in income tax. What do they receive? No tax relief whatsoever. Nothing. Not a thing.

And the unkindest cut of all, 6.5 million minimum-wage families, with nearly 12 million children, will not receive the $400-per-child increase in the child tax credit in the GOP bill.

Mr. Speaker, let's be clear: We could have extended the child tax credit to all families--as Democrats sought--simply by limiting the reduction in the highest marginal income tax rate to 35.3 percent rather than 35 percent.

But lo and behold, in the clearest possible demonstration of Republican values and priorities, the GOP has shown once again that when push comes to shove it will fight for the ``Bush class'' over the working class every single time. The GOP's mantra really ought to be-- Leave no millionaire behind!

While minimum wage workers and their children get left out in the cold under the Republicans' tax bill, the Grand Old Party ensured that 184,000 taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million would receive an average tax cut of $93,500.

Ladies and gentlemen, in the Republican vision for America, apparently that's what passes for compassion. And if you don't agree, well the GOP vilify you, charging that you're practicing class warfare.

Mr. Speaker, let's be honest.

Class warfare is precisely what the Republican Party has been practicing on working men and women in this country on issue after issue after issue.

The failure to provide the Child Tax Credit to minimum wage workers while fattening the bank accounts of millionaires is only the tip of the iceberg.

In this report session of the 108th Congress, the Republican majority passed a budget resolution that betrays our values and fails to meet our needs. It would take hot lunches out of the mouths of poor children; force the elderly out of nursing homes as the result of Medicaid cuts; and slash veterans' health care.

This Republican majority had to be dragged kicking and screaming not once but twice to extend unemployment insurance benefits--even as we face the highest unemployment rate in nine years and the loss of nearly 3 million private-sector jobs since George W. Bush took office.

This majority passed a Welfare Reform bill that would force mothers with children under the age of 6 to double the number of hours they must work every week. It passed a medical malpractice bill that would compound the pain of patients with the worst injuries while failing to reduce physicians' insurance premiums.

And it loaded up legislation such as the Defense Authorization bill-- legislation that traditionally is overwhelmingly bipartisan--with extraneous, partisan measures that would harm the environment and strip Federal workers of their rights.

And of course, this majority has refused to close tax loopholes for offshore corporate tax havens.

It has refused to consider Democratic legislation to raise the minimum wage, which has not been increased since 1997.

And it even has refused to give the Members of this House the opportunity to vote on a Democratic amendment to increase funding for Homeland Security by $2.5 billion--a pittance compared to the costs of the GOP's unaffordable and unfair tax bill.

Meanwhile, this Republican majority refuses to address the most pressing unmet needs in America today:

The 41 million Americans who have no health insurance;

The millions of children who are eligible for Head Start but have no seat at the table; and

The millions of seniors who need and deserve a prescription drug benefit under Medicare.

On issue after issue after issue, this Republican majority has sided with powerful special interests over the interests of working Americans.

Mr. Speaker, that is certainly not the Democratic Party's vision for America. And we will never stop fighting for a positive agenda that meets the needs of all our citizens.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman can say over and over and over again that he reaches out his hand in comity in seeking bipartisan participation. But no matter how often he says it, no matter how sincerely drips the lines from his mouth, the reality is starkly different. Yes, we reject a sham offer for a sham process, predetermined and not inclusive, a process that is leading to the injuring of our country, the undermining of our economy, the destruction of jobs. Those are the facts, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said earlier. The creation of gargantuan debt. And, yes, as the chairman knows but will not repeat, under Mr. Reagan and Mr. Bush, their budget request, forget about what Democrats did, their budget request requested more spending than the Congress gave them in those 12 years. This

President has asked for more spending than we had last year.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to instruct, not caveated, not if you mean this or that, as the chairman says. This motion instructs conferees on the tax bill to include the provisions on State aid as provided for in the Senate. Frankly, I know it galls many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, none more so I think than the chairman, that the States are now asking the Federal Government for help in weathering their worst fiscal crisis since World War II, caused in large part by the fiscal policies of this administration. Do we ignore the fact that many States are now considering massive layoffs in an effort to save money and balance their budgets? The chairman would say yes. Do we ignore the fact that States are now considering Draconian cuts to Medicaid and other vital services for our most vulnerable citizens? The chairman would say yes. Do we ignore the fact that at least one State, Kentucky, is even considering letting prison inmates out early to save money?

Mr. Speaker, that puffed-up piety, that dripping sanctimony that so often laces the lectures on fiscal responsibility that our Republican friends are so fond of making would have far more credibility if the GOP actually practiced what it preached. But the party that turned record budget surpluses into record deficits, the party that squandered a projected $5.6 trillion surplus, and the party that later today intends to vote for a $350 billion bill, it says, but everybody on this floor who is at all honest knows it is a trillion dollars, plunging us deeper into debt, demanding a record increase in the statutory debt limit should not be lecturing anyone on fiscal responsibility.

This motion instructs conferees not to increase the deficit, which the CBO now projects will be well over $300 billion, and not to include language to raise the debt limit. Our Democratic alternative, of course, was paid for with offsets. The GOP bill is not.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you care about your country, if you care about honesty with the American public, if you care about any personal responsibility that we have as Members of the Congress, you will vote for this motion to instruct and against this package that will harm our country.