Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 351 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 351 is an open rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2989, the Department of Transportation, Treasury, and related agencies appropriations for fiscal year ending September 30, 2004. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill.

The rule also provides for one hour of general debate, to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph. In addition, the rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule. Further, the rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have pre-printed their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first year that the Congress is considering appropriations for the Department of Transportation and the Department of Treasury along with Postal Service, the Executive Office of the President and general government provisions in a single appropriations bill. This change was necessary to make room for creation of a subcommittee for the new Department of Homeland Security. The Committee on Appropriations has worked diligently to combine these agencies and produce legislation that meets the Nation's priorities in a multitude of areas.

The bill provides $89.3 billion in total budgetary resources, which is an increase of $2.7 billion above the current level. This funding represents the firm commitment of this Congress to fund necessary programs and projects across the Nation.

Total transportation funding in this bill is over $58 billion. This funding, which is so important in my district and others throughout the entire country, is significantly increased over current year spending. From highways and transit programs to airports and Federal Aviation Administration, the underlying legislation meets the needs of our communities in previous years.

Some transportation programs have had guaranteed funding in authorization acts. Even though such guarantees no longer apply to this bill, the committee has provided at least a level of funding which was guaranteed last year; in the case of highways and airports, even more. The absence of these

guarantees means new choices in the allocation of funds by providing the flexibility of fund programs that were not protected under the previous guarantees but were equally important.

The underlying legislation also gives significant increases to the Treasury Department, bringing their appropriation to over $11 billion. Of those funds, $2.7 million is available for stronger agency involvement in international affairs, including technical advisers for rebuilding the currency, banking and financial systems in Iraq; $29.3 million is allocated for the new Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, and $5.3 million for IRS counterterrorism activities. Additionally, funds are provided for the Office of Foreign Assets Control and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network to help fight money laundering and track down terrorist financing.

All of these are important elements of the war on terrorism, and they are funded at or above the administration's request, demonstrating our pledge to keep America safe from terrorists and showing that national security remains a top priority.

Many other agencies and programs that I have not outlined today are also funded under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman and ranking member of both the appropriations full committee and subcommittee for their hard work on this difficult measure.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule, and there will be ample debate throughout the day as we first have the debate on the appropriations bill and then the opportunity for Members to submit amendments for consideration throughout the day.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly glad it is an open rule that is going to be considered by an amendment process that goes paragraph by paragraph as is outlined here. And I also know, while I do not sit on appropriations nor authorizing committees and just on the Committee on Rules, that this particular one prohibits unauthorized or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill against provisions in the bill unless as specified before us today; and that as usual we recognize those, the Chair or the speaker, according to the priority of recognition of Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record to be heard. And it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Amtrak is going to be a debate that we will continue. As a New Yorker, I certainly watch that debate closely. But the Department of Transportation has testified that Amtrak needs reform more than it needs money. As a matter of fact, I believe that the witnesses, the Chair, and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations indicated that they also believe that money alone was not going to solve Amtrak's problems. So my understanding is there is money there and there may well be amendments later today that ask for consideration of more or less.

When we look at the discussion of how much money and what categories of programs, I suppose if there was unlimited money for transportation, we could then unlimit the categories, whether you need roads or bridges or bike paths. This legislation, while I wish there was more transportation money for my district or my State or my region or the country as a whole, has provided flexibility for the States in order to make that tough decision. Do you need a bike path? Do you need a bridge repair? Do you need roads reconstructed or constructed due to growth? So some of that flexibility with the money we have gives States the ability to make those tough decisions.

I listened carefully on the earned income tax credits as our colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations talked about it, but while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that $105 million in IRS for precertification of the EITC applicants should be stricken, I just want to make the record known that every other welfare program has a precertification, except the EITC.

EITC automatically sends checks, and only after they begin to look at the eligibility. So I am not sure how the system should work, and I will leave that to the administration, but it is not as if this is singled out.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for clarifying the record.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, but I reserve the balance of my time until my colleague is prepared to close.

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

I am sure the underlying bill before us today was an arduous undertaking. It represents funding for the Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, including the IRS, the General Services Administration, the United States Postal Service, the Office of Management and Budget, the White House, Office of Personnel Management, among others. It is a brand new subcommittee that was put together by this House.

It is a fair and balanced bill that seeks to continue programs that are working and reform those that are not. By substantially increasing many areas of the bill and maintaining funding in others, this Congress has once again lived up to its commitment to our communities.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 281 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman, and my colleague and neighbor, from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 281 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003, legislation to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. The rule makes in order 1 hour of debate, a minority substitute, and one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today is certainly not a new one. In the 106th session, Congress voted several times in a bipartisan fashion to eliminate the death tax. In the 107th session, Congress voted on three separate occasions to eliminate the death tax; but with the death tax relief set to expire in 2011, we might give Dr. Kevorkian a new career as a tax and estate planner.

Today, we have the opportunity to bury the death tax once and for all.

By way of history, this tax was initially imposed to prevent the very wealthy from passing on their wealth from one generation to the next. At the time, this well-intentioned tax eased concerns about the growing concentration of money and power among a small number of wealthy families. Later, it was used to fund national emergencies, and it became necessary to maintain these high tax rates in high wartime levels during the 1930s and the 1940s, but they remained relatively unchanged until the Tax Reform Act of 1976.

Ironically, the death tax served little of the purpose for which it was intended. Rather than prevent the concentrated accumulation of vast wealth, the death tax punished savings and thrift and hard work among American families. Small businesses and farmers have been unfairly penalized for their blood, sweat and tears, paying taxes on already- taxed assets.

Instead of investing money on productive measures such as creating new jobs or purchasing new equipment, businesses and farms are forced to divert their earnings to tax accountants and lawyers just to prepare their estates.

The victims of the death tax are typically hardworking Americans of medium-sized estates, farmers and small business owners. Their enterprises create jobs and growth and opportunities for our communities, but every year those families were literally forced to sell the family farm or business just to pay off their death taxes.

Equally disturbing is the fact that the death tax actually raises relatively little revenue for the Federal Government. Some studies have found that it may cost the government and taxpayers more in administrative and compliance fees than it actually raises in revenue.

Of course, farmers and ranchers are not the only ones facing an unfair and unnecessary burden in the death tax. One study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of New York State found that in a 5-year period family-owned and -operated businesses on an average spent $125,000 per company on tax planning alone. These costs are incurred prior to any actual payment of Federal estate taxes. They reported that an estimated 14 jobs per business were lost as a result of Federal estate tax planning. For just the 365 businesses surveyed, the total number of jobs already lost due to the Federal estate tax is 5,100. That was just in upstate New York.

My rural and suburban district in New York is laden with small businesses and farms that are owned by hardworking families who pay their taxes, create jobs, and contribute not only to the quality of life in their community but to the Nation's rich heritage. Is it so much to ask that they be able to pass on their industry and hard work, their small business or their farm to their children? Why should Uncle Sam become the Grim Reaper?

The fact is they paid their taxes in life on every acre sown, on every product sold, and on every dollar earned. They should not be taxed in death, too.

Mr. Speaker, death tax relief was a good idea in the 107th Congress, and it is a good idea now. We should not provide this kind of relief for only a few years. We should provide it permanently. This kind of permanent tax relief for farmers, ranchers, and small business owners that will keep the family business growing and growing is just the kind of relief that is beginning to get this economy moving.

Wall Street has shown modest gains not only since Congress passed its tax cut plan but even since we began working on the tax cut itself. As one media report said, ``Economic advisers credit the tax cuts and positive first quarter earnings for the gains.''

Tax cuts work. They work in helping hardworking families keep more of what they earn. They work in allowing people to have greater control over decisions to save and invest, and they work in creating jobs and creating greater economic opportunity for American families. We are on the right course. Let us keep moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to bury this unfair tax once and for all. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my friends from the left always bring up class warfare every time we have a tax cut discussion in this body. I just would point to two aspects of my colleague and friend's remarks.

First, Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell, who are two prominent liberal economists, concluded in their study of the estate tax the following: In short, the estate and gift taxes of the United States have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue, they impose large excess burdens, and they are unfair.

Alan Binder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board, appointed by former President Bill Clinton, found that only about 2 percent of inequity was attributable to the unequal distribution of inherited wealth.

Joseph Stiglitz, who served as Chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, found that the estate tax may ultimately increase income equality.

Those are the same type of things that Republicans or conservatives or economists who are right of center have said. So there seems to be concurrence on that.

I would also say that it is sometimes difficult being a member of the majority to resolve some of the issues of inside baseball upstairs in the Committee on Rules. Sometimes we are attacked because we have open rules, sometimes we are attacked because we have closed rules, modified rules, or whatever happens. In this instance, we just cannot seem to win.

The unfortunate aspect of this is that we have today for our colleagues to consider, in the rule that we now have before us, a substitute offered by the Democrats. If the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) does not want this substitute, he should withdraw it. He introduced it, he asked the Committee on Rules to consider it, the Committee on Rules did just that.

We also have a recommit, as we have in each and every single rule that we put out on behalf of consideration of legislation since the majority took its control in 1995.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts, though it is unfortunate, as a member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman cannot get time from his side.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) came before the Committee on Rules and he introduced his legislation. There is no time I am aware of, in talking to the staff, that the gentleman from North Dakota, from the time he brought the legislation for our consideration until today, that he has asked to withdraw the substitute.

So we are moving forward on the Pomeroy substitute. After that is considered, we will move forward with the motion to recommit and then we will, hopefully, go to final passage.

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

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

As President Reagan would say, Mr. Speaker, there you go again. Class warfare. I do not know about my colleagues, but I go home every weekend, and I see farmers, and I see small businesses that have worked their hearts out. They have worked hard their whole life on their family farm or in their Main Street business. They are not rich, but they have an estate. They want to pass it to whoever they want. In most instances, that is their children. But to pay the estate tax, they have to sell the family farm. And that just is not right, because they paid taxes on every single portion of the products, goods, and services and then they have to do it again at death tax time.

They are not rich, although this would certainly help them, but as I cited in earlier debate, liberal economists and conservative economists all agree the tax does not really do the job. But think about this: The actuaries and life underwriters and everybody else are saying, if you want to die, you want to do it between now and 2010, because God forbid, if it is January 1, 2011. This thing does not work anymore.

It is a reasonable thing to tell America and to show America and perform for America with permanent death tax relief. This tax relief is reasonable. I understand my colleagues on the left do not believe in tax cuts. I accept that. But I also want to remind my colleagues and friends, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has indicated, in the Committee on Rules every single amendment had a rollcall vote yesterday. They were all heard, they were all debated, and they all had a vote.

We have, in this modified closed rule, included the Pomeroy substitute, and we have included a motion to recommit. We will then have final passage of whatever comes as the result of our colleagues in the conference on the other side.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently as I cited in my remarks before, some of that has not been heard as we get some of the facts out. The left does not want to cut taxes. I accept that. I understand that. We are going to have a debate; and this House has repeatedly cut taxes, including the estate tax in the 106th Congress, the 107th Congress, and now in the 108th Congress. But Henry Aaron and Alicia Munnell, who are two prominent liberal economists, concluded in their study of the estate tax, the estate and gift taxes in the United States have failed to achieve their intended purposes. They raise little revenue, they impose large excess burdens, and they are unfair.

Alan Binder, a former member of the Federal Reserve Board appointed by President Clinton, found that 2 percent of the equity was attributable to the unequal distribution of inherited wealth.

And Joseph Stiglitz, who served as President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors, found the estate tax may ultimately increase income inequality. The reason I have cited that a second time in this debate is we can keep coming forward and say how bad it is. The liberal economists, just as we have seen from right-of-center economists, have concurred that this is not a functional tax.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I certainly hope that the Senate will quickly respond to the legislation we passed last week, in a prompt response to the decision that they wanted to look at the child tax credit.

If the gentleman would continue to yield, I am a little confused. Last week the gentleman voted against the child tax credit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I enjoyed that oratory. I would almost think that she voted for the child tax credit last week, but the sad fact is that she did not because she voted the other way. She voted no. We sent a bill over to the other body. I have listened to the presumptions of the other body, of what will happen over there. I have

talked to a few Senators. They give me the hope that they are so desirous of voting on this that they are looking forward to a conference and they are looking forward to getting it on the floor.

The fact is we are talking about permanent estate tax repeal now. That is what is coming on the floor as we pass this rule, if the body does pass it, and I believe that they will and I believe that we will get bipartisan, Democrat-Republican, support for a permanent estate tax, death tax, however, you want to look at the reality, repeal. As we are listening to the debate shift over to the child tax credit, it is fine to lecture what that is and how it all happened.

The fact is last week I voted for a child tax credit and other tax cuts and sent it to the other body. And the fact is the last two orators on the Democratic side did not vote for it.

So as we move forward today back on the death tax to make a permanent death tax repeal, Members get to vote up or down on the rule and then they get to vote on a substitute and then they get to vote on a recommit and then final passage. I look forward to today, because I believe that we will get bipartisan support to pass the permanent repeal of the death tax.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

I guess she did not have a question.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

I probably need to put the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) on notice that when we move into the bill on the underlying legislation, we will be talking more on the child tax credit than the permanent death tax. I am just encouraged to see in the 107th Congress, three votes that occurred on the death tax. I saw from 41 to 58 Democratic votes along with Republicans and it reassures me that we are on the path of a bipartisan tax cut to end the death tax once and for all that is in this country.

We need to see a couple of things. Individuals and families and partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches. Think about that. Individuals, family partnerships or family corporations own 99 percent of all U.S. farms and ranches. I do not want us to ever forget that every acre, every piece of equipment, every business has already been taxed in life, so why should they be taxed in death.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

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

I welcome so many from the left to join me in cutting taxes. I look forward to that vote when it comes out of conference committee and maybe she can join us with that.

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

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

I have got to tell the Members, I have only been here since 1999, but it never ceases to amaze me to see something new. Yesterday my colleague from North Dakota was before the Committee on Rules advocating this substitute that is contained in this rule and another one, and he was granted one that he actually spoke for; and today he wants to bring down the rule.

I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman come before the Committee on Rules and advocate the substitute which is contained in the rule today? I think he did, did he not? Did he come and advocate two different amendments before the Committee on Rules, this one being made that was made as substitute inside the rule? Did he or did he not come yesterday before the Committee on Rules and submit testimony before us asking for consideration of this substitute?

I am happy to bring the record down and bring it here.

The gentleman and I both know that he was before the committee and asked for this amendment to be considered by the Committee on Rules and now he wants to bring it down. Is that true or not, sir?

Is the gentleman saying he was not in the Committee on Rules or that he did not request this substitute in his presentation before the Committee on Rules when he spoke on two specific amendments, this being one?

I will yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.

Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that in the Committee on Rules, we try to work with our side of the aisle to advise a Member if they do not want their amendment made in order, they should not offer it in the Committee on Rules. Maybe that does not happen to Members on the other side of the aisle; but on our side, if someone comes up there and asks for consideration of an amendment, they ought to be prepared that it might be granted.

I just want to go back and make sure we do not miss anything on the death tax inhibiting economic growth because I have listened to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle talk about creating jobs. The threat of a resurrected death tax will force American families to make inefficient investment decisions and to waste resources in an effort to comply with the death tax. Studies show that repealing the death tax would create as many as 200,000 extra jobs each year across America. Jobs are lost when businesses are liquidated to pay death taxes and to make decisions not to expand because of anticipated death tax liabilities.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess I believe, looking up at the press gallery, that there is probably a view that it is a fair rule. It is a modified closed rule that provides a substitute, then a recommit; and then we move on to final passage. So there is not much controversy on the rule. And we are in a situation as we move forward on a debate that I believe once we get through the process, which is the rule vote, we are going to see in final passage, just looking at the 107th Congress, somewhere between 41 Democratic colleagues and 58 Democratic colleagues who voted for death tax in the past Congress that will join us today in a bipartisan message of passing this legislation out of the House and having it go to the other body.

Mr. Speaker, Benjamin Franklin once noted in this world nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes. But while death may be certain, taxes are immortal. That is because our current tax system plays a cruel joke on farmers and small business owners. Simply put, the death tax stifles growth, discourages savings, stymies job creation, drains resources, and ruins family businesses. It is time we permanently repeal this unfair tax and allow the American Dream to be passed on to our children and future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 270.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 270 is a customary rule relating to the consideration of an amendment to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1308, the Tax Relief, Simplification, and Equity Act of 2003. The rule allows the House to proceed with consideration of legislation providing tax relief to millions of American workers and families.

Upon adoption of this resolution, the House will have agreed to the disposition of the Senate amendments.

Mr. Speaker, when I return to my district each week, my constituents tell me they want me to do two things: create jobs and cut taxes. Thanks to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act and the Jobs Growth Tax Relief Act, Congress is doing just that, and taxpayers in my district and all across America now have greater control over more of their hard-earned dollars, providing greater incentive for savings and investment and expanding job opportunities.

Today's legislation is another important step in our ongoing efforts to create greater fairness in the Tax Code for working families. In fact, upon adoption, it will be retitled the All-American Tax Relief Act in recognition of the fact that it puts even more money back into the hands of more Americans.

Mr. Speaker, much of what we are debating today we have debated and supported before. Many of the important measures in H.R. 1308 have passed this body or the other body over the last few years. For instance, the House passed its version of H.R. 1308 by voice vote under suspension in March of this year.

Last week the Senate took up H.R. 1308 with revised and added provisions, including an accelerated increase in the refundability of the child tax credit currently scheduled to take place in 2005.

While the House language contains the same provision, it has the added benefit of ensuring that the child tax credit remains at $1,000 through 2010, unlike the Senate amendment that offers only the $1,000 tax credit during taxable years 2003 and 2004. Simply put, the House language provides more and longer-lasting benefits for families at all income levels. And it does not take it away in just a couple of years.

This bill will eliminate the marriage penalty and the child tax credit even sooner, by raising the phaseout for married couples from $110,000 to $150,000. This is a fundamental issue of fairness. Working men and women should not face a higher tax burden simply because they choose to get married and raise a family.

The House bill is more responsive to more Americans than the other body's version in other ways. It honors the men and women of our Armed Forces with over $800 million in tax relief over 11 years. This includes capital gains tax relief on home sales, tax-free death gratuity payments, and tax-free dependent care assistance for members of the military. Our men and women in uniform protect our country and ensure our security every day and deserve sensible tax relief for their hard work and sacrifice.

Also, the bill will suspend the tax-exempt status of terrorist organizations, a provision that passed both the House and the other body in 2002. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill will achieve even greater parity and fairness in the Tax Code. That is something I know my constituents and working Americans all over the country want, need, and deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I expect that in the course of this debate, we will hear a great deal about procedural terminology, but this vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and more tax relief for American workers, families, and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the resolution.

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

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

In listening to the ranking member's remarks, I would first say, to my recollection of the law, no Member of Congress would be eligible for this program. Number two, I want at least the voters of my district and the people of New York to know that while we have listened to class warfare and tax cuts, I know those New Yorkers that make $100,000 in their income, or even as much as $150,000, if you are a fireman or you are a cop, you are a teacher, you are a salesman and work in a store, I know you are not rich. I know you are middle America. And I know that as we look at fair tax relief, it is not just helping the poor or the class warfare message of the rich. We are trying to make sure we take care of the middle class, and we know that $150,000 combined income could be a middle-class income.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), my friend.

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

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

Sometimes we get lost here a little bit about the result of the 2003 tax cuts. In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. Sixty-eight million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338. Forty- five million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786. Thirty-four million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549, and 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558. Twelve million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401. Twenty-three million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209, and 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

Now, today, we are going to do even more, because unlike some of the debate here, let us not kid ourselves, the other body sent a bill that does something for us from now until next election. That is 2004. That is when the child tax credit ends.

This bill today, when we vote it up or down, it is going to go to 2010. A $1,000 child tax credit is scheduled to sunset in 2005. It will gradually increase back to $1,000 in 2010. In this bill, it puts it up right up front, now to 2010, a $1,000 tax credit. It eliminates the marriage penalty on the child credit. It accelerates the increase to the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations. It provides tax relief for astronauts who die in space missions.

We are getting the job done, Mr. Speaker. America knows it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I were not here when some of the tax- and-spend left kept spending us through an oblivion of deficits. We were here after 9-11 when we faced terrible tragedy in our country which has caused us to address the war on terrorism, to rebuild our cities, to address some of the complications of an economy that has slowed down.

I do not mind that the debate that America hears is whether we have a bigger central government that spends more of their money on programs that the government figures out; or whether the economy began moving because middle America and the poor of America had more money in their pockets to make their decisions what they wanted to do with that money, whether they wanted to pay off a consumer loan, whether they wanted to pay tuition, whether they wanted to use it just to help have some opportunity for their child, their mother, or father.

The decision that voters are going to make down the road is whether they want a smaller government that allows people to make more decisions on their hard-earned money, money out of their pocket; or whether they need more money in the downtown central government in Washington, D.C., or some government bureaucrat trying to figure out some way to help them out.

I am going to tell the Members, we have started on a tax cut. I read earlier the millions of Americans who are going to benefit across the board. We are now in a situation where we are going to watch.

Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle had every nay and say

about what is going to happen with the economy. I do not know, they do not know. But by 2004, in that fourth quarter, we are going to find out whether the economy of consumer goods began moving, confidence of investors began moving, and whether America started to see a resolve from a terrible tragedy of 9-11; to see, as the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) said, in the third and fourth quarters of 2000 when it slowed down, if it moved.

If it does move, there are going to be more Republicans on this side of the aisle; if it does not, maybe there will be a little less. But the conviction of the majority is, people have an opportunity and a right to have more money in their pockets for them to decide how to spend it, not Washington.

The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings but providing much-needed tax relief is the only way to get money back in the hands of hardworking Americans and out of Washington.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, only a week ago I do not think the gentleman was advocating any tax cuts. But I just want to remind our colleagues that are both here and throughout the offices that in fiscal year 2004, in the adopted budget resolution, language was included for the first time limiting the amount of revenue reductions in the Senate to a deficit impact of $350 billion.

The House articulated its clear reservations to this maneuver because all revenue measures must originate in the House; we retained our right to develop more measures to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

So the options for the Committee on Rules, they could, one, accept the Senate proposals as a whole imposing offset requirements; two, call up an entirely new House bill, starting the process anew, with likely substitutes, in essence dragging out the process that would take the ability to move, and I am not sure whether the gentleman knows for sure we have a quorum tomorrow; and, three, we could stipulate the House prerogative to provide tax relief with a comprehensive proposal that has broad policy support.

Why should the House impose offsets when our own budget made room for a proposal just like this, the one I have outlined that does so much for working families across the country?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any rubber stamps in that package.

Mr. Speaker, in this short time, it is 4:34, daylight, we will have an opportunity to have our colleagues come in, and they are going to vote yes and they will do a tax cut that varies on the All-American Tax Relief Act of 2003, or they will vote no and say all those press releases I put out last week wanting to move expeditiously on this, they do not really matter because now it is before us.

Well, it is here. And I must say both the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), and others from the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules found a solution to meet what seemed to be Republican and Democrats wanting to expedite this bill. And so we took the House resolution with a Senate amendment. The Senate amendment we have disposed with, the House coming back quickly with the amendments to go to the other body. And it is going to be done today. It is not going to be done tomorrow. It is not going to be done next week. We have an opportunity to do it right now.

And while we are listening to all of this, some of them on procedure, I just want to remind the esteemed whip that I think we have been debating the merits of this bill for an hour; and some agree, some do not. Pretty soon we will put it up, 4:35, and take a look at how it ends. But I want to remind my colleagues that this bill, as amended, and sent back to the Senate will increase the child credit for $1,000 for an eligible child through 2010; not for some slick promise of 2003 and 2004, and then it slides back after the next election. It is straightforward, straight up, right until 2010. It eliminates the marriage penalty on child credit. It accelerates the increase in the refundable child credit. It provides tax relief and enhances tax fairness for members of the Armed Forces. It suspends the tax-exempt status of designated terrorist organizations and provides tax relief for astronauts who die on space missions.

Those pieces of legislation, as they were before us or the other body, have been dealt with in the last several months and years by this body or the other body. So when we get done here with this debate, we are going to have an opportunity, yes or no. If you vote yes, you are going to give America that tax cut. If not, you are going to find some way to wrangle out of it with a press release. But what I heard was everybody wanted to get underway and make this happen. The Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Rules is giving this honorable body that action today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if the ranking member would consider, I have one speaker to close. And if he would like to close, then I will do that and yield to the majority leader. If he has more speakers, I will reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, am I to be recognized?

Mr. Speaker, I want to know if I can be recognized.

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

As I listened here, I kind of got the same confusion of when I listened to some of my colleagues on the debate when we just did some tax relief not long ago. Class warfare, this is all for the rich. I reminded my colleagues that I come from kind of a small town in upstate New York, and the debate occurred with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) from Harlem, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules from Grand Prairie. None of them are really rich communities, and I cited that the tax bill the House Republicans moved forward on the floor after the adoption of the rule and then later passed took a family of four to make 40,000 bucks in my district and took their tax relief from $1,785 they had to pay down to about $40. I think that is real tax relief. I do not think $40,000 is rich.

When I look at the legislation, I watch the press releases all over America say let us get on with it. We are on with it. Today we are either going to vote ``yes,'' and I think it is going to be bipartisan, we are going to vote ``yes'' and send it to the Senate, or we are going to vote ``no.''

But I want to remind some of my colleagues when we get the light of day on this tax bill that was sent to us by the Senate there a couple of things we might have made an improvement on as House Republicans because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle might argue that the Republican tax

relief plans rob Peter to pay Paul, in other words, tax cuts for the rich. However, the Senate proposed offsets, Customs user fee extensions. I would argue this is robbing Peter to pay Paul because if you are raising taxes on those who actually pay them in order to subsidize tax refunds for those who share in no income tax liability whatsoever, it is fiscally and fundamentally unsound.

The only proven way to restrict government spending is to reduce revenues. Tightening the purse strings by providing much needed tax relief is the only way to get money back to hardworking Americans, no matter how wealthy or poor they are. Get it out of Washington and back in the pockets of American taxpayers.

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

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

This vote is actually quite simple. A ``yes'' vote means greater fairness in the Tax Code and a mere tax relief for American workers families and children. A ``no'' vote stops that relief from moving forward and hurts the very people I know many of my colleagues eagerly want to assist.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on this resolution at the end of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute to the Smallwood Drive School for its excellence in pursuing its mission of ``Learning, Growing, and Changing'' in educating the children in its community. This year marks the fiftieth anniversary since the school's relocation to its current site on Smallwood Drive in Snyder, New York.

Smallwood Drive School was founded in 1813. On January 5th, 1952, a groundbreaking ceremony was held for the creation of a new campus. On June 21st, 1952, the cornerstone was laid of what is the current Smallwood Drive School. And in February of 1953, the first principal, George Brighton, opened the classroom wings.

Beyond providing students with an outstanding education, Smallwood Drive School has been looked upon as an innovative school--a pioneer on many educational fronts--such as learning style approaches and an inclusion program to serve children with special needs. The school has brought in authors, writers, and scientists, and planned special days centered on communication and science. The school has worked with numerous outside groups over the years including the Young Audience, the University of Buffalo, and the World University Games.

Smallwood Drive School has also developed a number of unique and fun traditions that greatly benefit the children, such as bicycle safety rodeos, annual concerts, gym shows, class plays, annual craft shows, ice-cream socials, and a 5th grade operetta.

On the whole, Smallwood Drive School provides an outstanding education and social environment in which children may learn, grow, and change--all for the better.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in saluting the Smallwood Drive School as it marks its 50th Anniversary at its current location. For the past 50 years, Smallwood Drive School has excelled in educating our youth and made its surrounding community a better place.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute to the Greece Little League of Greece, New York, on the occasion of its 50th Anniversary.

Baseball has been America's pastime for over a century: a source of recreation and enjoyment for young and old alike.

Fifty years ago, the Greece Little League was created to serve young boys and girls in the Greece community. Today, the League serves 1,200 children and 1,000 families, and has extended its services to include softball and the Challenger Program, which allows physically and mentally challenged children to compete. The league provides a positive environment and a tremendous recreational opportunity for children of all ages and abilities.

Over the last half-century, America's pastime has been shared and enjoyed by many in the Town of Greece, thanks to the Greece Little League.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in saluting the Greece Little League as it marks its 50th Anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 253 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 253 is an appropriate rule providing for 1 hour of debate for consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003.

The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, taxes now claim a greater share of the median two-income family's budget than food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. That just is not right. Families need the flexibility to dedicate their hard-earned resources towards their most pressing concerns. While some may need more money to help pay off their debts, others may need extra money to pay tuition for their child or to invest for their retirement.

The same can be said for small business owners, the entrepreneurial backbone of America. They should be empowered to allocate their resources however they see fit, whether it be hiring more employees, reinvesting, or expanding their business in order to create jobs.

The point is, people should be making decisions on how to best spend their hard-earned dollars, not the government, nor should government punish them with job-killing, unfair taxes.

Today's legislation is not just about tax relief; it is about creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The fact is jobs do not create themselves. And we, in this Congress, have both the ability and responsibility to help create those jobs. Through his consistent and immediate attention to growth and prosperity for working Americans, the President has once again guided Congress to foster job creation and ease the outrageous tax burden on working Americans. Under his direction, we will be helping countless Americans achieve a greater parity in the Tax Code and realize the fulfillment of employment.

No one knows the current job struggle like my constituents and fellow New Yorkers across the State. For my part of the State, which never shared in the economic boom of the 1990s, job growth remains the number one priority. And this type of positive impact is what this and so many other parts of our country need.

On average, over 30,000 new jobs will be created in New York every year for the next 5 years. Instead of an unemployment check, these workers will get a paycheck that they want and they deserve.

The bill recognizes that we cannot create employees if we do not work with employers to create jobs. For example, small businesses will have an option of immediately deducting up to $100,000 in expenses, a significant increase over the current $25,000 deductions. Because most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, accelerating the top rate reduction means lower taxes for small business owners. This means that millions of entrepreneurs will have more money to spend on employees, supplies, or expansion efforts.

The conference report also drastically reduces the dividend tax burden, making stocks more valuable and increasing expected rates of return. By lowering the rates of dividend and capital gains, people will be more willing to invest because they will pay less tax on the returns to their investments.

What this bill also recognizes is the need for an immediate infusion of direct aid to States facing dire fiscal crises. Budget shortfalls and sharply rising Medicaid costs have crippled local governments, restricted access to vital services, such as health care, that our constituents greatly rely on.

By coupling State relief with tax relief and job creation, we can alleviate the strain on State revenues, and further stimulate the economy with direct aid to our States and localities that need it most.

Whether creating jobs, relieving the tax burden, increasing investment, or fostering State and local stability, this bill acknowledges the need for all-encompassing approaches to growing the economy.

Mr. Speaker, former President Ronald Reagan once said the current Tax Code is a daily mugging. This is not what our political science teachers meant by participation in government. Let us not rob the American people of their hard-earned money. This country was founded upon individuals who stretched their imaginations, fostered ingenuity, and broke their backs for freedom and justice. Americans throughout history have not toiled resiliently just to fork over all their earnings to the Federal Government. This was not the intent of our forefathers, nor should it be ours now.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule as well as the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my memory serves that at the time, had we not done the tax cuts that we passed in 2001, we might have been in a deeper recession, a slower economy. And, quite frankly, that was part of the stimulus that has moved us to a shallow recession. In moving forward with this tonight, my hope is the economic stimulus will continue to advance.

Quite frankly, I think the Republican agenda, led by our President, has done the job, and I am hoping that we can continue moving on that agenda. I will be happy to take that record to the voters of this land and let them make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are getting to the heart of it. The heart of it is that the left is filing in here to talk about we need bigger government and more spending. We need more of that central Federal Government.

And the debate will happen after this rule is passed of those who want to see a tax cut, those who want to put that money back in the American people's pocket. And then we will begin to look at some of the facts in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, a married couple with two children, an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of $1,133 in 2003. That is a decline of 96 percent.

In 2003, 91 million taxpayers will receive on average a tax cut of $1,126 under the Jobs and Growth Act of 2003. And 68 million women will see their taxes decline on average by $1,338; 45 million married couples will receive an average tax cut of $1,786; 34 million families with children will benefit from an average tax cut of $1,549; 6 million single women with children will receive an average tax cut of $558; 12 million elderly taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,401; 23 million small business owners will receive tax cuts averaging $2,209; 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act.

I will repeat that again. Mr. Speaker, 3 million individuals and families will have their income tax liability completely eliminated by this act. Half of the tax relief package in 2003 is directed to the child tax credit, expanding a 10 percent bracket eliminating the marriage penalty, accelerating the marginal rate cuts, and ensuring that middle-class families do not face AMT. Ten million seniors will receive some type of dividend income, will be able to make their golden years more secure by keeping more of what their dividend income is.

When I have this vote cast for this rule and then when I vote on the underlying legislation, I am happy to take those facts back to my district and stand before my constituents. Do Americans want more Federal Government and bureaucrats creating programs, or do they want that money in their pocket for them to make that decision?

I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

For a point of a question.

Mr. Speaker, I also saw a poll that says that the American people want a tax cut. And, quite frankly, as the President traveled the country in the week that we were on recess, he raised the polling numbers for that tax cut by 10 percent.

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

I stated a number of facts of how many millions of Americans benefit from this plan. I realize it was my party that started the graphs and bringing those very scientific presentations before us. I respect listening to the gentleman as he brought some of those today, but there are two important messages that I know I have been taught and trained by my constituents when I go home each week that is drilled into my graph of my mind and my views here.

One is: Keep and create jobs. That is what this bill does.

The other is: Tax cut now. That is what we are going to have the opportunity to vote on.

There is going to be a great debate after this rule on the Thomas tax bill that he will present, but the reality is, at the end of the day, we are going to pass that legislation and we are going to help people go back to work.

We have also done some important things with the unemployment insurance today. We are moving forward. It is a good Bush agenda. It is an agenda that the American people want, and they are going to have it.

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

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

This is not a new debate for me. I came from the New York legislature. I listened to liberals every day tell me how government was going to solve all of New Yorkers' problems. I will not go through all those facts of the millions and millions of Americans that benefit from this bill as I cited earlier, but I want to remind my colleagues of one simple fact: A married couple with two children and an income of $40,000 will see their taxes decline under the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 by $1,133 in 2003. It is a decline of 96 percent.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from

Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher), my good friend and classmate.

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

I cannot speak for the gentleman's constituency as a whole, but I know there is one constituent down there who wants a tax cut.

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

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

We are nearing the end of our hour debate on the rule, and we have heard a number of different viewpoints. But I want to remind the colleagues as they look at the rule that gives us an opportunity to move forward on a tax cut and also a $20 billion stimulus to our States and localities. The child credit increases our child credit to $1,000 for 2003 and 2004. Families will receive a child credit check this year for up to $400 per child. It accelerates the expansion of the 10 percent bracket for 2003. The marriage penalty relief begins in 2003, individual rate cuts where we accelerate the 2006 individual rate cuts scheduled to 2003. The individual increase of AMT exemptions where that will be increased by an amount of $4,500 for single persons and $9,000 for joint filers.

But I look at jobs and small businesses. I have come up through the elected route of legislative bodies from county to county to State, our Federal Government. All of my working adult life I have been a small businessman. When I go back home to those Chambers of Commerce and, yes, it will not be Waco, Texas, or Crawford, Texas. It is going to be Clarence, New York, or Amherst or Batavia, Greece. I am going to talk about the fact that in small business that they have the opportunity to expense at $100,000 versus $25,000. Not because I thought so, but because they told me, as small businessmen and women, that is what they needed. That is what they needed to first retain their jobs, that is what they needed to grow jobs.

And, by gosh, the Congress heard them, the President heard them, and there is a new law of the land that this Congress will enact tonight. That small business expensing increases the amount that they can expense from $25,000 to $100,000.

Some of you are going to go home to the Chambers of Commerce, and I hope, as they get a chance to look at that, you can answer the question: ``You are right. I have heard your call across the America, and I am going to do that $100,000 expensing in the vote I cast here tonight.''

And in dividends and capital gains, I hear all this class warfare on the rich. Where I come from and in that real estate business I owned for 25 years, I knew a lot of working men and women that built a little capital gains in that second property they owned or the double that they rented out up the street,

and they just want an opportunity to have that money come back to them versus the government gobbling it up for more government programs to give you a solution of how to spend the money versus sending it back to the American people.

This debate is, as we pass the rule and moving on to the debate, we will hear a lot from the left. We will hear a lot from those who cast that 1993 vote to have the largest tax increase in America's history defend it then and then defend it tonight. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not care how we cut it. The American people want to create jobs and jobs growth, and they know tax cuts are the route to get there.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay for it by giving it back to the American people. Will there be deficits? There are deficits.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believed when I voted for a $726 billion tax decrease, for tax cuts, that we would have moved our economy even faster. I believed it when I did $550 billion. I am supporting $350 billion with the other things we are doing today for an economic stimulus package because I believe it will create jobs, and those jobs and earning power will more than keep our country running, if we do not let the big spenders in Congress spend our money.

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

Mr. Speaker, my two posters are really simple, as I said before: Create and Keep Jobs and Tax Cuts Now.

I want to say that this is not a partisan thing. It is either you believe that bigger government and more government spending is how we solve our problems in America, or you believe it is the people's money and you give it back to them. It is important to really note that in the bipartisan aspect of reality, either you believe one or the other. As President Kennedy said, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates now.

Mr. Speaker, if we move ahead on this rule and we move ahead on the underlying legislation, we are going to do just that; and that is what America wants, that is what they deserve. And I think in every poll in America that has been cited in every different direction here, the bottom line is the people, and I go home every week and I know, want to create jobs, and they are going to do it by our cutting taxes, and that is what we are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, let us have a tax cut.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to pay tribute to Pastor George P. Grace for his 20 years of service to the First Bible Baptist Church and his numerous contributions to the citizens of Rochester, New York. For two decades, he has faithfully led and continues to lead the First Bible Baptist Church and its congregation, earning a well-deserved reputation as a respected and trusted community leader.

Under his leadership, the First Bible Baptist Church has promoted good citizenship and voter awareness through the church's annual Political Candidates' Night. The Grace and Truth Athletics Ministry was initiated to provide a place for the youth of this community to experience sports so they may grow and learn, and every year this draws thousands from local communities, including those who are not a member of the church. Pastor Grace also has a namesake event, the Thanksgiving Day ``Race with Grace,'' which has become a certified national 10k, having 1,000 participants last Thanksgiving Day.

The Pastor has found much success and continued growth in the athletics ministries. He developed the Grace and Truth Sportspark, whose soccer fields are home to the Junior Rhinos, the Greece Buccaneers, and other community soccer leagues. The church is hoping to complete the Sportspark in the near future, with lighted baseball and softball fields. The Grace and Truth Athletics Ministry has traveled throughout the world ministering to the world's youth through soccer.

Pastor Grace sits as a Regional Vice-President of Trinity Baptist College, Jacksonville, Florida, and he is a member of the Board of Trustees of Roberts Wesleyan College in Rochester. He and his wife Penny have raised their 5 children in Rochester and they now have one Grandson.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in saluting Pastor George Grace as he marks 20 years of service to the First Bible Baptist Church. His love for his fellow man is an inspiration to us all, and I am proud to represent him in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 227 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I

may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 227 is a closed rule providing 1 hour of debate for consideration of H.R. 2, the Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Act of 2003. The rule waives all points of order against the bill, as amended, and against its consideration; provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, our economy is a global one, dependent on free markets, free trade and free-flowing exchange of ideas and information. But our economy is also local. Its effects ripple through communities throughout America impacting each and every working family. In the final months of the previous administration, America's economy was beginning to slow. President Bush in one of his first major policy initiatives of his new presidency shepherded through the largest tax reduction package in a generation, needed tax relief for working families that this Congress approved in bipartisan fashion. We lowered rates for American workers, made the Tax Code fairer by easing the marriage penalty, and provided an immediate shot in the arm to overtaxed American families and our national economy by providing a well-deserved rebate to some 95 million taxpayers.

The result? The shortest and shallowest recession in America's history.

Then the unthinkable happened. While positive growth registered in the fourth quarter of 2001, the horrific attacks on our Nation on September 11 left our Nation and our economy traumatized, and nowhere was that impact felt harder than in my home State of New York.

Still, our country rallied and produced positive growth in all four quarters of 2002, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. But this calculated growth has not always been readily recognizable across America. The American people demand and deserve an energized economy, complete with expanding job opportunities and investment incentives.

As a logical compliment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, today's bill provides consistent tax relief and growth policies that will generate, on average, 575,000 jobs a year for the next 5 years.

In New York, this will mean nearly 36,000 new jobs every year for 5 years. For my part of the State, which never shared in the economic boom of the 1990s, job growth remains the number one priority, and this type of positive impact is what this and so many other parts of our country need. Plus, it puts more money back in the hands of hard- working Americans. Former President Richard Nixon once said, ``We can never make taxation popular, but we can make taxation fair.''

Two years ago, this Congress started to make the Tax Code more fair, and today we have the opportunity once again to achieve parity and fairness in the Tax Code. For years it has been well-documented that taxpayers in my home State of New York send far more of their hard- earned money to Washington than they get back in Federal programs and services. Frankly, my constituents and their pocketbooks have noticed.

My constituents have expressed their sincere concerns with the double taxation of dividends. Many are middle-class, retired seniors who rely on dividends as parts of their income. This legislation drastically reduces the dividend tax burden, making stocks more valuable and increasing expected rates of return. Stockholders in my district and all across America will have more control over their own money, while at the same time watching it grow at a faster rate.

The effect is twofold: First, to bring fairness to the Tax Code by greatly reducing the double taxation of dividends; second, as dividend paying stocks become more attractive, more potential investors will be brought to the market.

This bill also ensures equal treatment of dividends and capital gains by lowering the rate for each to 15 percent. By lowering the rates on dividends and capital gains, people will be more willing to invest because they will pay less tax on the returns to their investment, and corporate managers may find it more attractive to invest in projects since their cost of capital will decline. When businesses find their cost of capital lowered, it increases the likelihood that they will invest in new machinery, projects and employees. As more people invest, more companies grow and more jobs are created.

Another important component of this job-creating tax relief is our continued effort towards greater corporate accountability. By strengthening dividends, investors will have solid evidence of a company's corporate health, proving the investor's adage that ``profits are an opinion, but cash is a fact.'' By reducing the advantage of paying interest ahead of paying dividends, the incentive for some corporate managers to cook the books will be greatly diminished.

Equally important, this bill accelerates common-sense tax relief for families. By increasing the child tax credit to $1,000 for calendar years 2003 through 2005 and by expediting marriage penalty relief, families will retain valuable resources to help pay for their child's education, make a mortgage payment or help pay off the debt.

As President Bush said, ``If tax relief is good for Americans years from now, it is even better when the American economy needs it today.''

In New York, over 2 million married couples will benefit from marriage penalty relief and over 1.5 married families with children will benefit from the increased child tax credit.

Our country is blessed with a strong entrepreneurial spirit. Under this bill, small businesses will have the option of immediately deducting $100,000 in expenses, a significant increase over the current $25,000 deduction. Because most small businesses pay taxes as individuals, accelerating the top rate reduction means lower taxes for small business owners. That means that millions of entrepreneurs will have more resources to spend on employees, supplies or expansion efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the President has laid out clear goals for a strong, growing economy. Today this body can move one step closer to implementing this plan to create 1.2 million jobs by the end of 2004 alone.

Our country is already facing great challenges, and we must remain diligent in our efforts to tackle what lies ahead. The Jobs and Growth Tax Reconciliation Act confronts head on the serious issues before us, boosting employment levels, lowering the tax burden and growing the economy.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule, as well as the crucial underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

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

It is a tough day when I watch some of my colleagues use kind of a class warfare tactic. I would think I was in a political 101 class when I listened to ``pioneers,'' except I know that the President, when he ran as a candidate from being the Governor of Texas, he took all local money from those pioneers. Not all parties can claim that over the recent decade.

But when we look here, I know something about Grand Prairie taxes where my colleague, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, comes from. My wife lived there; grew up there until she moved to New York with me. I know a little about western New York where I reside, but I know a little about Harlem, where the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means resides. They are not rich in my area. They are not rich in Grand Prairie, Texas; and they are not rich in Harlem. But this bill, a typical family of four earning $40,000 will see their taxes go from $1,178 to $45 a year, and 23 million small businesses, whether it is Grand Prairie or Buffalo or Harlem, will be able to create new jobs with new incentives and tax relief under this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

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

I did not get here until January of 1999, but I am told since the Republicans took control in January of 1995, every single bill that comes on the floor of this House will have a recommit, and I am here today to tell my

colleagues that this bill will have a recommit so the minority can write it any way they want and it will be up for consideration. We will have a recommit vote, and then we will have final passage, and the will of the House will be done.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland, the minority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I would have to answer the minority whip when we are on my time, and that is I have been reading the minority's press clips since I have been here, and to them it seems to be the biggest deal for mankind what the recommit motion is and how that vote occurred here. So I am confused the gentleman's suggestion today of how restrictive it is, after I read the press releases of so many of the gentleman's colleagues on what they think it is when they moved it before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the amount of time remaining on both sides?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

(Mrs. MILLER of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Regular order, please, Mr. Speaker.

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

Half of the tax relief package in 2003 is directed to the child tax credit, expanding the 10 percent bracket, eliminating the marriage penalty, accelerating the marginal rate cuts, and ensuring that middle- class families do not face the AMT. 9.9 million taxpayers will not pay the AMT because of H.R. 2. Ten million Americans who are our seniors will directly receive assistance from the dividend return they are going to get in their senior income.

If I were able to signal a message to the White House, I would say, Mr. President, we are on our way shortly to have a rule vote and we are no longer talking about your early ideas, should we or should we not have a tax cut. Mr. President, there is going to be a tax cut when the House concludes its business, I predict, and I predict it will pass by a bipartisan support, just as the one did that the President initiated in 2001.

So as we look here today, we are talking some process, but when I sat in that Committee on Rules meeting last night, over half of the amendments introduced by my Democratic colleagues came forth on how they want to deal in tax planning, not to do away with it.

So today we are moving forward. We are going to have a rule vote, and then we are going to take the bill on the floor, if it passes the rule, and we are going to have an opportunity to debate what the tax policy will be for this country. I believe, not only in my district and my State, but the country wants that money back in their pockets rather than the Federal Government spending it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), one of the great patriots of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one additional speaker, and I reserve the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

Mr. Speaker, our economy is in need of a doctor, but the diagnosis suggests a remedy that is more comprehensive than the Band-Aid approach some of my colleagues suggest. Rather, the economy requires a shock to the system to stimulate a more rapid rate of growth, create incentives to work, save and invest, and encourage more disciplined Federal spending. The prognosis is very promising, but it stipulates immediate attention. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying legislation. A ``yes'' vote delivers money back into the hands of our constituents, the American taxpayers, and sends jobs to our districts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 2 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, May 9, 2003, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good friend and an outstanding public servant.

There's no doubt that in my home state of New York, there remain to this day many unsung heroes who provided aid, comfort and support to the victims of September 11th's vicious and cowardly attacks on New York. Ordinary people rose to extraordinary challenges and through their service, helped both in the rescue and recovery of a great city.

One of those unsung heroes is the man I rise to honor today, Robert R. Snashall, Chairman of the state's Workers' Compensation Board. First appointed to that post by Governor George Pataki in 1995, Chairman Snashall will soon retire from that post.

And perhaps the defining moment of Mr. Snashall's tenure at the Workers' Compensation Board was in his handling of the crisis arising from the September 11th terror attacks in New York City.

The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 created unprecedented challenges for the Workers' Compensation Board. In a single day, New York suffered 5 years' worth of workers' compensation death claims. In fast response, Chairman Snashall and the Workers' Compensation Board established new regulations to accelerate the processing of claims and created a special World Trade Center adjudication team to process claims emanating from the terror attacks while enabling the Board to maintain a focus on other claims from across the state.

Chairman Snashall acted quickly to contact and in some cases visit various insurers, legislators, claimant organizations and employer associations to discuss the challenges facing the workers' compensation system as a result of the attacks. In doing so, he was successful in impressing upon the various parties of interest the urgency of providing assistance to the families in need. As a result the Board has, to date, fully resolved 92 percent of death claims, 80 percent of injury claims and has conducted more than 7,000 hearings to resolve WTC claims.

Since 1995, the Workers' Compensation Board has undergone the most sweeping reforms in the history of the Board including the landmark 1996 reforms, which have led to unprecedented reductions in workers' compensation costs. In addition, since 1996, under the leadership of Chairman Snashall, the Board has reformed its administrative processes and become more accessible to the people of New York State.

Through Bob Snashall's leadership, New York State's Workers' Compensation Board has become a nationwide model, and I ask that this Congress join me in saluting his commitment, leadership and hard work; and that this Honorable Body further extend to him our thanks for a job well done.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), I am offering an amendment that was passed overwhelmingly by this body 2 years ago.

The 94,000 square miles of the Great Lakes system constitutes some of this Nation's most precious resources. Lake Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario are the largest system of fresh water on the face of the Earth, and comprise one-fifth of the world's entire drinking supply.

For the 30 million people residing in the region and the millions more who visit its shores each and every year, the Great Lakes are also a recreational playground, an enormous fishery and wildlife breeding ground, a vital transportation link, and an important resource for agriculture and business, making untold contributions to our Nation's economy and our way of life.

Most of all, the Great Lakes are binational treasures and a vital natural resource. To protect the natural resources of the five Great Lakes, and with them, 20 percent of the world's drinking water, most in the region agree that oil and gas drilling should not be allowed within the Great Lakes. In fact, several States have enacted statutory prohibitions on offshore drilling in the Great Lakes.

In respecting the provisions of the Submerged Lands Act, which gives each State that borders the Great Lakes authority over between the State's coastline and the boundary of Canada or another State, this amendment expresses a sense of Congress for continued support for the ban on drilling.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the States and Canadian provinces are the wisest stewards of the Great Lakes resources, ensuring their effective use and sound conservation. As such, actions to protect the Great Lakes work best when all of the States and provinces work together.

At this time, not all States and provinces have equivalent nondrilling policies. Through this amendment, the States and provinces will be advised of this Congress' support for efforts that protect the world's largest fresh water supply by encouraging them to prohibit offshore drilling.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the State's right to protect the Great Lakes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and a vital link to seeing the success of this bill today.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to open by noting that I am before my colleagues today not only on my behalf, but on behalf of my colleague and neighbor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) had planned to offer this amendment on West Valley, which is in his district, but his mother, Laura Houghton, passed away yesterday at the age of 102 years. So he had to go to return to his district and he asked that I introduce this amendment on his behalf. And I am also joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), who is also a neighbor.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses an issue that hits very close to home. The West Valley Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York, neighbors my hometown of Springville, New York, the very town where I grew up. The facility is the only commercial reprocessor of spent nuclear fuels in the United States. Although commercially operated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Federal Government provided all of the reprocessing technology, and the vast majority of reprocessed fuel came directly from the Federal Government's nuclear weapons reactors.

Over 20 years ago, at the direction of Congress and at the urging of the residents of western New York, New York State and the Department of Energy became partners to clean up this site. They were to work cooperatively in cleaning up the site and in deciding its future. New York State even agreed to pay for a portion of the cleanup. To this day, New York State is the only State to contribute to the cleanup of high-level nuclear waste. In fact, New York State has contributed over $250 million to the waste cleanup since its inception.

The cleanup of this site has proceeded smoothly and safely for many years.

Over the past 3 years, the Department of Energy and New York State have been meeting to plan the future of the West Valley site after the bulk of high-level waste solidification is completed.

Unfortunately, this partnership has become strained in recent years, as the Department of Energy has distanced itself from their cleanup responsibilities. New York's repeated attempts to reach an agreement over the future of the site have been rejected or ignored.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not change existing law; rather, it directs the Department of Energy to once again work cooperatively with New York State at the West Valley site. The amendment provides guidance to the Department of Energy to develop a proposal for the future of the site and report that plan back to Congress.

Finally, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Department of Energy fully recognizes its responsibilities at the site for the vast amount of Federal high-level waste at the site and directs the Department of Energy to consult with New York State on this proposal.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), a neighbor of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a remarkable and devoted individual. Tomorrow, Edith Palmer will be honored by her community on the occasion of her retirement from the Springville League for the Handicapped and Preschool Learning Center.

For 43 years, Edie has been the heart and soul of a facility that has given new hope to parents and new opportunities for the more than 160 preschool children who come through its doors each year. I know that not only because Edie lives in my hometown, but also because I am one of those parents.

In May, 1960, Edie answered a newspaper ad calling together parents of disabled children to meet and discuss the special educational needs of their children. These concerned parents first met under a tree on East Avenue, where they planted the seeds for what has become one of the premiere educational facilities for handicapped and learning disabled children in all of New York state.

Edie's devotion to the Springville League for the Handicapped began from her own experience as the parent of a hearing disabled son. Like other parents of handicapped children in the 1950's, Edie felt, as she said in her own words, ``adrift on the ocean with no help on the horizon.''

That first day, Edie volunteered to handle all the group's secretarial work, and later that year became Board Secretary for their volunteer board of directors--a post she would hold for 20 years. For its first dozen years, the League provided volunteer help for children, using donated space, volunteer staff and providing help to children at no cost to their parents.

Thanks, in part, to Edie's leadership, dedication and passion, the Springville League for the Handicapped and Preschool Center opened the doors of its own facility in 1987; and today employs 95 people, serving 160 disabled preschool children each year. Earlier this year, Edie Palmer was named the Springville Chamber of Commerce ``Citizen of the Year,'' an honor well deserved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in saluting Edie Palmer for her 43 years of service to the Springville League for the Handicapped and Preschool Learning Center. As a parent, I can personally attest to the tremendous difference that she has made in the lives of children and families in Western New York, and I am proud and grateful to be able to call her my friend.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 139 is a closed rule providing 2 hours of debate for consideration of H.R. 5, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act, more commonly known as the HEALTH Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of New York has been designated by the American Medical Association as one of the 18 crisis States because of the staggering number of physicians that are unable to obtain or afford liability insurance. It is not just physicians that are feeling the crunch; hospitals and other providers have also reached their breaking point.

Take, for example, family-run skilled nursing facilities in my district that have not once had a claim brought against them, yet they have seen their liability insurance rates climb over 200 percent during the past 2 years alone. That is 200 percent in the last 2 years alone.

According to a study conducted by the American Hospital Association and the American Society of Risk Management, one-third of the hospitals experienced an increase of 100 percent or more in liability insurance premiums in 2002. Meanwhile, patients are the ones losing choices, access, and care.

Mr. Speaker, last September I stood on this floor to speak in favor of the HEALTH Act. Since that time, my home community of Erie County, New York, has lost 40 actively practicing physicians. Only 3 months into the current year, they are anticipating a loss of another 20 physicians. If we do not solve the problems facing physicians in this community and so many others across America, who will provide the health care services so vital to all of our constituents?

The fact is that physicians are limiting their patients, moving to States with lower insurance rates, or closing their practices altogether. The fact is that astronomical costs and unpredictability in the legal system are causing this alarming trend.

The effect? Doctors practice defensive medicine to avoid litigation and think twice about openly discussing and reporting possible errors. A study released by the Department of Health and Human Services last week emphasizes that bolstering predictability in the legal system will dramatically reduce the incentives for unnecessary lawsuits. Those who need care will get it faster and more reliably, and those who may need proper redress will get it faster and more reliably.

The HEALTH Act will provide that predictability, while at the same time halting the exodus of providers from the health care industry, stabilizing premiums, limiting astonishing attorney fees, and above all, improving patient care.

Just as important is what HEALTH Act will not do. It will not preempt any existing State laws that limit damages at a specific amount, and it will not establish any new causes of action.

Also, it will not prevent juries from awarding unlimited economic damages. This means that quantifiable lost wages, medical costs, pain- reducing medications, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation can all be recuperated as tangible economic damages. Patients that have been wrongly injured will not be denied access to substantial amounts in economic damages.

The HEALTH Act is modeled after legislation adopted by a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor in the State of California nearly 30 years ago. While insurance premiums increased over 500 percent nationwide, California's have risen only a third of that much, by 167 percent.

California's insurance market has stabilized, increasing patient access to care and saving more than $1 billion per year in liability premiums. Equally important, California doctors are not leaving the State.

By following California's lead to place modest limits on unreasonable economic damage awards, an estimated $60 billion to $108 billion could be saved in health care costs each year. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that medical liability insurance premiums would be lowered an average 25 to 30 percent from what they are now under current law. And CBO also predicts that reducing the occurrence of defensive medicine would save anywhere from $25 billion to $44 billion per year of taxpayers' money.

I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary for working so expeditiously to bring this important measure back to the floor and focusing our attention on health care, particularly for coupling the HEALTH Act this week with patient safety legislation. Physicians need an environment where they can both share and learn, while at the same time practicing medicine without the fear of burgeoning liability rates and unnecessary lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, spiraling medical liability insurance rates have hemorrhaged in recent years. Today we have an opportunity to stop the bleeding and maximize healthy patient outcomes. I urge Congress to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the debate has begun. We are going to have an hour on this rule. I believe after that we are going to have 2 hours of general debate. It really cuts right down through the center. As I talked about excessive court trial damage driving up the cost of patient health care, I listened to the other side say it is the insurance companies and the doctors that are the cause of so much of this. It will be a good debate. It will be a full hour here on this rule and it will be 2 hours of general debate, and then we are going to have an up or down on the HEALTH Act and we are going to find out whether it is passed and sent to the other body.

But I must say that over 60 percent of the doctors in the United States are insured by insurance companies that are owned and operated by other doctors and which operate primarily for their benefit. The idea that those companies would price-gouge the very physicians who own them, I think, is absurd.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only served under the distinguished chairmanship of Chairman Dreier, but I am always pleased that in each rule that we make there is always a recommit. Looking back at history, one of the people that I think was a distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, Joe Moakley, I am not sure he always had a recommit in the legislation. I am not sure that former Speaker Tip O'Neill when he was a member of the Committee on Rules always voted that there would be a recommit. But I do believe that there has been a recommit in here. More importantly, I think it is important that this legislation was thoroughly vetted in two committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, and even passed by voice vote in the Committee on the Judiciary. Just weeks ago these same committees once again took testimony and the bill passed through the Committee on Energy and Commerce by voice vote.

The Committee on Rules last night took testimony for over 2 hours and reasonably provided 2 hours of general debate, in addition to the standard motion to recommit, and I believe we will have a full hour on this rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). The gentleman, a doctor, is an expert in this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue on the debate of the issue of the day, which is medical liability. I must tell you, while I guess it is important to listen to some of the process, and half of this debate by the leadership of our House is on the process, I am hoping that we can continue to hear the debate that was at least opened by myself and my good friend from Florida who has a different view.

I look at it that we need to helm doctors and patients, and to make sure we can control the costs of malpractice insurance. I have listened to some of the debate on the other side that it is the doctors and insurance companies that are at fault.

It is an important debate. This is a debate that was heard 7 months ago in both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee on the Judiciary voted by voice vote to put the bill out. Only recently we have had those hearings again in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, and, in a bipartisan fashion, it was passed by a voice vote there.

Last night we took 2 hours of testimony. The Committee on Rules responded with a 2-hour debate, plus what will be a full hour of the resolution, now going forward here on the rule itself.

I look forward to the debate, I look forward to hearing it, and then I look forward to voting up or down on whether we are going to help patients or not.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

(Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules and Chair of the Republican Conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who is an expert on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

I hope my colleagues have had the opportunity to read the heart- wrenching testimony presented by Leanne

Dyess earlier this month before the Committee on the Judiciary. I hope their compassion will allow them to consider how it would feel if a similar tragedy befell someone they love simply because doctors had been pushed out of the area; and I hope they can recognize that, today, we have the opportunity to prevent such tragedies from happening to others.

The HEALTH Act is about patients getting the best possible care they can when and where they need it. Dollar signs do not cure people; doctors do. Let us make sure doctors and other providers all across the country remain open for business.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for patients.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.