Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 President Bush and Congress worked to enact the most important tax relief since Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.

For individuals and families, we reduced marginal tax rates on personal income, doubled the child tax credit, reduced the unfair marriage tax penalty, phased out the onerous death tax, and significantly lessened the impact of the alternative minimum tax. We also provided essential tax relief on investment income.

Far from taxpayer protection, as this bill's title suggests, we are now hearing proposals from the other side that would do away with the tax relief of the last 6 years. Contrary to the naysayers, tax relief has played a critical role in revitalizing our Nation's economy.

Over 7.5 million new jobs have been created since 2003. The national unemployment rate has fallen to a very low 4.4 percent. Economic growth has been steady and strong. Our investment markets are no longer bursting; they are booming.

American families and small businesses did not just sit on the $1.1 trillion that we returned to them. They put much of it back into our economy through investment and consumption. The result: Tax revenues are up 35 percent and deficits are much lower than CBO anticipated.

Mr. Speaker, as we observe tax day, to truly protect taxpayers, Congress should talk about ways to make the tax relief we have permanent. Regrettably, the majority party and its budget anticipate the opposite.

Madam Speaker, in 2003 Congress and the President enacted the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. This bill strengthened and expanded the existing ability of small businesses to immediately expense new investment under Section 179 of the tax code. The objective of this law was to further encourage small businesses to make new capital investments, helping to spur economic growth and create jobs in our economy. Like many, I believe we should permanently extend and expand this provision, which is why I am introducing the Small Business Expensing Expansion and Permanency Act of 2007.

The Jobs and Growth Act increased from $25,000 to $100,000 the amount of new investment a business can expense--or deduct from income--in a given year. The law also increased--from $200,000 to $400,000--the amount of total investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing under Section 179. The original sunset date for expensing was slated for 2007, however we successfully extended the current law expensing limits under the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act in 2006. They will now expire in 2009.

If the higher expensing limits are good for our nation's small businesses over the next two years, they should be good for small businesses indefinitely. This legislation will repeal the 2009 sunset and expand the current expensing limits to $200,000, indexed for inflation. The current phase out level would also increase, and would begin at $800,000 of annual investment. Further, the legislation would allow more small businesses to use this powerful expensing ability by reducing the phase out to only 50 cents on every next dollar of investment. Effectively, firms investing up to $1.2 million per year would be able to use some level of expensing.

Small businesses truly are the backbone of our economy, representing more than half of all jobs and economic output. We should not take small business vitality for granted, however. Rather, our tax laws should support

small businesses in their role as the engines of innovation, growth, and job creation.

Madam Speaker, in difficult economic times, we must do all we can to encourage new investment and job creation by creating certainty and predictability for America's small business owners. The Small Business Expensing Expansion and Permanency Act of 2007 will help accomplish this worthy goal. I applaud the Administration for its consistent leadership on this issue, and I look forward to working with others in Congress to enact this much-needed legislation.

Madam Chair, I rise in strong opposition to the alternative budget before us now and the Democrat budget. The Democrat majority party seems intent on raising taxes and increasing spending. American families, seniors, and small businesses would all experience major tax hikes. Virtually no American would be spared.

The budget before us ignores the benefits of the tax relief passed since 2001. This tax relief has spurred economic growth and created literally millions of new jobs. Meanwhile, tax revenue to the Federal Treasury is surging, helping to reduce the deficit. Their budget also ignores the out-of-control growth in entitlement spending. This is deeply irresponsible. The tax-tax/spend-spend philosophy supported by my friends across the aisle is bad economics and bad for the American people. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the FY 2007 supplemental measure as currently written. It would place dangerous constraints on our mission and our war on terrorism in Iraq by empowering our Congress to overrule our Nation's top generals, who best understand the challenges there. Our Iraq policy should be based on the recommendation of General Petraeus, not the commands of armchair generals in Congress. Our Nation's mission in Iraq is too important to fall victim to the dangerous congressional micromanagement.

Iraq is a central front in a war against the radical jihadists. The outcome of this mission will greatly impact our national security for decades to come. For this reason, this body should pass a supplemental bill that fully funds our troops, without tying the hands of our military commanders.

Vote ``no'' on this supplemental.

Madam Speaker, I hope we all can recognize the profound importance of our mission in Iraq. History surely will. The mission in Iraq will impact our national security for decades to come.

The United States seeks a region of stability and peace to create a more secure world for our children and grandchildren. Al Qaeda seeks a region of terror and bloodshed.

The President believes victory in Iraq is key to victory on the war on terror. Al Qaeda believes our defeat in Iraq is key to its vision of violent Islamic rule. Our security is clearly at risk.

Americans are frustrated by the current situation in Iraq. We have witnessed the removal of a historic dictator, yet our men and women in uniform remain at risk. We have witnessed historic democratic elections, yet those elected have not yet brought security. We have been told about the progress we have experienced in training Iraqi security forces, yet violence continues to rage.

With growing uneasiness, we have watched a back and forth tug of war between progress and setback, and we mourn the loss of every single brave American who has fallen during this mission.

Madam Speaker, I share this frustration and sorrow. Yet I believe we must not allow our frustrations to blind us to the need for victory over radical jihadists. This House must work together in addressing the challenges in Iraq, because the outcome will be closely linked to our own national security for years to come.

Regrettably, the resolution before us does nothing to enhance this security. It does not offer a solution to the challenges in Iraq. It does not recognize the magnitude of the failure. And it does not recognize the nature of our enemies. For these reasons I strongly oppose it.

Madam Speaker, we know terrorists friendly to bin Laden are among the enemy in Iraq. Even before the fall of Saddam's regime, the terrorist mastermind Zarqawi had sought refuge in Iraq. His network of terror grew rapidly. Bin Laden's top deputy applauded his actions and counseled him on achieving dominance in the region. Although Zarqawi himself can no longer do harm, al Qaeda in Iraq remains a threat to our security.

An American defeat in Iraq would embolden the terrorists like no event before, bolstering bin Laden's view that America is weak. Al Qaeda would enjoy more than just a morale boost; they would have a new operational base to plot attacks against Americans and train new recruits. An American defeat in Iraq would almost certainly bring forth a government that turns a blind eye towards terrorism. This, Madam Speaker, would be catastrophic to our national security.

An American defeat in Iraq would also generate unspeakable chaos in the Middle East. The dangerous regime in Iran is already seeking to capitalize on what it perceives as our weakness. Iran is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons, and its fanatical president has publicly said that he wishes to destroy America and Israel. Syria would also take advantage of a power vacuum in Iraq, further destabilizing the Middle East. What is good for hostile regimes like Iran and Syria can be devastating for America's security.

In closing, Iraq is a central front in the war on terrorism, and its future will greatly influence our future security. An American victory would foster stability in a volatile region and provide a resounding defeat for terror.

For these reasons, we must give the President's new plan in Iraq a chance to succeed. Our resolve must override our frustrations. Our support for the remarkable members of our Armed Forces must be unwavering. And our determination in fighting radical jihadists who want to kill us and our families must never run dry. Madam Speaker, that determination must never run dry

Madam Speaker, I have long championed tax relief for small businesses because I believe such firms are the life-blood of our economy. As a small businessman myself, I know how small business owners struggle to remain profitable in a highly competitive and extremely challenging environment. Yet they continue to be the drivers of much of our nation's economic and new job growth. It is for this reason that I have strongly supported increases to the current section 179 small business expensing limits, an end to the onerous death tax, and the reduced double taxation of capital gains and dividends. I am concerned, however, that a little known revenue raising provision, passed as part of the tax reconciliation bill last May, will hamper small business creative spirit by significantly and adversely changing the way governments pay for the goods they use and services they require.

Effective in 2011, section 511 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 will require federal, state, and local governments to withhold 3 percent from payments for goods and services, excluding payments to non-profits and those made by governments with less than $100 million in annual expenditures. This onerous provision will not take effect for just under four years. But I believe we have to begin addressing the impacts it will have on honest taxpaying businesses now, and actively seek alternatives to withholding.

Thousands of businesses and individuals across the country are reimbursed by governments for various reasons every day. In my Northern California congressional district, governments rely on local and regional businesses all the time to maintain public services--from the electrician who re-wires a city council chamber in Redding to the construction company that builds an interchange at a dangerous stretch of highway in Butte County. When the Feather River needs a new setback levee, or an existing levee in the network requires urgent repairs to protect the community, the Army Corps of Engineers employs local businesses for construction and materials. Similarly, when an escape route from a fire-prone community requires widening, the government turns to local sources to get the job done.

In 2011, however, firms providing these necessary goods and services to governments will see 3 percent of their payments withheld.

I am troubled that the withholding provision will effectively force firms to float a new interest-free loan to the federal Treasury if they do business with a local, state or federal government. In addition, unlike other income-based withholding, which is actually based on tax liability, the new government withholding provision is based on government payments with no relationship to a company's taxable income. This means that, while businesses will be deprived of much needed cash flows for day-to-day operations, the 3 percent provision could end up significantly over withholding for tax purposes. The Joint Committee on Taxation confirmed this in its description of the

provision, stating ``sellers of goods and materials are more likely to have overwithholding and, thus, bear more of the burden of a flat rate because of the lower profit margin on such sales relative to sales of services.''

The provision would also disproportionately harm small- and medium- sized businesses that operate on low margins, and contractors that frequently employ subcontractors. It is conceivable that, faced with 3 percent withholding on a revenue source, companies that do business with governments may inflate contract costs to compensate, shift costs to subcontractors, or simply hire fewer employees over the course of the year. Others may resort to increased debt financing to make up for reduced cash flows. In addition, governments at all levels have expressed concerns over the new administrative burdens that such withholding will require.

Among the reasons for inclusion of this provision was a desire to reduce America's tax gap, or the difference between the taxes we believe should be collected in a given year, and those that actually are. The Internal Revenue Service currently estimates the net tax gap to be in the area of $290 billion. Whether due to taxpayer error or willful tax avoidance, the tax gap is a very real problem that can undermine taxpayer confidence in the voluntary nature of our tax system, and encourage continued non-compliance. According to the National Taxpayer Advocate, the ``cost'' of the tax gap could be equated to a $2,000 annual ``surtax'' on each taxpayer to subsidize non-compliance. The result is that the tax gap ends up ``harming compliant taxpayers because they pay their correct tax liability while others do not.''

Like many, I believe that bridging the tax gap and encouraging tax compliance should remain a top priority of both Congress and the Administration. Where identification of specific non-compliant sectors of the economy has been difficult, the Administration should continue to investigate ways it can use its existing authority to improve the collection and utilization of nonwage taxpayer information for enforcement purposes. In addition, as better information on noncompliance is generated, Congress should actively consider whether additional legislation is needed to crack down on tax cheats.

Prior to implementing a new tax collection regime, such as the 3 percent withholding provision, we should investigate what other methods are at our disposal to deal with the outstanding problems of non- compliance. To this end, I believe that any solution that aims to reduce the tax gap should consider the impacts of new burdens on taxpayers.

For this reason, I am pleased to join my fellow Ways and Means Committee member, Representative Kendrick Meek of Florida, in introducing the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2007.'' This bill mirrors legislation I introduced toward the end of the 109th Congress along with Senator Larry Craig of Idaho.

While I recognize the underlying problem of tax compliance must be addressed, I believe this problem--as it pertains to businesses and individuals that provide goods and services to governments--can be tackled in a less intrusive manner than withholding, and with positive results. As reported by the Joint Committee, the withholding provision is estimated to increase revenues coming into the Treasury by $6.079 billion in its first year of implementation, and between $215 million and $235 million per year over the next 4 years. Further, the Joint Committee recognizes that the ``significant revenue effect'' in the year of implementation ``is largely attributable to accelerating tax receipts,'' indicating that the additional compliance sought by this provision is really in the ballpark of $235 million. Still, in order to recapture this amount of unpaid taxes, the withholding provision will affect over $6 billion of government payments to honest businesses and individual taxpayers.

It is unrealistic to think that we could ever reduce non-compliance to zero, especially given the enormous complexity of our current tax code. But apart from fundamental tax reform and simplification, increased compliance should remain an objective. Congress and the Administration should continue to pursue increased compliance alternatives, including the use of the Federal Government's already broad authority to levy Federal payments, improving coordination and use of taxpayer information, requiring new information reporting, or increasing enforcement. Ultimately, though, any alternatives that focus on compliance should be balanced against the new burdens such compliance mechanisms would cause. We should avoid placing unnecessary burdens on all honest taxpayers in a particular sector of the economy to force the compliance of the few.

Although I recognize that repeal of the 3 percent withholding provision will leave the actual problem of non-compliance unanswered, I believe withholding is the wrong policy approach to this issue. Repeal, as proposed in the ``Withholding Tax Relief Act of 2007,'' serves as a reminder of the importance of this issue, and the need to seriously address the impacts this policy will have on businesses in the congressional district I represent and elsewhere in the country. In addition, we must also begin discussion of alternatives to withholding. I intend to continue working with others in the 110th Congress on ways to reduce any eventual burdens this provision will cause, as well as alternatives to withholding that will reduce taxpayer non-compliance.

I thank the gentleman, my good friend from Oregon, Mr. Walden. And I thank the work that Mr. DeFazio is doing and the others in this incredibly, crucially important issue that affects those of us in rural areas of the West, particularly, and in these forested areas.

Like both of you, I have a heavily forested district and I understand the challenges that our rural communities face because of the large Federal presence in our area.

Many of our fellow citizens, and even some of the Members of this body, do not realize that the presence of Federal lands places a burden on nearby communities. I am so pleased to join you tonight in shining the light on that fact and reminding our colleagues that the Secure Rural Schools program has expired and is in need of reauthorization.

In my district of Northern California, school boards, county officials, and sheriff departments are currently in crisis mode. For example, Siskiyou County is looking at a 91 percent loss in school funding. In Tehama County, library hours, music, art, and physical education classes will be dramatically cut.

And this crisis extends well beyond education. County road safety programs will be decimated as well. Sheriff departments will also bear the brunt of these cuts. In total, eight of my 10 counties are experiencing drastic budget declines because Congress has not extended the Secure Rural Schools program.

It is important to point out to our friends who represent urban areas that this crisis is not the fault of rural counties. It is the fault of Federal policies that are out of their control, specifically the failure of Congress to address that burden by extending the Secure and Rural Schools program.

In my home State of California, close to half of the land area is owned by the Federal Government. And in my district that number is considerably larger. In one of my counties, nearly 90 percent of the land is under Federal ownership. This large Federal presence has placed the counties I represent at a severe economic disadvantage. Acreage that would normally be privately owned and, therefore, generating tax revenue to help fund essential local services, is, instead, locked away by the Federal Government.

President Teddy Roosevelt and our predecessors who served in the 60th Congress recognized this problem and addressed it with a promise which was enshrined in the law in 1908, that the Federal Government would pay its fair share of local costs by sending a percentage of national forest revenues to the counties that are home to Federal lands.

This promise acknowledged that the rural counties we represent would not be able to fund vital services like rural education, road maintenance and emergency care as long as enormous tracts of land within their boundaries were locked away under Federal control.

We need to be very clear about the nature of the promise that was struck between Congress and rural forested counties. These funds were not designed to be a handout, and they are not part of any federally sponsored rural development program. They are an obligation. They are part of a compact between the Federal Government and the people of rural America in recognition of the difficulties created by large Federal ownership. This compact must be honored by the 110th Congress that we are currently in.

The rural counties I represent, and I know this is true in other areas throughout the West, have sacrificed a great deal playing host to America's national forests. I don't think it is too much to ask for this Congress to set aside a fraction of our $2.9 trillion budget in order to keep our word to rural America. We need to act immediately to extend the Secure Rural Schools safety net so our rural counties can get out of crisis mode, and then we can all get back to working on a long-term solution to our forest health problems.

Again, I would like to thank my colleagues here tonight for your efforts to extend the Secure Rural Schools program. I am committed to working with each of you until we are successful, and I ask other Members of the House to recognize the incredible hardships that will result if this legislation is not renewed.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join my fellow Californian in introducing the Homeownership for America's Veterans Act. This bill proposes to make an important change to our Nation's tax laws in order to assist thousands of veterans, in the State of California and elsewhere, realize the American dream of owning their own home.

Currently, a provision in the federal tax code allows states to issue tax-preferred Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds, or QVMBs, to provide favorable financing on home mortgages for certain veterans. In California, these bonds are used to help provide low-cost mortgages through the California Department of Veterans Affairs, or Cal-Vet, home loan program.

As written in the tax code, two of the five states that use QVMBs, California and Texas, are prohibited from using this bond-generated revenue to provide mortgages to veterans who entered military service after 1977. Obviously, this significantly limits the usefulness of these bonds to provide mortgages to subsequent generations of military servicemen and women. In fact, according to Cal-Vet's own estimations, only 4.1 percent of California's total veteran population is eligible for home loans financed through QVMBs.

I want to thank my California colleague, Congresswoman Susan Davis, for her work on this important legislation. Like her, I believe it is important for us to open this bonding authority to allow QVMBs to be used to support home loans for more recent members of the armed forces, who have served our country so ably and with such determination. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue, and am pleased this bill has the strong support of California's veteran community, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the California Department of Veterans Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased we're discussing the growing problem of America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas, and the high prices that consumers are paying here at home. In the 109th Congress we made great strides in promoting energy independence through tax incentives for oil and gas exploration, improvement of outdated infrastructure and added research into renewable resources.

But while the goal of ``energy security'' is a good one, I am concerned that today's bill moves us away from that objective. I frequently hear from constituents concerned about our growing dependence on foreign supplies. And rightly so--when we experienced the first ``energy crisis,'' foreign countries provided one, third of our energy needs. Thirty years later, that reliance has nearly doubled.

H.R. 6 does not address this problem. Quite the opposite: Through increasing taxes, the legislation makes it more costly for U.S. firms to develop domestic supplies. This means our over-dependence on foreign supplies will increase even more. The policies we have already put in place are working: American production of natural gas is up 407 percent, and deep water oil production is up 386 percent. And billions of dollars that would otherwise go to hostile nations have been invested in renewable energy developed from open-loop biomass, geothermal and other resources.

Madam Speaker, my constituents want a forward-thinking energy strategy that seeks new ways to meet our needs. Everyone agrees we should pursue ``energy independence.'' H.R. 6 moves us farther from this goal.

Mr. Speaker, while I support promoting ethical stem cell research to advance the progress of medicine and cure diseases, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, the ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act.''

In 2004, my State of California approved a $3 billion bond measure to fund embryonic stem cell research. The referendum was sold to voters as an investment in cures for debilitating diseases, like spinal cord injuries and Alzheimer's. Yet a December 3, 2006, article in the Los Angeles Times, entitled ``Reality Check for Stem Cell Optimism,'' notes that these promises were vastly overstated. In fact, the research institution's draft plan now says it is ``unlikely'' that any stem cell therapies will be developed for clinical use during the project's 10- year lifespan.

As my good friend the gentleman from Florida, Dr. Weldon, has explained, the latest science demonstrates the enormous potential of non-embryonic stem cells. I urge my colleagues to vote against a bill that authorizes further spending of taxpayer dollars on speculative research about which many Americans have deep moral concerns.

[From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 3, 2006]

Reality Check for Stem Cell Optimism

(By Mary Engel)

The meeting was almost over when Roman Reed steered his

wheelchair to the microphone.

On the table before him sat a l49-page book of budget

charts and timetables, the first concrete outline of what

California's voter-approved stem cell institute plans to

accomplish in its 10-year lifespan.

``I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart,'' Reed

said to the institute's staff and 29-member oversight board

in October. ``I promised my son that one day I would be able

to walk, stand next to him and go hold my wife's hand. And

seeing this road map to cures, I know that this will come

true.''

The room at Los Angeles' Luxe Hotel thundered with applause

for the Fremont resident, who broke his neck while playing

college football in 1994.

Despite the enthusiasm of Reed and his audience, the book

offered no promise of a cure for his paralysis.

Two years after California voters authorized $3 billion in

bonds to fund stem cell research, the institute created to

oversee the enterprise has just begun what experts see as a

long and slow scientific journey. Even with the $150-million

state loan approved recently to kick-start work stalled by

legal challenges, there are no breakthroughs in sight. Gone

are the allusions to healing such afflictions as spinal cord

injuries and Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases that

dominated the 2004 campaign for Proposition 71. In fact,

scientists say, there is no guarantee of cures--certainly not

any time soon--from the measure that was optimistically

titled the California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act.

Set for final approval at UC Irvine this week, the draft

plan is clear: ``It is unlikely that [the California

Institute of Regenerative Medicine] will be able to fully

develop stem cell therapy for routine clinical use during the

10 years of the plan.''

Instead, the top goal is to establish, in principle, that a

therapy developed from human embryonic stem cells can

``restore function for at least one disease. ``

That would be only the first step toward persuading

pharmaceutical or biotech companies to fund expanded clinical

trials, a process that takes years and millions of dollars.

Fewer than 20% of potential therapies that enter trials make

it to market.

In addition, the institute hopes to have treatments for two

to four more diseases in development within the decade.

``We picked a goal that we thought was realistic, that,

with some luck, would be achieved,'' institute President Zach

Hall said. ``The field will go on beyond 10 years. We want to

have a whole pipeline of things that are in movement.''

Jesse Reynolds of the Oakland-based Center for Genetics and

Society, a watchdog group that supports stem cell research

but advocates better public accountability, called the goals

``refreshingly honest.''

``The Prop. 71 campaign went beyond the line of responsible

political rhetoric,'' he said. ``If there are therapies,

they're decades out.''

One TV ad, for instance, showed an unidentified young

mother beside a child strapped in a wheelchair and breathing

through a tube.

``I will vote `yes' on Prop. 71, definitely,'' the woman

said. ``I believe that it's something that can cure spinal

cord injuries.''

State Senate Health Committee Chairwoman Deborah Ortiz (D-

Sacramento), another research backer, was philosophical about

the campaign's optimism.

``A campaign requires a message to be driven home,'' she

said. ``You can't raise those hopes and then say, `Oh by the

way, it may take us 10 or 15 years.' That's just the nature

of campaigns.''

California's attempt to cure diseases by referendum is

unique. But touting dramatic cures in exchange for research

dollars has become ``the American way'' of doing medical

research, said Robert Blendon, professor of health policy and

management at the Harvard School of Public Health.

The Nixon-era ``war on cancer'' suggested that a country

that could put a man on the moon--in less than a decade--

could surely find a cure within the same time frame. Now,

Blendon said, ``You can't just talk about investing in

research without the equivalent of the trip to the moon.''

Such campaigns appeal to an American public that expresses

great faith in science but shows little understanding of the

plodding nature of most scientific research. Blendon doesn't

see downplaying the time frame as dishonest as long as the

research truly holds potential.

Proposition 71 came about in response to President Bush's

August 2001 mandate restricting federal funding to only a

handful of human embryonic stem cell lines, prompted by moral

concerns about destruction of embryos during such research.

When the measure passed in November 2004, jubilant supporters

had predicted that $350 million a year from bond sales would

start flowing to scientists by May 2005.

The first reality check came in the form of lawsuits by

taxpayer and antiabortion groups.

Today, the bonds remain tied up in litigation, though stem

cell institute officials are confident that an appellate

court will uphold a favorable ruling from a Superior Court

judge. To tide over the institute, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger

in July promised a $150-million state loan. A state finance

committee formally approved the loan Nov. 20, and the

institute is gearing up to award its first research grants in

January.

Even if researchers hit the ground running, the field is

young and progress is likely to be slow. Scientists at the

University of Wisconsin derived the first human embryonic

stem cells just eight years ago, using donated embryos left

over from in vitro fertilization clinics.

Dana Cody, executive director of Life Legal Defense

Foundation, which represents two of the groups that sued,

said the plan's modest ambitions are a sign that the

initiative's promise was overblown.

``I just don't understand the fascination with embryonic

stem cell research other than that it's something supported

by Hollywood,'' said Cody, whose organization supports

research using adult stem cells. ``Even proponents say it's

going to be years before any breakthroughs are made, if at

all.''

Those who support the research--especially those whose

lives could depend on it--see the institute's plan through a

lens of hope.

The science ``is coming along fast, in my opinion,'' said

John Ames, whose son David was diagnosed with amyotrophic

lateral sclerosis, or Lou Gehrig's disease, four years ago.

``I'm not trying to contradict the position of the strategic

plan, but we have hope. We're going to win.''

The life expectancy of someone diagnosed with the

devastatingly progressive neuromuscular disease is three to

five years.

``The thing that drives these individuals and their

families is hope,'' said Christopher Thomas Scott, executive

director of the Stanford Program on Stem Cells in Society.

``Without that hope, it's very difficult to get yourself

going.''

Joan Samuelson prefers to call it determination. The Napa

Valley attorney founded the Parkinson's Action Network 18

years ago, two years after being diagnosed with early onset

Parkinson's disease. She now sits on the institute's

oversight board.

``I care deeply about how urgently we pursue the mission of

Prop. 71,'' she said. ``I wake up every day with a disorder

that gets worse with the passage of time.''

To Samuelson, the campaign was about potential. The

institute's plan is about day-to-day implementation. They may

sound different, she said, but they are steps toward the same

goal.

``I read the realism, if you will, as a statement of the

fact that this isn't going to be easy,'' she said. ``Nothing

great is easy.''

What makes embryonic stem cells unique--and so full of

potential--is their ability to become any type of cell in the

body.

Some researchers envision someday transplanting such cells

into patients whose own cells have been damaged by injury or

disease, with the hope that the transplanted cells develop

into new spinal cord or pancreas cells. But scientists don't

yet understand the cues that trigger an undifferentiated

embryonic stem cell to become, say, an insulin-secreting

pancreas cell.

The plan more accurately reflects what most scientists

studying human embryonic stem cells are actually doing, at

least in this early stage of the research: not so much curing

a disease as studying it.

Scientists, for instance, can introduce the gene for Lou

Gehrig's or Parkinson's into a human embryonic stem cell and

unravel some of the mysteries of how such diseases develop.

They can use such cells to quickly test thousands of drugs.

``What's happening even now is that human embryonic stem

cells and their derivatives are being used for models for

developing therapies,'' said Dr. Arnold Kriegstein, who runs

the stem cell research program at UC San Francisco. ``It

allows us for the first time in a petri dish to have a human

disease, not an animal disease. It brings us so much closer

to coming up with a therapy that really will work.''

Who knows? advocates say. Treatments--even cures--sometimes

crop up unexpectedly.

Jeff Sheehy, who represents HIV and AIDS patients on the

institute's citizen oversight board, tells the story of his

friend Jeff Getty, who died in October of complications from

AIDS. In 1995, Getty volunteered for a controversial bone

marrow transplant from a baboon.

The transplant didn't take, but Getty, who had been near

death, experienced a then-amazing remission that lasted more

than 10 years. It turned out that the drugs used to prepare

him for the transplant anticipated the antiretroviral

cocktail that, a year later, would turn AIDS from a death

sentence to an often manageable, chronic disease.

Similarly, Sheehy asked, if scientists fail to successfully

transplant embryonic stem cells but along the way discover

drugs or other treatments that work, wouldn't the research be

considered a success?

``My thing is just not to get obsessed with what was

presented in the campaign,'' Sheehy said. ``Science is a very

complex business. It's full of failure. It's full of

opportunity. And failure often equals opportunity.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4. The fundamental question in today's debate is what produces better results, the free market or the Federal Government? Medicare part D was founded on a belief that free markets get results. It is a system in which private companies compete with each other to meet the needs of our senior citizens. These private companies negotiate with drug manufacturers to get lower prices, and the results have been impressive.

When the Congress created part D, we expected the average premium to be around $35 a month. Yet, thanks to the power of competition, Medicare beneficiaries actually paid an average of $24 per month, and that number is going down to $22 in 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we can stop and think about what that means. In every other area of health care, costs are rising far faster than inflation. Where else have we seen an actual decrease in health care cost?

At the same time, we can also see the results of a system in which the government imposes price controls or as today's legislation basically proposes.

In Canada, a government-run health care system has resulted in long waiting lists for medical care and a massive exodus of talented physicians. In our own country, our brief experiment with price controls in the 1970s ended with disastrous gasoline shortages.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this Congress will consider the results and vote for the system that gets proven results.

I urge my colleagues to soundly reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the minimum wage increase. Not only is this legislation detrimental to small business growth and job creation, but it has been brought to the floor outside the normal committee review process without the ability to consider an alternative.

I have long stood against minimum wage hikes, which increase government

interference in the labor market. Economists agree that when the cost of labor increases, it becomes more difficult for employers to hire new workers.

Unfortunately, the burden of wage increases falls on small businesses which produce an estimated two-thirds of all new jobs in the United States. Minimum wage job seekers, often first-time employees looking to get their foot in the door, are most harmed by such increases. It is troubling that this bill gives no thought to softening the financial impact of our engines of new job growth when we could easily combine a wage increase with tax relief to help small businesses stay competitive and keep our economy growing.

One provision not included in the minimum wage bill would extend small businesses expensing. Over the last few years, Congress has increased the expensing limit which allows firms to write off equipment purchases immediately. This allows small businesses to expand faster and hire new workers. I continue to support a permanent extension of this provision. Without extension, expensing will soon revert from its current $100,000 back to $25,000.

Other relief not permitted in this is the elimination of the unnecessary 2 percent unemployment surtax. I joined my friend Jim McCrery in the 109th Congress to end the surtax and stimulate job creation and higher wages for those same workers who might lose jobs due to a minimum wage hike.

Finally, discounting relief from the 41 percent minimum wage increase, the bill ignores other side effects, such as impacts on the workfare participants. Current law determines how long welfare beneficiaries may participate in workfare, which helps recipients develop good work habits. As the minimum wage rises, recipients have access to less work, even if that is what they most need to prepare for a new job.

Mr. Speaker, by dismissing alternatives, the majority has generated a bill whose benefits to the American workers will be negligible, side effects real, and impacts on job creation palpable. I urge my colleagues to reject this measure.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of provisions in this bill that I believe will improve our national security. For instance, I support increasing protections at our most important infrastructure facilities, like dams and power plants, and improving the Homeland Security grant allocation process so that it is truly risk-based. I also agree with the provisions in the bill that would strengthen sanctions on countries that participate in the proliferation of nuclear materials, equipment and weapons technology.

However, I do have concerns with the bill's cargo inspection provision. We need to arrive at a system that ensures that all cargo entering the U.S. is safe. I believe the best way to approach supply chain security is through a risk-based approach, as endorsed by the SAFE Ports Act, which became law last fall. In particular, the SAFE Ports Act establishes a pilot program to test a system of 100 percent scanning at three ports. Then, based on lessons learned from that program, we could deploy a broader functioning inspection system.

Although the goal of today's legislation is laudable, I am concerned that it imposes an arbitrary deadline for its new requirement for 100 percent scanning in all ports without first considering the effectiveness of such a proposal or our ability to carry it out. We must also consider who will pay for this new program--both inside and outside the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I remain committed to working with others in the House to see that the provisions of last year's SAFE Ports Act are implemented, and believe that the feasibility of any new measures and mandates should be demonstrated before they're passed into law.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Suzanne Gonzales Suicide Promotion Punishment and Prevention Act of 2006 on behalf of families across the United States who have lost loved ones to suicide through information provided on Internet forums.

On March 22, 2003, 19-year-old Suzanne Gonzales told her father, ``I love you, Dad. I'll see you soon.'' Hours later, she was dead. As a student attending college thousands of miles from home, Suzanne had become involved in an online discussion group that promotes suicide as a personal choice and a ``civil right.'' Other members of the group, using anonymous screen names, encouraged Suzanne to commit suicide and gave her step-by-step instructions on how to obtain and use potassium cyanide, a lethal substance used by jewelers to polish metal.

It is difficult for most of us to imagine the grief of Suzanne's parents when they learned of their daughter's death. Their distress was only increased when prosecutors told them that there was no law under which the members of the online group, who had given Suzanne the necessary information to commit suicide, could be charged. While many states have laws prohibiting assistance to suicide, the individuals responsible for Suzanne's death could be residents of any state.

Suicide is not just another personal choice. It is final and irreversible. Victims of suicide do not have an opportunity to learn from their mistake. And their actions have a lasting impact on their family and friends. The same Web site whose members encouraged Suzanne Gonzales to take her own life has been implicated in well over a dozen other suicides. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time for Congress to take a stand. These sick and twisted individuals who prey on the despair and emotional distress of others ought to be held responsible for their actions.

The legislation I am introducing would make it a federal crime to use facilities of interstate commerce, including the Internet, to provide a particular person with information or material support to commit suicide. It is narrowly tailored to avoid infringing on speech protected by the first amendment. And it recognizes the role of state governments as the primary sources of laws relating to suicide.

This legislation is a sensible response to a real and growing problem, one that will bring wrongdoers to justice and hopefully help to prevent future tragedies like Suzanne Gonzales's. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Sacramento River National Recreation Area Establishment Act of 2006.

This bill was drafted with the direct input and involvement of locally elected leaders in Tehama County, California. It is the product of a citizen-led initiative. Written exchanges, phone calls, meetings, and an on-site visit were all part of the process that has led up to today.

On two separate occasions the Tehama County Board of Supervisors endorsed the concept of creating a National Recreation Area at the Sacramento River Bend, including, most recently, a unanimous endorsement of this specific legislation, which was passed on December 6, 2006. The Shasta County Board of Supervisors and the City of Redding, California both have formally expressed support for the creation of a recreation area at the Bend Area. Various constituents and organizations have done so as well.

Local officials expressed support for a national designation that focused on recreation and respected the nearby communities' goals and priorities. They wanted a designation to build on existing popular outdoors opportunities, such as horseback riding, hunting, fishing, and hiking. They wanted management of the land to attract tourists to the area in order to help the local economy. And they wanted to make sure that neighboring landowners and land uses were protected in the process. It was argued that a national designation for the Bend Area should be a ``win-win'' for everyone in the community. Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to say that this legislation accomplishes this important priority.

In carrying out the wishes of local officials, the Sacramento River National Recreation Area Establishment Act of 2006 focuses on three important local priorities: recreation, community involvement, and landowner protection.

The bill directs the BLM to manage the Bend Area in a manner that encourages and promotes public recreation. The bill lists, at a minimum, sixteen separate recreational activities that are to occur and be enhanced for public enjoyment of the recreation area and, in turn, help create new economic opportunities for local businesses. Specific language is also included to ensure that this popular destination point for deer, wild turkey, dove, and pheasant hunting, and trophy-sized rainbow trout and salmon fishing remain open and accessible to the public.

The bill also authorizes the Secretary to develop recreation related facilities, such as new trails, restrooms, parking areas, and campgrounds, all of which will help make experiencing the Bend Area more enjoyable for Northstate families. Additionally, the bill clearly states that no fees for same-day use or access to the recreation area may be charged by the BLM unless significant recreation services are provided. This provision will help the public access the Bend Area free of charge for activities like an afternoon hike or bike ride. Any modest fees that could be charged at the Bend Area would be developed in consultation with the public and proceeds would be reinvested in local recreation and safety facilities.

Local involvement and participation is also required in the bill. The legislation would establish an ``Advisory Council'' to ensure that the ideas and concerns of local citizens are incorporated into a management plan for the area. The Advisory Council would be appointed by locally elected officials, and would consist of concerned citizens representing diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. And to ensure that everyone in the community has a chance to participate in the drafting of the management plan for the Bend Area, each meeting of the Advisory Council will be open to public observation and involvement. This important provision will ensure transparency without the unnecessary paperwork burdens and expense associated with the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill protects private property rights. Local officials carefully drew the recreation area boundaries so as not to include private land. In addition, language was developed to ensure that landowners adjacent to the new recreation area are guaranteed full access to their property, and that efforts to improve or enhance such access are not limited in any way by this legislation. Existing water rights holders are also protected under this bill, as it plainly denies authority to the federal government to acquire water rights to further the purposes and needs of the recreation area. Lastly, livestock grazing, which is very important to the area I represent, is protected in this bill. Local officials supporting the legislation were clear: the right to continue to graze cattle in this area needs to be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a great pleasure for me to work with local officials and concerned citizens to develop this legislation. But our work is not over. In my view, you can never have too much local participation. Initiatives like this one succeed not because they were created in Congress or by national interest groups. They succeed because they are the product of an on-the-ground effort, led by those who live near and are the most familiar with this special area. I look forward to continuing to work with my constituents who have been involved in this legislation to this point, and urge anyone else with an interest to participate to do so.

This legislation is introduced in the spirit of local involvement and cooperation. It has been carefully written based on local needs and is worthy of the consideration and support of my colleagues in the House.