Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we are all going to talk about President Reagan, Commander-in-Chief Reagan, leader of the free world Reagan. Some of us were privileged to know him in a different context. My friend from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman, has talked about his relationship with him when he was Governor of California.

I knew him in a number of different contexts, and I was always amazed at one thing, and that was he was the same person regardless of the context in which you met him, worked with him and was led by him.

In 1974, I decided that I would run for public office. He was then in the last year of his governorship, and he decided to come to Bakersfield, and so I planned an event for the Governor. We decided that we would charge what seemed to be an appropriate amount, $25 a head, and almost 500 people came to see the Governor. I had no doubts about why they were coming.

We picked him up at the airport, and when we got in the car, he started quizzing me about me, and so I was visiting with him. But as we got closer, I said, well, do you want to take just a little time now so that you can get ready for the event? He said, Bill, if I am not ready now, 5 minutes will not make any difference.

He was always prepared. He was always on time, whether it was a minor event or if it was a debate with other leaders of the world.

And you see him in a bunch of different contexts and you say, well, of course, because he was a movie star and he is supposed to carry himself. And the point I want to make, if I do not make any other point, is he was that way because of who he was, not because of what he did. Because, frankly, if you tried to write a script and went to Hollywood on Ronald Reagan's life, you would last about 2 minutes in the room. Because people are willing to suspend belief, but not that much.

And what I like most about the juxtaposition of Ronald Reagan and his

career, which was kind of molded out of the context that he found himself in, was that the American people were wise enough, first of all to choose him as Governor of California for the traditional two terms, had he chosen to run for a third term he probably could have gotten elected; and the American people chose him for two terms as President, a now constitutionally limited period of time. Were it not for that constitutional limit, he may have been elected again.

And so when you watch people recognizing Ronald Reagan as they pass the casket, as they did in California, many people will have an individual memory, perhaps a general shared one, and perhaps a personal one. For me, Ronald Reagan's life means that any American can do anything any American wants to do. For Ronald Reagan, the public person, it means he made sure that he set up a structure which allows any American to do whatever any American wants to do; and his justification and enabling of that is, he would tell you, because I did.

You are going to hear him called the Great Communicator a lot. What you also need to know was he was a great compromiser. It can be put no more clearly than a comment he made when he was Governor of California, because he became Governor with an enormous debt at that time for the State of California. California did not have a withholding tax, and he needed to create a front load for money to solve the problem that he was facing. He had, however, made a statement earlier that his feet were in concrete over not having a withholding tax. Once he looked at the options in front of him and he realized he did not have any options other than instituting a withholding tax, having worked with the legislature, he then went to the microphone and said, ``That cracking sound you hear is the cement breaking away from my feet.''

And so when you wonder why Ronald Reagan could get along with so many different people in so many stages of life, whether small or great, it was because Ronald Reagan was the same person regardless of the job the American people gave him. He was always prepared, he was always on time, and he was a very, very sincere man. He was also quite smart, in ways that many people never understand.

So what I want to do tonight is to just share briefly the memoirs of someone who, if you are looking for an example, he certainly stands out, not just in what he did but the way in which he lived his life and the way in which he recognized his condition later in life and the way in which he concluded his life. All of us should pause and remember that he was an amazing, amazing person. He was an American.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the brave men and women who lives have been lost in the War on Terror. I am privileged to represent several military installations, including Edwards Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, Camp San Luis Obispo and Camp Roberts. Thousands of active duty military, Reservists, National and California Guardsmen and women and civilian defense contractors serve our country at these installations every day. Four young men from the 22nd Congressional District of California, that I represent, have given the ultimate sacrifice for their country, and I would like to honor them today.

Army Private First Class Michelangelo Mora Jr., age 19, of Arroyo Grande, California, was

killed in Najaf, Iraq on May 14, 2004. He was buried at the Arroyo Grande District Cemetery on May 24, 2004. Pfc. Mora attended the military-style Grizzly Youth Academy at Camp San Luis Obispo and received his GED there. After working for a year, Pfc. Mora enlisted in the Army with his family's support. His family and the community of Arroyo Grande mourn the loss of an outgoing young man who was looking forward to returning home after his tour with the 3rd Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division.

Army Sergeant Marvin Sprayberry III, age 24, of Tehachapi, California, was killed in Balad, Iraq on May 3, 2004. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on May 14, 2004. Sgt. Sprayberry's family journeyed across the country to bury a young man they remember as a loving husband to his wife Nadja and a devoted son who called home every Saturday to tell his parents he was okay. Sgt. Sprayberry joined the Army soon after his 1997 graduation from Tehachapi High School, and he spent a tour in Germany where he met Nadja, and two tours in Kosovo before his deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom as a Bradley tank mechanic. The community of Tehachapi mourns his loss.

Army Staff Sergeant David S. Perry, age 36, of Bakersfield, California, was killed August 10, 2003 in Baquabah, Iraq. Perry was assigned to 649th Military Police Company, U.S. Army National Guard, Camp San Luis Obispo. Staff Sgt. Perry's `real job' was as a prison guard at Wasco State Prison, and he was known for his reliability and love for his family. He joined the military after high school, and then later joined the National Guard; he had been assigned to the 649th for about 10 years. Staff Sgt. Perry's wife and children, along with the citizens of Bakersfield, mourn his loss.

Staff Sergeant Brian ``Cody'' Prosser, age 28, of Frazier Park, California, was killed in Afghanistan on December 5, 2001. He was buried at Arlington National Cemetery on December 17, 2001, and I was privileged to join his family and fellow Green Berets to pay tribute to this young man who chose to leave his close-knit community in the Los Padres National Forest to serve his country in the Special Forces. Frazier Park remembers Staff Sgt. Prosser as the captain of the Maricopa High School football team and the `Most Spirited' in his senior class.

In addition, I would like to remember two other soldiers who died in Iraq and who are mourned by their families that are constituents in my district.

Army Sergeant Michael W. Mitchell, age 25, of Porterville, California, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq on April 4, 2004. Sgt. Mitchell's father lives in Atascadero, California, and he has been deeply affected by the loss of his son. Sgt. Mitchell was assigned to the Army's 2nd Battalion, 37th Armor Regiment, 1st Brigade, 1st Armored Division, Ray Barracks, in Friedberg, Germany, where he met his fiancee, Bianca. He is remembered by his community as a dedicated and disciplined athlete.

Army Staff Sergeant Richard A Burdick, age 24, of National City, California, was killed December 10, 2003 in Mosul, Iraq. Staff Sgt. Burdick's mother lives in Ridgecrest, California, and his wife and children were living in Lancaster, California at the time of his death. He loved his family and was dedicated to his country, coming from a family of military men. Staff Sgt. Burdick's great-grandfather served in WWI, his grandfather served in WWII, and his father served in the Navy for 21 years. His local communities mourn his loss.

I ask my colleagues to reflect with me on the lives of these six men and the many others from past and current conflicts who have given their lives in service of their country.

Mr. Speaker, I assume there is some relevancy to this particular debate on this particular measure offered by the gentleman from Washington.

But I think we really ought to put this entire debate in perspective. In 1993, with a Democrat President and a Democratically controlled Congress, the largest tax increase in the history of the United States was put in place. There was an opportunity at that time to make adjustments on the Alternative Minimum Tax which would not place us in the position that we are in today. That measure passed this House with all Democratic votes and no Republican votes. That was in the first full year of President Clinton's presidency.

The next year was an off-year election for the House of Representatives and one-third of the United States Senate. The American people, for the first time in 40 years, decided that empty promises and failure to deliver and continuing to assume that by requiring Americans to send a dollar to Washington with bureaucratic waste, fraud and abuse subtracted and the 86 cents, the 82 cents, the 76 cents that was sent back to them on programs that they promised to help them was a failed policy. That produced the first Congress of a Republican majority in 40 years.

Ten years later, Republicans are still in the majority. I do not see any better example of the fundamental choices in which the American people chose our way of dealing with issues versus theirs.

Somehow requiring people to pay taxes when they have children at home, for which the amount we are debating does not even offset inflation over the last decade, of increasing the child deduction, somehow allowing them to keep $1,000 per child so that perhaps a school choice would be different, perhaps an educational or enlightenment trip would be different, so that that child in terms of the $20,000 that is going to be available to someone, have you checked college tuition nowadays? The concept of putting money away for future education can be assisted by this $1,000.

And the real problem to my friends on the other side is to see a dollar of tax revenue lost because they did not get it, they did not get their fingers on it, and they did not create a program in the hopes that someone would vote for them because they were going to give them the money.

What I see is an opportunity for a family to allow that child to be enriched over their lifetime, that, in, fact they do go to college. Anybody knows, and graphs show today, a college education is worth about $4 million over the earning life of that individual. And do you know what you do when you make that much money? You surely know listening to their arguments, because if people make a little bit of money, they pay a lot of taxes.

One of the things Republicans have done in this Tax Code is to drop more people off the tax rolls than they have ever done in the history of the time that they have controlled the House of Representatives.

Now, there is a problem when people do not pay income taxes, because they do not get the benefits of the structure of the income tax, for example, the child tax credit. So they then come to the well and say people who do not pay income taxes should get the benefits, notwithstanding the fact they do not pay income taxes, of the people who pay income taxes. That is an unfair system.

And all we are saying is let us give the American family a little security and assurance. What we do in our proposal is make it $1,000 and make it permanent. What they do is dangle out the opportunity that there may be $1,000. If someone in the executive branch certifies that what this constitutionally independent body can do is okay to do, they turn over fundamental legislative decisions to the executive branch. Does the executive branch certify that we can do it? Yes or no?

That is how desperate these people are, to come up with an angle which allows them to say this is what we are going to offer, with the ability, in fact, to jerk it away and never allow the American family to get the $1,000 child tax credit.

So the choice is pretty simple. Certainty, appropriateness, and the investment where we think that investment does the most good, to the family for them to decide. That is the proposal before us.

The substitute says let us promise something that is not guaranteed, that someone in an entirely different constitutional structure will tell you whether or not you can do it. I think that is why finally in 1994 the American people said we have had enough, we want to go a different way.

And to my friend from Texas talking about a balanced budget under the Clinton administration, to make sure history is accurate, 6 of those 8 years Republicans were in the majority in the House and the Senate. That is how we came out of the deficit. Everybody knows the world's circumstances that we were in. We will get out of the deficit again how? By not hoping that keeping taxpayers poor and government rich will solve the problem, but by making sure that we invest in the future in the American way, let those people spend their own money in ways they think bring the best return. And guess what, jobs are created, productivity is up, more taxes come in, i.e., we have revenue coming in.

The real question of whether or not we are able to grow out of this deficit is whether or not we control spending. Not giving people their own money back to spend, that is not the problem. It is new programs, larger programs, spending, that is the greatest concern.

A pretty fundamental battle here today. Invest in individuals that made America great, provide more fodder for government spending so that these folks can say I gave them something. We want the mother and father to tell the child they gave them something, not the government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I hope you all enjoyed that ride through very dark woods. Now let me explain what is really going on.

Return with me to 1945. We were in the middle of a war and a decision was made which affects us profoundly today. There was a choice of increasing wages or there was an idea that we can snooker workers not to ask for more wages if we create a procedure in which employers offer fringe benefits for which they will get a tax break.

Today, a dollar in wages competes against a dollar in fringe benefits. A dollar in wages is taxed 100 percent. A dollar in fringe benefits does not affect the worker or the employer. We created a system that puts a premium on going for fringe benefits over wages.

The argument the gentleman from California just made is based on that concept. He has a letter from Joint Tax that says if you create this fringe benefit, flexible spending accounts, in which up to $500 of the employee's tax deferred structure is allowed to roll over in the employee-controlled structure as an incentive to keep down the fringe benefit costs, there is a possibility that these will be successful.

What happens if they are successful? The dollar in wages is not paid, the dollar in fringe benefits is paid, and the payroll tax, which otherwise would have gone into the Social Security Trust Fund from the wages foregone, is what he is talking about; not enough to modify the trust fund one iota over the year in terms of true impact on the Social Security Trust Fund.

It happens with every decision we make in here in choosing either wages or fringe benefits. This is worse than a red herring. What it does is commit you to say that any change that would save dollars in the larger picture, for example incorporating individuals' own decision-making in health care where they actually have an investment, rather than having $5,000 worth of fringe benefits in which they are taking care of themselves, do not get any benefit out of it, and at the end of the year they go get eyeglass frames because they are trying to get money back out of the fringe benefits; the system we have constructed today, that if in fact this is successful and you save total money because somebody decides they want to make a prudent decision and a couple of hundred dollars roll over into the flexible savings account, Joint Tax has said that couple of hundred dollars that is in the flexible spending account may have been paid out in wages, which means you then lose the payroll taxes in terms of the difference between the two.

The overall cost to the economy, the society, and the taxpayers is less. It is a minor accounting procedure which you can not even see. And that is the black wood he took you through to buy the concept that anytime you want to make an improvement in the overall structure of society, taxes and Social Security, you have taken the pledge not to have anything happen.

Do not take this pledge. Understand what they are trying to do to you. Reject this gimmick and simply say, look at the larger overall society benefit, and do not put on the green eyeshade and do not let them tell you that somehow this is going to impact the Social Security Trust Fund. In the long run, people helping make their own decisions saves money, it does not cost money.

Vote no on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, if this were a debate on the budget and the decision before the House was to bind every spending measure and every tax measure to a PAYGO rule, the debate might be more appropriate. But to assign to one particular tax cut, and only one, a rule that is not applied to any other decision in this House, whether spending or tax cuts, seems to me to point out that somebody does not like making sure that married people pay no more tax than any other two taxpayers.

It took us a long time to reach this point. It seems to me the gentleman's points will be well taken during a debate on the budget. There are a lot of people anxious to find out whether or not they are going to be able to continue the current marriage tax structure that we have.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and Rhonda Rohrabacher have diapers to change. Let us not leave them in suspense.

Vote no on the motion to recommit and yes on the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of the Independent Oil Producers' Agency IOPA, which IOPA will be celebrating on April 30. Specifically, I want to congratulate them for all that they have accomplished and to wish them well as they begin their second century.

Many people do not realize the incredible amount of oil and natural gas production in the State of California and particularly Kern County, which I represent. The magnitude of California's production is apparent when one considers that in 2002, California's 210 active fields and 47,135 wells produced 289.5 million barrels of oil, more than every state but Louisiana, Texas, and Alaska. It is also apparent when one considers that over 26.8 billion barrels of oil have been extracted from California wells and that California's estimated oil reserves are 3.7 billion barrels. In addition, in 2002, California's 1,232 natural gas wells produced 366 billion cubic feet of natural gas, and California's cumulative natural gas production is 37.1 trillion cubic feet. It is hardly an overstatement to say that California's energy production has been and is vital to the American economy.

However, none of this incredible production would have been realized without the hard

work, ingenuity, dedication, and sacrifice of the men and women of IOPA. IOPA was formed in 1904, in the wake of the discovery of vast amounts of crude oil and natural gas beneath the rugged terrain of the southern San Joaquin Valley, including Kern County. IOPA was formed to ensure that smaller producers, many of them families, received a fair market price for the oil they produced, as can be seen in its mission statement: ``It is the mission of the Independent Oil Producers'' Agency to secure equitable prices for its members' crude oil and to serve these members at the government, business, and industry levels in matters relating to advocacy, legislative, and regulatory affairs.''

Utilizing the proven powers of a cooperative marketing agency, IOPA has succeeded in achieving its objective. During the past century, as it served its members, IOPA has also served our nation by providing a steady domestic source of oil during wars, shortages, and embargos. It is also important to note, and I appreciate the fact that, IOPA and its members have given back to the community by supporting youth activities, education, scholarships, museums, and hospitals. Accordingly, I trust that my colleagues will join me in congratulating IOPA upon their 100th anniversary.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, we really do have to decide whether we want to try to make law or score political points. The first motion that was offered was obviously a ruse because it would have killed the bill. You then say changing ``forthwith'' to ``promptly'' makes this a serious offer. You need to know that the reason they dropped ``forthwith'' to ``promptly'' and dropped various portions of the bill was to make it germane under the rules. In dropping those portions to make it germane, we have no idea what the revenue consequences of this bill are. There is no score available.

I will tell you this, that the old provision was $38 billion in revenue. If anyone knows how the Senate works, it is very simple. The way you get the votes to pass anything is to ask whoever would possibly vote for something, what do they want. It is an additive process. What we have here is the sum and substance of a bill that passed the Senate, which means there is no rationale to anything in the revenue portion.

Let me give you one brief example. Turn to page 108 and to raise the revenue that is in this bill, which is not directly applicable to the highway bill in about two-thirds of it, the effective date of the provisions ending on page 108 shall apply to transactions entered into after February 13, 2003.

What was good law on February 13 last year, retroactively, will not be good law if you vote for this measure. And if you think there is nothing worse than the government's saying one can do something and then, after they did it when it was legal, saying, no, now it is not, then understand that is the way the Senate legislates. If you want to make law, let us stick with the dollar amounts we have.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I accept that admonition. The other body has no problem changing the law after the fact. We should not.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, in referring to those that I cannot refer to, in examining the legislation offered as a motion to recommit, simply look at page 108. What was legal will not be legal. Someone who took actions by virtue of something that if it were criminal would be unconstitutional is in this legislation.

Let us make law. Let us not make political points. Vote down this motion to recommit, and together let us move solid legislation that we can turn into law, much-needed law, as soon as possible.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to thank everyone for bringing to fruition a modest bill which has a limited life, but which is extremely critical in today's economic environment. Twice the House has passed a short-term substitute for a financial structure that assists in pensions. Thirty-year Treasury bonds had been the standard. When the Treasury decided not to issue 30- year bonds anymore, we did not have a surrogate.

This surrogate is absolutely essential in the short term while we work out a long-term replacement for the 30-year Treasuries. As I said, twice the House passed this legislation, once in October of 2003 and then again in November of 2003. Neither time in passing this legislation did the House include multi-employer provisions.

Multi-employers tend to basically be the representatives for the unions.

Multi-employers determine their pension liabilities differently than other companies. It is important to make sure that there are provisions available for multi-employers, and what the conference did was work out a solution which we believe addresses those multi-employers in need and can be signed into law.

We are going to hear a lot of comments about what we did or did not do. It seems to me that when we look at those people who are willing to write letters in support and we get one letter from the United Auto Workers and the other from Ford, Daimler Chrysler, and General Motors, both management and labor in support of what we did in the short-term solution, we begin to think maybe we have it about right.

So as we look at this, this is not permanent legislation; it is legislation that needs to go to the President to be enacted, hopefully no later than next week; and we will then sit down and look at long- term, formal changes to the pensions in this country in a number of different ways, in the Tax Code and in the jurisdiction of the gentleman from Ohio's Committee on Education and the Workforce.

I want to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Boehner) on the way in which he has conducted himself while working on this legislation in the House and especially his leadership in conference. It is a pleasure to work with my colleagues where, notwithstanding the jurisdictional differences in committee, we are able to work together to solve problems, because it is the problem that needs to be addressed and not the particular concerns or interests of any committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will tell the gentleman we have, and we are. I know the gentleman's interest in this issue based upon his State and one of the things his State is famous for.

We are working with a number of individuals on Joint Tax, in industry, to gather the information needed to craft an equitable proposal. Once the committee receives this information, I will tell the gentleman, we intend to seriously pursue relief options because of the current unfair relationships, as the gentleman described.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) control the remainder of the time of the Committee on Ways and Means.

I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the record really needs to be absolutely crystal clear. We are not talking about the minority offering amendments and amendments being rejected. We are talking about in consultation with the chairmen and the ranking members of the committees of jurisdiction, what is it that we want to do in terms of legislation. It was completely agreed upon, evidenced by the fact that in October we passed nothing but a short-term 2-year extension with two ``no'' votes. In November when we expanded it to cover airlines, an absolute opportunity to include multi-employers, it was never mentioned, it was never offered, never considered, never presented by the minority; and that measure passed on a voice vote.

So when we analyze what goes on around here, the record really needs to reflect that the House in a bipartisan fashion acted, the Senate in a bipartisan fashion acted, and the conference came together and melded two significantly different bills. It is incontrovertible, the House twice sent out bills with no multi-employer provisions in it. We have before us in the conference report a conference report that includes multi-employer. That is the way this place is supposed to work.

If you vote on the motion to recommit, understand that recommitting conference reports kills the conference report. Do not look at what they want to do. Understand what the action does. It kills the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his willingness to expeditiously move this resolution. Those of us in California experience earthquakes periodically. It is difficult to predict. The usual formula is the longer it has been since the last one, the sooner it is to the next one. When actually, if you will look at newspapers in California on a regular basis, literally on a daily basis there are anywhere from several dozen to several hundred earthquakes that occur, many of them are not felt.

Periodically, we get an earthquake as occurred in Paso Robles on December 22. It was a good size earthquake, 6.5 on the Richter Scale is a good size earthquake. The earthquake that literally leveled downtown Bakersfield in 1952 was only 6.1. The earthquake that produced between 20 and 50,000 lives lost in Bam, Iran, in 2003 was about the same magnitude, 6.5.

This particular earthquake caused about a quarter of a billion dollars worth of damage in homes, businesses and government offices. But only two lives lost. And even then, it was a peculiar set of circumstances that produced the tragedy of the two lives lost. I have a district office in San Luis Obispo County in the 1915 Atascadero City Hall which was shook pretty severely, bricks were falling, and the building itself suffered a number of cracks. And in visiting the site and in the surrounding area, again and again and again it was clear how fortunate we were, how many near misses occurred.

I do want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for moving this resolution, and for all of us to remember those individuals who lost their life, those individuals who suffered major business damage downtown, and to the general psyche.

I know that when earthquakes occur, I have seen local television stations go to the airport to interview people, to ask them if they are thinking about returning to California because the earth literally shook. I have told them many times that although it occurs periodically on the east coast, literally, hurricanes and tornados occur everywhere. There are difficulties that you have to put up with wherever you live. California, unfortunately, on the rim of fire, is periodically subjected to these earthquakes.

This one was a difficult one for all of us. My colleagues in the area, Mrs. Capps and others responded fairly quickly. I do want to put on the record how magnificently the local elected officials responded, setting up emergency teams, keeping lines of communication open. And I want to compliment the Federal Government in its quick response in providing grants and loans to those who were clearly depressed and destroyed and were given the opportunity very quickly to rebuild.

The spring has come, the rains have come, the grass is green, but the psyche shattering earthquake of last December is still present in downtown areas and in the surrounding communities. And the scar on the earth will be there for a long time.

I thank the chairman for the quick response and especially for the Nation's taxpayers in responding in the hour of need in San Luis Obispo, Paso Robles, Atascadero and the surrounding community. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing the sense the House of Representatives with respect to the earthquake that occurred in San Luis Obispo County, California on December 22, 2003. Most importantly, I would like to recognize and commend the public safety and law enforcement personnel, elected officials, and the people of San Luis Obispo County for their courageous and effective response to this disaster.

This earthquake occurred at 11:15 a.m. on December 22, 2003. Its epicenter was in San Luis Obispo County, approximately 6 miles northeast of San Simeon and 24 miles northwest of Paso Robles. The earthquake measured 6.5 on the Richter scale, the largest quake to hit the area since 1952, and it was felt from Los Angeles to San Francisco with the most extensive damage occurring in the City of Paso Robles.

Tragically two lives were lost and more than 40 persons sustained injuries. Thankfully, the loss of additional lives was averted through the quick and professional response provided by the public safety and law enforcement personnel and elected officials who serve the people of San Luis Obispo County and the State of California.

San Luis Obispo County experienced a massive disaster but it is evident that recovery has begun as a result of the vibrant actions taken by its residents and leaders. When complete, this renewal will serve as a reminder of the fierce determination displayed by the community and local, state, and federal governments to rebuild in the wake of this disaster.

Accordingly, I ask that this resolution be supported in order to recognize and honor those local officials, public safety and law enforcement personnel, and individuals, who served San Luis Obispo County in the aftermath of this natural disaster.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify the Congressional intent of Section 102(g) of Division H, Miscellaneous Appropriations and Offsets, in H.R. 2673, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004.

Specifically, after discussing this Section with my colleague, Mr. Goodlatte of Virginia, it is my understanding that it is the Congressional intent of that provision to also provide assistance to those producers who sustained eligible losses in the wildfire, known as the McNally Fire, which occurred in southern California in 2002.

I am pleased that this is indeed the Congressional intent of Section 102(g) because, as in the case of the 2003 southern California wildfires, while human action contributed to the genesis of the McNally Fire, the underlying natural conditions were such that it quickly became a natural disaster of enormous proportions and intensity. Among those underlying natural conditions were the weather, specifically drought conditions, and a buildup of undergrowth, dead or dying trees, and brush.

From my discussions with the Gentleman from Virginia, it is my further understanding that Section 102(g) is intended to provide assistance to those producers in the same manner as authorized in the underlying act cited in Section 102(g), Division H of the Conference Report to H.R. 2673, and specifically using the same loss thresholds as provided in that underlying act. The Congressional intent also is to ensure that the Secretary of Agriculture has the flexibility to make payments in a manner that quickly facilitates receipt of this assistance by eligible persons.

I appreciate the assistance rendered by the Gentleman from Virginia in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of seniors and taxpayers, pursuant to House Resolution 463, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1) to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a voluntary program for prescription drug coverage under the Medicare Program, to modernize the Medicare Program, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction to individuals for amounts contributed to health savings security accounts and health savings accounts, to provide for the disposition of unused health benefits in cafeteria plans and flexible spending arrangements, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield one-half of my time to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I called up this bill for seniors and for taxpayers. This evening you are going to hear some very harsh rhetoric. But what I really want to do is remind everyone here that since Republicans became the majority in this House in 1995, there has been a very positive and remarkable change to Medicare. Probably most important has been the introduction of preventive and wellness. For many years, it was available to be added to Medicare, but it was not. It took the Republican majority to add the testing and the education for diabetes, for osteoporosis, for improved mammography, for colorectal cancer screening, for prostate screening; and even today in this bill we continue with cholesterol screening and physical exams.

Tonight, the Republican majority is going to add prescription drugs to Medicare. We earnestly seek our friends across the aisle help in doing this. The conference report before us is bipartisan. It is bipartisan because of the House and the Senate structure. Tonight our friends across the aisle have a chance to make it bipartisan in the House. Our friends say that we are trying to destroy Medicare; but if we are trying to destroy Medicare, why is the American Association of Retired People supporting this proposal? Why is the AARP in favor of this bill? You have heard some very harsh rhetoric from my friends across the aisle describing their abandonment by the AARP. My friends, the AARP has not abandoned you. You have abandoned seniors. AARP has chosen to be with seniors, and they have chosen to be with us.

Fact: current Medicare cannot sustain itself financially. Question: Why in the world would we then be adding a $400 billion expansion of benefits under Medicare? Answer: today's medicine demands that we do so. Yesterday's medicine was hospitals and doctors. Hospitals and doctors still play a role, but prescription drugs play a central role. We simply would not be doing justice to our seniors if we did not try to add prescription drugs to Medicare.

But I also called this bill up for taxpayers, because if we add prescription drugs to Medicare, we need to be able to tell our taxpayers that we are also changing the funding structure of Medicare as well.

It cannot sustain itself, and we are adding an enormous new benefit. It would be irresponsible of us to simply think all we need to do is add prescription drugs. What we need to do is add prescription drugs, modernize Medicare, and make sure that those people who pay taxes today in the hopes of having a program tomorrow will be able to have one.

This bill protects low-income seniors. No one wants to place a financial burden on those unable to pay. But, Mr. Speaker, it is overdue to ask those who are financially well off enough to share.

We are hearing things from our friends across the aisle about how horrendous the suggested financial burdens are. For example, in today's voluntary, optional Part B Medicare, the premium is 75 cents on the dollar paid for by the taxpayers, 25 cents on the dollar paid for by the beneficiaries. This legislation is so radical, so extreme, that what it does is it asks people who are making $100,000 a year in retirement to pay 50 cents on the dollar and have the taxpayers pay 50 cents on the dollar. Ironically, that was the financial split when Part B Medicare began. All we are asking is for those who have the wherewithal to help share the financial burden. And where? There is an opportunity to provide a modest copay, one of the most significant factors in inhibiting overutilization. We ask those who are going to have a prescription drug, $2 on a generic prescription, $5 on a brand name. It will have a significant impact on utilization. It will also show that we understand, we need to be sensitive to taxpayers. Today they foot the bill, but tomorrow they also want a program. This bill is really all about a fair deal. Modernize Medicare with prescription drugs but put Medicare back on a sound financial basis as well.

We are going to hear a lot about what we are going to do for up to 40 million seniors in this legislation. Please understand with the modest structural changes we are asking for, there are going to be 140 million taxpayers who are going to be pleased as well.

This program cannot sustain itself. Add a new benefit and modernize the program. Medicare is not a Democrat program; they do not own it. Medicare is not a Republican program; we do not own it. It is a program that is in need of modernization, prescription drugs and better financing. The American people's Medicare, the seniors who receive the benefits, and the taxpayers who foot the bill deserve H.R. 1.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairperson of the Health Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I ask unanimous consent that she control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, do we have the motion to recommit in written form?

Mr. Speaker, are we allowed to have the motion?

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. DeLay

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 18 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Friday, November 21, 2003, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I submit two letters for the record with respect to S. 1824, legislation to reauthorize the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). These letters are a letter that I wrote to Dr. Peter S. Watson, President and CEO of OPIC, and the letter that I received from Dr. Watson in response clarifying OPIC's statutory obligations and existing practices with respect to issues regarding worker rights.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, November 18, 2003.

Hon. Peter S. Watson,

President and Chief Executive Officer, Overseas Private

Investment Corporation, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Watson: The House of Representatives may soon

consider H.R. 3145, legislation to reauthorize the operations

of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) through

September 30, 2007. It is my understanding that nothing in

this reauthorization would alter in any way OPIC's statutory

obligations or existing practices with respect to issues

regarding worker rights. I request that you provide the

Committee, in writing, with confirmation of this

understanding and a complete summary of any and all of OPIC's

existing statutory obligations and practices with regards to

worker rights.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman and I want to thank the Senate. Knowing the difficulty of putting a package together and being a part of it, I am very pleased that we are here on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, despite protestations to the contrary, this country has remained dependent on foreign energy sources, leaving our Nation vulnerable to rogue nations. Mr. Speaker, Americans have faced price spikes at the gas pump and high monthly energy bills. High energy costs have closed U.S. plants and factories and laid off U.S. workers. And as recently as last summer, U.S. cities experienced blackouts resulting from problems with the energy grid. Lacking a comprehensive energy plan has left the United States susceptible to energy shortcomings and downfalls.

However, we have the opportunity today to reverse this course. Congress is poised, and I believe we are poised, to send legislation to the President that will put a balanced comprehensive energy plan in front of America's long-suffering consumers. The tax incentives included in this agreement are the most sweeping changes in energy policy in over a decade.

The plan before us today encourages the use of nontraditional energy sources, wind, geothermal, solar, and other renewable sources. This diversification will foster self-reliance and lessen dependence on foreign energy supplies. We devoted nearly 40 percent of the resources in this tax package to that effort. Additionally, today's agreement promotes the use of traditional energy sources like our abundant coal supplies but focusing them in cleaner forms.

To protect our country from experiencing further blackouts, we have devoted nearly one-fifth of the tax incentives to bettering the distribution of the United States electric and gas distribution and transmission systems.

The production incentives in this agreement will encourage the development and use of alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.

Working with the Senate, we have compiled a package that promotes conservation, better reliability, and more production. This comprehensive agreement combines the best elements of the House and the best elements of the Senate bill, and it deserves and, I believe, will receive strong support. My compliments to the chairman.