Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 299, I call up 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, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

As we begin the 3 hours of debate on the primary bill and an additional hour on the substitute, I do want to indicate that this day, in my opinion, has been too long in coming.

I want to thank President Bush for his position during the campaign that Medicare needed to be modernized and we were overdue for putting prescription drugs in Medicare.

I believe he has continued to be firm in his resolve that both the House, and the Senate now for the first time, pass legislation so that we can conference a common bill and send it to him for his signature.

I also want to thank the Speaker of the House. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) was involved in these discussions prior to our becoming the majority and, of course, prior to his becoming Speaker. If you examine H.R. 1, you will find that the Speaker has been willing to be the lead author. I think it is entirely proper and appropriate that the Speaker of the House lead the House through the most fundamental and important change in Medicare since its inception.

I especially want to thank my colleague and friend and chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). In this institution, where jurisdictions are guarded with a pretty vicious willingness to have turf wars whenever necessary to hang on to your jurisdiction, the working relationship with the shared jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means has been a very pleasant experience, and the working relationship between the staff, of which I will have more to say a little bit later, could not have been better.

And, frankly, the product we have before us, although the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) joined me in the initial sponsorship of legislation, we could not have gotten it through both committees and back together again in the Committee on Rules to present to you here today as H.R. 1 without complete and open and very comradely behavior between the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and this committee, and I thank him for that.

I especially thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means. The members of that committee have been very, very helpful in holding the hearings and continuing to shape this legislation. This bill, as it rightly should be, is the best piece of legislation that we have offered this House, notwithstanding the fact that twice previously we have passed Medicare modernization with prescription drugs.

And let me say that I do want to single out two members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), who also happens to be the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), who offered together a bipartisan amendment which was very significant in helping us redress the failure to provide those Americans especially in middle America but in principally rural areas with a fair and equitable Medicare program.

I want to thank, and I do not want to go through every staff member, but I do want to thank the chief of our Subcommittee on Health staff John McManus for the enormous number of hours he and the staff have put in. You cannot produce as complex and difficult a piece of legislation as you have in front of you without the dedicated staff. And I mean not just on the committees, but the Congressional Budget Office, and I will mention from Leg Counsel Ed Grossman, who is an institutional glue. He is the one who spends the hours to make sure that the language makes sense in the legislative language that we have before us. He is absolutely indispensable to the functioning of this institution, and I want to personally thank him once again for the hours of commitment that he has put in to produce this piece of legislation.

There are organizations and associations who have very strong feelings about the direction of Medicare and the changes that might be made, and I want to thank all of them for their openness and willingness to present comments upon which we reacted. Most recently, I think one of the more prominent organizations, formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons, now AARP, and I am indebted to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for circulating the letter from AARP, because I think it is very instructive. It provides us with an example of how these organizations point with pride and view with alarm some of the changes that are being made.

For example, the opening paragraph in the letter addressed to me says, and I quote, ``AARP is encouraged by the advancement in the House of legislation to add prescription drug coverage to Medicare. Relief from the high cost of drugs is long overdue. Our members and all older Americans and their families expect and need legislation this year. We appreciate your efforts and leadership toward this end.''

But they go on to say in the letter, in terms of a number of additional points, that they think certain areas need to be strengthened and perhaps some changes need to be made. For example, under low-income protections, they say, ``We are encouraged by the bill's inclusion of all Medicare beneficiaries, including dual eligibles.'' We spend $43 billion over the next decade picking up these low-income seniors. We believe they should be classified as seniors first in the Federal Medicare program and not low-income first, as they currently are today.

But they go on to say that they are concerned because eligibility is limited by a restrictive assets test. And we took that letter to heart and we have examined that provision, notwithstanding the fact that the original bill doubled the assets provision under the SSI, Social Security provisions for low-income eligibility. The bill had doubled it. We examined it, we determined that perhaps we should go that extra mile. Under the bill before you today we have tripled it. We have tripled the SSI standards in terms of low-income protections. These are the kinds of exchanges that improved this legislation as we move forward.

And let me say lastly that I am very pleased that the Senate, I believe, will pass legislation and join the House finally in conference to craft a piece of legislation that will become law. Mr. Speaker, I understand the rules of the House in terms of the very narrow line we must tread, and I am not allowed to mention a Senator, but just let me say that a senior Senator, who has been a leader in health care debate for a number of years, frankly needs to be commended, because without his courageous step forward I do not believe the Senate would have moved as quickly or as rapidly as they have to a conclusion on their legislation.

I have enjoyed my conversations that I have had with him over the years, obviously more frequently as I have moved into a position to help effect adding prescription drugs to Medicare. Although we have profound differences in terms of our view oftentimes of the role of the Federal Government and assistance, we have never ever left the focus of policy, and although we may differ, the differences have always been over policy.

Never, ever has he mentioned Jim Jones, Kool-aid, mass suicide. Never, ever in our discussions has he mentioned the Holocaust. Never, ever has he mentioned blacks or slavery. He has always carried on the discussion on the basis of substance and the differences that we have on substance and the fact that in this society, in this civil society, the debate ought to be over choices of a legislative nature rather than trying to create an atmosphere of fear. For that I am grateful for his friendship and the fact that we will meet in conference and, finally, seniors, who are the last bastion of paying the price of retail for drugs, that will no longer be the case. And for that, all of us will be grateful. Policy will have triumphed over politics.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, Members will find periodically during this 3-hour debate that we will take a very short segment of time to make sure that when an outlandish, outrageous, untrue statement has been made, we will correct the record immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health for the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade, a long time member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

This is the first mention of the quote that I made, and it is not surprising that the quote is certainly truncated. Perhaps a journalism spot on The New York Times might be available to some of my colleagues given their ability to take reality and distort it. Here is my quote:

``Some of our friends on the other side of the aisle are saying that if this bill becomes law, it will be the end of Medicare as we know it. Our answer to that is, We certainly hope so. Why should seniors be the last group that pays retail prices for drugs?'' We have not heard that from the other side.

``Old-fashioned Medicare isn't very good. Why should the insurance for seniors be called MediGap? I think that indicates just how good the insurance is.'' We have not heard that from the other side.

But what I did say was, you will hear scare tactics. But seniors with extremely high drug costs when this becomes law will save more than 60 percent of their current costs if they spend $10,000 a year on prescription drugs today. That is real change. That is real progress, making Medicare a real day-to-day benefit. I would say to my colleagues, if you really think that current Medicare should not end, why in the world did you put up such a fit to have a substitute so that if we accept your bill, current Medicare as we know it will end as well? Half quotes are not going to get it done. Try the full quote, because if you do, you will vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach) to enter into a colloquy.

I will tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that we have a generous amount, and we believe it will be appropriate; but certainly as we get to conference, our intent is to provide a seamless transition for beneficiaries and States and that will be done.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If it has been very, very good, why did the Democrats fight for a substitute which will change the structure significantly?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) to point out once again an absolutely outrageous statement that cannot go unchallenged.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

You know, it just kind of makes you wonder what the Democrats did for 30 years when they were the majority, because, you know, when Republicans became the majority in 1995, there was literally no prevention and wellness in Medicare. We are the ones that are supposed to be destroying Medicare? We are the ones that added diabetes. We are the ones that added osteoporosis. We are the ones that added prostate and colorectal screening. We are the ones that added the mammography. In fact, in this bill that they continue to speak against, we provide for the first time every new beneficiary should have a physical.

I want to underscore that. Every new beneficiary should have a physical. In addition to that, we believe that cholesterol screening has now been advanced, and it should be provided as well.

I find it amazing that they go back to the same old scare statements.

Read the bill. It is an enhanced and an improved Medicare. What in the world were you doing for 30 years? The fact of the matter is you did not have a competent challenge.

What we have done is provide real change, and they are afraid those old frayed bumper stickers will not work anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, well, I guess, if all of the innovations are going to fail, what will be left is the current Medicare. I find it interesting that one of the reasons the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), my friend, is going to vote against the bill is because there is no government ultimate negotiation of the price.

Let me tell my colleagues a story, and I believe before I give my colleagues the punch line, they will know the story. We have government negotiation of price. And as is typically the case, currently, in law, in the Medicaid program, it is called ``best price.'' That is where government determines how much the drug is going to cost. It is going to be the best price.

When we looked at ways to change Medicare, we looked at the ``best price'' concept. Guess what? We sat down with the Congressional Budget Office and we said, what would happen if we did not use best price? They sat down and calculated and they said, you know, if you actually had competition for the drugs, instead of putting in the government phony floor of ``best price,'' you could save $18 billion. Do my colleagues know why we do not have government negotiating the price? It would cost us tens of billions of dollars over a real negotiation on drugs. Yet, here we are, hearing the same old same old: I am going to vote ``no'' because we do not have government dictating the price. That is what has gotten us into the problem in the first place.

Mr. Speaker, it is my real pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will tell my friend from Georgia, we do not intend to turn our backs on seniors. Indeed, we intend to reach out our hand. If someone wants to stay in yesterday's Medicare, they can tomorrow. We want to make sure of that, because in 1965 and yesterday, there were no drugs, there was no preventive care, there was no disease management, that by passage of this legislation, tomorrow there will be.

But Mr. Speaker, as we have carried on this debate about improving Medicare, and I know that to my friends on the other side of the aisle $400 billion does not look like much to them. I understand they are going to offer a substitute that proposes spending $1 trillion, rather than the $400 billion.

But at some point in this debate, we ought to realize that we are in the middle of the greatest intergenerational transfer of wealth in the history of the world. Because while we strive to provide a decent and appropriate health program for seniors, we all know someone else is going to be paying for it. And so we really ought to focus on what we are trying to do to make sure that the young people who are going to be carrying this bill understand that while we are providing additional benefits to seniors, we want to make sure that the program stays within the reasonable bounds of the $400 billion that we are proposing to add to Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, to insist on focusing on that, it is my real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record an exchange of letters between myself as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

I see the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) had two quotes connected with a description of myself, rather than the continuation of the real quote, and I can understand why he would fabricate the quote in that way. Because what I said was, why should seniors be the last group that pays retail prices for drugs? That really did not fit the intention of the gentleman's thrust, but that is simply the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on Budget, but I proudly say also a member of Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

If the gentlewoman would go to page 260, line 19, from the legislation before us now, I quote, ``Nothing in this part or the amendments made by this part shall be construed as changing the entitlement to defined benefits under part A and B of title XVIII of the Social Security Act.''

Mr. Speaker, I have one speaker to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remaining time to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), to close for our side, to continue to talk about the bill that for the first time in the history of Medicare provides low-income help, and she is the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I do want to announce that today is the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. Nussle) birthday as well.

As my colleagues know, I have a reputation for reading legislation. I apologize. As I began reading the motion to recommit, as I got to page 3, the comment of the gentleman from Vermont ringing in my ears, about how they are really concerned about cost containment.

It turns out subtitle D has been scratched from the bill, my colleagues might like to know. It contains section 131, additional requirements for annual financial report and oversight on the Medicare program. Section 132, trustee report on Medicare's unfunded obligations. That has been scratched from the bill.

And I continued to try to go through; but, actually, you only need the front page. My colleagues heard them say over and over again: ``promptly.'' We know by now: ``forthwith,'' ``it works.'' ``It comes back, we can vote on it.''

I say: promptly, it does not mean a thing.

Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

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

Offered By: Mr. Thomas

Amendment No. 1: Page 35, line 18, strike ``2007'' and

insert ``2005''.

Page 39, strike line 14 and all that follows through line

11 on page 40 (all of section 309 of the bill) and insert the

following new section:

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 270, I move to take from the Speaker's table the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax relief and simplification, and for other purposes, insist on the House amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I have requested the hour.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 1 hour time I have, I would indicate to my colleagues that based upon the very lively debate that occurred on the rule, I believe the positions have been completely illuminated, and that when I ask for the previous question, the minority has the right to move the motion to instruct.

Having been given the motion to instruct, I would tell my friends that I can live up to almost all of these provisions and intend to do so, and, therefore, any time that this House takes in debating the motion to instruct will be the time that the minority has on the motion to instruct, because the majority intends to move the previous question and indicates that it does not intend to use any of the time on the motion to instruct, and, therefore, the time at which the House adjourns today will be entirely in the hands of the minority.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, not withstanding the language of the motion to instruct, which says ``I move that,'' and three of the four provisions that say ``The House conferees shall be instructed to,'' is the gentleman from California correct in understanding that the motion to instruct does not in any way bind or dictate to the conferees?

Mr. Speaker, if in fact the motion to instruct is not binding, I would tell my friends we are ready to accept this motion. I will reserve my time, and whenever you are ready to move the question for a vote, since it is not binding, we are ready to go.

Mr. Speaker, I am on my time. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts now wish to deny me the time that is mine?

I certainly do.

As I was saying, since this motion to instruct is not in any way binding on the conferees, the gentleman from California awaits the awarding of the motion to instruct, and it can either be now and we can vote on it, or you can exhaust your time and we can vote on it. The effect is the same.

Therefore, I reserve the balance of my time until they exhaust theirs or move for a vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I told the gentleman from the initial introduction, and I am pleased to respond on his time, that three of the four seem to be somewhat reasonable; and my assumption is that as we go to conference, since it is the Senate that has been significantly concerned about the question of offsets, under the budget which was agreed upon by the House and the Senate, there is ample provision for us to move tax bills that are not required to be offset.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, under the budget agreement, the House is entitled to move tax bills that are not offset or are required to modify the deficit. If the Senate brings, if the Senate brings offsets to the conference to cover the House bill, I am more than willing to look at them.

The answer is, if the Senate brings offsets, I will be happy to look at them.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I asked of the Speaker a parliamentary inquiry which said this is not binding, yet the gentleman continues to pursue a yes or no as to whether or not an unbinding statement will bind me. The answer is, and it will be, if the Senate brings offsets, we will look at them.

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

The gentleman from California said, ``This really has nothing to do with working families.''

I will tell the gentleman, it has everything to do with working families. The provision that was offered and accepted on the Senate side, which was included in the Senate bill, was not supported by the authors of that amendment. This measure was never presented to, asked for, or included in the Senate provisions. We are now at a position of examining the Senate's behavior.

The movement for the refundable tax credit from 10 percent to 15 percent is in underlying law. It will occur January 1, 2005. The entire debate is over

whether or not it ought to be accelerated. But what also ends on January 1, 2005 is the $1,000 child credit, because the Senate decided it was more important to create the opportunity so that between now and the elections of 2004, someone can show their compassion for working families. The $57 billion of this proposal says, after the election, will you show your compassion for working families in the year 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, which just happens to correspond to the 6-year term of the Senate.

We thought it might be appropriate if there is compassion between now and November that the people are going to vote. No compassion will be there for the next 6 years as well. I believe one move was politics, the other is policy.

Let us talk about working families. In New York City, a fireman who responded on 9/11 and his wife, a teacher, make about $150,000 together. The Senate in its wisdom said we ought to raise the child credit from $110,000 to $150,000. And if you read the fine print of the Senate proposal, they are going to do that for 1 year, in 2010. Is that politics or policy? The $21 billion of this measure says if it is good enough for the $150,000-a-year joint working family in 2010, it is good enough for the working family today, next year, and every year until 2010.

Do you want politics or do you want policy? Politics is cheap. Policy costs money. We are asking you to put your dollars where your mouth is.

July 9, 2002, as a matter of urgency we sent to the Senate a military tax fairness bill that would provide appropriate changes in the laws for our men and women in uniform. Underscore that: July 9, 2002.

It still languishes over in the Senate. If they really cared about the men and women in uniform, we would have seen that bill-signing ceremony already. We are including that provision in this bill and asking the Senate once again to put policy where their mouth is. If the Senate has provisions in their measure that they want to bring to conference that we did not include, we invite them. But we invited them to a conference that does policy and not politics.

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

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

When I first came to this Congress, I was assigned to the Committee on Agriculture. It makes all kinds of sense. The district I represent in California produces about $4 billion value-added from agriculture. I have been dealing with this issue for more than a quarter of a century.

What we just heard was a total fabrication of reality. We have heard about the green revolution, the attempt to feed more people in the world. In the old days, they used to take a plant, put a slit in it, and graft another portion of the plant onto it. That was science in those days.

There is fundamentally no difference to what we now call biotechnology than understanding the way the world works, and through science improving our ability to produce food to feed people. Everything else is politics. Somehow, large corporations get involved, the desire to sell something to Africa that Africa does not want.

I was in Africa 3 months ago. They pleaded with us to help them solve their problem. The problem is the Luddites in the world today who do not want to recognize science. Anybody who assists the Europeans in their unscientific opposition to wanting to do better with the amount we have is simply attempting to wreak havoc.

Vote for science. Vote yes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.J. Res. 4, which would amend the United States Constitution to restore to Congress the power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Amending the United States Constitution is not something that should be undertaken in a cavalier manner. The gravity with which such changes in the document that provides the structure for our system of governance should be taken is reflected by the amendment process devised by the Founding Fathers. Article V of the Constitution provides that amendments can be proposed by two-thirds of both Houses or through a convention called by two-thirds of the states. Additionally, the Article provides that these proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three- fourths of the states.

So, the question before us today is whether we believe that we should restore to Congress the power to protect the flag if Congress so chooses. As I have stated previously, we are considering this question because the United State Supreme Court has taken what the Bill of Rights says is protected speech, and has extrapolated it to encompass behavior that the Bill of Rights does not specifically mention, the burning or otherwise desecration of the United States flag. When the Supreme Court did this, it handcuffed Congress in order to provide Constitutional protection to behavior that many Americans find despicable. Notwithstanding those assertions that H.J. Res. 4 itself would ban the desecration of our flag, H.J. Res. 4 would instead unlock the handcuffs that the Supreme Court slapped on Congress.

While the question of protecting our Nation's flag from desecration is not before us today, I do recognize that man of my constituents do not view the flag as merely a compilation of red, white, and blue cloth; rather, they see that cloth as the enduring emblem of freedom and America. I also recognize that to preserve both freedom and America, many American men and women, including some of my constituents in the recent Middle East conflicts, have willingly sacrificed their lives and limbs and have endured hardships that few of us can comprehend. And, I know that the desecration of our flag is a direct affront to these brave men and women and their sacred sacrifices. Thus, I now take my Constitutional prerogative to ensure that Congress has the ability to enact, or not to enact, legislation as Congress sees fit to protect our Nation's flag from intentional desecration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas, and I did not know whether he was going to depart the Chamber, having yielded his time, but if he is not, I listened carefully to what the gentleman said. We did come together, and I have read this motion to instruct.

As the gentleman knows, we have to bring the House and Senate together, since two pieces of legislation have passed and they are different in each House. This motion to instruct asks, and we all know that motions to instruct are not binding, but they do focus on what is important to people, the motion asks that we include in the conference report the fiscal relief provided to the States by section 371 of the Senate amendment. That amounts to $20 billion in two different forms, $10 billion to be distributed through the Medicaid structure and $10 billion through a pro rata formulation with minimums to smaller States and smaller territories.

Whenever we have to reconcile the differences between the two bodies, we oftentimes have to listen very carefully to whether or not what one or the other side is asking for is important to them. Having talked to a number of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican, on the other side of the Capitol, I believe this provision is important to them. I believe it is important to them to the level that, if it is not included, they would seriously consider the way in which they would be required to vote on a conference report that was placed in front of them without this provision.

So I can tell the gentleman that I have every intention of including section 371, as we can mutually agree to internal amendments to that section in the conference report.

The second item in the motion to instruct begins with the language ``to the maximum extent possible,'' which I believe is a very wise and even sage observation that what we are going to do is, as humans, attempt to deal with the situation as best as we are humanly capable of dealing with it, to the maximum extent possible.

I have no problem with any of the language following ``to the maximum extent possible'', although I did hear the gentleman read that section and not read that portion of the section, as though it was a dictate that certain things must follow; but in fact it is not, the way it is written. It is a desire to the maximum extent possible to do certain things. When I read it that way, I have no objection to what the gentleman is saying in the second section, either, when I read it the way it is written.

I would tell the gentleman, his reference to the time we came and the decisions that we have made, at the time we came the gentleman and his party were in the majority. Currently, the gentleman from California and his party is in the majority.

One of the differences between the time the gentleman was in the majority and the time we were in the majority is that we have actually paid down on the national debt more than half a trillion dollars since we have become the majority. So I think not only in word but in deed we agree with the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I did not say what has happened to our national debt. I said ``paid down on the national debt,'' money that went to the reduction of the national debt. That was my statement.

Now, let me go on and talk about his concerns and my concerns about deficits, because when we have a deficit and when we add to a deficit, $1 added to the deficit in one particular way I believe is substantively different than $1 added to the national debt and deficit in a different way.

For example, when we have fought past wars, especially significant societal and in fact world wars, when we have to build that battleship, build that carrier, build that bomber, build that tank, we clearly spent money we did not have. That is a dollar spent in deficit, but it was spent as an investment to ensure our way of life. No one would argue that that was not a very high calling for the deficit dollar.

In the decades following World War II, and especially in the 1960s and in the 1970s and to a certain extent through the 1980s, it became a habit when the revenue did not equal the desired spending of the Federal Government that the Congress would spend $1 it didn't have, a deficit dollar, spent to sustain programs or to create new programs which would then in the future demand more deficit dollars to keep them going, unless there was a decision to raise taxes and bring in the revenue that would be required to cover the new and growing costs of the Federal Government.

What happened was that year after year after year deficit dollars were spent. What for? To sustain spending programs. That became known as the structural deficit, that they just continued a deficit that was built in because it was easier, more convenient, less painful than asking the American people to contribute more to cover the programs they wanted to create.

I do not believe anyone should support for any length of time a structural deficit. That is just wrong. I oppose and I believe the gentleman from Texas opposes structural deficits. That is one kind of a deficit dollar.

The other kind of a deficit dollar I have talked about in the context of war, but we can also talk about a deficit dollar in the context of peace.

Mr. Speaker, because the deficit dollar in war was an investment in national security, you can spend a deficit dollar in peace as an investment in national strength, i.e. make sure the economy is strong, create jobs; and when you have jobs, people are being paid, more revenue comes into the Federal Government, and you can see that deficit dollar is not a structural deficit. It is spent in a way to grow the economy to be able to cover the expenses the Federal Government incurs. That is not a structural deficit. That is an investment deficit dollar.

While there is no question we wish there were no deficit, recent history would clearly indicate what has gone on which certainly has contributed to the problems we have; not just external, internal as well; decisions that people made about investments and the ability to convince people that certain things were real when perhaps they were not, where you create investment opportunities that fail.

One of the great things about this country is you can succeed; but in creating a structure that allows one to succeed, it is also necessary that we have a business structure where we allow people to fail. One of the fundamental differences between the United States and Europe in creating jobs is that we understand creative destruction because we can then rebuild. We can start anew. If we hang onto what we have got, if we do not risk, we cannot gain.

What happened was in many of the investments they were not placed wisely. I do not think that the government should deal with that, but nevertheless it had an impact on the economy. We can go over a number of other factors that have placed us where we are today.

The gentleman's emphasis in the motion to instruct is should we spend deficit dollars not for structural deficits, and that is why we are opposed to significant increases in spending, if we do not have the money, but should we spend a deficit dollar investing in the economy so it can grow. There is a legitimate difference of agreement as to whether, and how we do, it is appropriate or not. I have no problem dealing with that. That is the structure we have here and the debate that will take place.

So the way the gentleman has worded his motion to instruct in which I think to be able to bring back a conference report the first one needs to be included in ways that make it more amenable to more people, and the way the gentleman words his second provision to the maximum extent possible, the gentleman from California would accept the motion to instruct. I have no problem with it based upon our clear difference notwithstanding about the way we spend deficit dollars, because to the maximum extent possible, we will not because it does not say you will not. One does not create a procrustean bed where if you do not fit cramping you in that you are in countervention to your position, no.

Mr. Speaker, I accept what I consider to be a reasonable proposal to the maximum extent possible. I would indicate to the gentleman and if he has now transferred his time to the gentleman from New York, if the gentleman is willing to yield back the balance of his time, I am more than willing to yield back the balance of my time since we are in agreement.

If the gentleman, therefore, and I would recognize the gentleman from New York, is willing to yield back the balance of his time, I will yield back the balance of my time; we will agree to the motion to instruct so we can get on to the conference.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I am yielding to the gentleman on my time to respond to my question. Is the gentleman willing to yield back the balance of his time?

Mr. Speaker, then I will say to Members, everything that is being said after the refusal to accept the offer to yield back so we can go to conference is nothing more than politically motivated. If they were sincere in this motion to instruct, which we are willing to accept, we would be on to the conference. Instead, we are going to hear a whole series of discussions which obviously can be made when the conference report is brought back.

I see on the other side of the aisle the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority whip, who has taken the mike more than once asking, What has happened to the comity in this body? Why are we not working together? We should show decent respect for either side. All I am saying is, here is the offer: let us yield back, let us accept the motion to instruct and go to conference. The answer is, no. Clearly the intentions, the motivations, the language probably is here for an entirely different reason; and actually, I am saddened a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, you have offered, we have accepted.

point of order

Mr. Speaker, apparently my friends on the other side of the aisle are interested in employing parliamentary maneuvers so I am not able to continue to make a very basic point. The basic point is this: if we had yielded back our time, it would have been a sincere offer and a sincere acceptance.

Since they are not willing to yield back, everybody understands what this is all about.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I will reach my hand out once again; we are willing to accept it. You slapped it away once. I hope the gentleman does not slap it away a second time because as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has reminded us time and time again, there is not enough comity in this House, that we ought not treat each other the way we have been treated. I thought I would take the initiative.

I find it interesting when the request is made repeatedly on this side, apparently it is just a request. When I accept that offer and reach my hand back, it is denied. So then you wonder why the request was made in the first place, or perhaps it was just a request that they hoped would remain out there, floating ephemeral.

What I have done is I have put my hand out and said let us get to conference. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) says he does not know where the conference is or where it is going to meet. I tell the gentleman from New York, I do not know either. Why, as the gentleman well knows, the Senate is organizing this conference. It is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance who will be the chairman of the conference. They will organize it, and they will structure it.

If we can get this motion to instruct behind it, I would have preferred yielding back the balance of my time, but obviously statements need to be made, but then maybe we will find out where it is; and he and I can go together to where it is that the chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance will decide where and when it should meet.

So if the gentleman is concerned he does not know, once again, on a totally equal basis, I do not know either. We will try to pursue that together. Perhaps that is one thing we can do together today because clearly you are not willing to accept the gesture of moving on so we can actually do it by accepting our offer on the motion to instruct.

I guess it just concerns me a little bit because from now on when I sit on the floor and listen to the platitudes about how we ought to work together, we will have a little better understanding of the context in which those statements are made. We understand it is political rhetoric, just as everything that is going to be said from now on is political rhetoric.

I just wanted you to know that in all sincerity, to live up to what you said, I wanted to give you a chance. You offered. We are willing to accept. You are not willing to accept our offer to accept. That really is sad.

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

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

The gentleman from Maryland called my offer to yield back the balance of the time and accept the motion to instruct a sham offer. All you have got to do is call me on it to see if it is a sham or not. You yield back your time; I will yield back my time. That was rejected.

The next test will be since we have already said we would accept the motion to instruct is when we finish debate, all time has expired and the question will be on the motion. We do not intend to call a rollcall vote. There would be no need to call a rollcall vote if in fact you have offered and we have accepted. It would be a sham to call a rollcall vote. We do not intend to call a rollcall vote. If you on the other side of the aisle call a rollcall vote after you have offered and we have accepted, then it is pretty obvious where you are going. Words piled upon words cannot bury this simple fact: I offered; you refused.

Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: ``It might have been.''

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

Might I ask the Speaker the remaining division of time?

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

The gentleman from California indicated that they were quite disappointed that their substitute was not made in order. What the gentleman full well knows is that the substitute did not conform to the rules. That they could not construct, or chose not to construct a substitute that did not violate the rules, that was outside the rules. And what they wanted was to ignore the rules.

What the majority did was construct a program that fit the rules. I understand, based upon the way you behaved when you were the majority, that you do not like the constraining aspect of rules. We believe that you ought to play the game according to the rules, and you do not think rules should apply to you. We understand that. But for you to argue that your motion should be made in order in which we had to follow the rules of the House and you did not is to say, let's have a game of baseball. You get nine in the field, we get 28. You get three outs, we get 12.

I certainly understand based upon the way you performed when you were in the majority, you do not get it. Why can we not have 28 in the field? Why can we not have 12 outs? Why can we not spend more than we raise year after year after year when you had the ability not to? But now somehow the Holy Grail is to not spend more than you take in, and we would sip from that cup every day if we did not face the problems we face now. Just as we did in wartime when we spent dollars we did not have to try to save our country, we are trying to do the same thing right now.

I understand your desire to score political points. But the argument that somehow we do not want people to know what we are attempting to do, as soon as we can get to conference, is absolutely the most amazing argument I have ever heard. You know why? Because once you understand what we are doing, it completely blows up your rhetoric. Those old yellowed sheets of class warfare give to the rich are actually going to have to be rewritten. Or maybe you just ignore, as you have done a number of times, reality.

What we are attempting to place before this body is a change in the Tax Code that does not give no taxation of dividends or capital gains to the most rich. Warren Buffett does not get zero. Bill Gates does not get zero. We are attempting, and the longer we stand here the longer it is going to take us to present it to you, to create a change in the Tax Code that gives zero to who? No tax on dividends or capital gains to those who pay the lowest amounts of taxes. In the 10 and the 15 percent bracket, zero. Their modest investment

in the engine that drives our economy, the private sector, should not be subjected to the Federal Government taking money out of that small pot. That is what we want to put in front of you. I think you are a little worried about it because your old syllabus will not work. We do not want to provide zero tax to the richest in America. We want to provide zero tax in the investment of the engine of this economy to those on the bottom and the second to the bottom rung of the ladder, so that they can amass wealth, they can understand what it means to be a capitalist, they can share in the resources of this country; and I believe your real fear is that eventually they will understand what it means to think and be a Republican.

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

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

I find it ironic that the yellowed notes made their way down into the well in terms of, need I say, class warfare, in terms of cuts for the richest people in America and the poor working people do not get a break. If someone would actually examine what it is we propose to do, it is to remove the dividend and the capital gain tax on working Americans, on those in the 10 and the 15 percent bracket, that we retain taxes on the richest Americans, remove them from those in the lowest brackets.

I know it does not fit their yellowed notes, but that is what we propose to do. And I know change is difficult.

I especially know change is difficult when the minority leader takes the well and begins to talk about how fair they were when they were in the majority, but never mind that. And if the Members will read in the Congressional Record, it trails off into a failure to present specifics about how reasonable and fair they were. In fact, she said the rules of the House have been rigged against them. I find it ironic because all we say is follow the rules.

But since the subject was brought up, let us visit a little recent history. When they were in the majority, there was not even a motion to recommit guaranteed to the minority. The present rules of the House under this majority are the most liberal rules ever extended to a minority in the history of the House of Representatives. They just apparently do not remember or do not want to remember. Their rules were far more restrictive toward the minorities than the current rules. Guarantees in today's rules; not guaranteed under their rules.

So everything we hear is rhetoric. Some of it comes close to being accurate.

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

Mr. Speaker how much time remains?

The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has more time than the gentleman from California?

I find that astounding. With all the speakers and all the time that was consumed, he still has more time?

Mr. Speaker, where might I find that Jericho clock somebody apparently has in keeping time?

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

I think I finally get it. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) indicated that some of these provisions are permanent. I actually thought that since it is under the process called reconciliation, governed by the rules of the Senate, by the way, not the House, that anything that is done under the reconciliation process by definition cannot be permanent. In fact, on the one hand they criticize a number of provisions that expire.

Frankly, when we are trying to stimulate the economy and we offer a reduction on depreciable assets, what we want them to do is make a decision to buy that truck, to buy that computer as soon as possible. That helps stimulate the economy. That helps create jobs. If we leave the offer to reduce the cost on depreciation for the entire decade, a decision can be made anytime during the decade.

The whole concept of a stimulus is to get decisions that will be made sometime in the decade near the current time. Those are supposed to expire.

But for the gentleman to say that some of these provisions are permanent tells me there is an underlying fear on the other side of the aisle that, notwithstanding the statutes will expire, they will not be in the majority when they expire.

I will not yield at this time. I do not have a Jericho clock like some folks have, and my time actually gets ticked off.

The real fear in terms of their arguments, notwithstanding the yellowed notes that they use about the class warfare, which simply is not true, based upon the facts in the tax bill, is that when those provisions do expire, as they must under the temporary provisions of reconciliation, the American people might have the audacity to continue to maintain a Republican majority, because they like what we are doing; and when it comes time to decide whether they get extended or not, they might actually get extended.

Now I get it. You are in the minority, and your fear is if this becomes law, based upon what we do and the positive reaction of the American public, your fear is you will remain in the minority. I will trust to the wisdom of the American public. They have done pretty well in recent years.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are going to be talking about the greatest threats to our children, we ought to at least get it accurate. The greatest threat to our children is our failure to acknowledge that we are currently engaged in the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world. They are called the Medicare and the Social Security programs. The failure to modernize and to reform, given the continued growth of those programs in the Federal budget, will choke out every other aspect of the Federal budget. The threat that they will go bankrupt without our addressing them is the greatest threat to our children, denying them the opportunity tomorrow what seniors have today.

So if we are going to talk about threats, let us talk about the failure, the absolute refusal to give up a political bumper sticker, you have all seen it: ``Save Social Security, Vote Democratic.'' If you do not address change, it is going bankrupt. It is not a partisan issue.

Just like the yellowed papers on ``we are favoring the rich and hurting the poor on the tax issue,'' which is absolutely false, your failure to address this fundamental reform is the greatest threat to our children. And probably the greatest insult to Americans is to argue that while you refuse to seriously engage in modernization and reform, you are doing it to save the system. It is about as old and yellowed as all your other arguments.

The test will be the choice made by the American people. They have made it recently; and I believe we will be able, despite the rhetoric that you offer, to make the changes that the American people agree on and move this country forward.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to compliment the gentlemen from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). He has written a motion to recommit that is real.

We have seen many, many of these motions to recommit, and I am forced to point out the language that prefaces the specifics is not really genuine because they use the word ``promptly'' which kills the bill; and therefore, anything that they say they want simply is not so. And I rise to compliment him because in my usual examining of motions to recommit, he has got ``forthwith.'' That is real. That means if we decide to do this, it comes back immediately and the bill is changed. That is usually what the motion to recommit is about.

That is one of the reasons that Republicans, when we became the majority, decided to make sure that the minority would always have, would always have the right to recommit, not at the pleasure of the majority as was the case when we were in the minority, but guaranteed so that they could offer their alternative; and what we have seen all too often is a political stunt.

This is not a political stunt because it is clear with the language ``forthwith'' that they would like to have what this motion to recommit does. The gentleman said that we will soon be considering a growth plan, and I appreciate his use of that term because we hope that is exactly what it does. Of course, it is kind of a piker in terms of growth compared to what is offered in the motion to recommit.

It turns out that under the Democrat's plan, although it is not quite perpetual motion it comes darn close, someone can work for 20 weeks and then they can get 26 weeks of regular State unemployment. Then they can get another 26 weeks of temporary extended that will be provided to every State under the motion. Seven additional weeks in a high- unemployment State and then 13 additional permanents. That is 72 weeks. That is 17 months for 20 weeks' work.

If this motion to recommit passes, the growth plan that we will soon be considering, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a job, will create a real temptation for many people to take a look at this growth plan for unemployment that the Democrats offer and say 20 weeks of work for 17 months of unemployment is a really, really good deal.

We believe that we have to have a structure that deals with the underlying problem. We believe the bill that we have presented does. It is possible to create a structure which is, in fact, virtually self- defeating. I believe this motion to recommit comes awfully close. And I would ask my colleagues to oppose the motion to recommit. Vote for the underlying bill. Move that bill off the floor so that prior to this break everyone knows we wanted to make sure that we had a continuous, uninterrupted opportunity so that those who are seeking employment can have assistance to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 253, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2004, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate, I do want to thank the staffs, the majority staff, the minority staff, and the institutional staffs for something that has to happen before the Members can stand before the Speaker and the House in the Chamber and the American people and debate measures in front of us; that is, do an enormous amount of paperwork, double-checking to make sure that what is the desire of the House and Senate actually is produced in the document.

It happens on every bill that comes up. It especially happens on a very difficult and complex conference report, and I do want to acknowledge the tremendous service that our staffs perform for us on a daily basis.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that, as is the wont of legislative bodies, one of the easier ways to gain enough votes to pass a measure is to tend to listen to what people believe are either their needs or wants, collect that in an amalgam, and move forward.

It is my real pleasure to tell the Members of the House that if they have read the text, they will search in vain for any particular provision that is attributed to any particular Member of either body. In the vernacular, this is a clean bill.

I say that because it is very difficult to get people to look from the individual to the collective. That is, when we are talking about reducing something like people's taxes, it is oftentimes very, very difficult to look to the larger, more fundamental societal needs.

And I know we will have a very vigorous and healthy debate on this issue, and everyone will use numbers on both sides. All I request is primarily out of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and listening to the debate that went on on the rule, one individual would stand up and say this was less filling because it only was going to last for 3 years and then it was going to disappear. Only to be followed by another speaker who said this really tastes great because it is going to cost a trillion dollars, and it is going to last an entire decade.

Now, really, I do not care whether you feel it is less filling and it is only going to last 3 years or it tastes great and it is going to last for a decade; but for those of us who also want to participate, you ought to pick one way or the other. When you are arguing on both sides of the same argument, it is a little difficult to really shed light for the American people what this is all about.

If someone is going to watch this debate and they have a child under 17, there is one irrefutable fact. In calendar year 2003, $14 billion is going to be sent to those Americans with children under 17. They are going to be sent checks. They are going to be sent by the middle of July and by August. They will have that money in their hands. If they have children, one single aspect of this aspect of this bill, and we will go on and debate a number of other aspects, this bill puts money in Americans' hands immediately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, what I really heard in that quote, which I did not hear after it was said, was the Speaker said, And we are really going to have to fight for it because that is exactly what occurs.

We want to help Americans by letting them keep their own money and we are going to have to fight you to do it, because you want to hang on to their money just as hard as you can.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have a very limited playing deck. I am surprised this early in the debate they have already played the class warfare card.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

I said they had very few cards in the deck. We may see several come up during the debate, but they just played the class warfare card once again.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a valued member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire of the remaining time on either side?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a very responsible member of the Washington delegation and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, the goal of this bill, and other bills we will pursue in the future, is to promote economic growth. Increasing retirement savings will promote economic growth by contributing to our Nation's capital stock. Of course we will monitor the way in which annuity sellers adjust to the new, more efficient financial product market conditions that H.R. 2 will create. As we proceed, we can determine whether adjustments are justified.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds in case there are any students actually out there in the audience. I believe, if anyone wants to check an almanac, the election of 1960 resulted in the election of President Kennedy with less than 50 percent of the vote and there was some concern about whether or not a recount would reduce that. The argument that somehow there was a significant wave of votes simply is not accurate any more than most of the structures.

Mr. Speaker, prior to yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), I yield myself 10 seconds. I am just concerned that if people are really worried about not having enough taxes, I understand you can voluntarily write a check to the Treasury and at least you will feel real good about making sure that more of your money stays in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, now another view from the State of Connecticut. It is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I really do wish some Members, and we do not often do this, although we vote on it every day, would read the Congressional Record, especially the day that we debated the tax bill in this House for the first time. Because included in that Congressional Record was a historic first. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation analyzed this tax bill, and they said it was going to create jobs, more than 900,000 jobs over the next several years. Read it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do so try to explain to some folks here apparently that currently in the Tax Code, if we have two people in the 15-percent bracket, their combined tax obligation, and they are both single, is less than two people in the same tax bracket that are married. There is no requirement under current law that they both work. One cannot work and one can work. But when they are married, they are filing a joint return. In filing a joint return, they actually pay more in taxes than they do with two single returns.

And I make this statement with some shock and awe that the ranking member of the tax writing committee apparently does not understand that.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman understands that when President Reagan became President, under the Constitution the purse strings are controlled by the House of Representatives, and the Democrats were in control of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that would authorize the creation of an additional bankruptcy court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The legislation would also express that it is the sense of Congress that bankruptcy proceedings should be conducted in Bakersfield in Kern County, California on a daily basis.

Very simply, I am introducing this legislation because my constituents have informed me that neither they, nor justice, is well- served by the status quo, under which Bakersfield is designated as a location where court is conducted once a month, with other matters disposed of through the use of video/teleconferencing.

According to constituent attorneys familiar with both the creditor and petitioner perspectives, one particularly significant problem is the distance that parties must travel in order to personally appear in the Fresno Division of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California. Kern County encompasses a vast area, and those persons involved in contested proceedings who wish to be heard in Fresno must travel 110 miles from Bakersfield. Moreover, 429,310 of Kern County's 676,367 residents live in outlying communities and areas, and must travel much further to be heard in Fresno.

For example, those persons living in the communities of Boron, Frazier Park, or Rosamond with business before the Bankruptcy Court have to travel 172, 143, and 160 miles respectively to appear in Fresno. If those persons could appear in Bakersfield, they would only have to travel less than half as far--80, 37, and 57 miles respectively--and would be relieved of some of the hardships and costs inherent in traveling such distances. This travel is especially difficult for those parties who are sick, elderly, or have small children.

While a video/teleconferencing system is in place, I am told the system works well only approximately 70 percent of the time and that on occasion the video goes out, leaving only teleconferencing. My constituent attorneys firmly believe that appearances through the use of the video/teleconferencing system, not only decrease the decorum of the proceedings, but also decrease the parties' ability to effectively communicate, resulting in proceedings that are less efficient and fair than proceedings conducted in person before a live court and witnesses. In addition, Kern County attorneys inform me that because practitioners cannot file documents in Bakersfield, Kern County parties incur increased costs in the form of overnight or courier charges and face de facto shortened deadlines. Finally, the status quo also results in the almost automatic conduct of short proceedings via video/ teleconferencing as well as the conduct of proceedings through a mixture of live and video/teleconferencing appearances, a practice which Kern County practitioners advise me places the parties they represent at a distinct disadvantage.

A strong case exists for the daily conduct of bankruptcy proceedings in Bakersfield when one considers the number of filings submitted by Kern County parties and general demographic data. In 2002, Kern County parties made 4,168 total bankruptcy filings, and through March 31, 2003, have made 1,042 total filings. During those time periods, total filings in the entire four-county Modesto Division were 5,045 and 1,324 respectively. Moreover, Kern County's 4,168 total filings in 2002 were greater than the 3,696 total filings in Fresno County and constituted over one-third of the 11,912 total filings in the entire eight-county Fresno Division. Finally, nationwide there are approximately 700,000 people per bankruptcy court, and Kern County, one of the fastest growing areas in the nation, has a population in excess of 676,000. By comparison, Stanislaus County, where the Modesto Division is located, has a population of 468,566.

I trust that my colleagues and the appropriate United States Judicial Conference officials will recognize the need to have bankruptcy proceedings conducted in Bakersfield on a daily basis and will work with me to ensure that our legal system is structured in a manner that allows for the effective and fair administration of our bankruptcy laws.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolutions 227, I call up the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide additional tax incentives to encourage economic growth, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The Members should know that we have a statement of administration policy on this bill, and it reads in part: ``The administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 2 and commends the House for including all the elements of the jobs and growth plan proposed by the President.'' I would also like to call Members' attention to today's Congressional Record. In the Congressional Record, beginning on page 3829 is the first analysis of a tax bill by the Joint Committee on Taxation utilizing the power provided to the joint committee by rule XIII. It says in part that ``in accordance with House rule XIII, this document, prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation . . . provides a macroeconomic analysis of H.R. 2.

``The analysis presents the results of simulating the changes contained in H.R. 2 under three economic models of the economy. The models employ a variety of assumptions regarding Federal fiscal policy, monetary policy, and behavioral responses to the proposed changes in law.''

It then goes on on page 3830, 3831, 3832, to examine this bill under those three macroeconomic models, and it explains in detail the models that are used. It says, for example, if Members take the time to look on page 3831 of the May 8 Congressional Record, in part: ``The estimated change in Gross Domestic Product (`GDP') due to this proposal can range at least from a 0.3 percent (an average of $43 billion) to a 1.5 percent (an average of $183 billion) increase in nominal, or current dollar GDP over the first 5 years, and 0.2 to a 1.2 percent increase over the second 5 years.''

This bill, according to the bipartisan professional staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation, says this bill grows the economy. In addition, they say, that up to 900,000 jobs in the first 5 years will be created ``as the effects of the acceleration of individual rate cuts, and the initial increase in investment prevail. Employment increases in the first 5 years because of both the positive labor supply incentive from the individual rate cuts, and the economic stimulus effect of the proposals taken as a whole.'' The bipartisan, professional Joint Committee on Taxation says this bill creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

It probably would be more fun for either side to read the effects of the bill

based upon some particular ax-grinding institute that has a really fair-sounding name that is funded by various organizations because the hyperbole in the way they examine the bill is a whole lot more fun. It is not very realistic, but it is a whole lot more fun.

This is the professional bipartisan staff of the Joint Committee on Tax under rule XIII concluding on page 3831: ``As the simulations indicate, depending on how much temporary demand stimulus is generated by the proposal, the revenue feedback,'' money coming back to the Federal Government by spending money in this bill to cut people's taxes, give it back to them, ``the revenue feedback could range from 5.8 percent to 27.5 percent in the first 5 years, and'' between ``2.6 and 23.4 percent over the 10-year budget period.''

It stimulates the economy, creates jobs, brings more revenue back to the Federal Government. That is what this bill is about.

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

Parliamentary Inquiry

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, on my time, to respond to the gentleman from New York, I asked that the measures be treated equally and fairly. That was my position. But apparently the Committee on Rules rejected my position, and, notwithstanding the fact that I was trying to support the gentleman from New York, in the opinion of the Committee on Rules, apparently the gentleman's bill was so far out of the normal procedure that they determined not to make it in order.

I had asked that the Committee on Rules treat both bills the same way, and I was denied in my request to the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee, for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I will tell the gentleman he raises an important point, but it is also a part of a larger tax policy problem.

Currently, as the gentleman may know, under the U.S. Tax Code we punish U.S. corporations for being U.S. corporations. Several provisions of our Tax Code put U.S. corporations at a disadvantage versus their international competitors. These flaws in the Tax Code force U.S. companies to move their headquarters overseas in order to compete. We must reform our Tax Code to improve our international competitiveness. The Committee on Ways and Means will be addressing this larger issue in this Congress.

With regard to the specific issue of dividend payments to U.S. citizens by foreign corporations, it is my intent as the legislation process proceeds to craft a solution that treats all American shareholders of either domestic or foreign-owned corporations fairly and equally, while improving the competitiveness of the U.S. Tax Code.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in examining the number of Members who are enthusiastic on my side of the aisle about this bill, what I am trying to do is figure out a way to allow for senior members on the committee to have a full expression of their support in a particular manner, and there are many other Members of the Republican Conference who are not on the committee and have requested time to speak as well. And what I am trying to do is manage the time in a way that the more-senior members have an opportunity to present the particulars of the bill and that the other Members also have a chance to speak.

So we are going to be working on trying to fit all of the people in.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I really have a difficult time understanding the concept that giving people back their own money is greed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I really do enjoy about the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is that he is consistent. His description of my quote and the meaning of it is consistent with the way in which he presents his version of the facts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I invite the gentleman from Wisconsin to perhaps read page 3831 of the Congressional Record in which the Bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation says that up to 900,000 new jobs in the first 5 years will be created by the acceleration of individual rate cuts and the initial increase in investments prevail.

The gentleman does not want to believe and he has every right not to believe; but, frankly, the facts refute his position.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, might I inquire about the division of time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), one of the most senior members of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means who understands when someone stands up and says give us more, that is all they ever talk about, just give us more.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

I believe we have at least three remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, has all time expired on the other side of the aisle?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, then, to yield the remainder of my time to the honorable Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that the substitute was not made in order under the rule. Therefore, it is not germane.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, as is made imminently clear by the reading of the table of contents, the motion to recommit is not germane. It is in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI of the House because the motion to recommit relates to subject matter not contained in the underlying bill. The underlying bill only relates to reducing income taxation. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and, therefore, is out of order.

Mr. Speaker, the real American way is to play by the rules. I move to lay the appeal on the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This motion does not recommit the bill. It kills tax relief, job creation, and economic growth, because the motion to recommit contains the word ``promptly'' instead of ``forthwith.''

Have you heard this before? Do you want me to stop?

Vote no on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 2, the bill just passed.

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

We are the committee that will deal with the issue. And the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, is correct, this motion to recommit says promptly, not forthwith. That means that everything they said means absolutely nothing, or perhaps that is too drastic a statement. When they said that they are going to have spending for 26 weeks, that is a bubble; and if you touch it, it bursts. When they said they are going to provide an additional 18 weeks of income support, that is a bubble; and if you touch it, it bursts, because the underlying structure of this motion to recommit kills the bill. That is what this motion to recommit does. No one will lose their unemployment payment, currently unemployed, all the way through August.

The gentleman from Maryland was correct, there are sufficient funds. The Committee on Ways and Means will act. The problem is they want to create a phony issue at a phony time so that they can act like they are going to do something. What they propose to do is blow bubbles. We propose to act and solve the problem. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit, you kill the bill. Vote ``no'' and you will get an addressing of this problem in an appropriate time frame.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 3 (h)(2)(A)(iii) of rule XIII, I submitted the following macroeconomic impact analysis:

In accordance with House Rule XIII.3(h)(2), this document,

prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation

(``Joint Committee staff''), provides a macroeconomic

analysis of H.R. 2, the ``Jobs and Growth Reconciliation Tax

Act of 2003.'' The analysis presents the results of

simulating the changes contained in H.R. 2 under three

economic models of the economy. The models employ a variety

of assumptions regarding Federal fiscal policy, monetary

policy, and behavioral responses to the proposed changes in

law.

1. Description of Models and Results Format

(a) models

The Macroeconomic Equilibrium Growth (``MEG'') model.--This

model, developed by the Joint Committee staff, is based on

the standard, neoclassical assumption that the amount of

output is determined by the availability of labor and

capital, and in the long run, prices adjust so that demand

equals supply. This feature of MEG is comparable to a Solow

growth model, described as the ``textbook growth model'' by

the Congressional Budget Office (An Analysis of the

President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004, March

2003, pp. 28-29) (``CBO''). Individuals are assumed to make

decisions based on observed characteristics of the economy,

including current period wages, prices, interest rates, tax

rates, and government spending levels. Because individuals do

not anticipate changes in the economy or government finances,

this type of behavior is referred to as

``myopic behavior.'' Consumption in MEG is determined

according to the life-cycle theory, which implies that

individuals attempt to even out their consumption patterns

during their lifetimes.

MEG differs from a simple neoclassical growth model in that

prices in MEG adjust to equilibrate supply and demand with a

delay or lag, rather than instantaneously. This feature

allows the model to simulate a disequilibrium adjustment

path, in which resources may be underemployed or over-

employed (used at an unsustainable rate) in response to

policies that stimulate or depress economic activity. It also

allows an analysis of the effects of differing intervention

policies by the Federal Reserve Board. In this respect, the

MEG model resembles econometric models such as the

Macroeconomic Advisers model and the Global Insight model.

In the MEG simulations in each of the tables below, it is

assumed that the Federal Reserve Board either acts

aggressively by raising interest rates to counteract almost

completely any demand stimulus provided by H.R. 2 (``MEG

aggressive Fed response''), or remains neutral with respect

to any changes in fiscal policy, allowing temporary changes

in demand to affect levels of employment and output (``MEG

neutral Fed response'').

The Global Insight (``GI'') econometric model.--Like the

MEG model, this commercially available model is capable of

simulating disequilibrium adjustments to changes in demand.

The model is made up of a set of equations that estimate from

historical data the behavioral coefficients that determine

the timing and strength of economic relationships within the

model. Comparable parameters in the MEG and OLG models are

derived from economic research. In many cases this

research is also based on econometric analysis of

historical data.

Individuals and firms behave myopically in the GI model.

For this analysis, the Joint Committee staff uses an

estimated monetary reaction function designed to moderate

gradually, but not completely offset, deviations from full

employment by lowering or increasing interest rates. Thus, if

the economy is operating near capacity, proposals that

increase employment and accelerate the economy will result in

increasing interest rates.

The overlapping generations life cycle model (``OLG'').--In

this model, individuals are assumed to make consumption and

labor supply decisions with perfect foresight of economic

conditions, such as wages, prices, interest rates, tax rates,

and government spending, over their lifetimes. The OLG model

is similar to the type of model described as a ``life cycle

model'' by the CBO, ibid.

One result of the perfect foresight assumption is that if a

policy results in an economically unstable outcome, such as

increasing government deficits indefinitely into the future,

the model will not solve. Therefore, to run simulations in

this model, it is necessary to assume that an offsetting

budget balancing fiscal policy will be enacted. In the tables

below, it is assumed that either government spending will be

reduced after 2013 to offset the tax cut (``OLG future

government spending offset'') or individual income tax rates

will be increased after 2013 (``OLG future tax rate

increase'').

The cut in government spending to offset the costs of a tax

cut can be modeled either as a cut in transfer payments, as

is presented here, or as a cut in ``non-productive government

spending.'' The latter assumption is used in CBO, ibid. The

difference between the two approaches is that consumers are

assumed to value transfer payments, and thus work and save

more within the budget window in anticipation of losing them;

but they are assumed not to value non-productive spending,

and therefore do not increase work or savings in anticipation

of this cut. Thus, the anticipation of valued spending cuts

results in more growth in the early years than the

anticipation of non-valued spending cuts.

(b) results format

Because the exact time path of the economy's adjustment to

changes such as a new tax policy is highly uncertain, the

Joint Committee staff presents results as percent changes

during the Congressional budgeting time frame. In addition,

for the MEG and OLG models, which have been designed to

provide long-run equilibrium results, information is provided

about the long run. While it is impossible to incorporate

unknowable intervening circumstances, such as major resource

or technological discoveries or shortages, these models are

designed to predict the long-run effects of policy changes,

assuming other, unpredictable influences are held constant.

Because the MED model is myopic, if the policy simulated is

ultimately a fiscally unstable policy, such as a net decrease

in taxes that produces deficits that grow faster than the

rate of growth of the economy, ``long-run'' is defined as the

last period before the model fails to solve because of this

unstable situation. For the OLG simulations, which

incorporate a stabilizing fiscal policy offset, ``long-run''

is defined as the eventual steady-state solution.

2. Estimated Macroeconomic Effects of H.R. 2

The magnitude of the macroeconomic effects generated by

these simulations depends upon a number of assumptions, some

of which are described above, that are inherent in the models

used. Several additional assumptions detailed below.

(a) assumptions

Effect of tax rate reductions on investment.--Reductions in

marginal tax rates (tax rates on the last dollar of income

earned) on interest, dividend, or capital gains income create

incentives for individuals to save and invest a larger share

of their income, as each additional dollar of investment

yields more after-tax income. Conversely, reductions in the

average tax rate on income from capital provide taxpayers

with more after-tax income for the same amount of investment,

reducing their incentive to save and invest. Changes in the

statutory tax rate affect both marginal and average rates of

tax on these sources of income, providing potentially

offsetting incentives. Consistent with existing research, the

model simulations assume that on net, the marginal rate

effect is slightly larger than the average rate effect, and

thus decreases in tax rates on capital income increase

savings.

Effect of reductions in the dividend tax rate.--There is

general agreement that dividend taxation reduces the return

on investments financed with new share issues. However, there

are two alternative views regarding the effect of dividend

taxation on corporate investment returns financed with

retained earnings. The ``traditional view'' holds that

reductions in dividend taxes would lower the cost of

corporate investment financed with either new share issues or

retained earnings, and thus would provide an incentive for

corporations to increase investment. Alternatively, the ``new

view,'' holds that a reduction in the dividend tax rate would

not lower the cost of corporate investment financed with

retained earnings. Under this view, a decrease in the

dividend tax rate would result in an immediate increase in

the value of outstanding stock reflecting the reduction in

dividend tax payments, thus increasing the wealth of the

stockholders, and providing an incentive for additional

consumption. The model simulations assume that half of the

corporate sector is in accordance with the traditional view

and half with the new view.

Foreign investment flows.--Increased Federal government

budget deficits increase the amount of borrowing by the

Federal government. Unless individuals increase their savings

enough to finance completely the increased deficit, the

increase in government borrowing will reduce the amount of

domestic capital available to finance private investment.

This effect is often referred to as the ``crowding out'' of

private business activity by Federal government activity. A

reduction in national saving may lead to a reduction in

domestic investment, and domestic capital formation,

depending on the mobility of international capital flows. The

government and private firms would compete for the supply of

available funds and interest rates would rise to equate the

demand and supply of funds. Returns on foreign investments

would accure mainly to foreigners and would only increase the

resources available to Americans to the extent that higher

domestic investment resulted in higher wages in the United

States. The MEG and GI simulations incorporate an assumption

that there would be some in-flow of foreign capital to the

extent that the rate of return on capital is increased by the

tax policy. However, the inflow in foreign capital is not

enough to offset completely the increased Federal borrowing.

The OLG simulations assume there is no inflow of foreign

capital.

Effect of tax rate reductions on labor supply.--As in the

case of savings responses, tax rate reductions provide

offsetting labor supply incentives. Reductions in the

marginal tax rate on earnings create an incentive to work

more because taxpayers get to keep more of each dollar

earned, making each additional hour of work more valuable;

while reductions in the average tax rate create an incentive

to work less, because they result in taxpayers having more

after-tax income at their disposal for a given amount of

work.

Consistent with existing research, the simulations assume

that taxpayers in different financial positions respond

differently to these incentives. Typically, the largest

response comes from secondary workers (individuals whose

wages make a smaller contribution to household income than

the primary earner in the household) and other underemployed

individuals entering the labor market. As described above,

labor supply responses are modeled separately for four

different groups in MEG: low income primary earners, other

primary earners, low income secondary earners, and other

secondary earners.

Effects of reductions in tax liability on demand.--

Generally, any net reduction in taxes results in taxpayers

making more purchases because they have more take-home income

at their disposal. Policies that increase incentives for

taxpayers to spend their income rather than save it provide a

bigger market for the output of businesses. The amount of

economic stimulus resulting from demand side incentives

depends on whether the economy has excess capacity at the

time of enactment of the policy, and on how the Federal

Reserve Board reacts to the policy. If the economy is already

producing near capacity, demand-side policies may, instead,

result in inflation, as consumers bid up prices to compete

for a fixed amount of output. If the Federal Reserve Board

believes there is a risk that the policy will result in

inflation, it may raise interest rates to discourage

consumption. In this case, depending on how strongly the

Federal Reserve Board

reacts, little, if any increase in spending will occur as a

result of would-be stimulative tax policy. The MEG aggressive

Fed response simulation assumes the Federal Reserve Board

completely counteracts demand stimulus; the MEG neutral Fed

response simulation assumes the Federal Reserve Board ignores

the stimulus; and the GI simulation assumes the Federal

Reserve Board partially counteracts demand stimulus. The OLG

simulations have no monetary sector because they assume

demand automatically adjusts to supply through market forces.

(b) Simulation results

Economic Growth.--

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1584) to implement effective measures to stop trade in conflict diamonds, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment.