Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 966, I call up the bill (H.R. 5970) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000, to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and to extend expiring provisions, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Does anyone here think it is rather odd if we designed a bill to fail we would place in it what apparently the Members on the other side say is one of our really primary focuses, and that is to allow people who have worked all their lives to hang on to a little bit of what they get after death for their family? Why would you couple those two together if you wanted it to fail?

The so-called extenders are 7 months overdue. They need to be extended. Why would you put a minimum wage in this structure, and extenders, if you built a bill to fail?

I think it is going to be very tortured discussion on the floor, because our colleagues on the other side just can't quite get their arms around the fact that the Republicans are for a significant change in the estate tax, they are for extending the extenders, and we are for a minimum wage.

All you have to do is vote ``yes.'' Now, that probably is your biggest difficulty, voting ``yes'' on a bill that is in front of you. If you vote ``yes,'' as the gentleman from Maryland said, minimum wage goes from $5.15 to $7.25. If you vote ``yes,'' you join us in encouraging the Senate. And if you want to find the graveyard for the minimum wage, I suggest you go over and visit the other body.

What we have done is tried to package this to succeed in getting the minimum wage through the other body. And if we can work together, all you have to do is start by voting ``yes,'' and then it could be contagious, we could go over and get the Senate to vote ``yes,'' and we could have a minimum-wage increase to $7.25 in 3 years. We could also extend the extenders, and we could also have a very reasonable appropriate structure for allowing people to hang on to a little bit more of what they work for and accumulate over their lifetime.

I know the cost of making that happen is high. It means you'd actually have to vote ``yes.''

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself briefly.

Gee, I know you work for the minimum wage, and I know you want a higher minimum wage, but the way the offer was packaged was such that I had to vote ``no.'' So don't blame me that you didn't get an increase in the minimum wage, because I voted ``no.''

As I said, this is going to be very difficult. All you have to do is vote ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself briefly.

All we have to do to provide an increase in the minimum wage is to vote ``yes.''

And I wonder how that person working for a minimum wage feels when you say, I couldn't vote ``yes'' for the increase in the minimum wage because I was offended the way it was presented to us. And you need to know that the way I feel about the process in the House of Representatives is more important than providing you with an increase in the minimum wage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for his vote.

I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I was kind of stunned when my colleague from Ohio indicated that he was going to support this bill. I believe him when he wants to support it for the minimum wage. And then it struck me: he is not going to be in a gerrymandered district. He is running statewide. He is actually going to have to respond. In an environment where if he doesn't pick the position that people believe is the right one, he could lose. But if he were in a district in which he could vote virtually any way he wanted and wanted to slant the issues in ways that provided a political benefit rather than a real benefit, I just wonder.

Gee, that means maybe if we had more competitive seats, we would have more folks voting for policies that actually benefit people like raising the minimum wage, because a ``yes'' vote tonight will raise the minimum wage.

It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Weller.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to a valued member of the committee, the chairman of the House subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

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

I keep telling my friend from New York that there is a really big country west of the Hudson. It is 9 p.m. in California. The sun is shining in the United States. I understand east of the Hudson, but there is a big country west of the Hudson.

I told you this was going to be a strange debate.

The gentleman from California is right. He counted backward: ten, nine, eight, seven, six. We have not increased the minimum wage. It is about time we increased the minimum wage.

Are you offended that we finally got it? Is that what you are offended about? Or is it the fact that when you were the majority for 40 years, Medicare never saw one preventative service, they never saw one wellness program, and there was no drug program? We became the majority and all of that occurred.

I am now beginning to figure this out. These people are going to have to tear up these old, yellowed speeches they have been giving for decades because the Republicans get it.

There is one other thing we get. It is a concept you are beginning to hear about. It is called ``multi-tasking.'' You do not really have to come with one subject. You can actually do several things at the same time. And there is a degree of synergy involved in those things. You heard the gentlewoman from Connecticut, that there are interactive aspects in this.

So I am really somewhat confused. Is it that you want to keep on giving speeches that Republicans do not understand that we should raise the minimum wage, that you do not want to rewrite the speech? Or is it because on every one of those hackneyed, worn political positions, you do not have a position anymore?

We are for raising the minimum wage. We agree with you. It is time to raise it. Your arguments are now: But it is not packaged correctly.

It is after midnight. I would love to be doing this at 7 p.m. You know the difficulties in moving. We just passed a massive pension bill. We got it done. It is 9 o'clock. You are going to complain that you are going to vote against this because we are doing it after midnight? Is it so offensive to you that you have to stay up a couple of hours and have presented to you a package which is very difficult for you to get your hackneyed, yellowed political speeches around?

Yes, we are Republicans. Are we for increasing the minimum wage? Yes. Do we want to get the extenders done before we go out because it is 7 months too late? Yes. Do we want to help people who want to hang on to a little bit of what they have built over their lifetimes? Yes. And you are going to vote ``no'' because it is put together in a way that offends you?

I wonder what that person hoping for an increase in the minimum wage thinks when they are told, I wanted to help you, but I was offended in the way in which the opportunity to help you was presented to me.

Who is kidding who?

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like somebody is saying on this issue, I have a hostage, and if you try to force me to vote for minimum wage, I am going to kill the hostage.

There is a minimum-wage increase in this legislation. The argument that somehow, and I will say it again, somehow the fact that we didn't act earlier is a sufficient rationale for you to not vote for it now, to say that we have

other items in this bill and we are hiding the minimum wage with other attractive packages to Republicans, I will repeat to you, is a way we might actually be able to get it through the other body, since the other body would not allow a clean minimum wage to pass through it. And they have exhibited that a number of times.

I know it is difficult for you, and I know it is going to take a period of time in terms of understanding that when we say this is a bill that contains extenders, that this is a bill that contains a reasonable and appropriate adjustment on estate taxes. The reason I say that is this is almost identical to the bill that got 43 Democrat votes just a few weeks ago.

And when I say there is an increase in the minimum wage in this bill, I have heard all kinds of tortured arguments about package and process, but I can't understand for the life of me, if we are such hypocrites, and this is a sham, why you don't take us up on it and show how wrong we are by voting for a minimum-wage provision and then see what we do with it.

What we are going to do with this is try to make law. This will pass this House. Join me. Let's go over to the Senate and do everything we can together to get the Senate to pass it.

Or is it that if it actually happened and the President signed it, and we had an increase in the minimum wage, you would have to draw one more line through those easy arguments that are now outdated about the difference between Republicans and Democrats, because it is hard enough to believe that Democrats no longer have a monopoly on improving Medicare with quality measures and putting prescription drugs in.

But don't Republicans have any shame? Coming to the floor trying to raise the minimum wage, what are we going to do? Well, the first thing you have to say is, okay, guys, we can't vote ``yes''. Why? Test us. Let's make law. It has been 10 years. Let's raise the minimum wage. I understand that we are also going to save the extenders.

I understand we are going to put in a reasonable estate tax change. But what I am asking you to do, rather than to wring your hands and figure out how you are going to explain you didn't want to vote for the increase in the minimum wage because of the way it was packaged is to test us. I want a test. Let's pass this. Let's go over to the Senate. Let's try to make law.

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, millions of Americans are thankful they now have prescription drugs at significant savings. I know it is difficult because another line went through one of your typical political arguments. Test us. See if we are just kidding. See if this is a sham.

What I am inviting you to do is make law. I know it is a brave new world. But let's try it. Let's see if we can make law together. Your arguments have been so turned that you are explaining you are against raising the minimum wage because of the way it is being presented to you. It deserves to be clean. Okay. It's not.

I am offended that I would have to vote this way. By the way, you are still at $5.15. Test us. Let's make law.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I really would like to travel with some of you folks to restaurants and hotels and watch you go back and find someone who is getting the minimum wage and make that pitch to them. Because what they are going to say is, gee, you are right, I am glad you voted against increasing the minimum wage so I could get a few more bucks.

I understand doing it here on the floor. I understand doing it in those expensive fund-raisers that you hold. I have a really difficult time seeing someone who says, would you just give me an increase in the minimum wage buying that argument.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you did not hear the gentleman from New York's closing statement, that we are just going to have to throw the poor folks out with it. Let me get this straight. We want to vote ``aye''. That would produce a higher minimum wage. We want to vote ``aye''. That will provide those low-income people, especially in States like Texas, with a State and local sales tax deduction.

We want to vote ``aye'', so the work opportunity tax credit can continue. We want to vote ``aye'' so the welfare-to-work program will continue. But you are for those low-income folk. So you want to vote ``no'', which would deny the minimum wage, which would deny the State and local sales tax, which would deny the work opportunity tax credit, which would deny the welfare-to-work, and you are going to convince these folk that what you are doing is protecting them.

Well, let me tell you, if I had a gerrymandered district like some of you folks do, I guess I could get away with it. I do not. When you look at this vote tonight, no matter how much you squirm, no matter how much you squeal, no matter how much you protest, it is very simple.

An ``aye'' vote increases the minimum wage. An ``aye'' vote allows State and local sales tax to be deducted. An ``aye'' vote allows the work opportunity tax credit to continue. An ``aye'' vote allows the welfare-to-work program to continue.

No matter how much you are offended, if you vote ``no'', none of those will happen. Mr. Speaker, I have said it already, I will say it again to The gentleman from New York, this is an opportunity. This is a positive gesture on my part. Join me in making sure that those low- income people you are so compassionate about but cannot support will come with me and I will support them so that your compassion and my support, in terms of a ``yes'' vote, will actually deliver them something other than rhetoric.

So I would love to have you vote ``yes'' so we are both supporting them. But you go ahead, bring your compassion, I will bring the ``yes'' vote along with the majority of people here bringing a ``yes'' vote, and we will pass it.

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

Mr. Speaker, speaker after speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle went in the well. What was the common plea? Give us a clean vote on minimum wage. Just give us a clean vote on minimum wage. You have got 169 pages here. They wrote it. They can't even write a motion to recommit that is a clean vote on the minimum wage. I am offended. And any other Member who is offended, vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill, H.R. 5970.

Mr. Speaker, as sponsor of this bill, I support continuing to help the thousands of Americans fleeing the hostilities in Lebanon and returning to the safe confines of the United States.

As of Sunday, July 23, 20 flights had rescued 3,890 U.S. citizens from Beirut and the surrounding area. Of those rescued Americans, hundreds received aid from the Health and Human Services, HHS, repatriation program after they arrived in the U.S., including 25 unaccompanied minors and 21 special needs cases--of which 12 were medical cases.

However, under current law, there is a $1 million spending cap on this program, which is close to being reached. Without legislative action, the repatriation program will no longer be able to provide aid to Americans in need. There may be 10,000 more U.S. citizens repatriating from Lebanon in the coming days who might require assistance through this program.

To make this aid available to other Americans as they arrive from Lebanon, this bill temporarily lifts the $1 million annual spending cap on the current HHS repatriation program. The Congressional Budget Office predicts this will allow about $4 million in additional spending for the thousands of Americans evacuating Lebanon.

Additionally, today's action, while increasing aid, also increases program integrity and oversight. The bill requires that the HHS Inspector General report to Congress on how the money in the program is being spent and it requires congressional action for the continuation of this program beyond fiscal year 2007. Therefore, even with the one- time increase in the spending cap, CBO estimates that this bill will be cost neutral over the next 5 years and will achieve savings over 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is good policy that ensures the continuation of aid for Americans in need, while providing the opportunity to improve upon this program. It is timely and because of the ongoing situation in the Middle East, it is important that we act quickly.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation today and am hopeful that the Senate will consider this bill in short order so we can send it to the President for his signature.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 925, I call up the bill (H.R. 5684) to implement the United States-Oman Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this particular agreement is an important one for a number of reasons. One, the United States and Oman have been friends in a formal way for almost 100 years. The Sultanate of Oman occupies an important geopolitical location in the world, which has become even more meaningful in recent times.

Oman has shown its true friendship to the United States because of the adage: ``A friend in need is a friend indeed.'' And Oman has been a friend in the Middle Eastern portion of the world when we needed a friend indeed.

In addition to that, this free trade agreement is significant in the advancement of opening trade in a number of areas very quickly, sort of a solid, leading-edge kind of agreement that we would like to see in a number of other countries around the world.

One of the remarks that might be made is, Oman, Oman, let me double- check, take a look at an atlas or the globe, and then ask, to what extent are we dealing with significant trade with the United States?

The answer is, the United States is the world's largest importer and the world's largest exporter, so when you measure significance of trade, sometimes you would ask yourself not what the impact is on the United States, but what the impact would be on the country in which we are entering into this free trade agreement. And to Oman, I believe it is extremely important as it continues to modernize itself under the Sultan and continues to extend freedoms and liberties to its people.

Yes, it is oil rich. They know that is a limited resource. They are interested in investing in their people. We are interested in helping them do that.

But it cannot go unmentioned that we also need, as we look at the globe or the atlas, to make note of the location of Oman, and that this agreement can be seen in any number of ways, and one of the ways would be to allow for a closer economic relationship with a friend that has had a close security relationship with the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 20 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the 20 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do so with a degree of trepidation, because I take the time, number one, to thank my colleague from Virginia. I hope my acknowledgment doesn't do him too much damage, because his statement was not only eloquent, but accurate and, we all know, prescient.

It is absolutely critical that we continue to build the kind of relationships in that portion of the world that this agreement reflects.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of the time and control of that time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee; and prior to that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague Mr. Costa to honor the life of our friend, Jim Burke, a Bakersfield community leader, philanthropist, and businessman, who passed away on Monday, July 17, 2006. In Bakersfield, the name Jim Burke is synonymous with generosity.

Jim was born on August 1, 1925, in Bakersfield, California, to Mr. and Mrs. James Joseph Burke, a family with Kern County pioneer roots. His great grandfather, Daniel Burke, came to Kern County in 1864 from Ireland. Jim graduated from Kern County Union High School in 1943 with accolades as a scholar, athlete, and president of the student body. He attended Stanford University for a year before joining the Navy and serving on the USS Midway and the USS New Mexico. After two and a half years of service in the Navy, Jim returned to Stanford and graduated in 1948 as an Industrial Engineer. In 1950, Jim married Bebe Rinker and they subsequently had a daughter, Michele (Mikie).

Jim began his career in the parts department of Haberfelde Ford in 1949, became a partner in the Haberfelde family business in 1964, and purchased the remaining business interest in 1972. In 1977, he renamed it Jim Burke Ford and it has since become one of the largest Ford dealerships in the country, with over 370 employees. Jim cared deeply for his employees and customers and was known to buy back a vehicle if a customer had an unresolved vehicle problem with Ford in order to address the issue with Ford himself.

Throughout his life, Jim's passion was in the areas of education and health care. He worked with educators to create ``The Ford Dimension,'' which is a program that for 32 years has taught high school students about the private enterprise system and the practical problems of the business world.

In 1994, over 200 Ford Dimension alumni from across the nation founded the Jim Burke Education Foundation in his honor. Later in 2003, Ford Dimension alumni and the Jim Burke Education Foundation created a leadership program, Dream Builders, to develop leadership and life skills in high school seniors and share with them the value of civic responsibility as a lifetime commitment.

Jim also actively worked to address the hospital and healthcare needs in Bakersfield. He was a founding director of the Friends of Mercy Foundation, which assists in the healthcare needs of the local community, and he served as Chairman of the Mercy Hospital Board of Trustees as well as a director of Bakersfield Memorial Hospital.

Jim was also involved with numerous organizations in the community such as the Campfire Girls, Better Business Bureau, the Trade Club of Greater Bakersfield, Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce, the California State University Bakersfield Foundation, and served as chairman of the Kern County Business Outlook Conference. Jim was also very active in the Catholic community. Jim's fundraising efforts and work with the Sisters of Mercy addressed the special needs of others, such as construction of the Madison Place, a model low-income housing project.

Over the course of his life, Jim received numerous awards and honors for his service to the community and business achievements. In fact, in 1976, he was recognized with the Time Magazine Quality Dealership Award for his outstanding business performance and involvement in the community. In 1995, Jim was inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame and he received a Honorary Doctorate from California State University, Bakersfield in 1997.

Yet no award will ever capture the true humanity, strength, and leadership that Jim achieved. Throughout his life, Jim and his family continuously strived to better our community and help others, with humility and true compassion. Jim was immensely successful in his efforts and we will never know the full extent of the impact Jim's kindness and compassion had. On this day, we rise, on behalf of a community in mourning, to remember with great appreciation Jim Burke, a man who embodied the civic generosity and leadership that is uniquely American and that has made Kern County such a great place to live. Accordingly, we offer our deep condolences to Bebe and his family.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 885, I call up the bill (H.R. 5638) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified credit against the estate tax to an exclusion equivalent of $5,000,000 and to repeal the sunset provision for the estate and generation-skipping taxes, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, on June 16, the United States Senate majority leader put out the following statement asking for the House to send estate tax legislation to the Senate: ``I will ask the Speaker of the House to send a bill to us that would be a permanent solution to the death tax. I will encourage them to attach appropriate provisions to make it attractive and will hold a vote by July 4.'' This measure, H.R. 5638, is the response to the majority leader's request.

This House is on record with a bipartisan vote in favor of repealing the estate, or death, tax. But we know that the Senate on a procedural or cloture vote rejected that offer from the House by 57 votes in favor of moving forward, short of the 60 necessary.

I heard during the discussion on the rule the ranking minority member on Rules, Ms. Slaughter, say that this bill, H.R. 5638, will pass. I, too, in agreeing with her, believe that the bill will pass. It will be available to the Senate to take from the desk, and it will be then the Senate's decision to pass or defeat it.

I want to underscore the point, this is a response to the majority leader's request. This is not a first offer; it is the only offer to the majority leader's request that the chairman intends to offer.

This bill was crafted as a compromise. Compromises are supposed to be reasonable; but, most importantly, they are supposed to be doable. The goal of a compromise is to make law. H.R. 5638 is a compromise.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we might have expected, the gentleman from New York wheeled out all the usual arguments. I hope he didn't trip as he went back to his seat with the flag tightly wrapped around him in terms of his arguments of patriotism. The class warfare card was played; the rich card was played.

``This is for the richest of the rich,'' he said. I tell the gentleman from California, I will quote who know who the richest of the rich are. In today's Wall Street Journal editorial they said, ``But now comes Mr. Thomas, the chief tax writer, who has proposed a compromise that would be voted on as early as today but is hardly an improvement over current law.''

I will tell you who the richest of the rich are. Dick Patton of the American Family Business Institute says, ``We flatly oppose the Thomas plan. The more our members hear about it, the angrier they get.'' Who are they? The real richest of the rich.

So I find it rather ironic that they need to play those same old tired cards that this is the rich versus everyone else, when today the rich have spoken. They don't like the compromise. A compromise is a compromise.

Now, let us turn to a paper, The Washington Post, which said yesterday: ``The search for a compromise has pitted affluent small business owners against the truly rich, families with estates valued at tens of millions of dollars.'' The paper says: ``Thomas came down in favor of the business owners.'' And we know the Wall Street Journal agrees I didn't come down on the side of the rich.

This is a compromise. We will send it over to the Senate, and we will see if there are 60 Members of the Senate that want to remove once and for all the uncertainty in this very difficult area.

The National Federation of Independent Business says this is a reasonable compromise and they will be watching everyone's vote. Who? For the very rich? No. For the small businessman that creates all the jobs. A few extra dollars and the ability to keep the business together after the principal owner has died will make sure that we can continue this economy in the robust way in which it has continued.

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

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

I am heartened by the gentleman from Maryland's statement that he is now in support of current law which will move to 3.5. Everyone just needs to remember he was opposed to the legislation that put it into effect. I expect 5 or 6 years from now he will be in favor of this particular measure when he speaks on the floor, although he will be opposed to putting it into law. I always appreciate those kinds of positions.

The gentleman also quoted a very liberal think tank that dreams up numbers that allows them to make outlandish statements on the floor of the House. The Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper, says that over a 10-year period this measure will not be $700-some billion; it is $283 billion.

Again, you will hear extremely outrageous statements, as we heard on the underlying legislation in which, for example, the gentleman from Maryland opposed but now blithely says I support. The point is, why not be right the first time? Why not support the legislation when it is in front of you? Why not vote now for H.R. 5638 instead of waiting to say you are for what the bill did after it becomes law?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) on the compromise bill, H.R. 5638.

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

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

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

It is a pleasure to indicate that for the first time in my memory I completely agreed with the gentleman from Washington when he said, if you have just tuned in, and you are watching me, you are watching the theater of the absurd.

We are not repealing the estate tax so Mr. Gates wasted a phone call. I hope he is a little more in tune with what is going on in the software world than he is what is going on in the floor of the House.

We are not doing away with the estate tax. We are producing a compromise which will pass this House and go to the Senate in an attempt to make permanent law and remove uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

(Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to provide 3 minutes in support of H.R. 5638, the compromise that is endorsed by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the majority whip of the House of Representatives, to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a newer Member of the House of Representatives, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I yield 2 minutes to a colleague, someone who understands the reason we are here today, a cosponsor of H.R. 5638, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer).

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to yield 4 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee who has been a stalwart on this issue, who has been in the forefront and is one of those who not only knows this issue from an intellectual point of view, but who has lived it with his family, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe I will be the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of democracy and in opposition to aristocracy, and simply and humbly request I have the same clock that was just used.

How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I also want to be on record as being opposed to a theocracy. And I will tell you that today, shortly, democracy will be demonstrated when the House of Representatives determines whether or not it sends this compromise measure over to the Senate with a majority vote.

I know it is a mystery to some people. And I found it most revealing in a poll when Americans were being polled as to whether or not you supported either repeal or making smaller the estate or death tax.

One gentleman responded to the poll that he was in favor of repeal, and if he couldn't get repeal, he wanted it smaller. And given the location in which the question was asked, in the home which the gentleman lived, the questioner said, ``But you aren't currently in a position to benefit from the estate tax, whether it's repealed or not.''

And he said very simply, ``But I want to have the opportunity to be able to.''

That is really the American dream. It really is what democracy is all about. It really is keeping more of your hard-earned efforts at the end of your life, or, if this bill becomes law, the amount that is legally appropriate, $5 million per individual, to be given while you are alive or after you pass or partially when you are alive or partially when you have passed. As one of my colleagues said, after all, it is your money.

The estate tax does deal with progrowth or antigrowth because it is simply a tax on capital and savings. The lower the tax on capital and savings, the greater the opportunity for growth.

We have heard the argument that this really is not a compromise. I believe it is a compromise. I said why. But I think the real test as to whether something is or is not a compromise is what I like to call the Goldilocks test. The Wall Street Journal thinks this is too cold. An individual representing the richest people in America, Dick Patten of the American Family Business Institute, says, ``We flatly oppose the Thomas plan. It just isn't good enough.'' The gentleman from North Dakota says, This is virtually repeal. It is just way too hot.

Well, for some it is too hot; for some it is too cold. It sounds to me like that we have got a compromise that has a chance to pass the United States Senate. We know it will pass the House of Representatives.

Mr. Majority Leader, you asked for a bill that should become law. Mr. Majority Leader, the House is sending you the bill you asked for.

I urge support of H.R. 5638. I urge the Senate to take up the compromise as soon as possible. And when that bill is sent to the President, the American people, those who work hard and expect to retain or pass on at the end of their lives a portion of their earnings during that life, will have achieved a significant victory, not in a theocracy, not in an aristocracy, but in a democracy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order on the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit and believe the point of order is in order because this supposed motion to recommit is not germane.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman supposed to respond to the point of order, or is he allowed to make a partisan political speech which is not germane to the point of order?

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. Beginning your statement with ``this is why it is germane'' is not addressing the germaneness question.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, under the rule in consideration of this bill, the minority was allowed a motion to recommit. A motion to recommit was offered. It was clearly on its face nongermane. The Chair has just ruled that that so-called motion to recommit was nongermane. However, under the rules, that nongermane bill was read. It amounts to a political pamphlet.

Yes. The offer of the motion to recommit would have been exhausted, and I would simply say if that is not the case, they could offer another 10 partisan tracts on the argument that it is a motion to recommit, make the same arguments, and never violate the rules, and that is not under the spirit of the rules.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was not timely in his request to appeal the decision of the Chair.

The gentleman moves to lay the motion on the table.

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion.

The gentleman from California rises, just as he did previously, to gain recognition to indicate that I move that we table the motion to lay the bill on the table of the objection of the gentleman from Maryland on the ruling of the Chair.

So I now have a lay on the table of two objections of the ruling of the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to apologize to the Members for the wasted time based upon the obvious partisan motion to recommit which was not germane.

The best thing I can say about this one is it is germane. It is an index. We have no score, nothing from the Joint Tax Committee. You will be pleased to know I will yield back the balance of my time. Vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Motion to Recommit and in favor of the Pomeroy Substitute to H.R. 5638, the ``Permanent Estate Tax Relief Act of 2006.''

The GOP bill is fiscally irresponsible, costing $762 billion over 10 years--heaping even more debt onto our children and grandchildren. At a time of record deficits, the bill would cost about $290 billion from fiscal years 2006-2016. The estate tax provisions do not take effect until 2011. Thus, the actual cost of H.R. 5638 over the period from 2012 until 2021 shows the impact that the bill will have in the first ten years it is in effect. This more accurate 10-year cost would exceed three-quarters of a trillion dollars when interest payments on the debt incurred are included according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' estimates. Already, the GOP has squandered $5.6 trillion in 10-year surplus and turned it into a $3.2 trillion 10-year deficit. Congress just raised the debt ceiling to nearly $9 trillion, in March-- amounting to about $100,000 of debt for each tax paying family.

The Pomeroy Substitute provides estate tax relief for 99.7 percent of all estates. The Pomeroy Substitute offers more estate tax relief sooner, and is a simpler and more responsible solution over the long- term--raising the amount of an estate excluded from taxes to $6 million per couple and increasing this to $7 million by 2009. Not only did this provide relief for small businesses and family farmers, but it would not have heaped more debt onto our children and grandchildren--costing only 60 percent of H.R. 5638. The Pomeroy Substitute is paid for by closing the gap in unpaid taxes, but Republicans are refusing to allow these provisions to be considered. It would also simplify estate tax planning for married couples who could carry over any unused exemption to the surviving spouse assuring that the full $7 million would be available.

Furthermore, the Pomeroy Substitute transfers the estate tax revenue tax receipts to shore up the Social Security trust fund, and the Social Security Actuary has calculated that this action would solve one quarter of the trust fund's shortfall. Last year, Democrats voted for a similar measure.

Almost no working farmers ever pay the estate tax. Under the $3.5 million exemption to take effect in 2009, the number of family farms required to pay any taxes would have been just 65 in 2000, along with 94 small businesses. Support the Pomeroy Substitute. Vote ``aye'' on the Motion to Recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a concurrent resolution recognizing the accomplishments of the American Council of Young Political Leaders (ACYPL) as the organization celebrates its 40th anniversary this year.

Since 1966, ACYPL has provided bipartisan international exchange programs, educational forums, and leadership training in order to better prepare young political leaders for future positions of responsibility in local, state, and federal government. ACYPL's programs offer young leaders, some who may have never traveled outside the United States, the opportunity to enhance their awareness and understanding of other cultures through in-depth study tours.

Founded during the Cold War, the organization's efforts initially focused on Western Europe. Over the past four decades, however, ACYPL programs have expanded to include over 90 nations throughout the world, including the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa, the Western Hemisphere, East Asia, and the Pacific Rim.

Many of ACYPL's more than six thousand alumni worldwide have risen to positions of great responsibility. In the United States, alumni include members of Congress, the Cabinet, ambassadors, and many senior level officials who serve in local, state, and national government. Internationally, past participants of ACYPL programs now serve as cabinet members, ambassadors, parliamentarians and as other senior level policymakers. Establishing early relationships among such future leaders helps facilitate international dialogue and strengthen and promote U.S. policy objectives.

As an alumnus of an ACYPL program to the then Soviet Union in the 1970s, I can attest to the effectiveness of citizen-to-citizen exchanges in fostering cross-cultural understanding and cultivating international ties among young political leaders. I applaud ACYPL's work over the past decades and wish them continued success in future efforts.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order against section 206 of this bill, H.R. 5576, on the grounds that this provision violates clause 2(b) of House rule XXI, because it is legislation included in a general appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5403, the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of Foster Children Act of 2006. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, which is sponsored by Mr. DeLay.

There are approximately 518,000 children currently in foster care. The legislation before us today is an important first step in our efforts to improve the structure that exists to find a family for these children in order to prevent them from needlessly lingering in foster care.

Specifically, H.R. 5403 would encourage states to expedite the safe placement of foster and adoptive children into homes across state lines. The data suggest that it takes 2 years on average for foster or adoptive children to be placed in homes across state lines. That is longer than the average time frame for placing children in homes within the same states. Under this legislation, states would be required to establish procedures to ensure interstate placements occur within 60 days.

The legislation also would authorize incentive payments to states that place children in safe homes within 30 days. Since we first began providing incentive payments to promote adoption in 1997, the number of adoptions of children from foster care has almost doubled. We expect this new incentive program will help expedite the safe placement of children lingering in foster care, especially when relatives or others have expressed an interest in providing a loving home.

Almost 20,000 children age out of foster care every year at age 18 without the benefit of a family to call their own. This legislation will improve that situation and ensure that more children are raised in loving families instead of waiting needlessly in temporary homes. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss the important issue of dam safety work at Isabella Dam, located in Kern County, California, which I represent.

On April 27, 2006, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers declared an emergency pool restriction at the Lake Isabella Dam due to concern over increased seepage at the base of the auxiliary dam. On May 1, the Corps began releasing water from the dam to relieve pressure on the dam, until the pool level at the dam reached only 63 percent of capacity. This restriction will remain in place until the Corps can take permanent corrective action at the dam, which may not be until 2012, which is 6 years from now.

The Corps of Engineers has named Isabella Dam as their top dam safety concern in the Nation as a result of the Corps Screening Portfolio Risk Assessment done last year, due to seepage, seismic concerns, and spillway deficiencies. Nonetheless, their estimated time for taking permanent corrective action is 6 years. Because of this significant concern, I am working with Energy and Water Appropriations Chairman Hobson to secure the additional funding needed for the Corps to continue important drilling, sample collecting, economics modeling, and environmental studies at Isabella in order to expedite this multi-year process.

Isabella Dam protects a population of 300,000 in the Bakersfield area and about 350,000 acres of highly profitable agricultural land and oil fields. Kern County's evacuation plan notes that should Isabella Dam fail, within three and a half hours portions of the city of Bakersfield would be under as much as thirty feet of water. Loss of life and property, including agricultural land, which annually produces crops with a $3.5 billion farmgate value, would be tremendous. Likewise, there would be tremendous damage to oil infrastructure and significant impact to the entire Nation because Kern County annually produces more oil than Oklahoma.

I am also concerned about the considerable economic hardship that has already occurred as a result of the Corps' pool restriction at Isabella. Water agencies and the City of Bakersfield who have water rights on the Kern River have already lost 77,000 acre feet of water since the pool restriction was put in place. This is precious water, with a conservatively estimated value of over $2.5 million. Allowing water to be lost simply because there is no place to store it is an immense problem in a State like California, which has limited resources.

Given the immediate and considerable safety and economic concerns surrounding Isabella Dam, I will continue to work with my colleagues and the Corps to resolve the problem as swiftly as possible.

I thank my friend for the time.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, Lake Isabella Dam in my district as of April is under a significant capacity restriction due to major concerns about the level of seepage at the base of the dam. The Army Corps of Engineers has rated Isabella Dam its top dam safety concern in the Nation. But even with that designation, the corps has informed me it would take as many as 6 years to create a permanent solution. The dam protects a half a million people as well as valuable agricultural and oil fields.

I appreciate the fact that the chairman has provided report language urging the corps to expedite the process, but I would like to discuss with the chairman what that means.

I thank the gentleman and look forward to working with him to find additional funding for this critical dam safety issue. If the corps has rated this their top dam safety concern, their behavior should reflect that in expressed concern. And I look forward to working with the chairman in conference to produce that, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the Valley Fever Vaccine Development Act, which I introduced today.

Valley Fever or coccidioidomycosis is a serious human disease caused by the inhalation of a soil-borne fungus, Coccidioides, and particularly impacts public health in the southwestern United States, specifically California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Texas. According to researchers involved in the Valley Fever Vaccine Project, each year a estimated 130,000 people nationwide are exposed to Valley Fever and there are about 5,000 cases. Of those cases, between 2,500 and 5,000 are serious and about 500 people die from Valley Fever. The disease is especially prevalent in Kern County, California, which I represent; 1,540 cases were reported in 2004, which was an increase of 1,137 from the 403 cases reported in 2000. Similar increases have been reported in Arizona, where some anticipate the number of cases this year will exceed 4,000. Moreover, 46 Kern County residents died from Valley Fever from 2000 to 2004.

Valley Fever particularly affects those with impaired or less developed immune systems, including children and the elderly. The disease has a high incidence among minority populations as well as among those who work outside in occupations such as construction, agriculture, mining, energy, and the military. In addition, the disease also impact those who engage in outdoor recreational activities, such as biking, golf, hiking, jogging, motorcycling, rock collecting, and tennis.

The drugs currently used to treat Valley Fever are often ineffective and the average hospitalization charges for the seriously ill exceed $30,000. Accordingly, a preventative vaccine is desperately needed. Unfortunately, there currently is no vaccine for Valley Fever and there is no private industry interest in making the investment, estimated to be about $40 million, needed for the development of the vaccine.

However, nonprofit organizations have sponsored exploratory research conducted by the Valley ever Vaccine Project and their efforts have resulted in the identification of candidate vaccines for pharmaceutical development. While I greatly appreciate the $930,000 that has been provided through the federal appropriations process since Fiscal Year 2003

for the California State University at Bakersfield (CSUB) Foundation to purchase equipment needed by the Valley Fever Vaccine Project, additional funding is needed to develop a vaccine, particularly as incidences of Valley Fever continue to increase while treatment options are limited.

Thus, I have introduced the Valley Fever Vaccine Development Act, which would authorize, from Fiscal Year 2007 through Fiscal Year 2012, funding for grants through the Centers for Disease Control for efforts to develop a vaccine to prevent and reduce the prevalence of this serious disease. As the development of a Valley Fever vaccine will directly enhance public health, I ask my colleagues to join me as I work to enact this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 805, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 4297) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(b) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is finally able to take up the conference report. The last time the House visited the Reconciliation Act of 2005 was in December of last year. The minority was very much concerned about dealing with the alternative minimum tax problem facing millions of American taxpayers.

We were also concerned, primarily on this side of the aisle, with making sure that the economy continued its robust growth. I am very pleased to announce today that there should be near unanimous support on the other side of the aisle for this reconciliation agreement.

When we offered the alternative minimum tax outside of reconciliation, we got 414 votes for providing that alternative minimum tax relief outside of reconciliation.

Subsequent to the House passing the reconciliation measure, my friends on the other side of the aisle offered, not once but twice, motions to instruct to require the conference to place in the reconciliation measure alternative minimum tax repeal.

It is my pleasure to announce today that the wishes of my friends on the other side of the aisle have been granted. The alternative minimum tax, in the most comprehensive way ever offered, is part of this package; because it is so comprehensive, that more than 15 million Americans will not pay the alternative minimum tax once this bill becomes law in 2006, and that, in addition, more than 2 million taxpayers will not have any liability because of this bill. Because of its comprehensive nature, this is the only opportunity for Members of the House to vote to provide alternative minimum tax relief to taxpayers.

And so I look forward to having my colleagues join me since we have provided in the reconciliation package what they have voted for and have asked for.

I am also pleased to announce to my friends on both side of the aisle that this measure also contains a provision which extends one of the primary stimulus factors in the economy, and that is the ability to pay only a 15 percent tax on dividends for investing in the economy and 15 percent on capital gains for taking a risk opportunity in the economy.

I will say for those items that were in both the House and the Senate bills that are not part of this package, we are working on an additional important tax relief package which will provide that opportunity. And I know my colleagues on the other sides of the aisle, especially those who represent the States that will see the greatest relief under the alternative minimum tax, those Members who represent the States of California, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Jersey, they will be pleased to note that a ``yes'' vote on this reconciliation measure provides the tax relief and, I might underscore, the only opportunity for tax relief on the alternative minimum tax measure.

I might say in the reverse, that if a Member does not vote for this measure, they are, in essence, then voting to raise taxes on more than 15 million Americans.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I do want to make a slight correction on a factual basis. The gentleman from New York knows full well, in the reconciliation package the single largest item is the alternative minimum tax relief.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the gentleman just quoted was indeed on the front page of The Washington Post today and it comes from the Tax Policy Center. Of course, what he did not bother to do is tell you other material that has come from the very same Tax Policy Center.

Because in 2001 we took millions of people off of the tax rolls, and so for the first time many people making $10,000 to $20,000 do not pay any taxes. And what the Tax Policy Center said was, the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all Federal income taxes.

We are good, but when we remove people from the tax rolls who do not pay any taxes, how would they expect to get money back? That is, of course, the other side of the story, and it comes from the very same center that the gentleman just quoted.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

If, in fact, I said taxes, I obviously meant income taxes, and I appreciate the gentleman's bringing that point to me. And I would like the record corrected to say, they do not pay income taxes.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

I do appreciate having you around making sure that everyone understands that what we did in 2001 was take millions of people off of the income tax rolls.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on my time?

Mr. Speaker, how is the time distributed at this point?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

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

I heard my colleague say a tax is a tax is a tax. Everyone knows a consumption tax buys you a fish for a day; an investment buys a fishing pole and bait, and you eat for a lifetime.

A tax is not a tax is not a tax. Capital gains, dividends are a fishing pole and bait. The kind of taxes they go for is a fish.

Eat for a day or eat for a lifetime. Our taxes provide a lifetime of benefits.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a very valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

I will tell my colleague that in my opening remarks I indicated that there were provisions that passed both the House and the Senate in the reconciliation packages that are not part of this bill. We are working currently on this next bill. Clearly, the State and local tax deduction will be a part of it, and we will move it to the floor as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) for a revision and extension remark.

(Mr. CAMP of Michigan asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

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

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

The gentleman from Illinois wanted to know why we aren't going to be voting on the research and development tax credit, on State sales tax provision, the work opportunity tax credit or the assistance to teachers for out-of-pocket expenses, money for paying for items in the classroom. My answer to the gentleman from Illinois is that he should look forward shortly for an opportunity to vote on that measure. My hope is, based on the statement, at least the feeling I got out of the statement that he made, that he would be anxious to vote ``yes'' on that measure. We will provide him an opportunity to do that.

Gee, I don't know. We had AMT outside of reconciliation, and we got all kinds of complaints about how it should be inside reconciliation. We put it inside reconciliation, and we get all kinds of complaints about the fact that it is inside reconciliation.

Our colleague from Ohio said, what time is it, Mr. Wolf? I will tell her what time it is. It is time to act. This is the measure that provides alternative minimum tax to American taxpayers. It is time to act.

If you vote ``yes,'' you are in favor of that relief. If you vote ``no,'' you are not. What time is it, Mr. Wolf? It is time to quit wolfing. It is time to vote. A ``yes'' vote provides relief.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker takes the Member at their word, obviously we are dealing with either confusion or some other circumstance.

Madam Speaker, as the world now knows, early Saturday morning in his sleep, Buck Owens let go of the tiger's tail. What people probably do not know was what happened on Friday night. Because as Buck usually did, he acted naturally. He went to his Crystal Palace, his dance hall and dining room, had his usual chicken-fried steak Friday evening, and told the staff he did not feel very good and he was going to go home and miss the Friday night performance.

In going out to his car, a car full of people from Bend, Oregon, saw him, and they ran over to him and they said, Buck, we came all of the way down to see you. He turned around and went back in and played the complete first set because he could not disappoint a fan.

He went home and never woke up.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend and country music legend, Buck Owens, who passed away on Saturday, March 25, 2006.

With 25 No. 1 songs, Buck had one of the most successful country music careers in history. Known for his trademark red, white and blue guitar, he was on stage nearly every Friday and Saturday night with his band, Buck Owens and the Buckaroos, at his Crystal Palace in Bakersfield. In fact, just hours before he passed away, he had spent the evening performing at the Crystal Palace, closing his portion of the show with his 1969 hit ``Big in Vegas.''

Alvin Edgar Owens was born to Texas sharecroppers in 1929 and became known as ``Buck'' at the age of 4 when he nicknamed himself after a mule on the family farm. In 1937, after their trailer hitch broke during their move west, Buck and his family ended up in Phoenix, where they remained for more than a decade. During that time, Buck and his siblings worked in the fields picking cotton and potatoes, which Buck later said, ``was where my dream began to take hold . . .''

Buck began regularly playing music in local pubs when he was 16 and, when he moved to Bakersfield in 1951, he quickly found work playing with steel guitarist Dusty Rhodes and then Bill Woods and the Orange Blossom Playboys. While Buck at first played a hollow-body Gibson guitar, after a pawnshop sold his Gibson before he could redeem it, Buck began using a Fender Telecaster electric guitar that made his music unique and eventually became known as the ``Bakersfield Sound.''

In 1957, Buck signed a recording contract with Capitol Records and in 1958 he cut four original songs, including ``Second Fiddle,'' which eventually reached No. 24 on the Billboard charts. During this time, Buck acquired a one-third interest in a Tacoma, WA, radio station and he remained in the radio business for the rest of his life. In 1959, Buck began doing his own live television show and his television career ultimately included 16 years as a co-host of ``Hee-Haw.''

Throughout his career, Buck earned the respect of musicians from all different genres of music. In fact, even the Beatles recorded a cover of one of his songs, ``Act Naturally,'' in 1965. In 1996, he was recognized for his accomplishments and was inducted to both the Country Music Hall of Fame and the Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame.

Buck was truly a Bakersfield institution, and his No. 1 hit, ``Streets of Bakersfield,'' has become our town's unofficial anthem and our favorite of Buck's songs. However, in addition to our pride in his accomplishments as a performer and businessman, we appreciated Buck's generosity, including his support for Bakersfield College's music program as well as his annual Toys 4 Tots event, Buck Owens Rodeo, and celebrity golf tournament. Bakersfield will not be the same without Buck Owens. He was the heart of the town and will truly be missed.