Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures for yielding. He has played a major role in putting together, with the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, the tax portion of the energy bill.

Mr. Chairman, one of the more enjoyable things about this job, when we know we are going to conference with the other body, is trying to anticipate the concerns of those who are trying to look at what the product of a conference committee is going to be prior to the opportunity of actually having the conference and putting the product together. So one of the things that I think is important for us to do is to engage in a discussion at this point of what we anticipate the conference report will look like.

As a first step, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), as a member of the committee, certainly has some concerns, and that is not so surprising when we recognize the fact that he is from the State of Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and the question of the gentleman from Kentucky is obviously important not only to the gentleman from Kentucky, but the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and, I am sure, a number of other Members on both sides of the aisle.

When we examine the Senate tax portion generated by the Committee on Finance of this energy bill, we find there are other credits that are not contained, for example, in the Ways and Means product, ethanol, biodiesel, coal and others. Similarly, the Ways and Means product has positions in it that are not in the Senate's. The goal would be to produce a product which picks up some of the more innovative approaches in the Senate bill, and we would hope, during the discussion, that the Senate would do the same.

The particular provision that the gentleman mentioned, the 4.3 excise tax removal, happens to be one of the few items that is exactly identical in both bills. That is an important decision. It means that decision has already been made. I can assure the gentleman that, as we sit down with the Senate, a number of those items, such as those that the gentleman has suggested, will be part of the melding of the Senate and the House packages.

Of course, it has to yet happen, and I know the gentleman will rely on me to provide a package from the House side that takes the important provisions of the House package and that the Senate will maintain the important provisions of its package. We will meld the two and bring it to the floor, and I am sure the gentleman will be very much in support of the conference report when we bring it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1664) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am a firm believer that no bill should pass this House until it is ready. I am prepared to tell the House this bill is more than ready. It passed twice last year, and the Senate failed to act. As recently as March 20 of this year, the bill, in its current form save a technical correction, passed as H.R. 1307. That vote was 422-0.

H.R. 1664 is in its current form virtually, as I said, except for technical correction, in the same form as H.R. 1307. There are two modifications that we are adding to this bill based upon discussions with the Senate so that the good and worthy purposes contained in this bill which no one has challenged can go to the President for his long- overdue signature.

The two provisions which the Chair believes, if added to this bill, will initiate a process in the Senate which will move the bill immediately to the floor of the Senate; and this version which passes the House, when it passes, will move through the Senate without the need for a conference. The two provisions that we are adding is that in the special rule provided for military personnel to determine if they have met the 24 months out of 5-year residency to trigger the capital gain exclusion on a home sale, would be extended to members of the foreign service.

Secondly, the underlying benefits of the bill, the income and estate tax relief provisions that were provided, for example, for the victims of terrorism in the Tax Relief Act of 2002, would be extended to astronauts who lose their lives during a space mission; and, of course, that would apply to those astronauts who unfortunately lost their lives during the recent Columbia Shuttle disaster.

Adding those two provisions, which I do not believe are controversial, to the underlying bill means we can finally, and long overdue, provide these benefits. It means that the history of this bill will be that the House and the Senate agree, and the President is prepared to sign.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

If the Senate bill were not flawed in several different ways, the suggestion the gentleman makes would be acceptable. I think it is evidence that even the Senate recognizes some fundamental problems when they are willing to accept a bill that we are going to send over, rather than going to a conference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell Members I think we have come full circle. One of the reasons there was so much, I assume, angst on the other side of the aisle was that at one time the bill contained extraneous material. Now the gentleman is complaining that I am not accepting the Senate version of the bill which contains, oh, my goodness, extraneous material. The gentleman knows well that the, quote/unquote, extraneous material has been contained in another bill which is moving on the Senate side and which will become law is a far more appropriate vehicle than this particular measure.

In addition to that, the extraneous material that the gentlemen insists that we agree to, coming from the Senate, is not the solution on the individual expatriation that our own Joint Committee on Taxation recommends is the most appropriate solution.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I must tell the gentleman that offsetting costs with extraneous material is one thing; accepting a solution which our committee that we utilize to recommend

appropriate changes does not believe is the appropriate exchange is another.

The gentleman also pointed out two differences between the House and the Senate bill, and it is true. I understand the gentleman and where his party is coming from. They do not see a problem with absolute, open-ended, unlimited ability to write off expenses. That is just very, very typical.

What we have accepted, by the Senate, are reasonable and appropriate limits. Whenever the phrase ``reasonable and appropriate'' is used, the counterargument always seems to be unlimited. The Senate thinks it is appropriate to accept a reasonable and appropriate, and so do we.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and that he may control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 141) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 should be fundamentally reformed to be fairer, simpler, and less costly and to encourage economic growth, individual liberty, and investment in American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my time to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), sponsor of the concurrent resolution, and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia control the balance of the time.

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

Prior to being elected to Congress, some of us were actually in the profession of teaching. I was, for a number of years, and I paid into the California State Teachers Retirement System. I can tell my colleagues right now that in California, no serious and responsible professional teacher would think that their 20 or 25 years devoted to the classroom should be capped off by scurrying to another school district where there is clear collusion between the districts to allow for 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month of employment so that they can scam the system. Now, that is basically what the Green amendment asks us to continue to allow; fortunately not in California, but unfortunately in Texas and perhaps in Georgia.

Let me get my colleagues to really understand what is going on here. Is there a problem with the offset? Of course there is. We just had a colloquy on the floor with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Social Security and there was agreement that we will seriously address the pension offset. I have friends of mine who are still in teaching who have implored me to address that. We are in the process of addressing it.

The whole point of the Green amendment is do we allow something to continue which goes something like this: Let us take a teacher in Texas, Mrs. Brown or a Mrs. Green, and say she is employed in Dallas or Houston. And let us say she has worked for a number of years and has successfully put a significant amount of money in the Texas State Teachers Retirement System. She is now ready to retire. She finds another district. And it is true that the local district officials choose whether their employees are in the Social Security System or in the State teachers system. That is a local choice.

But what happens is those board members are in collusion with other districts when they allow a 20-plus year career teacher to work, perhaps in areas not directly to their certificate of teaching credential but simply a job. And let us say they work there for as much as, oh, a month. They may have paid into Social Security, oh, maybe $100. And according to the Social Security actuaries, that 1 month, after those distinguished years of teaching, could produce as much as $93,000 of taxpayers' money going to this person who put a blemish on their professional teaching career to play an angle.

The Green amendment says let us allow these folks to continue to play this little game of collusion to raid the Social Security System under the guise that we should take care of these people. If we vote for the Green amendment what we are doing is relieving pressure to address the real problem.

I would urge all my colleagues to understand a ``yes'' vote on the Green

amendment slows down the addressing of the pension offset. A ``no'' vote on the Green amendment puts all Americans in the same position, pressuring us to do something about the pension offset. Please, do not remove the pressure by voting ``yes'' on the Green amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Green amendment and all Americans will feel the pressure, rather than just a few who distinguish themselves at the end of their teaching career to go clip lawns, sweep up paper, or maybe even latch on to a substitute position to scam the system.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me so that I might inform my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), that I am doing everything I can to fix the loopholes in the Tax Code. He is well aware that his party was in the majority for 40 years and they punched an awful lot of holes in that Tax Code. We are trying to plug it up just as rapidly as we can, but it will take a few more years to clean up 40 years of a mess

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California who is interested in dealing with the teachers' issues is named Buck McKeon. We have talked about him as a good $1 bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

I want Members to know this motion to recommit is a $3 bill. If Members have never seen a $3 bill, all Members have to do is look at this motion to recommit. As we all know, there is no such thing as legal tender that is a $3 bill.

What this motion to recommit does is it kills the bill. I ask the freshmen to listen carefully. If this motion to recommit said ``report the same back to the House forthwith,'' a little word, ``forthwith'', what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) was talking about could possibly occur. But he used the word ``promptly'' knowingly, because they know that a motion to recommit with the word ``promptly'' in it kills the bill.

Let me tell the Members what this motion to recommit really does: it says that the Social Security Administration cannot withhold tax refunds of people who cheat other taxpayers. It

says that the Social Security Administration cannot impose monetary penalties on those who mismanage benefits. If says that we cannot create new civil monetary penalties for Social Security fraud.

In other words, if people are for the good stuff that is in the bill, they are against this motion to recommit. The motion to recommit cannot add what they said it does because of the way it is written, it is very simple.

There was not a lot of honest debate on the amendment, and this motion to recommit is not an honest amendment to recommit. It is a motion to kill. Let us vote ``no'' on this so we can get on to the basic business of passing a very important and helpful bill. Vote ``no'' on this $3 bill, the motion to recommit.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in part because I have

just now read the motion to instruct conferees. The ranking member on the Committee on the Budget had indicated that perhaps there were some misrepresentations by a description of what some of the black letter language was. If the gentleman would be willing to respond to some questions that I have, it might assist us in understanding, or at least it will assist this gentleman from California in understanding.

When, for example, on page 5 the gentleman indicates that we be instructed to eliminate the reconciliation instruction, that means to remove the 1 percent across-the-board cut; is that correct?

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

That is 1 percent across the board.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to go through each of the committees, that will eat up my entire time.

The instruction was a 1 percent.

Reclaiming my time, it does not say restore to. Reading the black letters in front of me, it does not say restore to the President's request. It says eliminate the reconciliation instruction, not restore to the President's request.

So it is clear, then, it is the removal of the 1 percent no matter what they may say they mean based upon that language.

Then when we drop down further and the gentleman talks about the managers receding to the Senate on section 319. It was described, I understand, as the Breaux amendment. The Breaux amendment is in two sections. One section is to cut by $396 billion, the other is to create a reserve fund to strengthen Social Security.

My assumption is that when the gentleman refers to 319, not tying it to the money number that was included in the Breaux amendment, he is referring only to the creation of a reserve fund or a lockbox for Social Security; is that correct?

Does that language include the $396 billion which was included in the Breaux amendment?

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to create a lockbox to preserve Social Security.

And then, no matter how much the gentleman may not like the explanation, when we read the black letter language, what it says is that instead of a $1.3 billion reduction in taxes, there will be a $1.1 billion reduction in taxes, and it in no way addresses the $726 billion amount that was included in the House budget resolution.

That is not discussed, nor is it altered by this motion to instruct. There may be an attempt through language on the floor to convey that that is the intent; but as the gentleman requested, if we read the black letter language in front of us, the $726 billion budget cut for taxes is retained. It is a removal of the 1 percent cut across the board, and it is to create a Social Security lockbox. That is what they are attempting to do.

I reserve the right to object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, as any Member, has the right to place any material under extension of remarks in another area of parliamentary procedure of this body. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has the right to place in the Record at another point in the proceedings. Since he has that right, which cannot be removed, I object to doing it at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1307) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a special rule for members of the uniformed services in determining the exclusion of gain from the sale of a principal residence and to restore the tax exempt status of death gratuity payments to members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

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

This particular provision is called the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003, and a couple of examples, I think, will make it quite obvious as to why it is the tax fairness part of the title that we should focus on. As we now know for some years now, you have been able to exclude the capital gain on a home if you lived in that home as your principal residence for 24 months out of a 5-year period. Of course, we all know that the military as to where they live is subject to the exigencies of the world and the need for military personnel to be dispersed sometimes literally around the world. I think it is entirely appropriate to examine this kind of a piece of legislation in the context of where we are vis-a-vis the President's decision to perhaps move militarily against Iraq.

So what this says is that if, in fact, you are not able to meet that 24-months-out-of-5-year period for exclusion from the capital gains, and the reason you are not able to is because you have been transferred away from home on official extended duty during that 5-year period, you would be exempt from that regulation.

There follow a series of other changes in the Tax Code that very much are representative of that kind of approach in treating the military differently because the military does not have the ability at times, the individuals in the military, to control decisions that affect them directly.

That is the purpose of the bill. It is as it was originally introduced. For purposes of determining the above-the-line deduction for overnight travel expenses for military reservists, this bill, as some people know, passed the House twice in the last Congress, and in negotiating with the Senate, the agreement at that time was that the exemption should be up to $1,500 for reservists who serve more than 100 miles away from home. That was an agreement that had been negotiated between the House and the Senate, and this particular bill includes that agreement so that we could reach quick settlement in a conference between the House and the Senate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), who has a measure included in this bill, which was a separate bill, which is a significant piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

I agree with the gentleman from Missouri that the House and the Senate have indeed acted, but not in concert and let the Record note that the House acted in July and again in October. That perhaps was not enough lead time for the Senate; so we are moving in March, and we believe that may be sufficient lead time for the Senate to be able to act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) eloquently indicated that freedom is not free, and that his own brother did not return in paying the ultimate price.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who served his country admirably, and did return with an amazing story.

Mr. Speaker, I want to join in the statement of the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1307.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a modest bill that has come to the light of day by virtue of examining those issues, although modest in nature, that have passed the House or the Senate, or both, one or more times, but somehow have never made it to the President's desk for signature.

Other measures in this bill are those measures that raise revenue in ways that those committees responsible for assisting us in determining ways to change the law indicate an appropriate change of the law.

Lastly, there are items which were approved by the committee, notwithstanding the fact they do not raise revenue or they had been approved previously, which merited the committee's voice voting, that is, no recorded vote, and the bill itself passed by a voice vote. If there was a measure that appeared to elicit controversy, that is, it was a recorded vote in committee, then that measure is not included in this particular provision. For example, there was an amendment offered to extend some provisions of the military bill just passed to astronauts who die on space missions. Obviously, that was a voice vote, and it was unanimously agreed to.

There is a modification on the orphan drug credit provision. This particular measure has passed the Committee on Ways and Means twice, it passed the House three times, and it passed the Senate, but, notwithstanding that stellar legislative career, it has never made it to the President's desk for his signature.

There are other items in here which exemplify the fact that brought to our attention over time are provisions of the Tax Code which make absolutely no sense and should not remain in the Tax Code for 1 day longer than our ability to amend it, and, yet, notwithstanding that, remain on the books.

The gentleman from Wisconsin brought us an example which I think is particularly egregious. It has to do with a very modest subject called bows and arrows. As you might guess, some arrows are produced domestically, and some are produced outside the United States. You would think that if someone was going to import the components to assemble an arrow, that is, use foreign parts and U.S. labor, that you would not tax the foreign parts so that they could come in, so the value added would be U.S. to produce that arrow.

But, ironically, it is exactly the opposite. It is the completed arrow, with the foreign labor added, that comes in free of a tax, and the component parts are taxed, which would make it more expensive if you added U.S. labor. That is in direct competition to a U.S. arrow which carries the tax.

Now, how in the world could the Tax Code get that far on its head? You do not want to pursue that questioning, you only want to change it immediately; not so, as some of the media has reported, that we give a tax break to domestic producers of arrows, but that we create a fair and equitable relationship between those arrows composed of foreign components assembled by foreign labor in competition with American arrows composed of American material. It seems to me that the only fair thing is to treat them equally. The Tax Code does not do that, in part or in whole. That is a typical example of one of the modest measures that are included in this provision.

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

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

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

This gentleman from California spent, I believe, 3 minutes explaining the bow and arrow provision and why it was included. It was an amendment that was presented to the committee. It is an unfairness in the Tax Code, and it passed by a voice vote, just as the astronaut provision was an amendment to this measure.

Now, I know that in some situations you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. Had we selectively pulled amendments out and included them in the military bill, we would have been criticized, as we were before, that we were placing items on the military bill that, in fact, were not originally on the bill. That is why we are carrying a separate bill in dealing with all of those amendments that passed by voice vote.

I did say in the opening statement one of the provisions, as compared to all of the other provisions that have passed the House, the Senate, and sometimes both multiple times, the livestock provision did not pass the House before. It is a response to a current problem and circumstance. When you lose livestock, you have an ability to deal with an involuntary conversion. The loss of livestock is over the drought.

Now, it is unfortunate that weather does not follow a taxable calendar year. If that were the case and we have 2 years in which to deal with the involuntary compensation and replace the livestock, if that drought which killed the first cow is still present and will kill the second cow, it does not make a whole lot of sense to provide a time frame which encompasses an ongoing drought. So the gentleman from Colorado offered an amendment, accepted by voice vote, that says, let us extend that involuntary conversion to 4 years and not 2. Hopefully, the drought will

be over in that 4-year period, and they will be able to get an involuntary conversion for a cow that, because there is no longer a drought, will be able to stay alive.

It seems to me that these provisions are worthy and should move forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of H.R. 1308, the bill just passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that is necessary to enhance our national security. The East Kern Airport District in Mojave, California, faces unique security threats.

Although it is a General Aviation airport and does not have commercial passengers, the East Kern Airport District is home to high- tech aerospace firms and provides storage to over 300 commercial transport aircraft. These aircraft, which are stored with fifty percent of their fuel tanks full, rest just minutes through the air from several major military installations and downtown Los Angeles.

Since September 11, 2001, the Airport has been seeking funding to address these threats, as it fears a serious act of terrorism. However, the Airport has been repeatedly informed that no security funds are available for its needs because it is classified as a General Aviation airport.

To correct this situation, I am introducing legislation today to ensure that the Undersecretary of Transportation has the authority needed to enhance security at the East Kern Airport District. Very simply, this legislation will allow the Undersecretary to provide up to $300,000 annually to meet the Airport's security costs and up to $1.25 million to reimburse the East Kern Airport District for security costs incurred since September 11, 2001.

I trust that my colleagues and the appropriate Department of Homeland Security officials will recognize the East Kern Airport District's unique situation and work with me to ensure that the Airport is adequately protected.

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

Mr. Chairman, before 1996, welfare recipients were trapped, trapped in a welfare system for an average of 13 years. The welfare program actually discouraged work, amazingly enough, and caseloads climbed, peaking at 14 million individuals in 5 million families.

In 1996, reform law turned the welfare program in the right direction, in the work direction. Recipients now are benefiting from increased work, education, training, larger incomes, reduced child poverty, and greater self-reliance, which probably is the most important benefit from the new program. Welfare caseloads are down more than 50 percent since that historic 1996, and the caseloads continue to decline even in a recession structure.

Some of my colleagues might remember the dire predictions of reform opponents in 1996 who predicted that the law, in their words, would cast 1 million more children into poverty. I am glad to report they were wrong. Nearly 3 million children have been lifted from poverty since 1996 in key groups, such as children raised in single-mother households and African American children, who are seeing poverty fall to record-low levels.

Now, obviously, we need to continue on these successes, and that is why H.R. 4 is before us today. Our priority is to help more people successfully transition to work in order to know the dignity of collecting a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Now, more than ever, work is the only permanent path out of poverty.

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

Mr. Chairman, we are going to hear a number of claims; and I would like to present one that I believe is incontrovertible, and that is if people remain on welfare, they will remain in poverty.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means; and I ask unanimous consent that he control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Clause 2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on Ways and Means for printing in the Congressional Record. On January 29, 2003, the Committee on Ways and Means adopted by voice vote, a quorum being present, the following committee rules.

Rules of the Committee on Ways and Means for the 108th Congress

Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives,

provides in part:

* * * 1. (a)(1)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B),

the Rules of the House are the rules of its committees and

subcommittees so far as applicable.

(B) A motion to recess from day to day, and a motion to

dispense with the first reading (in full) of a bill or

resolution, if printed copies are available, each shall be

privileged in committees and subcommittees and shall be

decided without debate.

(2) Each subcommittee is a part of its committee and is

subject to the authority and direction of that committee and

to its rules, so far as applicable. * * *

* * * 2. (a)(1) Each standing shall adopt written rules

governing its procedure. Such rules--

(A) shall be adopted in a meeting that is open to the

public unless the committee, in open session and with a

quorum present, determines by record vote that all or part of

the meeting on that day shall be closed to the public;

(B) may not be inconsistent with the Rules of the House or

with those provisions of law having the force and effect of

Rules of the House * * *.

In accordance with the foregoing, the Committee on Ways and

Means, on February 7, 2001 adopted the following as the Rules

of the Committee for the 107th Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding the time.

Well, here we go again. I heard the gentleman from Wisconsin say that he was opposed to the continuing resolution without the motion to recommit added to it. If you read the motion to recommit very carefully, it uses a word

which, if that word is used and the motion to recommit passes, it will kill the continuing resolution. I know one word sometimes does not mean a lot. If you say ``I you'' and do not say ``love'' or ``hate,'' you really do not get the meaning of what you are trying to say.

The word the gentleman from Wisconsin included in his motion to recommit is ``promptly.'' What in the world is the difference between ``promptly'' or, let us choose another word, ``forthwith''? The difference is the difference between ``I love you'' and ``I hate you.'' Why? Because if you include ``forthwith'' in the bill, it means it would be immediately changed as the gentleman says he wants, it is reported right back on the floor, and we go forward. If you include the word ``promptly,'' it kills the bill.

So do not pay attention to anything that is said after the word ``promptly,'' because it does not mean anything. If you pass the motion to recommit with ``promptly'' in it, it kills the measure.

Let us examine what he says he wants. He has picked two items out of the motion to recommit. There are more provisions, you can imagine the Senate could not limit itself to two provisions, that they would want to try to legislate on an appropriations bill. They also said, Let's help Home Health Services, $40 million. Let's put $492 million in for bioterrorism. Let's put $120 million in for community access. Those are not in here.

So if you really want to help folks, they should have put everything in that the Senate did. The trouble is, it is all headed with ``promptly,'' which means it does not make any difference what you put in here.

My friend and colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, made an offer to my friend from Wisconsin about future motions to recommit. I will give you a flat-out promise. If you will change ``promptly'' to ``forthwith'' and if you will heed the advice of our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and say, Let's have malpractice reform, and you put that in your motion to recommit, the House has passed it a number of times; the Senate will not.

If we really wanted to make a difference, we would not stand up here with a motion that kills the bill and say, This is what we want. Let us get serious. Do we have to address problems in Medicare? Of course we do. Do we have to do something about the flawed physicians formula? Of course we do. Will we? Yes, we will.

What we should not be doing is holding out a false promise of part of what the Senate wants to do under a motion to recommit, that if you believe the promise is real and vote for the motion to recommit, you in fact kill the continuing resolution.

I yield briefly to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if the term ``promptly'' is in a motion to recommit, you kill the CR. You do not help it. You do not nurture it. You do not defend positions that the Senate has placed in the appropriations. You kill it.

If the gentleman had put ``forthwith,'' he would have been helping. I cannot believe, based upon the time and experience the gentleman from Wisconsin has had in this body, that he does not know that ``promptly'' kills it and ``forthwith'' helps it. That is the difference between ``I love you'' and ``I hate you.''

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

The gentleman is absolutely correct. It not only kills the bill; it stops the government.