Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4944) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to modify temporarily certain rates of duty, to make other technical amendments to the trade laws, and for other purposes.

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 is generally known as the miscellaneous trade bill. We do this virtually every year. It consists primarily of those bills that, on their own, don't have any opposition, but standing alone, would have a difficult time in the legislative process. They are important in terms of their particularities, but taken as a whole, it represents an opportunity to put together, in a bipartisan way, those requests by Members in bill form to do what is absolutely the right thing to do, and, that is, those products not available in the United States and which are primarily materials used in making goods in the U.S. that do produce value added are subject to a tariff. So all it does is add costs. It is not in competition with anything in the United States, and so to help reduce costs we put together every year this list of trade bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee. But prior to yielding, I would request unanimous consent that the remainder of my time also be controlled by the Chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1053) to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (normal trade relations treatment) to the products of Ukraine, as amended.

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 is really an exciting time in which we recognize the continuing maturation and involvement of a new nation, yet a nation of people who have deserved better over many decades and are now beginning to see the fruit of their struggle manifest itself. We are asking today in this legislation to recognize that the country of Ukraine that has entered into a series of agreements with the United States and other countries, and I include an exchange of letters between the United States Trade Representative Rob Portman and myself as chairman of the Ways and

Means Committee, indicating some certainties as to that agreement, and to anxiously await the comments by my colleagues as we recognize that the Ukraine, through very difficult economic and political transformations, has reached the point of integrating itself into the world economy.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, March 6, 2006.

Hon. Rob Portman,

U.S. Trade Representative,

Washington, DC.

Dear Ambassador Portman: I understand the United States and

Ukraine have concluded the bilateral negotiations on market

access issues related to Ukraine's World Trade Organization

(WTO) accession. The Committee has received the confidential

documents related to the accord, and I congratulate you and

your negotiators on a very strong agreement.

The commitments that Ukraine has made related to market

access for goods and services, as well as on sanitary and

phytosanitary (SPS) obligations and intellectual property

rights, are very important for U.S. exporters and to Members

of Congress. It is essential that Ukraine comply fully with

all of its WTO commitments. To that end, I write to seek your

assurances that you will be steadfast in confirming that

Ukraine fully implements all of its commitments as scheduled,

and that you will not support its accession unless that is

the case.

I look forward to moving legislation through Congress to

grant permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) to Ukraine

quickly after the bilateral agreement is signed.

Unconditional normal trade relations is a basic tenet of WTO

membership, and granting PNTR to Ukraine will allow the

United States to benefit from the WTO commitments made by

Ukraine. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased by the statement of my friend from Maryland, and am also pleased to underscore the fact that my colleague and friend from California and I will stand together all the time in making sure that the conditions under which we examine and approve normal trade relations follow what should be a model. But, indeed, if you have to make sure it is followed, it will be followed.

Mr. Speaker, it is now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the chief sponsor of H.R. 1053, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach).

Mr. Speaker, prior to recognizing him, I yield the balance of my time to the chairman of the Trade Subcommittee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), and ask unanimous consent that he control the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I would feel a whole lot better about this debate if it were being carried out in October or November and we had a chance to actually make some permanent changes in pension law prior to the first of the year. We are now in March. Frankly, we have been very lucky that the real world hasn't reacted in a way that would make our job even that much more difficult.

The gentleman from New Jersey, in his usually scholarly fashion, has laid out what we ought to do. I would like to remind the gentleman that the House bill contains the Savers Credit. We put it in. We obviously support the Savers Credit. Why there is a need now to reaffirm the fact that we support the Savers Credit is beyond me. The House has voted for it. It is the House position. Do you need to then put another nail in it?

But, interestingly, you only mentioned that. You didn't mention the other really good provisions that are in there. I think they all should be given equal weight and we should support it.

In terms of the airlines, the House bill is silent on airlines. I think that is, frankly, the smartest position we should be in. Do you think that based upon the conferee, the gentleman from Michigan's statement, that we aren't vitally concerned about airlines? I think what we ought not to do is to begin drawing lines in the sand. And, by the way, they aren't even lines in the sand, because this particular bill has no bearing of any meaning to the conferees. It is basically a political statement on the part of the minority in which they wish to select certain provisions and highlight those over others.

You have every right to offer it, we have every responsibility to reject it, because it means then other provisions that you chose not to pick, which you were not successful on, should not be dealt with in conference, and that isn't the way the world works. The majority will carry forward, not just the Savers Credit, but the other good components in the bill.

You can be assured that we are very, very concerned about airlines. We are so concerned that we didn't spend time spinning our wheels on the floor trying to determine who should be rewarded and who should not. We are going in there with total flexibility to try to solve the problem, and we will do the best we can to address the problem.

I will just have to tell you that to the degree we play political games, as indicated by the gentleman from Massachusetts' speech in terms of class warfare, once again we may run the chance of failing in the conference. We cannot afford that chance. And if we are successful in conference, we are going to have to convince the administration to sign the bill.

This is the time to be prudent, to turn down that wick of partisan rhetoric, get serious about trying to begin to solve an institutional, demographic, and economic structural problem. I want to go to conference with maximum flexibility in taking the House position and solving the other problems that need to be solved.

Please. You have every right to offer it. We should reject it. Let us get on to the conference so we are dealing with real issues instead of imagined political ones that continue to seem to be the primary motivation of the minority party in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table 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, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do have to say this is one of the oddest motions to instruct that I have seen in my multiple decades in the House for basically one reason: just a few short days ago the House passed by a vote of 234 to 197, a tax reconciliation package which extended the dividend reductions and the capital gains reductions. On the same day, the House passed, outside of reconciliation, the alternative minimum tax assistance that the gentleman has pleaded for by a vote of 414 Members of the House of Representatives, I believe, to 9 in opposition. That was the substantive action of the House on the floor.

This motion to instruct, which is nonbinding, requests that the House completely reverse itself from the vote we had just a few days ago, and that is, we do not include dividends in capital gains in tax reconciliation, but we include the alternative minimum tax which was voted outside of reconciliation. And I guess I would just ask my Members whether or not it is more important to hang on to the substantive action of the House or the symbolic gesture on the part of the Democrats. That is not the only strange thing about this motion to instruct.

You heard my colleague from Massachusetts and you will soon hear from other Members of very large urban States asking for tax relief for the very richest Americans. After all, by definition, the alternative minimum tax is not applied to the lowest. It is not applied to the 10 percent bracket. It is not applied to the 15 percent bracket. It is applied to the richest among us. And although it is refreshing, it is just ironic that we are going to have Democrats going to the floor pleading to relieve the wealthiest among us from an alternative tax burden. And to do that, they want to deny, the number 17 million was mentioned, as those who were affected by this. That is everyone who has even a dollar affected, as opposed to 14 million who would get total relief on the basis of this if it were substantive, which it is not.

But what my colleague fails to recognize, or chooses not to mention, is that with the reduction for dividends and capital gains, we also provide for significant tax relief in the investment aspect of dividend in capital gains for those in the 10 and 15 percent bracket going to zero before it expires. On capital gains that benefits 14 million alone; on the dividends, that benefits 27 million Americans.

They want to take those people who want to invest, who are in the 10 and 15 percent bracket, and deny them the opportunity to bootstrap themselves so they can give the richest among us a little bit of relief because large States that have high State income taxes and high State sales tax want to live off the rest of the Federal taxpayers in getting relief from alternative minimum tax.

And let me say about the gentleman's example about how we do not seem to be able to figure out how individuals can live if they followed the Federal example of tax cuts, it is very simple. The alternative minimum tax that they ask for in terms of relief are dollars to the richest among us who will spend, who will spend it on consumption. You get a one-time benefit on consumption. In that example, there is no question that American families could never survive tax cut after tax cut if all you did with the money was feed consumption. But what the history of the investment of dividends and capital gains meant is that people were able to invest money going to jobs and to productivity which has given us a bonus back.

And if the individual family took that money and invested it, that is the smartest thing, deferring current gratification for future reward. That is exactly what we are doing with the dividends and capital gains. So I am a little startled that my colleagues are bewildered, the difference between a consumption-insisting tax or an investment insisting tax. One consumes, the other one grows. That is why we are able to continue to see the economy improve as we continue to cut taxes. It depends on which taxes you cut, where you cut them, and how you cut them.

What my colleagues are asking for in this motion to instruct is to give more money to rich people to spend and deny those people even in the 10 and 15 percent tax bracket a chance to invest and grow wealth. One is the American way. I do not know what the other one is.

So all I would tell my colleagues is, please, we acted substantively. We passed tax reconciliation. I know this motion is not binding, but please make sure you understand what you are doing. You would be reversing investment in favor of consumption. If you come from a rich urban State, it probably makes sense to you. If you are from the rest of America, it certainly does not.

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

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

We actually could solve a lot of our problems if we would tax all the people in the world. Clearly, what I said was the people in the United States. Those of us among us.

I cannot speak for the gentleman in terms of how he casts votes. I know he was on the losing side when we voted to extend the dividends and capital gains relief in the tax reconciliation package that just a few days ago passed the House with 239 votes. My vote in insisting for alternative minimum tax outside of reconciliation was an honest vote, and I intend to help those people.

Reconciliation is a process that is used by the Senate, not by the House. In terms of the number of votes necessary to pass legislation, the House always passes legislation by a majority vote, and it is always permanent. What we did with the minimum alternative tax vote, which with the help of the gentleman from New York passed by 414 votes, is exactly the same thing as far as the House is concerned that we did with the dividends and cap gains under tax reconciliation.

It is the Senate that utilizes reconciliation to pass measures by only 51 votes, albeit not permanently, for only a decade; and it is the Senate that needs 60 votes to make things permanent. So far as the institution of the House and the rules of the House and the votes that were cast, both on tax reconciliation and on the alternative minimum tax vote, the effective result of the House vote is absolutely the same.

All I am pointing out about the strangeness of this motion to instruct is that it is a request for the House to reverse itself, albeit nonbinding, from the very vote that we took, and that is that the gentleman from New York and others who were on the losing side on the vote for tax reconciliation want to be on the winning side by offering a motion to instruct. I guess it is okay. I will trade substance for appearance any day of the week. But Members need to know what they are voting on, and what they are voting on is to reverse themselves from the substantive decision they made earlier. I have never seen a motion to instruct that completely flips the legislation that had been presented. That is what I meant by strangeness.

And the argument that the gentleman from New York has just made in terms of the comparisons kind of equals that level as well. It is pretty simple. The economy is moving because we are investing in the economy through the reduction of tax on dividends and capital gains. If you were to give money to people, although the consumer helps, you simply do not get the benefit. And the people who make the most money, who are subject to the alternative minimum tax, deserve help. They do not deserve help in reconciliation, which the Senate needs to be able to make law.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a valuable member of the committee.

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

If it is going to tax 17 million new people, why do they call it the alternative minimum tax? These people are already being taxed. It is an alternative way to tax them and was actually put in place when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority.

The gentleman from Napa Valley, in pleading for some of the richest Americans to get some relief from an alternative system of taxation they put in place when they were a majority and could have dealt with it, literally wants to take money from the 10 and 15 percent bracket, people who are trying to invest and grow a nest egg so that they can have a piece of America like the people in Napa Valley.

The people in the 10 and 15 percent bracket for the first time actually can figure out a way to invest in America, to grow a nest egg, and to see the ability to have a better tomorrow. But they want to take the money from these people and ease taxes on those people in the upper tax brackets who have now triggered the alternative minimum tax.

I said I am in favor of helping relieve the alternative minimum tax, but the plan we have proposed is not trading one for the other. It is not denying the 10 and 15 percent bracket a piece of America. We passed assistance to the alternative minimum tax. It was outside of tax reconciliation. What they want to do is shove that nest egg-building approach out of tax reconciliation and move the alternative minimum tax in its place. That is what we are opposed to.

We are not opposed to assisting the alternative minimum tax. We are opposed to denying the 10 and 15 percent bracket a chance to invest in America at the lowest possible cost. That is what this is about.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and his party had every opportunity when they were in the majority to index that. And in fact they had every opportunity to remove the credits and deductions which allowed those people not to pay any taxes. Instead, they took the easy way out of offering an alternative minimum, and you have gotten bitten.

I find it is ironic that the people in New York, New York City, and other areas are now asking relief for very wealthy people. I do not have a problem with that. We passed 414-4 relief for that on the floor. At the same time, within tax reconciliation, a structure which assists the Senate, we placed our highest priority, investment to creating nest eggs for the 10 and 15 percent brackets. That is where we decided to place our priorities. Your attempt here is to reverse that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), the chairman of the Select Revenue Committee of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) and ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Michigan control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to pass the Deficit Reduction Act. The House approved it in December, but another vote is required due to technical changes made in the Senate. This bill is an important step in removing wasteful and unnecessary spending from the budget. Certainly, more can always be done, but this compromise legislation is a first step on what will be a long road of getting our mandatory spending programs under control. The Conference Report reduces the deficit by more than $35 billion over the next five years, nearly $8 billion of which falls into the Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction.

Under this Conference Report, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, commonly known as the ``Byrd amendment,'' will be permanently repealed, after a brief two-year phase out. The Byrd amendment is not a trade remedy; it is corporate welfare which benefits very few companies and results in negative consequences for many domestic manufacturers--as recently identified by the Government Accountability Office. In addition, it is inconsistent with U.S. international trade obligations. Repealing the Byrd Amendment is the only way to end retaliation against U.S. exports resulting from this violation.

This legislation will reduce wasteful federal spending by eliminating a loophole that currently allows states to claim federal matching funds for spending federal child support incentive funds. The incentive payments will continue, providing states a total of $2.4 billion over the next five years. But states won't get additional federal funds when they spend these federal bonuses, thus ending this double dipping. It is also important to note that this conference agreement maintains the current generous federal matching rate of 66 percent for child support administrative expenditures.

This Conference Report would also address some of the wasteful spending in Medicare while improving quality in the program. For instance, under the legislation, Medicare will pay for service and maintenance of beneficiary-owned durable medical equipment when repairs are actually required, as opposed to current law, which pays regular service payments regardless of whether the equipment is actually serviced. The bill also allows beneficiaries to own their oxygen equipment after 36 months of rental, while still providing coverage of necessary service and maintenance of that equipment.

To improve quality, the legislation includes provisions to encourage hospitals to follow evidence-based guidelines that can reduce the incidence of preventable hospital-acquired infections.

To explore ways to improve cooperation between health care providers and achieve savings in the health care system, the legislation provides for six gain sharing demonstration projects. As a conferee, I intend that these projects be tested broadly in order to produce valid results and policy recommendations. Also, I intend that these projects not be limited to six individual hospitals and that hospital chains and associations are eligible to apply and participate.

To ensure accurate payment for Medicare Advantage plans, the legislation codifies the phase-out of the budget neutrality factor for risk adjustments for those plans. This change will ensure that traditional fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage plans are being compared and paid accurately. This provision requires adjustments for differences in coding patterns, and the intent of that section is to include adjustments for coding that is inaccurate or incomplete for the purpose of establishing risk scores that are consistent across both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage settings, even if such coding is accurate or complete for other purposes. Other common-sense reforms in the Medicare program will add up to billions of dollars in savings, while improving quality and service for beneficiaries.

Finally, this Conference Report will extend and improve the 1996 welfare reform law for the next five years. It continues current funding for the nation's welfare to work program, despite a 60 percent welfare caseload decline since 1996. And it includes provisions encouraging more work and self-sufficiency, promoting healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and increasing child care funding by $1 billion over the next five years.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, once again, to support this legislation.

Well, I guess we are going to be telling Christmas stories. Rather than fiction, I would rather deal with fact. Yesterday 414 Members of the House voted to assist a group who, on average, are far richer than those who receive dividends and cap gains. There were four no votes. All four of them were on the Democratic side of the aisle. And I respect those people for casting what I believe was a sincere vote. But out of the 188 Democrats who voted aye, I just have to point out that my friend who just finished speaking, who is on the Ways and Means Committee, protesting the amount in this vote, voted aye. Some of the other folks, just let me run down the list alphabetically, which tends to touch on Lowey, Lynch, Maloney, Markey, you heard him, Marshall, Matheson, Matsui, McCarthy, McCollum, McDermott, all of them voted to assist those individuals in this society that are far richer, on average, than many of those seniors who, investing prudently over the years, receive dividends and capital gains on their investment in deferred consumption that they need, in their senior years.

So as we listen to the rhetoric and the term ``millionaire'' is repeated over and over again by my friends on the other side of the aisle, it begins to be a question of whose millionaire are they talking about. If one is a millionaire in Massachusetts, it seems, we want to protect them. If one is a millionaire in New York, we want to protect them.

At some point the rhetoric, the fiction, has to be compared to the truth. The truth is 188 Democrats, every Democrat member of the Ways and Means Committee, voted to assist people yesterday that are far richer on average than the individuals who receive dividends and cap gains. That is not a Christmas story. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thought the gentlewoman from New York indicated she had one final speaker, and that final speaker spoke, Mr. Pomeroy.

I was asking the gentlewoman from New York.

Notwithstanding the equal time, Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman says it is a final speaker, we normally honor that.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 588, I call up 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, 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 is a bill that does not deserve the kind of rhetoric that is being delivered so far, at least that which I have heard on the rule. This bill consists of extending current tax provisions. It virtually breaks no new ground. It merely retains those structures supported in committee, for example, in a bipartisan way, to allow people to continue to utilize current tax privileges.

I have a hard time when I listen to the rhetoric associated with the description of this bill when one of the provisions, for example, is the authority to issue qualified zone academy bonds for school modernization, equipment in high-poverty areas. I cannot believe my colleagues on the other side of the line are opposed to that. Above- the-line deduction for higher education expenses, in opposing this bill, I guess they are opposed to that. Continue the deduction for State and local sales taxes due to expire, I guess they are opposed to that.

I could go through and point out a number of items. For example, the work opportunity tax credits for hiring individuals who face barriers to employment, in addition to the extension. The age limit for eligible food stamp recipients is increased from 25 to 35. Maybe they are opposed to that.

I guess when we go through and examine these various provisions, if those are items that are reserved for the rich, the millionaires and the privileged, I guess I just do not understand it.

But they are required to attack any bill that allows Americans to hang on to their own hard-earned money. That is just kind of fundamental, I guess.

My concern is if they are going to produce the kind of rhetoric they are producing on a piece of tax legislation which simply extends current law, what are they going to do when we have to rethink the way in which we tax people today to make sure that we do not destroy the economic engine in this country that produces the quality of life-style for each and every American?

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is not aware that the Senate has included the alternative minimum tax in their reconciliation tax package. They have already voted on it. So there is no need to provide any assurance from the House side, because the Senate has already included it. But, again, that is reality.

The economy is not good because the President told us so. Leading economic indicators tell us so: the unemployment numbers, the productivity numbers. The real problem with my friends on the other side of the aisle is that if reality does not coincide with their rhetoric, they choose rhetoric rather than reality.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) to explain to the gentleman from Washington that it is not a zero sum game that is what has made the American standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask a rhetorical question.

If the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal) voted yes on this alternative minimum tax bill yesterday he either was protecting the very rich in Massachusetts.

No, it is a rhetorical question.

Whose time is it, Mr. Speaker?

Either he was voting to protect the incomes of the very rich in Massachusetts or he exercised a futile procedure.

There were four Members of his party who voted no. He had an opportunity, if he believed it was not real to vote no. He voted yes. The problem is they always want it both ways.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Select Revenue Subcommittee, and ask unanimous consent that Mr. Camp control the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, actually, I do not need 12 minutes, I only need 10 seconds. This bill is a----

No.

Mr. Speaker, who has the time?

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the gentleman from New York wants to make sure you do not hear this.

As I said, you do not need 12 minutes to say this: If you vote ``yes'' for the Democrat substitute, you are increasing taxes over 5 years by $40 billion.

That is the single largest tax increase since they were in the majority in 1993.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not need to mention yesterday or the 414 who voted to fix this problem. I would tell my friend from New York that you only need 60 votes outside of a reconciliation to pass this. But I do want to mention 1985. The Tax Reform Act of 1985, under their watch, said this: ``Other regular tax itemized deductions such as those for State and local taxes paid and for certain investment expenses, are not allowed for minimum tax purposes.'' I assume they did that knowingly. They were the ones who did it.

In 1993, they passed the largest tax increase on the American people and had a chance to adjust it again then. I will say that we have made progress today. This is an appropriate motion to recommit. It does not kill the bill. The gentleman from Massachusetts said this is about upper income groups. In fact, there was an editorial recently that said it is between the rich and the very rich. But I do want to mark the landmark comment of the gentleman from Massachusetts who said this was about middle income people. And on page 2 of the motion to recommit, ``For purposes of this paragraph, the term `threshold amount' means $100,000 and $200,000 in the case of a joint return.'' So $200,000 is now middle income. I believe that is correct. They are the ones who have always said those are the very rich. Now, the other thing you need to understand, it is this business of how many people are going to fall under the alternative minimum tax. Do you know why?

The reason, in 1994 that there were so few people who fell under the alternative minimum tax is because the regular tax was so high. What has happened in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 we have driven down the rates. And because we have lower taxes, there are more people who fall under the alternative minimum tax. Do we need to address it? Of course. But the vote today is far more fundamental than that. This vote, if you vote yes, gives money to rich people to spend on consumption. Surely, you know that pure consumption does not move the economy very much. What they want to do is deny people the opportunity to invest and to save to supply fuel to the engine of the economy so we can continue with the lowest unemployment rate and the highest productivity rate than we have seen in years. This vote is very simple. A yes vote, consumption, not much bang for the buck. A no vote, investment and savings and a lot of bang for the buck. Vote no on reconciliation, yes on the bill. If we have limited dollars to spend, spend them for the highest and best purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Economic Opportunity Commission of San Luis Obispo County (EOC), which will be celebrated on December 9th. I would like to congratulate the board members, staff and volunteers of the EOC for all they have accomplished and wish them well as they continue to serve the residents of San Luis Obispo and nine other counties in California.

The EOC is a private, nonprofit public benefit community action agency (CAA) that was designated by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors as the CAA for the County in December 1965. The EOC strives to address and alleviate poverty in San Luis Obispo County, in part through community-based programs designed to help individuals and families develop the skills needed to enhance their stability and economic independence. In addition, the EOC also uses strong community partnerships with churches, county government, and other service providers to assist the local community.

I appreciate the assistance the EOC provides to the residents of San Luis Obispo County. Its Board of Commissioners, employees, and volunteers are to be commended for their efforts, which have helped thousands of people over the past 40 years. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the EOC as they celebrate their 40th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, November 17, 2005.

Hon. Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oxley: I am writing concerning H.R. 4337, the

``Gulf Opportunity Zone Public Finance Relief Act of 2005,''

which passed the House last night by unanimous consent.

Section 4 of the bill allows for the Federal guarantee of

certain State bonds. I recognize the Committee on Financial

Service's jurisdictional interest in Section 4 of the bill,

and agree that by allowing the bill to be passed, the

Committee on Financial Services does not relinquish any

jurisdiction over H.R. 4337 or similar legislation. I would

also support your request to be represented on a conference

on H.R. 4337, if one should become necessary.

Finally, I will include this letter and your response in

the Congressional Record under the portion for floor

consideration of this measure.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Financial Services,

Washington, DC, November 17, 2005.

Hon. William Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: I have received your letter

concerning H.R. 4337, the ``Gulf Opportunity Zone Public

Finance Relief Act of 2005,'' which the House passed last

night. The bill was also introduced yesterday and was

referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.

I appreciate your recognition that the Committee on

Financial Services has a jurisdictional interest in section 4

of the bill. This section allows for the Federal guarantee of

certain State bonds. However, I understand that the need to

move this bill expeditiously did not permit consideration of

the bill by this Committee. It is my understanding this

procedure will not prejudice the Committee on Financial

Services with respect to its prerogatives on this or similar

legislation. I appreciate your support for a request for

conferees from this Committee in the event of a House-Senate

conference.

I hope that this exchange of correspondence will appear in

the Congressional Record. Thank you for your assistance in

this matter.

Your truly,

Michael G. Oxley,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to finally bring this bill to the floor because it puts a closing note on what was to a very great extent my upbringing in California with personal friends through the 40s and the 50s. In addition to that, I had the honor and pleasure of serving in the California Assembly with Floyd Mori.

As was mentioned by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), Norm Mineta and Bob Matsui, and Floyd were Nisei, American born, first generation. Their parents are known as Issei, those who came over from Japan. Their grandchildren are Sansei. And it does mark a period in our history where native-born American citizens were in essence rounded up.

I got to know it personally, but as I went through school and I went through constitutional law classes and looked at Korematsu v. United States, I realized that the majority's opinion in Korematsu was written by Justice Hugo Black, who is known probably as one of the premier First Amendment-freedom Justices on the Court; and it underscored the extent that this concept permeated American society.

I am very, very grateful to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and his committee that voted this bill out unanimously, notwithstanding the fact that we have created a separate fund which will help pay for, in a public-private match, to preserve what is rapidly slipping away since these internment camps were for obvious reasons in rural areas across mostly western United States. I am most familiar with Manzanar which is in Inyo County, and I have represented Inyo County for more than a decade in the Congress. And we were able to preserve that in a location fairly close to Southern California.

But in working with my friend and former colleague, Floyd Mori, in looking at where these locations are in Utah, Wyoming, other States, we realized that just the ongoing growth and partial urbanization of these areas would forever cover up these particular sites.

It is not so much that I think people are ashamed of them. I think they are principally ignorant of them. And whether it is desire to forget out of knowledge or ignorance, neither one is acceptable. So I am very pleased that Leadership has allowed us to move today a very modest approach, quite rightly unifying public and private where appropriate under what circumstances, working with those people who are in the area, and in some instances Indian tribes, to allow those who are still alive and have memories to pass them on to the young ones. And for those of us who take trips across the country to visit sites, there are several different reasons, but probably first and foremost is that great people, and I believe Americans are great people, can make mistakes. What you need to do is admit it and remember it and do not make it again. And for that reason it is very fulfilling that this bill is before us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1492. I greatly appreciate the House's consideration of this important legislation as well as the assistance Chairman Pombo, Representatives Doris Matsui, Mike Honda, and Devin Nunes have provided to develop it and bring it to the floor today.

Very simply, this legislation is a modest effort to provide the structure and resources necessary for citizens, schools, communities, and others to undertake projects in order to preserve and interpret an aspect of American history that many, quite frankly, would much prefer to ignore or never know. Nations, as do people, have the opportunity to recognize their mistakes and use the lessons learned from those mistakes to improve themselves. However, to do so, the mistake must not only be recognized, the lesson must be learned and remembered.

The United States of America has recognized the terrible mistake it made between 1942 and 1945, when pursuant to Executive Order 9066, over 120,000 Japanese Americans were forcibly removed from their homes and detained in government assembly and then relocation centers. Moreover, this mistake taught the United States that racial prejudice and wartime hysteria do not justify the denial of human dignity and the fundamental freedoms afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the legislation before the House today is designed to help ensure the United States and, more importantly, its citizens, never forget the lesson learned from this mistake.

Those who do not know the facts of this aspect of American history are undoubtedly quite surprised to learn that the U.S. Government, while rightly fighting to preserve freedom throughout the world, on March 2, 1942, wrongly declared over 100 areas in the States of Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington as ``prohibited areas'' to those of Japanese ancestry. While thousands of people voluntarily moved out of these prohibited areas, thousands more who wanted to voluntarily leave the prohibited areas could not, either because their assets had been frozen at the beginning of the war or because other States were unwilling to accept them as residents.

On March 24, 1942, the U.S. Army began to evacuate residents of the prohibited areas; the evacuees included newborns, children, even those who had been adopted by non-Japanese parents, and the elderly. Sadly, those being evacuated were given just 6 days notice and, as they could only take those items the family could carry, were forced to dispose of nearly all of their possessions, often for ridiculously small sums. In addition, and of particular importance in California, people were not given the opportunity to harvest their crops; in fact, the only act of ``sabotage'' by a Japanese-American occurred when a farmer plowed his strawberry crop under when his request for the opportunity to harvest it was denied.

As they waited to be transported to one of 10 ``relocation centers,'' the evacuees were temporarily housed in 17 assembly centers in Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington, 12 of which were in California. One of those 12 was located at the Tulare County Fairgrounds in Tulare, CA, which I formerly represented. The assembly centers were surrounded by barbed wire fences, which were patrolled by military police, and consisted of hastily constructed military barracks, with separate communal bathrooms and dining halls. However, thousands of people, including 8,500 at Santa Anita alone, lived in horse stables at the Santa Anita and Tanforan assembly centers in California.

By the end of October, the evacuees were moved by train into one of the following 10 relocation centers or internment sites: Jerome and Rohwer in Arkansas; Colorado River--Poston--and Gila River in Arizona; Tule Lake and Manzanar in California; Granada in Colorado; Minidoka in Idaho; Heart Mountain in Wyoming; and Central Utah--Topaz. Like the assembly centers, the relocation centers were surrounded by barbed wire fences but also had guard towers. The centers were designed to be self- contained and self-sustaining communities, and like the assembly centers, they primarily featured barracks-type housing. In addition, the relocation centers were dusty, muddy, and often subject to extreme temperatures. Finally, the use of the Japanese language was restricted.

In December 1944, the U.S. Government announced the relocation centers would be closed within a year. While nine closed before the end of 1945, Tule Lake was not closed until May 1946 because it continued to hold those who had renounced their U.S. citizenship. Unfortunately but not surprisingly, the Government provided only minimal assistance to those who it had wrongfully detained as they left the centers to rebuild their lives.

As I have stated, the U.S. Government has admitted its mistake in this instance. It has sought to make some degree of recompense to those evacuated by paying reparations and issuing a formal apology; a memorial has been constructed in Washington, DC, within sight of the Capitol. In addition, six of the relocation centers are listed on the National Register, Manzanar and the cemetery at Rowher are National Historic Landmarks, and Minidoka is a National Monument. As a result of legislation--P.L. 102-248-- I cosponsored and

worked with my former colleague Representative Mel Levine to enact, Manzanar, which I formerly represented, has been established as a National Historic Site. With regard to the assembly centers, seven, including the one in Tulare, do not have some form of marker or plaque to remind future generations of our past wrong.

While the legislation before the House today certainly is designed to authorize the funding necessary to facilitate projects that involve bricks and mortar--for example, the construction of a museum at Granada or the stabilization of a hospital chimney at Heart Mountain--its intent is not to completely reconstruct or restore the infrastructure at every relocation site or assembly center for the sake of show and tell. Rather, the legislation is designed to be as flexible as possible in recognition of the wide differences in the current conditions at the pertinent sites of historic significance, as well as to allow for grantees to conduct a wide variety of projects in many different forms to ensure the lesson taught by the sites is preserved forever. For instance, a project could be as simple as a citizens' group buying and placing a plaque on a stable; another could involve an effort by students to collect, preserve, and interpret the memories of surviving evacuees, a generation we are rapidly losing.

This flexibility is necessary and recognizes that the only common thread that binds the sites related to the confinement of Japanese- Americans is Executive Order 9066. As with each of the 50 States, which are bound together by the U.S. Constitution, each of the sites has its own unique history and characteristics. Thus, the preservation projects needed that would be undertaken with monies authorized under H.R. 1492 necessarily must be unique to the individual sites.

The legislation provides the U.S. Secretary of the Interior with the flexibility to approve projects related to sites other than the 10 relocation and 17 assembly centers. An example of such a site is the Crystal City World War II Alien Family Internment Camp in Texas, which was run by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and which housed Japanese immigrants and nationals sent to the United States from Latin America.

It is important to note that, upon request, I have included limitations in this legislation. Specifically, the legislation contains a 25 percent non-Federal match requirement, a cap on the amount of monies authorized, and a sunset. The legislation also limits the use of these Federal funds to acquire private property to just four locations--Jerome, Rohwer, Topaz, and Honouliuli--and further requires the written consent of the pertinent private property owners.

Finally, it is fitting that we are considering this legislation as we return from observing Veterans Day as the segregated Japanese-American 100th Infantry Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team, which had a total of 25,000 men during the war, together became the most decorated combat unit for its size in U.S. history. In fact, the men who served in this unit were awarded 8 presidential unit citations, 9,486 Purple Hearts, and 18,143 individual decorations, including 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, the second-highest award for valor. Moreover, the only Japanese-American World War II veteran awarded the Medal of Honor during the war, PFC Sadao Munemori, earned his citation on April 5, 1945, when he dove on a hand grenade to save the lives of two of his comrades during the Po Valley Campaign in Italy. Poignantly, at the time of his death, Munemori's mother and brother were interned at Manzanar.

Accordingly, I now ask that you join with me to pass this important legislation, not just to honor Private First Class Munemori, not just to honor those interned, but to ensure that the United States does not forget and repeat the grievous mistake it made.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 29, 2005.

Hon. Jerry Lewis,

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Lewis: I am writing concerning H.J. Res. 68,

making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2006,

and for other purposes, which is currently scheduled for

floor consideration today.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. There are two

sections within the introduced resolution that are within the

authorizing jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Section 118 of the resolution allows the Social Security

Administration to continue hearing Medicare appeals pending

the transfer of that authority to the Department of Health

and Human Services. Secondly, Section 121 extends for one

year the availability of an appropriation provided to the

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Social

Security Administration under the Medicare Prescription Drug,

Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forgo action on this

resolution. This is being done because of the agreement

reached by our respective committees' staff. An e-mail on

this issue, sent by the committee, states, ``We are happy to

concede your jurisdiction in this matter, and included the

language solely because of OMB's [Office of Management and

Budget] request that we do so. We don't believe that it

prejudices any future action on your part.''

I will place a copy of this letter in the Congressional

Record during floor consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my friend and former colleague from California, Christopher Cox, for his excellent service as a Member of the House of Representatives and to wish him well in his tenure as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC.

I commend the President for selecting Chris to serve in that capacity because Chris has the proven leadership ability, intelligence, fairness, and experience necessary to successfully manage the SEC, which has an integral role in ensuring our Nation's continued economic growth and prosperity. I have had the great pleasure of working with Chris as he exhibited his leadership abilities in the House through his service for over a decade as the Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and most recently as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

As many of you know, Chris has impressive academic credentials, which include earning both an M.B.A. and law degree from Harvard, where he also served as an editor of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. These credentials were supplemented through his service as a Federal appellate law clerk and as Senior Associate Counsel to the late President Reagan.

Moreover, Chris' experience has provided him with a broad and deep understanding of how our Nation's capital markets operate. As an attorney with an international law firm, Chris specialized in venture capital and corporate finance, and in his 18 years of service as a Member of the House, Chris served on the Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, and Government Reform Committees. During his House career, Chris was an ardent proponent of legislation to improve the budget process, eliminate the double tax on shareholder dividends, reform medical malpractice litigation, and repeal the estate tax. I worked with Chris on these issues and I am pleased that we were able to enact legislation to address capital gains, dividends, and estate taxation.

While I will miss working with Chris in the House, I look forward to working with him in his new role. Accordingly, I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing him well as he continues to serve as a free-market advocate in his new capacity.

Madam Speaker, I submit the following correspondence for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, September 15, 2005.

Hon. Jim Nussle,

Chairman, Committee on the Budget, Cannon House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Nussle: I am writing concerning H.R. 3768,

the ``Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of 2005,'' which is

scheduled for floor consideration today. Section 2 of the

bill designates that any provision affecting receipts, budget

authority, or outlays in the bill will be for emergency

purposes pursuant to H. Con. Res. 95, the budget resolution

for fiscal year 2006. Thus, the Committee on Ways and Means

shares jurisdiction with the Committee on the Budget on this

provision.

I recognize the Committee on the Budget's jurisdictional

interest in Section 2 of the bill, but ask that you allow

H.R. 3768 to go forward. I agree that by allowing the bill to

be considered, the Committee on the Budget does not

relinquish any jurisdiction over H.R. 3768 or similar

legislation. I would also support your request to be

represented on a conference on H.R. 3768, if one should

become necessary.

Finally, I will include my letter and your response in the

Congressional Record during floor consideration of the

measure.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.

I just want to remind Members, as we move forward with yet another piece of legislation which has taken a little longer to craft because it becomes more structural in dealing with the Tax Code, as we had indicated when we came back from our summer district work period, we will probably have another piece of legislation which will deal with more additional structural assistance that takes a little longer to craft dealing with the reconstruction portion of assistance.

I took the time at the microphone this morning to indicate to my colleagues how frustrating this process has been.

More than a week ago, this House moved swiftly, in a bipartisan way, to simply open up the pipeline that had money already in it as direct assistance to individuals under the targeted assistance for families, or the TANF program. That bill moved off the floor of the House without even a recorded vote, and it has not yet been taken up by the Senate.

The procedure of putting a hold on legislation, which is an individual or a group of Senators' way of stopping the process, has been exercised by Members of the Senate. And I want to indicate to people how outrageous that procedure is on a bill which should have been moved last week to assist people. I take the time on this floor to say this particular legislation, a bit more structured, we had an extra week to think it out, being moved again on a bipartisan basis should not be subject to a hold in the Senate.

If the Senate cannot get its act together to move legislation, then simply allow the House's bipartisan effort to go forward. These people need help. That area needs help. The House has moved in a bipartisan way and the Senate has obstructed the movement of

needed legislation by allowing even in normal times the somewhat unseemly procedure of holds by individuals or groups of Senators, but on this legislation it is unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3672) to provide assistance to families affected by Hurricane Katrina, through the program of block grants to States for temporary assistance for needy families, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), the committee members of the Committee on Ways and Means who are obviously dealing with that very difficult situation in their districts, for their input on this emergency legislation.

This is the first response from the Committee on Ways and Means, and it is designed to deal with immediate relief. We will have additional pieces of legislation that we will work with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle dealing with recovery and reconstruction, and these will come in a timely fashion over the next several weeks.

The reason we want to move this legislation as quickly as we can is because it will provide immediate payment of TANF's funds. We have included the extension of TANF to the first quarter of 2006, which immediately frees up $4.2 billion in flexible funds to assist those families affected by the hurricane. In addition, it makes additional TANF funds available to the States devastated by the hurricane. We have a de facto contingency fund, and we have a loan fund. This turns the loan fund into, in essence, a contingency fund to provide even additional money.

Also, we do not want anyone worried about costs that are incurred as States adjacent to the disaster areas are providing assistance, and we are going to hold States harmless for costs incurred to immediately assist evacuees.

There are additional funds that are unused, and we make sure we maximize the flexibility available to States for providing assistance to families impacted by the hurricane.

In addition to that, although there are specific rules for receiving the funds, we want to make sure that during this assistance period that those rules do not become a barrier and that we will waive program rules for hurricane victims receiving the short-term TANF assistance.

Especially, for those States who do provide various supports, we want to make sure that where there may have been penalties triggered by decisions made, those certainly would not be applicable either.

We believe that with expeditious movement by the Senate and not extended debate on what we do or do not do, this will free up literally billions of dollars available to assist those people directly affected by the hurricane and those States and others who are assisting them with funds otherwise unavailable to them.

As I said, this is the first step. We will look at the recovery and the reconstruction phases, which will entail a more detailed examination of the Tax Code and assistance in a timely fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to first of all take a deep breath before I begin addressing that diatribe.

The gentleman well knows that Medicaid is a program within the Committee on Energy and Commerce, that it is not within our jurisdiction, and we obviously are working with other committees.

The gentleman also knows that the program that he just denigrated was signed into law by President Clinton, and the vote in this House was more bipartisan than the vote on Medicare in 1965. In addition, we have an unemployment law that has been on the books since FDR that provides the 26 weeks.

Mr. Speaker, I said in my opening statement that this was the first, immediate response and we will have additional legislation addressing unemployment. And the extension of unemployment is obviously going to be in the next piece of legislation.

I do want to urge my colleague from Washington to join me at lunch so that he perhaps could have something other than sucking lemons for lunch prior to coming to the floor to address this House.

I will also respond to his comment about the fact that Arkansas is not mentioned. In the legislation on page 4, line 14, it says ``a State,'' and it defines any State that responds to the needs. It does not name State by State. If in fact the circumstances are provided, given the facts, then that State receives the programmatic changes that we are offering in this legislation.

I do appreciate the gentleman's last sentence in which he said he plans to vote for the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 the bill we have under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say for the third time during this debate this is the first piece of legislation 2 days after we came back. We are responding with the maximum flexibility for money available on an immediate-relief basis. Clearly over the next several weeks as we examine the problems and are able to write legislation responsive to those problems, we will continue to bring legislation to the floor.

I would urge my colleagues, as they express their concern about what has not been done, that they should urge their colleagues on the other side of the Capitol not to engage in an exchange of legislation in which, on this initial humanitarian relief provision, they want to try to outdo each other. The most important thing is to get this out of here and make it available as soon as possible.

Over the next several weeks, we will be working with those Members and on this committee, principally the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson), who have already provided invaluable assistance and who are very supportive of this legislation, with additional legislation. I look forward to working with colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are willing to come forward in constructive ways in making adjustments.

I do want to underscore the fact that we are nearer to the beginning of the hurricane season than we are the end of the hurricane season.

No one wishes another hurricane to touch the United States, but no one knows for certain that that will not happen, that as we are assisting those individuals who have had a very tragic occurrence, we are laying the groundwork for the possibility that we have to repeat this more than once.

I want to thank those colleagues who will help us move this expeditiously and in advance of the assistance on additional legislation dealing with more fundamental revisions in the Tax Code and extensions of various deadlines. I thank them for their cooperation, and I look forward to producing additional legislation that will be available for my colleagues' consideration.

Let me underscore, we need the other body to move immediately and not engage in attempts on this very first effort to expand and explore more fundamental changes in programs. So I plead with my colleagues here and on the other side of the Capitol, we have had enough talk, let us show some action.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, appropriately so, a number of people have been complimented. I too want to indicate that the reason this bill was so difficult is because there was not enough money to deal with the infrastructure needs of this country. As the keeper of the purse strings, I am very conscious of the amount of money that we have available. Between now and the next time we try this, we are simply going to have to rethink the way we provide for the infrastructure in this country. We are succeeding in areas that damage us in raising revenue to improve infrastructure.

Every page of this bill, Mr. Speaker, has been built on accommodation and compromise. I want to thank the staff, who have all earned graduate degrees in bill assembly. It was an extremely difficult job. But I want to say this: When we come back in September, we are going to begin addressing legislative needs of an aging American society. There will be critics of this legislation. It has been said in various ways, and I want to underscore it, that not only is America aging but America's infrastructure in many parts of this country, bridges, tunnels, and others, are octogenarians and older. It is foolish not to make sure that we maintain the infrastructure that we have.

Ironically, in some parts of the country, it requires new construction, highways, transit and other costly infrastructure improvements. But without doing it, without doing it, it will cost us billions. It has been recited how much it costs us today. Today, we present $286.4 billion worth of cost. Society will present us on a daily basis, through congestion and failure to build the right structures, a price tag over the next 5 years far greater than the price tag that is presented today. Today, you see the dollar amount. Over the next 5 years, we will accumulate a cost of a far greater amount.

I want to compliment those who put this together. I look forward to working with you in solving the financing structure. As we get better, there is no reason why the Highway Trust Fund should grow less. We need to rethink the way in which we pay for the infrastructure in this country.

I want to thank all of you for the most pleasant experience of operating in an institutional way to make this place work. Thank you. It was a lot of fun.