Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act. This legislation, authored by my good friend, Resources Water and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ken Calvert, is the result of many years of hard work by the California water community to find a way to balance the competing water needs of agriculture, the environment, and a growing population.

My district in the Central Valley of California is a prime example of these changing needs. In 1960, Kern County had a population of about 291,000 people and an agricultural base that produced commodities with a farm gate value of $247 million. In 2000, those numbers had increased to a population of 661,000 people and farm gate value approaching $2.5 billion. Much of this growth is due to the construction of the State Water Project in the mid-1960's, but virtually no investment in that all-important infrastructure has been made since that time. Our water infrastructure requires attention and upgrading to continue supporting California's agriculture economy, and H.R. 2828 provides for many of these necessary improvements.

I congratulate all my colleagues from California who have worked tirelessly to overcome regional differences and reconcile competing priorities to ensure that this vital legislation is enacted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 820, which commends Mojave Aerospace Ventures and their great success capturing the Ansari X Prize on Monday, October 4. I am proud to represent Burt Rutan and his team based in Mojave, California, and it has been a great pleasure to watch their success.

The first private effort to enter space has succeeded. As part of a competition stimulating private enterprise in an area that formerly was totally government-controlled, the Ansari X Prize Foundation and the collaborators of Mojave Aerospace Ventures have proven that private organizations can achieve anything they put their minds to. The sky is no longer the limit.

Although almost 80 years apart, the X Prize is similar to the reward that in part led Charles Lindbergh to fly across the Atlantic in 1927. That achievement sparked the initial age of commercial aviation, and this achievement truly begins the era of commercial space aviation.

I congratulate Burt Rutan, pilots Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie, all the employees of Scaled Composites, and all those community volunteers who worked tirelessly to prepare for this event at the Mojave Spaceport. In recent days they have provided us with an exciting glimpse of the future, and I look forward to their next endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3242, the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act of 2004, which is intended to improve Federal agricultural policy in order to ensure that American consumers continue to have access to an abundant and affordable supply of nutritious fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other speciality crops. I thank Mr. Ose, Mr. Dooley, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte for their efforts to develop this legislation.

This legislation is important to my constituents in the 22nd Congressional District of California, who collectively produce agricultural products with a farm gate value in excess of $3 billion, with specialty crops accounting for more than two-thirds of that value. Unlike other crops and many of their foreign competitors, U.S. specialty crop growers do not receive direct government support despite the fact that they face increased competition from imports; since 1995, imports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts have increased 80 percent, from $4.6 billion to $7.4 billion in 2002.

It is important to note that during the same period of time, while U.S. exports of fruits, vegetables, and nuts have increased since 1995, they have only increased 17 percent, from $5.2 billion to $6 billion. Moreover, U.S. producers continue to encounter sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) barriers when they seek to export their goods to foreign markets. Accordingly, in my capacity as Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I am extremely interested in efforts to open and expand foreign markets through the reduction of SPS barriers and the negotiation of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements.

H.R. 3242 seeks to assist U.S. specialty crop growers by authorizing funding that could be used by State departments of agriculture to create consumer demand for specialty crops, enhance food safety efforts, and to support production-related research. H.R. 3242 also seeks to help U.S. producers break down SPS barriers and reduce the number of pending export petitions for agriculture goods. With regard to those pending export petitions, I look forward to working with Chairman Goodlatte to ensure that the process is more transparent so that Congress can enhance its ability to conduct oversight.

H.R. 3242 is strongly supported by over thirty organizations, including the Western Growers Association, Wine Institute, California Table Grape Commission, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Winegrape Growers Association, United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, and Sunkist Growers. I encourage my colleagues to support

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of S. 878, which would make important upgrades to the Federal judiciary's infrastructure. I appreciate the leadership Chairman Sensenbrenner has exhibited in the development of this legislation, which would establish 58 new Federal judgeships.

As reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary, S. 878 would provide 47 new Federal district court judgeships. Significantly, S. 878 reflects legislation (H.R. 3486) that I introduced earlier this year in that S. 878 would convert the expired temporary judgeship in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship and add three additional permanent judgeships.

These additional four judgeships are much-needed as the seven judges in the Eastern District are currently carrying an average weighted caseload of 788 each, far in excess of the 430 benchmark used by the U.S. Judicial Conference to determine when additional permanent judgeships are required. Moreover, it must be noted that the judges of the Eastern District have exceeded that benchmark since 1998, when their average weighted caseload was 567. The judges of the Eastern District also have an average of 920 pending cases each, an increase of 25 percent since 1998.

In addition, the Eastern District continues to see an annual increase in total filings; in 2003, 5,853 cases were filed in the Eastern District, which is an increase of 1,139 cases from the 4,714 cases filed in 1998. As one would expect, the number of pending cases in the Eastern District has likewise increased; in 2003, there were 6,440 cases pending, which is an increase of 1,269 since 1998.

Accordingly, I encourage my colleagues to continue to work to quickly enact legislation to provide the Federal judiciary, and especially the Eastern District of California, with the resources necessary to efficiently and effectively administer justice.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4569, which would require the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture to develop a plan to control and manage Sudden Oak Death (SOD). Sudden Oak Death is an issue of significant concern to my constituents who live in San Luis Obispo County, and I thank Mr. Burns and Chairman Goodlatte for working with me to develop this legislation.

Oaks are a significant part of California's culture, and San Luis Obispo County is famous for its beautiful oak trees, particularly those along U.S. Highway 101. In fact, ``El Paso de Robles,'' which is the name of one of the cities located in the northern portion of the County, is literally translated ``the pass of the oaks.'' It also should be noted that oak trees provide pleasant vistas that encourage tourism, which is an important component of the California and San Luis Obispo County economies.

Unfortunately, oak trees are susceptible to a disease known as Sudden Oak Death, which is caused by the fungus-like pathogen Phytophthora ramorum, and for which there is currently no known cure or treatment. Rather, the standard regulatory practice is to quarantine the infected woodland area to reduce the likelihood of its further dispersal. However, quarantine efforts are not always effective because the disease is difficult to contain. Thus, while San Luis Obispo County is not among the thirteen California counties that are subject to such quarantines, I am interested in efforts to contain and combat Sudden Oak Death in order to ensure that Sudden Oak Death does not become established in San Luis Obispo County's environment.

In order to most effectively and efficiently combat Sudden Oak Death, we need to have a plan, and that plan should be derived from a careful analysis of what we have learned from our past efforts. As that is exactly what Mr. Burns' legislation would facilitate, I encourage my colleagues to join me as I work to see it enacted into law.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 4520) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove impediments in such Code and make our manufacturing, service, and high-technology businesses and workers more competitive and productive both at home and abroad, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

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

Just as we began taking up going to conference in this motion to instruct, a number of Americans were not watching C-SPAN. They were watching other television programs which showed a private enterprise effort to go into space. Burt Rutan from Mojave in my district has built a spaceship called SpaceShipOne. It was launched earlier today. It reached an altitude unofficially, yet to be confirmed, of more than 100 kilometers, or 62 miles. It has returned safely and landed. The first private effort to enter space has succeeded. This is part of a competition stimulating private enterprise in an area that formerly was totally government-controlled.

He will now have a clock ticking in which 2 weeks will expire and prior to the second week, he will have refurbished SpaceShipOne, sent it back into space, achieved a second time an altitude of more than 100 kilometers; and, if he is successful in doing that, he will win the X Prize. It happens to be a $10 million reward for the first privately financed space vehicle to achieve those parameters.

I cannot help but see how striking this initial part of the achievement is to the reward that in part led Charles Lindbergh to fly across the Atlantic in 1927.

That achievement sparked the initial age of commercial aviation. This is the beginning of commercial space aviation, and I find it somewhat ironic that, while people are pushing the barriers of man's involvement with minimal or no government involvement, that we are here on a motion to instruct that plows old ground, that does not yield any harvestable crop other than pure political rhetoric.

The motion to instruct indicates that the conference, which we are all anxious to begin, and I accept any criticism about how long this has taken to achieve but we are now ready to go, and yet there will be continued delays based on political rhetoric that has no merit whatsoever. How can I make a

sweeping statement like that? The gentleman indicated that the House bill contained international tax provisions which will send jobs overseas. A pretty inflammatory statement. But I think it might be worthwhile to examine those areas of the House-passed bill and the Senate-passed bill that are identical.

Interestingly enough, the single biggest area in which the House and the Senate bill are absolutely identical are the international tax provisions, the very provisions the gentleman from Massachusetts said drives jobs overseas. It might be useful to examine the way in which the Members of the Senate voted on this measure, which, if they supported it, would obviously mean they are also interested in driving jobs overseas.

This measure was presented in the Finance Committee, and a Member of the Finance Committee is the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry voted for the international corporate tax provisions. Following the logic of the gentleman from Massachusetts, his own Senator, the Democratic nominee for President, apparently supports sending jobs overseas, since those two provisions are identical in the House and the Senate bills.

Who else would support this outlandish position which we will hear repeated time after time after time on this motion to instruct? Let us see. On both the Graham amendment and the Hollings amendment, which were to remove these provisions which the gentleman from Massachusetts purports drives jobs overseas, willing to keep these measures in the bill on the Senate side was minority leader Senator Daschle, who voted in favor of keeping these provisions. Senator Baucus, who is the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee, voted. I could obviously go down the list of Democratic Senators who apparently are interested in putting jobs overseas.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his inquiry.

Obviously, what I am quoting is the voting record which was established in the Senate on this measure. I can understand why my colleagues on the other side would not want to hear the list of Democratic Senators who supported the international tax provisions because it pretty well demolishes their argument, and what they want to do is continue this fantasy argument that the provisions in the House bill ship jobs overseas.

These provisions, as I said, were identical in both the House and the Senate versions. In fact, the vote on the Graham amendment was, yes, let us eliminate the tax provisions, 22; no, 77. On the Hollings amendment, it was yes, 23; no, 74. By 75 percent or better, the Senate said, let us keep these international provisions. A significant number of those were members of the gentleman's own party, and, as I said in committee, his own party's nominee for President voted in favor of those provisions, and those are the provisions they are arguing they are shipping jobs overseas.

I would hope that that part of the argument on the side of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would now end because it is pretty obvious they do not ship jobs overseas because the Democratic Senators would protect jobs here at home, and hopefully, they would vote to enhance jobs here at home. As a matter of fact, the rejection of the Graham and the Hollings amendments did just exactly that, i.e., they support the international tax provisions that are identical in both the House and the Senate bill. They do not ship jobs overseas. Senator Kerry would not vote for that. Senator Daschle would not vote for that. They voted to keep jobs here at home and strengthen America's economy. We should not hear another argument on the other side of the aisle about shipping jobs overseas.

Just let me say, if we do, one, it does not make any sense if one takes a look at what occurred in the other body in rejecting the attempt to remove these provisions; but, two, it does create an opportunity to sow seeds of dissent about the fact that, when we try to strengthen the private sector, create more jobs, it just does not fit their rhetorical pattern. So I think it is fairly ironic that, at the very time they are misrepresenting assisting private sector in enhancing the economy, that a private entrepreneur with private dollars has achieved for the first time reaching the edge of space. I would rather look with Burt Rutan up toward the stars and enhance our ability to create jobs at home than to argue a position which even members of their own party rejected on the Senate side and, wisely, the House rejected as well. Let us see if this argument is not made again during this debate. It should not be. Let us see if it is.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, my understanding of that interpretation is that I am not permitted to characterize the vote, and I believe I did to a certain extent. And, therefore, what I would like to do is to simply emphasize that one of the votes was a rejection of 77 to 22 and the other one was a rejection of 74 to 23, and people can reach their own conclusion on those votes rather than my presenting a conclusion, which was, I thought they were overwhelmingly rejected. I am not allowed to say ``overwhelmingly rejected,'' but 77 and 74 can be concluded by anyone on their own.

To that extent, Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to correct the record in emphasizing that it was overwhelming rather simply make sure that the vote of 77 and 74 noes is on the record.

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

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Washington knows his nominee better than I do, but the fact that he voted ``yes'' in Finance Committee and he suggests that he would veto it if he became President would certainly continue the pattern of first he voted yes, then he voted no. So I have no evidence to quarrel with him, that once again Senator Kerry will again be on both sides of the issue. It is just that he will change venues. The behavior does not change. Where he continually flip-flops, of course, would.

The gentleman from Washington also said that unless we pass the motion of the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) motion to instruct, we will do something.

Oh, come on. Everybody knows motions to instruct are not binding. It has no influence whatsoever on the conference, unless the conference wants to.

Now, the measures that they are arguing, ``Oh, by the way, did I tell you that, notwithstanding the fact the Senate supported overwhelmingly the international corporate provisions, and I assume that they believe that they will not ship jobs overseas or they would not have voted the way that they did, and they probably should not be mentioned again in this debate,'' but the very next speaker not only mentioned them, but made it the core arguments of his position, that if in fact there are 23 Senators, 10 of whom are Democrats, they are members of the Finance Committee, save for 2, which passed these provisions out of the Senate Finance Committee, 19 to 2. And I do not believe they have any intention of reversing their position, even if this ludicrous motion to instruct were to pass.

So, I just want you to forbear. We will go through, the time will be used up. We will vote down the motion to instruct, and we can then get on with the conference. And I can assure you, the senatorial members of the conference and a clear majority of the House members of the conference intend to support those provisions that will strengthen jobs here at home, and they will dismiss, for the obvious reasons, the argument that continues to be made by those individuals, even encompassing a denial of the Senate's minority leadership's decision- making ability indicating that we should not listen to them.

I happen to believe that you should take each issue on its merits and not dismiss them by stereotyping, and on this issue, I believe the Senate got it right, just as the House got it right.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair, characterizing a current Senator who is running for another office and what he would or would not do would fall under that same admonition?

Who are still Senators, and how they would behave, does that fall under the same admonition?

I will accept the nonresponsive answer.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the gentlewoman's argument; and, in fact, her argument will be sustained if Members vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct and we can get on to conference.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), the ranking Republican on the Committee on Ways and Means and the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend, the gentleman from California, that I am a little concerned, because he has admitted that his own private purchasing choices are that he buys foreign products, but he is here on the floor trying to change the law of the U.S. to not allow that to happen. It seems to me that if you are going to be here expounding a position of not sending jobs overseas, that your purchase pattern should reinforce it.

A choice that people make in terms of their private purchasing is a choice that they control, and he did indicate that in his home there are a number of imported products. People have a choice. My hope would be that our private behavior corresponds to our public positions, because not only does the American Tax Code put us in the current position, which we are trying to correct with this legislation, but our own private behavior as well.

Not on my time. If the gentleman wishes to seek more time, I would certainly respond to him.

Regular order. You always have a choice.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps it requires a little bit of endeavor and search, but that is what life is about.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), an honored member of the committee.

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

I suggest the gentleman take a trip to North Carolina, take a look at the furniture they have there, made in America, American products, American labor. Looking for curtains? There is still a cotton industry left. We produce flat goods. Carpets, you want to buy a carpet? They make them in Georgia. You want to buy cars? Take a look at American cars. You want to buy a radio or a CD player? An area where pretty obviously people say we do not have a choice, Bose makes an excellent quality American-made radio/CD. China? Glassware? I can go on and on.

There are products made in America. If you take the time to do it, you can help in your private life instead of arguing you are compelled to buy foreign products, and you come to the floor and demand that we change the laws to stop you from your private behavior.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and all of us who served with the gentleman from New York, Frank Horton, certainly feel saddened by his passing.

I will tell the gentleman from Michigan, I have two additional speakers, and he has the right to close. We will conclude, and the gentleman from Michigan can then close.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on my side?

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

In history, Mr. Speaker, there are those who opposed change, modernization. They were called Luddites. Please vote ``no'' on the motion to instruct. Do not be a Rangelite.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 794, I call up the conference report on 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, I am pleased to present the conference report for H.R. 1308, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004. It is, I think, a significant and timely agreement. It will prevent tax increases on millions of Americans and their families. We will renew the current law tax extenders like the R and E tax credit and take a major step towards simplifying the Tax Code by implementing the uniform definition of a child provision supported by the administration, the Senate and the House. This conference report builds upon the President's 2001 and 2003 tax relief initiatives.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York once again has painted primarily a conspiracy that this was done somehow in a clandestine way. What I really want to do is make people understand that on the conference there were five Senators, three Republicans, two Democrats; and from the House there were three House Members, two Republicans, one Democrat. This provision was voted seven ayes and one no. It should not take you much time to figure out who the ``no'' was.

You also need to know that the Senator from Arkansas, Ms. Blanche Lincoln, had she had her way, based upon the amendments she offered to the conference committee which were not accepted, would have raised the price of this bill by almost $100 billion. For those people, those families, those struggling lower income people who the gentleman from New York describes as though they are getting nothing out of this bill, it is just a total cliche to say this is another tax cut for the rich as it involves $23 billion in outlays for those very same people that the gentleman from New York says were left out of the bill.

It was a bipartisan agreement. We were able to hold down the exuberance of the Democrats in the Senate. I know I am not supposed to mention the Senate, but I want everybody to remember it was the other body that would have

had this bill $100 billion higher. It is not because of the fiscal restraint on the part of the majority in putting this package together.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we are trying to draw a line between Democrats and Republicans, then I think we really ought to understand that prior to the 2001 tax bill, the provision that my friend from California is getting exorcised over, allowed that refundability only for families with three or more children. That is how generous they were. President Bush, the Republican House and a Republican Senate extended that provision to all families.

They were in power for 40 years and thought it was appropriate and fair to provide refundability only to families with three or more children. We said that did not make sense. We said it should be provided to all families. Yet you just heard the diatribe about what we do or do not do. That is actually what we did.

In addition to that, it just seems to me that a Senator from Arkansas and a Senator from Montana would differ with the gentleman from California about their party affiliation. All of the Senators, Democrat and Republican, supported the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), the chair of the Subcommittee on Health.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, that the statement that the minority from the Senate offered offsets for the provisions that they offered simply is not true. They did not offer offsets. There were provisions that were offered that did not cover it. There were offers for particular portions of the bill, and there were offers to simply cut the bill in the tax credit areas to cover the cost of the new items added, and on the largest amendment offered by the minority, there was not coverage for the cost.

So the gentleman's statement that they provided offsets for the entire bill, including the amendments that they offered, if that was the intent of the gentleman's statement, simply is not accurate.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I understand the gentleman's statement, and that was with respect to the underlying bill, but there were amendments offered which were not offset. The gentleman indicated that yes, there were increases offered, but offsets were provided as well. That statement simply is not factual.

Certainly, the gentleman from New York, who voted against the bill, provided a method which would take money away from individuals, increase their taxes, to distribute their income taxes, to distribute money to people who do not pay income taxes, but that was not on the portions that were offered by the Senators on the amendments that they offered.

I will certainly concede the underlying bill was covered by making people pay more in income tax so money could be distributed to those who do not pay income tax, but the statement that all of the amendments that were offered that increased the cost were offset is simply not a factual statement. That is the only point.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Maryland also knows that, under the United States Constitution, the purse strings are controlled by Congress under article I, not the President under article II. The reason we were able to balance the budget after all of those years was that, notwithstanding the fact that the Democrats captured the White House, which does not control the purse strings, the Republicans captured the Congress, House and Senate. Those who control the purse strings control the spending. The budget was balanced because of a Republican Congress, not a Democrat President.

I would also have to tell my friends, as they review with indignation the combat pay provision included in the earned income credit, it used to be that way. But President Clinton in his administration recommended that in 2001 it be dropped. We accepted the Clinton

administration recommendation, and it was dropped. We are now reinstating it. And what people need to understand is, the reason President Clinton asked us to drop it is because it was just too complex. We have figured out a way, through election, to resolve that problem. Yet, when people voted to remove it, we did not hear all of the criticism. When we decide to put it back in, in an effective way, we get criticized. It just is interesting, the process here. Even when we are trying to help people in need, we get criticized.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, ``crash course to abomination?'' I mean, I understand getting carried away with rhetoric, and I agree we have to be concerned when the Federal Government spends more than it takes in. We did not do that during World War II because it was a time during which we needed to win the war. We are in the wartime situation. Prior to getting into that wartime situation, we were in surplus.

``Crash course to abomination?'' The gentleman ran off some numbers about how big the current national deficit is, or the debt. This economy earns more than $11 trillion a year. If you made an analogy to a family, the entire deficit is less than what the family makes in earnings in a year. That does not even begin to examine the assets that the family holds, usually equity in a home. Begin thinking about all the physical assets that the society owns through the government.

Do we need to worry about debt? Yes. You worry about it most often as a personal relationship to your income or productivity for countries. Today, that debt is about 3.8 percent. Back in the 1980s and 1990s when the gentleman's party was in control, it went over 6 percent. We were better than two-thirds of that percentage when the gentleman's party was in power. I didn't hear ``crash course to abomination'' then.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that you need to have a debt that is manageable. The best way to view the debt is not in the absolute numbers, but in a percentage of your ability to pay. Today that debt is about 3.8 percent. In the recent past it has been as high as 6. Do we need to be concerned about it? Yes.

Chairman Greenspan has said repeatedly in front of congressional committees, the way you control a growing debt is to reduce spending. That is the long-term procedure for getting imbalance back into balance.

The other thing that you need to remember is the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) said that when we cut people's taxes, we just throw the money away. If you ever wanted to get a mental set of how people approach the revenues raised by government it is that when we cut taxes, we gave people back their own money. When they look at what we did, giving people back their own money, they see it as throwing money away.

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

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

I am pleased that the gentleman from California has announced apparently on behalf of the gentleman from New York that he has Presidential aspirations. What I said was that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) voted ``no'' on the conference report. The gentleman from California stood up and said, lest there be any misunderstanding, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) proposes to vote ``yes'' on the measure, and so it is pretty obvious he has got Presidential ambitions.

The point is he voted ``no'' before he voted ``yes.'' Perhaps my colleague should have said the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) will do the usual.

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

I have several speakers, but the Speaker announced the time differential.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is often said that talk is cheap. I do hope, as we close this debate, that people listen to what people have said, but, more importantly, watch what they do when they vote. It has been announced that the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means voted ``no'' in conference and plans to vote ``yes'' on the floor.

We have heard a number of people criticize this bill. I would suggest that you watch their vote. What they say does not necessarily reflect what they are going to do. One is rhetoric, the other is voting.

Please vote ``yes'' on the conference report.

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 conference report just passed.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. THOMAS: Committee on Ways and Means. H.R. 2971. A bill

to amend the Social Security Act to enhance Social Security

account number privacy protections, to prevent fraudulent

misuse of the Social Security account number, and to

otherwise enhance protection against identity theft, and for

other purposes, with an amendment; referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary for a period ending not later than October

1, 2004, for consideration of such provisions of the bill and

amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee

pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X (Rept. 108-685, Pt. 1).

Ordered to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend four Olympic medalists from Kern County, California, which I am privileged to represent, on their outstanding performances at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens, Greece. I am proud to recognize and praise these athletes for their dedication, resolve, and extraordinary talent that so perfectly epitomize the American spirit.

Joey Hansen of Bakersfield helped power the eight-man rowing crew to a gold medal--the first victory in 40 years for the United States in that event. In the kayak slalom, Rebecca Giddens, demonstrating expert skills honed in relentless practice on the Kern River, came from behind to win the silver medal. Swimmer Larsen Jensen, also of Bakersfield, shattered his own American record by eleven seconds in the 1,500 meter freestyle. Finally, Bakersfield's Gabe Woodward also made Kern County proud when he helped guide the 4x 100-meter freestyle relay team to a bronze medal.

Each of these four champions reflects the spirit of hard work and perseverance that is cherished in Kern County, and each resident of Kern County takes great pride in their achievements in Athens. We congratulate Joey, Rebecca, Larsen, and Gabe for making us proud. While I want to especially salute Kern County's Olympians, I also want to laud the achievements of each of the men and women who admirably and honorably represented the United States at the Olympics this summer. They made an entire Nation proud.

Mr. Chairman, the LoBiondo amendment to Section 221 of H.R. 5006, the ``Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005,'' would make a change to Medicare Part A payment policy, and thus falls within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Legislating on an appropriation bill is a violation of House Rules XXI, and the Committee opposes attempts to legislate on appropriation bills. However, in this case, I have worked with Representatives LoBiondo, Lowey and Wamp to draft the amendment being offered today to ensure that the Committee's position is addressed. The Committee on Ways and Means has long been involved in this issue and is interested in ensuring that any rule relating to the classification of inpatient rehabilitation hospitals is properly implemented and enforced. The amendment is being offered with the understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 738, I call up the bill (H.R. 4842) to implement the United States-Morocco Free Trade Agreement, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4842, which will implement the United States- Moroccan Free Trade Agreement. This Free Trade Agreement is comprehensive, it is solid, and it will benefit American workers across the spectrum, including farmers, consumers, businesses, and therefore the United States economy.

Morocco has been since the inception of this country and is today an important strategic partner of the United States. This agreement will enhance and in fact solidify our economic relationship. Not only will this agreement advance our relationship with Morocco, but it serves as a cornerstone to assist the President's broader initiative to create a Middle East free trade area by the year 2013.

The United States has entered into additional agreements, Morocco, Bahrain. We have entered into trade and investment framework agreements with Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Saudi Arabia. Many of these countries have expressed interest in moving forward and negotiating a free trade agreement similar to the Moroccan agreement.

Mr. Speaker, this is a long overdue day, but it has arrived, and I am pleased to say that the Senate has already acted on this legislation, and when the House concludes its business on this bill it will be sent to the President for his signature, and this is a marvelous way to end this portion of the 108th Congress.

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 Illinois (Mr. Crane), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Trade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) and ask unanimous consent that he control the time.

Mr. Speaker, my assumption is that the closing remarks on the part of the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee was an endorsement. It sounded as though we began with an extremely flawed product and, through their efforts, they were successful in righting the ship so that we could actually have a minimally decent document. I wonder where they were when President Clinton wanted fast track, their President, and three quarters of them voted against providing the President.

So when we listen to the remarks, we really have to put it, one, in context and then appreciate that intensity or outlandishness does not equal votes. And when I close shortly, take a look at the votes in terms of who is for and who is against.

But I do want to spend just 1 minute analyzing the level of the content and the direction of the debate. The ranking member from New York began this discussion by indicating that I stole the election in Florida. That certainly was an appropriate beginning on a debate on a Free Trade Agreement with Morocco. I would probably classify it as silly, but that is the level of debate that we often engage in. And it is just a pleasure to allow the rest of the country to understand the level at which exchanges are made not only in committee but on the floor when we try to engage in a serious discussion.

I heard an indication that people were interested in jobs, and, of course, I will talk about the gentleman from Ohio and his diatribe in a minute.

You missed the boat on the jobs issue. That was the jobs growth tax bill. It has had a major positive effect on jobs. You were ``no'' on that one as well. We have got 46 of the 50 States expanding. Unemployment is down in all regions of the country. This is the fastest growth in the last 20 years. And based upon your debating style, at that point I would pause and parenthetically say even including the Clinton years so that we can understand that the mention of Bush in every other sentence and in a negative way was clearly focused on the Free Trade Agreement and had nothing to do with attempting to influence an election. We have got 1.5 million jobs, continuing to grow, and they will continue to grow right through the election.

But I want to especially focus on the other gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) because at some point we cannot allow statements made on the floor of the House to stand when they are so outrageously false. The statement referred to legislation that we were considering earlier, and the statement was that what we did denied what the Constitution provides. I would urge everyone at some time, and especially certain Members, to look at the Constitution and turn to Article III, the judicial article, and look at Section 2. And I will just read it briefly, referring to the judicial branch: ``In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers

and consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.''

The Congress was exercising its constitutional function in indicating that areas of appellate jurisdiction were not to be examined by the court, and it absolutely floors me, well, I guess it does not based upon the other statements made by those on the other side of the aisle, that not only apparently they do not know the Constitution, but they actually invoke it in a totally false way on the floor of the House of Representatives.

So what I would really urge Members to do is not pay any attention to what was said necessarily on the other side of the aisle but take a look at the vote for this particular measure. H.R. 4842 certainly deserves the overwhelming majority support of this House. I believe it will be bipartisan. And, please, we will take away from this particular bill on the floor the fact that the vote was bipartisan even if the rhetoric is not and at times not just silly but downright, flat-out wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, September 8, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 4 p.m. on Monday, July 26, 2004, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 479, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I have been listening to some of the discussion; and, sadly, it tends to revolve around the same themes, and what I would like to do is suggest that instead of a semantic war, i.e., you are concerned because this particular legislation was called tax simplification, we would be open to some terms that would suit you, such as Tax Code rationalization, Tax Code clarification.

If you are hung up on the fact that this is not the end-all and the be-all in terms of simplification, I can suggest to you that if you want to look at the recent record of voting on measures, the ultimate simplification of the Tax Code would be to zero out a tax responsibility for someone. That was done. In terms of the low-income who fall into the tax-paying category, if you have dividend income or you have capital gains returns, we provided a Tax Code modification which would produce a zero tax rate. Now, that is ultimate simplification, and the fact of the matter is you voted against that.

So when you take a look at areas that the administration should have changed, I do hope that you take a step back from yourself and look at yourself as others do. You are standing here on the floor of the House criticizing legislation because it does not do enough, and you point out that there are provisions in this legislation that could be done administratively, but they have not; and at some point, either you continue to state that it could be done administratively and it is not done, or you agree it is relatively modest and minor and you wonder why it has not been done, and you go ahead and say you should do it. Now, that is at least a step forward.

So when I find you criticizing, what you do is you criticize if it is too grand, you criticize if it is too minimal, you criticize if it were requiring the administrator to do something they have the administrative power to do, but they do not exercise it. In fact, all you do is criticize.

When you listen to your arguments, it really boils down to one point. You simply cannot stand the fact that you are no longer in the majority, and I understand that. I was in the minority for 16 years, and I watched what you folks did to the Tax Code when you were in the majority, and I will return briefly and then end on the theme of the alternative minimum tax.

The problem we are in today is based upon a tax measure passed by the Congress of the United States, originating in the House of Representatives, controlled by my friends on the other side of the aisle, with not one Republican voting for it, which created the nonindexed provisions which you all lament have driven people into the alternative minimum tax structure.

I will tell you, when I was in the minority on the committee, I could not understand the logic in which you wanted to impose an alternative minimum tax in the first place. Because when we began discussing the fact that there were some people who did not pay taxes and because of the various deductions in the code, it allowed them not to pay taxes, the question I asked you was why do we not modify the deductions so everybody pays taxes. That is a fundamental, direct change.

Oh, no, we are not going to do that; we are going to create a whole alternate world, akin to physics in terms of matter versus anti-matter. We are going to have a structure which has a minimum tax, then we are going to create a structure which has an alternative minimum tax, and it only works in your bipolar world if the indexing in terms of the objects you do allow to be counted against a modification of the alternative minimum tax are adjusted the way those same items are in the regular tax structure.

What you wound up doing in that piece of legislation was freezing those deductions in the alternative world which has created this march into lower and lower brackets. It is wholly something that you are responsible for.

Now, since we are now in the majority, we obviously need to address a number of areas that you either failed to address or complicated significantly when you were in the majority; but it seems to me if you want to be a constructive minority, you join with us when we have these modest changes that make sense, instead of opposing absolutely anything, whether large, small, simple, or clarification.

Someone once said the role of the opposition party is to oppose. You folks are driving it to the absolute supreme example. What you really ought to do is begin to talk about where it makes sense and we join together, we join together. You start in the small areas, and we can move to the larger areas.

You folks proved absolutely conclusively that when you ran the place you could really mess up the large areas. What you are doing now is indicating that you are more than willing to be the opposition and the obstructionists even in the small.