Howard Berman

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, it is an authorization. The reason I am supporting this amendment is because it tracked the language that we had in the amendment that I was going to offer. It reserves the first $650 million that is appropriated, either out of the Beilenson language in existing law, or the new prison money, if this bill were to be signed into law, it reserves the first $650 million for reimbursements to the States for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. No other money can be spent on this prison program until that money is paid, so it is an authorization plus.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from New York yield on that issue?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, as I read the gentleman's amendment, the new moneys that come, that are tied to the Truth-In-Sentencing Act, only go to the States. But what this does clarify is that notwithstanding the Justice Department position, the Beilenson bill and the clarifications offered by this amendment to that make it clear that county jails that are housing undocumented criminal aliens who are convicted of felonies, and Los Angeles, it is $34 million a year, are eligible to claim that money. So this improves, this gives them a crack at what they were not able to get this past year.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, those States like Texas and New York, which do not now comply with the Truth-In-Sentencing Act, will still be better off on this amendment because they will have a preference under the Beilenson language, any money appropriated under that provision. So while they are not going to be as well off as they would have been under the amendment I had intended to offer, they will be better off than they are under existing law.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, if I could just make two points. First of all, I think my colleague from California, who authorized the original program in last year's crime bill, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], through his amendment that program stays intact. It is very important for us to watch the appropriations process, particularly for certain States that do not qualify for the Truth-In-Sentencing Act. I am told by the Governor of California, even though the Justice Department does not confirm that, but I am told without qualification by the Governor of California that California qualifies under the Truth-In-Sentencing Act and, therefore, will be eligible for this new prison money that is being reserved for this program. It is on that basis and on those assurances that I am supporting the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BERMAN. And we have had a problem this year with the appropriated monies, the $130 million. I do have to point out that President Clinton was the first President ever to propose funding for this, and Congress appropriated $130 million, first time ever, last year. But we have had a problem in that even though we think the language of the existing crime bill is clear, no local governments have been eligible for that. It is our intention, under the underlying crime provisions that exist in existing law, that local governments be eligible for that portion of the money, even though they are not eligible for the Truth-in-Sentencing Act money that is provided for in the gentleman's amendment; is that correct?

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank him for his kind words, and more importantly, I thank him for offering this amendment because, let us make it clear, what this amendment does is it recognizes the priority of funding. Before we start appropriating funds for new prison construction, we deal with reimbursing the States and localities for the costs they are now expending incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens who are convicted of felonies, who would not be in those States were it not for the Federal failure to enforce the immigration policy. So the gentleman's amendment, while I would have preferred the amendment I drafted and had preprinted in the Record, because that was not tied in any part to the Truth in Sentencing Act, the fact is the gentleman, by giving preferential treatment to the States that do not comply with the Truth in Sentencing Act for the money appropriated under last year's crime bill, and then reserving no less than a total of $650 for this cause, has accepted the preeminent priority of funding this unfunded consequence, if fashion. So I compliment the gentleman.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the issue is, for me, far less the question of whether or not the rule is open than the question of whether there is fundamental fairness in the operation. I think what happened to me with respect to my amendment yesterday in the Committee on Rules was not fundamentally fair. In this case, by refusing to give an essentially technical waiver, four of which were already given in this rule, as has been previously discussed, by refusing to give me an essentially technical waiver from the Budget Act, an amendment that I had that would have addressed the question of the unfair situation where States and local governments in many parts of this country, particularly on the border, but also in New York and in Illinois and in cost of incarcerating undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of felonies and who are housed in State and local prisons as a result of those convictions, people who should not have been in this country or in those States, except for the failure of the Federal Government to enforce the laws that we are supposed to enforce, and we have pledged to enforce. I proposed an amendment to provide a capped entitlement to guarantee to the State and local governments that they would be reimbursed for the properly expended costs submitted to the Justice Department. After a review of the Justice Department, and within the terms of the amendment, I proposed payment for that capped entitlement, a capped entitlement of $650 million, by reducing proportionally the existing authorization, which everyone intends to fund, they claim, for reimbursement for the States under last year's crime bill, and by reducing the amount of the authorization in the prison bill that is up before us today that is going to be made in order by virtue of this rule. Technically, Mr. Speaker, because it was enhanced, it was a capped entitlement, a Budget Act point of order stood against it, but in terms of the amendment, the amendment paid for itself. The four members of the minority on the Committee on Rules all supported granting that technical waiver. The eight members of the majority, each of whom expressed tremendous sympathy for the amendment, understood the inequity that exists, indicated their intention to do something about it, recognized that my amendment paid for itself, each of them expressed those sentiments, and then proceeded on a rollcall vote to deny me the waiver which would have allowed me to offer that amendment. The issue to me is not whether this rule is open or not. I understand the need of the majority to try and manage the business of the House. The question is whether the rules process is used to fundamentally tilt the process one way or another. We have a situation with this whole issue. I listened to the Speaker this morning in his morning press conference, and he spoke eloquently about the propriety and the legitimacy of the claims of both States that are shouldering the costs of the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens and their rightful need to be reimbursed. Two weeks ago we passed a balanced budget constitutional amendment. States and local governments raised a question. They said are you going to cut Federal spending by shifting to the States, or are you going to cut Federal programs, and without exception the chief proponents of the constitutional amendment said we are not going to be doing it by shifting the cost to the States and local governments, we are going to do it by cutting Federal programs. Let me tell my colleagues, the biggest cost shift of all is the cost shift that comes by forcing the State and local governments to pick up the cost of incarcerating people who should not be in this country, except for the failure of the Federal Government to enforce its own laws. A week ago we passed the unfunded mandate bill. We are not going to do this anymore, we are not going to shift the costs to the State and local governments, we are not going to decide what is happening. The biggest unfunded consequences, in effect a mandate as the Speaker himself referred to it, that goes on now is this shifting of costs to the States and local governments. Let me say to my colleagues, were the Federal Government to pick up the obligation we would then have an incentive, the same incentive that the chairman of the crime committee says is the justification for conditioning prison grants to the States on their sentencing, we would have the incentive to do something. The President of the United States, President Clinton, is the first President to actually propose trying to help the States in this area and we appropriated $130 million last year, but that is far short of what the actual costs are. The CBO suggests they are $650 million. I am just going to take one moment here to read a little bit from the computer printout of the AP wire story. It says, House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the Federal Government should help border States pay for imprisoning illegal immigrants, but the proposal still faces resistance from other senior Republicans. Gingrich said he supports the provision in the crime bill, That is the provision that I put into the bill in the Judiciary Committee on the alien deportation bill, which I have been told very clearly is going to be ruled out of the order by the Rules Committee, Gingrich says he supports that provision and supported it even before a meeting with California Governor Pete Wilson. Texas Governor George Bush and officials of other States also have sought the reimbursement, contending immigration is a Federal problem. Arizona, California, Texas, Florida and other States have sued the government in an effort to recoup billions of dollars spent on illegal immigrants, contending the costs arose because of the Federal Government's failure to enforce its immigration laws. ``I am very sympathetic to Governor Wilson and to Governor Bush and others who have made this case,'' Gingrich said. ``The Federal Government has failed to secure the American borders and the Federal Government is dumping on our border States an entirely inappropriate problem.'' The proposal part of a larger crime package now before the House could cost Federal taxpayers about $640 million in the first year. Senior Republicans, such as Representative Henry Hyde, And it hurts me, but it says it here, Henry Hyde, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee oppose the measure because of the costs. ``More money for California. What else does California want?'' Kasich exclaimed. ``Tilt the Treasury this way,'' he said, gesturing to signify dumping Federal dollars toward the West Coast, As if this is some benefit where the supplicant Californians and Floridians and Texans and New Yorkers are coming to say, ``Please, Federal Government, help us out with our problem.'' This misunderstands the fundamental nature of this issue. It belies all of the rhetoric that was given when we passed a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It undercuts everything that was said when we passed the notion of no more unfunded mandates to States and local governments through Federal action. They are in those States. They have committed those crimes. They have been convicted of those crimes and they are imprisoned at a cost in New York of $24,000 per individual per year, California $20,000, Florida $16,000 per year, each of them because the Federal Government failed to enforce this. This is the most compelling case for automatic reimbursement of the legitimate costs that the States and locals spend. It will help us focus our attention on solving the problem. It was wrong to deny me that technical waiver in an amendment that would have paid for itself and not added a penny to the Federal deficit. And I think that question should be brought to the House only because again, I am not yelling about whether the rule is open or not, I just think in this case a waiver was not granted to keep a particular issue from coming to the floor in a way that unfairly deprived one Member and a number of States and a number of other colleagues who support this measure of a chance to raise the issue in this fashion. I have an amendment which I will be offering which will seek to do the same thing. It will seek to reserve the first $650 million of the appropriated moneys for the prison programs for reimbursement for the States. Before we start putting money on the States for new prison construction, according to our notion of social engineering, and it is interesting how social engineering was so bad last year, but now, depending on who is in, the different notions of social engineering are more appropriate, but before we start spending that money, let us pay for the costs that the States and local governments now face because of the Federal failure to enforce the immigration laws. That amendment will be before us. But let me tell my colleagues that that amendment seeks to try and bring this money to the State and local government through a reservation of funds. In other words, no funds may be appropriated for other parts of the prison States and local governments. But the Appropriations Committee can say when they go through that process, notwithstanding if this amendment would pass, notwithstanding this provision of the law, ``We hereby appropriate the following moneys.'' Let me tell my colleagues, the Appropriations Committee I understand has all of these pressures, and I understand only certain States are affected. I understand it is not a national problem in one sense of the word. But the Appropriations Committee will be very tempted to include that language, and then they will be legislating on an appropriation bill. Then I suggest the Rules Committee may very well grant that waiver, and that will be the question that they will have to face then. So I think the Rules Committee did me an injustice yesterday by not granting the waiver. But I think, and more important to me, I think they did a very legitimate cause that is consistent with their own rhetoric on the unfunded mandates bill and the balanced budget constitutional amendment by denying that kind of a capped entitlement program to be offered on the House floor and to be debated on the House floor. I am not going crazy on the rule because we will offer this other amendment on the floor that will be in order. It is not as good. It does not work as well. It does not fit the terms of what the Speaker himself supports, and I believe him, because I know he cares. But I think he is getting a lot of pressure from inside the ranks, particularly from Members who are focused very narrowly on the Federal budget and not on the concept of State and local unfunded mandates and the legitimacy of specific expenditures. I want to add one last thing, and then I will yield back the time that the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has given me, and who led this cause and got the initial language into the bill last year which allowed for the first money to be appropriated. The Speaker appointed a task force on California and named very competent and distinguished colleagues of mine to lead that task force, indicating an understanding that the problems of California are not just isolated to California, that the country and the Congress should not turn its back on the problems of the largest State. At the same time that all of this is happening and that we are being kept from offering the kind of amendment which would deal with the problem most effectively, I find that the Speaker, the majority leader, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and the chairman of the Committee on the Budget have sent a letter to the President, who submitted a supplemental appropriation request to continue to finish the funding for the devastating earthquake we faced in southern California, to provide the budget funding for the floods that northern and southern California faced, as well as additional money for the floods in other parts of the country. And they said for the first time, of any time I can remember in terms of congressional leadership, ``We are not going to take up your supplemental for these federally-declared natural disasters until you find offsets for each and every one of these expenditures.'' When I take that together with this, I wonder about the whole meaning of that task force. These are positions that, if held onto, will work very much to the detriment of my State, and I think people should think twice about that.

Mr. BERMAN. And there is no matching requirement for the States or local under this program.

Mr. BERMAN. If the gentleman will yield further, the same with respect to the 3 percent limit on administrative costs. That was for a new prison construction program. This provision is a reimbursement provision. By definition, 100 percent of these costs are for operating costs of existing State and local prisons and jails.

Mr. BERMAN. My question is, to just make clear, my understanding is this amendment, if adopted, will not require or put any of those three limitations on. In other words, by definition this is supplanting money. The States are now spending money to operate their prisons.

Mr. BERMAN. I want to ask a couple of questions to make sure we have full understanding. In the underlying bill for Federal assistance for prison construction, you have three requirements. you have a non-supplanting requirement, a limit on administrative costs, and a requirement for matching funds.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Is there any question but that pursuant to the lawful arrest and a search when you find evidence, when there is probable cause for the arrest, the search incident to the arrest, the evidence produced of another crime is admissible? I would like to know the case that excludes that evidence. If it is a search incidental to a lawful arrest, it is admissible. We do not need this bill for that.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BERMAN. If I may reclaim my time, I agree, and it does so without providing any effective alternative to protect that individual's fourth amendment rights.

Mr. BERMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, when the court originally came down with the exclusionary rule, it recognized that this is not a good rule in some abstract sense. It is forcing the exclusion of evidence which was seized which could show that an individual may have committed a crime. But they went through a whole process of pointing out that without this kind of rule, there was no other effective deterrent to unlawful searches and seizures, there was no other effective way of protecting an individual's fourth and fourteenth amendment rights to privacy and against unlawful searches and seizures. If the proponents of this bill and the opponents of the Conyers amendment would propose a series or any remedy which was effective in protecting an individual and giving him some recourse against unlawful searches and seizures which would provide the kind of deterrent that would make those fourth amendment rights meaningful, I think everybody in this House would agree in a second to get rid of the exclusionary rule because of the problems with the exclusionary rule. But when the gentleman from Illinois talks about a lawsuit against the police, the evidence is demonstrating monetary damages, the time it takes, the difficulty in establishing any proof, civil remedies in the traditional courts against a policeman for an unlawful search are not effective. They are not a deterrent. Surely within the context of discipline, statutory kinds of remedies, you might want to explore the possibility of providing an alternative that provides that kind of effective deterrent. But I have never heard the proponents of doing away with the exclusionary rule takes any serious time to try and create more effective remedies that would constitute that deterrence. That was the very heart of what the court said when they came down with the exclusionary rule. In effect they said, ``We don't like it but we don't know how to provide a meaningful deterrent against unlawful searches and seizures without that rule.'' I suggest that if people would get together and try to come up with those effective remedies, there would be a much better approach towards doing this then keeping the exclusionary rule. But so far no one who wants to do away with it comes up with effective alternatives. I think it is a big mistake. I also want to make one other point. The difference between objective and subjective. I am happy to see the committee report spent some time clarifying the objective standard. But the fact is when you talk about what a police officer thought at the time, I would suggest these may be words but it may not have any real meaning. In the end, you may really be giving to the police officer the final decision on whether or not he thought that search was in good faith, and we will slide very quickly to the intent to provide an objective standard to the reality in the courtroom of a subjective standard which rewards a lack of knowledge about search and seizure law, it promotes and encourages not knowing the specifics of what is permitted and what is not permitted. I do not think it is a healthy standard to give real meaning to the fourth amendment protections.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strenuous opposition to the balanced budget amendment. This debate is about far more than the critical task of balancing the Federal budget. The amendment strikes me as a dangerous and insidious means of fundamentally altering articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Constitution, upsetting the separation and balance of powers that has served this Nation so well for two centuries. Has our confidence in our ability to make the tough choices ebbed so dramatically that we would cast away for all time the carefully wrought balance among the three branches of Government? At a time when U.S. constitutional law experts have fanned out around the globe, advising brand-new democracies on how to write their constitutions, it is a bitter irony that we find ourselves on the verge of forsaking the very model so many seek to emulate. Many of my colleagues who support this amendment have done so out of reluctance to saddle future generations with the burden of our national debt. I concur. But I am equally loathe to consign our children to relive the terrible constitutional crises of our past: A Supreme Court nullifying acts of Congress designed to pull the United States out of the Depression and to ease the pain of our fellow citizens; and The Congress and the President locked in combat over the President's efforts to impound appropriated funds. And unless the amendment before us is merely hortatory, a suggestion I am certain its proponents would roundly deny, our children face the prospect of an unelected judiciary plunging into the adjudication of patently political questions they have strenuously and wisely sought to avoid for over 200 years. I fear that we face the unprecedented prospect of the courts ordering cuts in fundamental Federal programs in order to effect compliance with the amendment. Even for those who believe that achieving a zero budget deficit is the paramount objective of our times, I would contend that this provision does not belong in our Constitution. For the entirety of U.S. history, our Constitution and the very small number of amendments we have adopted thereto have served two key functions: allocating power within our democracy, and protecting fundamental individual rights. The amendment under consideration today has a strikingly different purpose: enshrining a particular fiscal policy in the Constitution. I would submit that article 1 already provides ample authority to the Congress to hew to that fiscal policy. But it dishonors our sacred Constitution to clutter it with a particular view of budgeting and economics that has not stood the test of time. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have raised serious concerns about forcing the Federal Government to always adopt a balanced budget. Herb Stein, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and an adviser to Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, objects to a balanced budget because it would result in ``needless confusion, evasion, and litigation'' and ultimately would be very ``unfair.'' The balanced budget amendment has been mischaracterized as a way to protect the American people's pocketbook. The Contract With America heralds it as ``keeping Congress from passing the bill on to you, the American people.'' Who do you think will foot the bill if not the American people? No matter how you disguise it the American people will end up footing the bill. It's just a question of which Americans. Aside from Defense, which the Republicans have vowed not to increase, more than 80 percent of Federal spending consists of payments to individuals. Wealthy individuals and corporations get their Government benefits from tax subsidies. A three-fifths vote requirement for tax increases serves to enshrine a principal of protecting the rich and burdening the poor. Although the middle class will end up bearing the brunt of any effort to balance the budget, the mix of tax increases to payment cuts will determine whether it is the rich or the poor who must make the greatest sacrifices. However, even conservative economists who are not concerned about this equity issue and who believe that draconian spending cuts are necessary, recognize that a balanced budget amendment is simply bad fiscal policy. They know that a constitutional amendment would risk making recessions more frequent and deep. In years of slow growth or recession revenues rise more slowly while costs for programs such as unemployment insurance increases more rapidly. Consequently the deficit will be larger during recessions and smaller during expansions. Under the fiscal straitjacket of a balanced budget amendment greater deficit reduction would be required during a recession while less deficit reduction would be required during an expansion. This is precisely the opposite of what most economist feel should be done to stabilize the economy and avert recessions. Also, the balanced budget amendment is bad fiscal policy because, unlike most State balanced budget amendments, the amendment before you today fails to distinguish between operating budgets and long-term investments. Businesses and homeowners know the difference between borrowing to consume and borrowing to invest. It is ludicrous to enshrine a fiscal policy that forces the Federal Government to be shortsighted and that makes long-term investments more difficult. Finally, the balanced budget amendment is premised on a faulty notion that all debt is bad. Government bonds represent wealth to their holders--in large part the American public. When the Government spends more than it takes in, it adds to their wealth. This does not mean that the Government should always run a big deficit, but rather that our Government should choose carefully whether a deficit is wise at any particular time. As a government that makes fiscal policy we must be free to decide whether achieving a balanced budget is really in the best national interest of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I urge all my colleagues to protect the Constitution, support sound fiscal management, and get down to the business of making the hard choices we were elected to make. I urge my colleagues to oppose the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Bill Rosendahl, senior vice president of Century Cable Television, whose commitment to public affairs and political programming is unsurpassed. Since 1987 Bill has been host of ``Week in Review,'' a talk show that brings together journalists, politicians and consultants for an often fascinating discussion of the issues. There is nothing like it on any television station in southern California. Along with his duties on ``Week in Review,'' Bill spends much of his time interviewing politicians and, during election season, candidates, obscure offices. No political reporter in the print or broadcast media in Los Angeles is as thorough and fair as Bill. In an age when it is fashionable to be cynical and dismissive about politics, Bill is truly a breath of fresh air. He brings impeccable credentials to his work. Prior to his arrival at Century Cable, Bill was director of corporate affairs for Westinghouse Broadcasting and Cable. He was also a White House appointee to the State Department, and has participated in many Presidential, gubernatorial, and senatorial campaigns. This year Bill was named by the Los Angeles Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists as the winner of its 1994 Freedom of Information Award, which honors nonjournalists who helped promote first amendment issues. With his dedication to airing all points of view and for extensive coverage of topics ranging from AIDS to the war in Bosnia, Bill Rosendahl is the perfect choice. I ask my colleagues to join me today in saluting Bill Rosendahl, who has shown that in the right hands, television can be a marvelous source of news and information about politics and government. He brings honor to his profession.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, as we mark the 1-year anniversary of the devastating Northridge earthquake, some businesses in the Los Angeles area are still struggling to pick up the pieces and get back on their feet. Despite the commendable efforts of FEMA Director James Lee Witt, former SBA Administrator Erskine Bowles, and HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros, a number of earthquake-damaged companies are at serious risk of falling through the cracks. Some of these face unique and unanticipated circumstances, and have thus been unable to qualify for the standard Federal disaster assistance programs. To help one small subset of these needy businesses, I am once again introducing legislation that would provide an 18-month extension of the duty drawback filing period for businesses that sustain damage in a Presidentially declared disaster. Under current law, the Commissioner of Customs has no discretion to provide such an extension even if, through no fault of their own, businesses lose their records in a fire, flood, hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or other disaster. This legislation would have an almost negligible budgetary impact, yet would be of crucial importance to the small number of businesses unable to file drawbacks when disaster strikes. The Customs Service, the Treasury Department, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative have all signaled their support for this legislation, and I hope it will be enacted by the Congress in a timely fashion.

Mr. BERMAN

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I am proposing legislation that would permit disaster victims to deduct 100 percent of their casualty losses when calculating their Federal personal income taxes. I first introduced this bill in the last Congress after seeing the destruction caused by the Northridge earthquake and after talking with hundreds of its victims. I realized then that present tax law is clearly inadequate in disaster of this magnitude. The Tax Code acknowledges that it is appropriate to deduct uninsured property losses, but the deduction doesn't kick in until losses exceed 10 percent of adjusted gross income. Since this legislation was first introduced, I have received hundreds of phone calls and letters from people who are still reeling from the earthquake. Nearly a year has passed, but victims are still finding it difficult to find the money to repair the damages suffered. The legislation I am introducing would particularly help middle-class taxpayers who suffer substantial damage, but who earn too much to qualify for Federal grants and face tens of thousands of dollars in repair bills. The bills would apply only in cases of federally declared disasters. When an emergency is great enough to prompt the President to declare a disaster and to determine that aid from the Federal Government is warranted, then stricken taxpayers surely deserve this break on their Federal income taxes. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that this legislation would cost approximately $22 million annually. Congress appropriated more than $8.6 billion to help defray the estimated $15 to 20 billion cost of the earthquake. The estimated revenue loss to the Treasury is very small compared to the significant middle class tax relief this bill would provide to tens of thousands of taxpayers who have to dip into their savings or go into additional debt to repair their homes. The bipartisan task force on disasters, appointed by the leadership of the House to recommend improvements in the Nation's disaster strategy recognized the importance of improving the ability of individuals, businesses, and communities to recover from disasters by providing resources needed to rebuild. The task force's report included a recommendation that Congress consider this legislation. Every dollar taxpayers have to send to Washington is a dollar not spent in their devastated local communities. They could spend that money putting contractors and builders to work, or they could use it in local stores to buy items to replace damaged possessions. It's both good economic policy and good sense to put every possible dollar to work to help ravaged areas rebound from disaster. I will continue to work very hard to pass this important tax relief legislation.