Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, could the Chair tell us the remaining time, please?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. If it is progressive to cut taxes for the wealthy and continue huge corporate tax loopholes while taking the money out of the pockets and cutting the programs for middle-income and lower-income Americans, then, yes, your version of a budget is progressive. Our version of a budget puts money in the pockets of middle-income and working families, funds programs that are important to them. Yes, it does raise taxes on the largest corporations in the world that are skating on their taxes today and those who are the most wealthy who are doing very well. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a debate about values and priorities. We are setting the scene for the entire spending of the budget of the United States of America, all the billions of dollars in taxes collected from our citizens. We want to see a change in the priorities. Today, the United States ranks first in military spending. We spend five times as much as our strongest potential adversary, the Russians, who are pretty pathetic. Yet, the United States is tenth, tenth in per capita education spending. If we addressed what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) of the Committee on the Budget referred to earlier as sloppy management at the Pentagon with the 10 percent cut in exotic weapons procurement, keeping whole the readiness budget, keeping whole the housing, personnel, and other budgets, supporting our troops, we could be number one in the world in military spending by four and a half times instead of five times our next adversary. But we could move from tenth to first in education. We could invest more in health care; in our veterans, fulfilling our obligations to them; infrastructure; schools; clean waters; sewers; transportation; housing. The list goes on. The Republican budget assumes that all of those things I listed, except for the Pentagon, will be reduced by $19 billion below current levels of spending. Our budget, instead, would raise the levels of spending on education by more than $20 billion over the Republican levels. Health care would be dramatically increased. We would increase veterans over $2 billion over the Republican budget. Infrastructure, schools, clean water, sewers, housing, the list goes on. This is about priorities, and it is about values, and it is about how we spend our people's money. We are proposing a budget that would spend the money more in line with the values of a majority of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Alaska, his initial point I think was very well taken in this matter, that the authority which I am attempting to extend through this amendment does exist, but this would encourage the President to use that authority. That is exactly what the bill is doing. The bill does nothing new; it encourages the President to go out and negotiate. The bill encourages the bill to go out and gather information. Certainly, those things are within his authority. In fact, he is already doing them. So I would argue that my amendment is probably less redundant, and certainly more meaningful, than other provisions of the bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I might just further respond.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I do, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the bill purports to deal with the oil shortage. My amendment deals directly with the oil shortage, particularly as it relates to the West Coast of the United States. By keeping the Alaskan oil home, we would deal with the oil shortage. So it is certainly, in terms of the intent of the legislation in the bill, in order. The bill purports in its title and in the assertions in the debate to be targeted at reducing the price of oil. My amendment, by restricting the export of the oil from Alaska, would reduce the price of oil. The bill says that it will go after countries which fix the price of oil. My amendment goes after companies which fix the price of oil. The bill finds that oil producing countries took concerted actions in March and September to cut oil production and hold back from the market 4 million barrels a day. My amendment addresses a cut-back in oil available to the West Coast of the United States in the amount of 60,000 barrels a day by bringing this oil home. So I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is germane to the bill. We heard earlier from the Committee on Rules that their intent was to allow amendments to the bill, and I would offer that that is a false promise if all of the amendments that people are going to attempt to be offering are found out of order. So I would ask the Chair to rule in favor of offering a substantive amendment to a symbolic piece of legislation so that it might actually do something about the problem which is being discussed.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, Congress has awesome power when it wants to act but today that power is being squandered. American consumers are being price gouged by an unholy alliance of OPEC and big oil. The gentleman who preceded me wants to do a study to see if they are price gouging. Oh, come on. Did the gentleman see the movie Casa Blanca? This is ridiculous. We know price gouging, price fixing is going on. It is time, it is past time, to act. Concrete actions could be taken today on the floor but they will not be allowed by the majority because they fly in the face of big oil, their campaign sponsors. We could ban the export of oil from Alaska. We could file a complaint in the World Trade Organization for these violations of their charter. We could reinstitute programs which they decimated for conservation for renewable resources. We could give the President the authority to tap the strategic petroleum reserve. There are things we could do. They want a study. They want to undertake a concerted diplomatic campaign and take the necessary steps to begin negotiations. The White House has already done that and I think they are pathetic steps. You are even more pathetic by telling them to do what they are already doing.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for the United States Congress. We are legislators. We could legislate today. We could deal with this issue. We could take concrete steps. In this piece of legislation, the Republicans are offering two points. The President shall undertake a concerted diplomatic campaign. That is the most important thing they are requiring. Two, he should take the necessary steps to begin negotiations. That is all this does. Diplomatic campaign and should begin negotiations. That is what they are doing. There was another section. It would have given the President the authority to reduce, suspend, or terminate assistance to these countries. We are giving foreign aid and military assistance to the very OPEC nations that are price gouging us. But the corporate sponsors of the Republican Party did not like that section and the Committee on Rules took it out. This bill could have done something, but now it will do nothing. The bill also could have allowed my amendment, take our Alaska oil and turn it back from Japan and China and ship it to the refineries that need oil on the west coast of the United States. That was the law of the land in America until the Republicans took control of Congress and they jammed through legislation at the behest of the oil industry to allow the export of oil from Alaska. The district of the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) could benefit from that oil. My district could benefit from that oil. But, no, they do not want to fly in the face of their campaign contributors, the oil companies, who are so generously supporting them and their presidential candidate. No, we would not want to take a concrete step here on the floor of the House and really do something. We are going to undertake a concerted diplomatic campaign and take the necessary steps to begin negotiations. Pretty pathetic for the majority party. I can support that, but I have already asked the President to do more, and they are not doing much down at the White House but they are even doing more than what the Republicans are asking.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention and submit for the Record an opinion piece included in the March 22, 2000, edition of the Washington Post. It was written by Doug Bandow, a Senior Fellow at the CATO Institute and former special assistant to President Reagan. The article makes a persuasive case for reducing the Pentagon budget and deflates the over-heated rhetoric of my colleagues about the need for over $300 billion in military spending. As Mr. Bandow writes, ``To suggest that America is weak, let alone as weak as before Pearl Harbor, is nonsense.'' Fortunately, there is an alternative. The Congressional Progressive Caucus budget proposal I offered makes sensible, realistic reductions in the Pentagon budget in order to more adequately fund education, health care, housing, veterans, nutrition and social service programs. Budgets are about priorities. Unfortunately, as this opinion piece from a former Reagan Administration official makes clear, our current budget priorities are ``nonsense.'' [From the Washington Post, Mar. 22, 2000] Scaling Down in a Safer World (By Doug Bandow) In political debates, America is often portrayed as a beleaguered isle of freedom in a world threatened with a new Dark Ages. Yet the truth is that the United States is safer today than it has been at any time in the past half-century. It's time for Washington to cut military outlays sharply. While Al Gore and Bill Bradley were sparring over health care in the primary campaigns, the leading Republican candidates pushed to ``strengthen'' the military. For instance, Texas Gov. George W. Bush complains that ``not since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment in national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP.'' Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sounded like an echo when he warned that ``the last time we spent so little on defense was 1940-- the year before Pearl Harbor.'' Even more apocalyptic is conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh, who warns that ``we cannot survive more liberalism'' at home or abroad. After all, he explains, ``the world is far more dangerous than the day Ronald Reagan left office.'' It is unclear, however, in what world they believe Americans to be living. True, the percentage of GNP devoted to defense, about 3.2 percent, is lower than at any time since before World War II. Although that number fell to 3.5 percent in 1948, it climbed sharply with the onset of the Cold War and the very hot Korean War. One must go back to 1940, when military outlays ran about 1.7 percent of GNP, to find a lower ratio. But so what? America's GNP then was $96.5 billion, or about $1.2 trillion in today's dollars. That compares with a GNP of more than $8.7 trillion in 1999. In short, one percent of GNP today means eight times as much spending as in 1940. Moreover, the United States was a Today Washington dominates the globe. It accounts for more than a third of the globe's defense outlays. It possesses the strongest military on earth: a well-trained force of 1.4 million employing the most advanced weapons. The United States spends as much on the military as the next seven nations combined, five of which are close allies. In short, to suggest that America is weak, let alone as weak as before Pearl Harbor, is nonsense. No less silly is the contention that the United States faces greater threats today than a decade ago. The world is messy, yes, and the end of the Cold War unleashed a series of small conflicts in the Balkans. But most of the globe's nasty little wars--such as in Angola, Kashmir, Sri Lanka and Sudan--began well before 1989. And none of these conflicts threatens the United States as did the struggle with the Soviet Union. Moreover, virtually every pairing today favors America's friends. The Europeans spend more on the military than does Russia; Japan's outlays exceed those of China; South Korea vastly outspends North Korea. America's implacable enemies are few and pitiful: Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Serbia collectively spend $12 billion to $13 billion on the military, less than such U.S. Allies as Israel and Taiwan. A decade ago was not so rosy. Not only did the Soviet Union spend more than twice as much as does Russia, but it formally confronted America. The Warsaw Pact states spent as much as NATO's eight Except in one form--terrorism. Although foreign governments, facing the threat of massive retaliation, are unlikely to strike America, ethnic, ideological and religious groups might not be so hesitant. But they are unlikely to do so out of abstract hatred of the United States. To the contrary, most acts of violence, such as those perpetrated by Osama bin Laden, are in response to U.S. intervention abroad. Terrorism is the weapon of choice of the relatively powerless against meddling by the globe's sole superpower. In this case, America's strength, its global pervasive presence, is America's weakness. The solution is not more military spending but greater military caution. The risk of terrorism must be added to the other costs of intervening in foreign quarrels with little relevance to U.S. security. Should America's military be strengthened? Yes: Problems with readiness, recruiting and retention should be addressed, and missile defenses should be constructed. But outlays could still be slashed by shrinking force levels to match today's more benign threat environment. The world is less, not more dangerous, than a decade ago. America is relatively stronger today than ever before, notwithstanding the misguided claims of Messrs. Bush and McCain.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the United States set another record today. Unfortunately, it is not a record of which we can be proud as a nation or certainly not as one of the policymakers that helps set our trade policy in this country. We set a record deficit, an all-time record deficit, in trade. $338.9 billion trade deficit, a 50 percent increase from the 1998 level of $220.6 billion. Now, what does that mean? Well, let us think about it for a minute. Where is all that money coming from and where is it going? Well, since trade policy in this country is pretty much dictated to the Members of Congress, this Member excepted but most of my colleagues, or a majority, and to the White House downtown, no matter it seems which party is sitting there, by multinational corporations, they do not really care what the impact is on the United States of America, its workers or our economic future. But guess what? We are piling up a huge mound of international debt and some day that debt is going to be called and it is going to wreak havoc with the economy of our country. According to most recent statistics, our international debt, because of this huge and growing trade deficit, will reach $1.9 trillion when it is added up for last year, and they are expecting it will double to $3.8 trillion, trillion dollars, by the year 2005. Interest payments, money going overseas for money borrowed from overseas by financiers, governments, multinational corporations, whatever, $86 billion this year and it will be $166 billion by 2005. That is jobs that are not created here, capital that is not available here, threats to the future economic prosperity of our country. Now, there are two parts of the trade deficit we ought to take a special close look at. One is the trade deficit due to the OPEC nations. Now, people have just started to pay attention to OPEC again recently, but they have been there all along. They have been a very large part of our trade deficit, but they are getting bigger. Last month, our trade deficit to the OPEC nations, because of their price fixing, was $2.671 billion. That means at that rate we will run a $31 billion trade deficit with OPEC. Now, everybody around here loves free trade, the World Trade Organization, with the exception of a few of us who think that that is not working very well for the people of this Nation. Well, the WTO has rules. Guess what? They have rules. It is a rules-based trade. The President loves rules-based trade, and one of the rules is that member nations cannot constrain production for goods produced for export unless it is for conservation purposes. Nobody in the OPEC nations pretends that they are conserving their oil for conservation purposes. They are real up front about it. They are price gouging. They are creating an artificial shortage. Why then will the President and the administration not file a complaint in the WTO that they love so much? Why will the majority party who loves the WTO so much not force the President to file a complaint? I expect they will not allow my amendment to the legislation tomorrow that would resolve that the Congress wants the President to file a complaint in the WTO against the OPEC nations. Now there is another aspect to this that is very large, even bigger than OPEC. China, our trade deficit with China close to $70 billion this last year, an increase of 15 percent, the most unfair trading nation on earth. And yet what is this Congress proposing to do, pushed by the Republican leaders and the President? That is to give China everything they ever wanted, to give up any tools that this body holds to hold over China in the future to get them to behave in international trade, to get them to behave in human rights, to get them to behave in nonproliferation of nuclear weapons or dealing weapons to terrorist countries, to give them permanent most favored nation status. Well, the estimates are, by our own international trade commission, saying that if the U.S. gets China into the WTO and if the U.S. grants them permanent most favored nation status, that they expect, according to their model, that our trade deficit with China will grow for the next 60 years to $649 billion. Something stinks about the trade policy in this country and it is time that it changes.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for his help with this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it has been a long and difficult process for Douglas County to improve and obtain the properties adjacent to their park in order that they might provide for camping facilities and might make this area more desirable for hundreds of families each year. The Miwaleta Park is adjacent to a reservoir. It is heavily recreated now, and we have problems because of dispersed camping in the area. This park is actually going to, with the development of facilities by the county, ameliorate existing problems that we have with the dispersed camping and trash and other problems, and provide for a family camping experience, provide for sanitary facilities, and really enhance the experience for everyone. The Secretary of the Interior will continue to have the right to revoke title if the county does not maintain these lands for parks. I am fully confident that Douglas County will substantially invest in and manage this property very well, but, in order to meet concerns that some have expressed, we included that in the legislation. We also, in going through and evaluating this legislation, determined that in fact the environmental impacts would be positive, not negative; that by cutting down on the dispersed camping and the sanitation and trash problems with the developed facility and concentrating the camping activities in a smaller area, that a number of problems would also be ameliorated. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people have contributed to this legislation. Douglas County, of course, has been persistent in dealing with the Bureau of Land Management over 8 long years and working with me. Former chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, Bob Smith, supported the bill in the last Congress. My colleague the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) was very supportive and a cosponsor of the legislation in this Congress, as well as the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen). Of course on the Senate side, we have had support from the Oregon delegation. I have great support from staff, both Rick Healy now as staff and my former staff, Jeff Steer. So it has been a long time, but sometimes good things take a very long time. After 8 long years, the people of Douglas County in the very near future will have greatly enhanced camping facilities available so that they might enjoy Oregon's summer on this wonderful body of water. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for his support.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to an unprecedented cooperative campaign by several television stations in my congressional district. Earlier this year, stations in Eugene, OR, set aside competition and simulcast a half-hour documentary on the effects of drug abuse, ``Drug Wars: One Family's Battle.'' The documentary was produced by Medford Oregon-based Crime Prevention Resources. In addition, three stations--KEZI, KMTR and KVAL--also sponsored and simultaneously broadcast a special 1 hour town hall meeting that featured individual stories, a panel of experts and telephone call-ins, all discussing the impacts of drug abuse and methods to combat the problem. This locally simulcast townhall was a first in our community and possibly the nation. I congratulate and commend these stations and the community on this collaborative and innovative endeavor to combat the serious problem of drug abuse. By saturating our local airwaves for a short time, they were able to ensure this anti-drug message reached the widest possible audience. This impressive feat should be a model for the nation. Winning the war on drugs requires an extraordinary effort from the grassroots level up. I encourage my colleagues to pursue a similar effort with television stations in their respective congressional districts. It is a unique and rewarding opportunity to work together towards the common goal of ending drug abuse in our communities. Again, I salute the efforts of these television stations on their historic effort.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, gasoline is nearing $2 a gallon across the United States. Diesel is up 50 percent. Home heating oil at one point spiked over 100 percent increase from last year. Aviation fuel is on the rise. Now we have got the Federal Reserve saying they are worried about inflation so they are going to jack up interest rates. Of course, we have got the oil companies at OPEC fixing prices and curtailing production, causing inflation. I say the likelihood of an economic disaster or recession or a dramatic slowdown is pretty great. Now, what is the response? Well, the response of the Clinton administration and the Republican leadership in Congress to the artificial shortages and the run up in prices is pathetic. The administration sounds like a bunch of corporate Republicans, let the free market work. Well, guess what? There is no free market in the production and distribution of oil. The OPEC cartels have met and decided to hold down production and drive up prices to profit themselves and the multi-national oil companies with whom they work hand in glove. Free market? Sure. Now, the Republican response is equally pathetic, cut taxes, cut taxes. That seems to be the only solution to anything around here. How much? 4.3 cents. They are going to cut gasoline taxes by 4.3 cents. That will solve the problem. Well, guess what? The taxes were the same level last year when gas was a dollar a gallon. Now it is going to be $2 a gallon. And that 4.3 cents, the oil companies will suck that up in less than an hour. That is a pathetic response. They do have another response. Drill the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Ninety-five percent of the north slope is available for oil exploitation. There is one little tiny bit left. Let us go and punch holes in there. For what? To destroy that pristine area, for what? For 6 months' supply if the optimists are right. More likely, for a few pathetic months' supply. Ruin that area for all time. And ironically, the same party, the Republicans, jammed legislation through this House 5 years ago demanding that the United States export the oil currently being produced in Alaska. Now, that is kind of strange. They want to go up and destroy the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to produce more oil that they will then export. Why are they doing that? Well, because the big oil companies wanted that, and they are beholding to the big oil companies. This is a predictable and pathetic response to a national crisis. There is an alternative. Take on the big oil companies. Well, there are not too many around here that want to do that. But, guess what? There is a way we can do it. The President is all for rules-based trade. The Republican majority says they are the greatest defenders of the World Trade Organization. They provided the majority of votes to create it, and they defend it day in and day out in this body. Article 11 of the Charter of the World Trade Organization, of which six OPEC countries are full members, prohibits, prohibits restrictions on the productions of materials for export. It is pretty simple. Here we have an organization the U.S. has created, the Clinton administration and the Republican majority backs a hundred percent, they say they want rules-based trade. Well, let us use those rules. Now, they filed a complaint for a guy who grows bananas. Now, we do not grow bananas in the United States. But he is a big campaign contributor, so the U.S. used its clout in that organization for bananas, used it for hormone-laced beef. But somehow it seems that we cannot use our clout in that organization to file a complaint against OPEC and the largest multi-national oil companies in the world. It is time to stand tall as a Nation to those oil companies and their partners, the OPEC nations. Use the rules we have. That is a good beginning. There is more that needs to be done. I am introducing legislation today to ask the President, to strongly urge the President to file that complaint. I hope he does not need that legislation to move forward. We also need to begin dealing with all the subsidies we provide to those countries, the foreign aid, the military subsidies and the others. Burden sharing. Kuwait is one of the countries dragging its feet for additional oil production. Did we not save Kuwait? Now, Kuwait says they are not going to lift a finger. In fact, they want to keep prices down because nobody in Kuwait has to work because the prices are so high. They import workers in Kuwait. Maybe a little burden sharing is in order for some of these countries that we are protecting and extending billions of dollars or our defense umbrella to every year. And then finally, let us get serious about conservation and renewables and energy independence in this country. If anything poses a threat to this Nation in the next century, it is the fact that we have not gotten serious about concentration and renewables and now we are importing 60 percent of our oil. This is a threat to the future security of this country. This Congress should not sit on its hands, nor should the President downtown just because some of the largest campaign contributors in the world do not want to do anything about the higher prices for oil. We can do something. It is in our power. Let us act.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are skyrocketing through the roof while Congress and the administration sit and twiddle their thumbs mumbling platitudes about waiting for the free market to work. I have got a news flash for the President, the Secretary of Energy and my colleagues that do not want to do anything. There is no free market in oil. The huge oil conglomerates secretly conspire against consumers to drive up oil prices and the OPEC countries openly collude to reduce production and create an artificial shortage. The Justice Department should vigorously investigate and prosecute the price fixing and anticompetitive actions by the major oil companies. And the President as a big supporter of the WTO and rules- based trade should file a complaint against the OPEC nations. The WTO charter, article 11, says that they cannot do this. They cannot artificially depress production. We should file a complaint and collect hundreds of millions of dollars in damages levied through the WTO organization. If the administration is willing to use the full force and credibility of the Government on behalf of a single banana exporter with no export production in the United States, then they should certainly act on behalf of U.S. consumers who are being gouged by OPEC and other oil-producing nations.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on marriage penalty tax relief today because I am out of the country on official business. While I support a targeted elimination of the marriage penalty, I am opposed to H.R. 6. It's cliche, but true in this case nonetheless, that the devil is in the details. Let's get beyond the rhetoric of this issue and take a look at the details. The plan offered by the Republicans skews its benefits to the wealthiest Americans, including some who aren't even subject to a marriage penalty. In fact, once the tax cuts contained in H.R. 6 are fully phased in, two-thirds of the benefits go to the top quarter of income earners. It is also important to recognize that the bill is very expensive, costing $182 billion over 10 years. Therefore, in order to make up the lost revenue, Republicans will be forced to rely on projected budget surpluses that may never materialize. In a little noticed section of his prepared testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, CBO Director Dan Crippen noted that if the economy slows and entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid grow faster than expected, ``the on- budget surpluses that CBO is projecting in its baseline would never emerge. Instead, the on-budget deficit would rise to more than $290 billion a year by the end of the decade.'' If this projection came to pass, Congress would be forced to pay for H.R. 6 by drastically cutting services and programs Americans consider essential, dipping into Social Security surpluses, or once again running budget deficits. Instead of H.R. 6, which goes far beyond marriage penalty relief, I support the substitute proposal offered by my Democratic colleagues. The Rangel substitute provides the same, or larger, benefits for middle and lower-income Americans but does not shower tax breaks on those who don't need them. In addition, it ensures that Medicare, Social Security, and debt reduction come first by delaying implementation of the tax relief until these critical issues are addressed. I think the Washington Post was dead-on when they recently editorialized about H.R. 6 by saying, ``The bill, however, has little if anything to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better off. The bill is structured in such a way that as much as half the benefit could go to families who don't even incur the supposed penalty but receive a marriage `bonus' under the law.''

Mr. DeFAZIO

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