Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) for sponsoring this resolution and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their leadership in its passage. Public service comes in many forms. When individuals and groups provide extraordinary services to our Nation, they deserve the appreciation of our Congress and our country. Such is the case today with Clear Channel Communications and the American Football Coaches Association. With the generosity of these two organizations, 60 million child identification kits will be given to parents all across our country. These kits will help parents keep vital information and current photographs and fingerprints of their own children to be used in cases of missing, kidnapped or runaway children. In such emergencies, this information can be instrumental in helping law enforcement agencies bring children and their parents back together. Madam Speaker, I speak today as a parent of two sons, ages 3 and 5. I cannot imagine anything worse for my wife and me than to find one day our children are missing. Every parent, every parent, knows the fear of turning around in a playground or at a public meeting or event and momentarily not finding his or her child. Unfortunately, that fear is not just momentary for many parents. In fact, nearly 800,000 children disappear every year in the United States. That would be the equivalent of approximately 8 times the entire population of my hometown of Waco, Texas, where the American Football Coaches Association has its office. These 800,000 are not just statistics. They are real children of real parents, a nightmare many of us can only imagine. Madam Speaker, I have known Lowery Mays, CEO of Clear Channel Communications, and Grant Teaff, executive director of the American Football Coaches Association, for well over a decade. They are individuals of great integrity and compassion. Knowing them personally, frankly, it does not surprise me that their organizations are providing American families with this terribly important service. However, that lack of surprise does not reduce whatsoever my deep gratitude to them for their generosity in reuniting thousands of American families with their children. Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill once said, ``We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' Based on that high standard, Lowery and Mark Mays, Coach Grant Teaff and all those they represent in their respective organizations have lived an extraordinary successful life. They have earned and deserve the gratitude of not only this Congress, but American families across this great land of ours. I urge every Member to vote for this resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican bill which actually raises estate taxes on many family farms and businesses with capital gains and maintains a 40 percent death tax until the year 2009.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those moments in life where I find myself full of feelings and emotions, and yet at a lack of words to explain how I and we all feel about the loss of Norm Sisisky, our dear friend. Just yesterday I sent Norm a note in which I said, ``I hope and pray you will be back soon, because I miss not being able to kid around with my friend on the floor.'' As has been said by so many here, Norm Sisisky was a person who took the serious business of this Congress seriously, but yet always did so in good humor, without taking himself too seriously. In a body where sometimes we do too many times take ourselves and our own actions seriously, it was so refreshing to have someone such as Norm Sisisky, who did have so much power and influence and respect in this body, yet handle his business within the proper perspective. I will miss Norm Sisisky, my friend. I think America will miss the public servant Norm Sisisky. While he will not be with us here physically in this body, I can say that having served with him for 6 years on the Committee on Armed Services, my children and America's children live in a safer world today because of his contributions, and our grandchildren will live in a safer and better world tomorrow because of Norm Sisisky's contributions. It has been said that when we leave this world, we leave all behind that we have, but we carry with us all we have given. By that standard Norm Sisisky had much to carry with him in his death, because he gave so much to each of us who were blessed to know him, and to so many Americans who would never know him by name, but who will surely, as we are here today, benefit from his public service. To the Sisisky family I extend my prayers, thoughts, and deep gratitude for the sacrifices of not only Norm, but his entire family in the many years of public service.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3, because I believe the product is fiscally irresponsible and the process rushed to the point where we are voting on 10-year tax cuts before we even have a 1-year budget in place. Congress is now making budget and tax decisions that will directly affect our families and our nation for the next 10 years and beyond. It is crucial that we make informed, fiscally responsible decisions on the budget and taxes, because the choices we make today could lock in our national priorities for the future. I will support fiscally responsible tax cuts this year including reducing the estate tax and the marriage penalty as well as expanding child tax credits. I believe we must also fulfill the moral obligation we have to our children to reduce our $5.7 trillion national debt and a responsibility to protect Social Security and Medicare for our seniors. The question is not whether Congress will pass a tax cut this year--we will. The question is how large is the tax cut and will it be fiscally responsible and fair to all families, including middle and low-income working families? These are difficult questions that must be answered satisfactorily before tax cuts are approved. Perhaps if these questions were asked and answered back in the 1980s, our country could have avoided the huge budget deficits that contributed to the $5.7 trillion national debt. In 1981, President Reagan and Republicans and Democrats in Congress passed a huge tax cut into law. They predicted the then $55 billion a year deficits would become a surplus in 1984, 3 years later. What actually happened is that instead of having a surplus in 1984, the federal deficit exploded to $185 billion. As a consequence of that tax cut, the national debt tripled in the 1980s--and now stands at $5.7 trillion. Last year Americans paid $223 billion in taxes, just to pay the interest on the national debt. On average, that would approximately be $800 in taxes for every man, woman and child in America. Marvin Leath, my predecessor, said that the 1981 tax vote was his ``worst vote'' in 12 years of Congress. In 1990, President George Bush chose to reverse his previous pledge to oppose new taxes. Why? By 1990, the federal deficit had skyrocketed to $220 billion each year, with no end in sight. President Bush, Republicans, and Democrats passed a tax increase in 1990 and it cost President Bush dearly, but not as much as the budget deficit would cost average Americans. By 1993, projections were that deficits would further explode to over $300 Those lower interest rates made it cheaper to buy a house or car or build a business. That, plus the new high tech economy that increased productivity of American workers, resulted in the longest sustained economic growth period in American history. And, after 29 straight years of deficits, in 1997, we had the first balanced budget since Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon in 1969. So, we spent the 1990s stopping the deficit binge of the 1980s, but where does that leave us now? The Congressional Budget Office and other government economists predict we will have a $5.6 trillion federal surplus over the next 10 years. (FY 02-FY 11). The promise of surplus has led President George W. Bush to propose a 10-year, $2.4 trillion tax cut. But do we really have the money needed to provide this tax cut, pay down the debt and protect Social Security and Medicare? Before we take the step of spending a surplus we may not have, let me ask you two questions. One, is there anyone in this chamber that would bet his or her family's entire net worth on the belief that a federal government economist's 10-year projections on the American economy will be 100 percent correct? Two, just how real is the $5.6 trillion surplus projected by 2011? The projected surplus is $2.2 billion once you subtract the $3.4 trillion held in the Social Security, Medicare, and other trust funds that Congress has pledged not to touch. The proposed tax plan costs $2.4 trillion once you add the additional interest costs, tax break extensions, and the retroactive tax cuts. Over 10 years the country will be looking at a $200 billion budget deficit and that's before other priorities are paid for. The tax cut plan assumes an overly optimistic 3 percent annual economic growth rate over the next 10 years. If the growth rate is off by just 4/10 of 1 percent, then the surplus will be reduced by $1 trillion over 10 years. From 1974 to 1995 the economy grew an average of only 1.5 percent annually--half the rate assumed in the tax cut plan. What if we proceed and cut taxes at this level and the economists are wrong? First, we'll see a return to budget deficits and interest rates will go up making it more expensive for families to make large purchases such as buying a home or starting a business. A larger national debt means more taxes to pay interest on the debt and less money to provide for priorities such as national defense and veterans, education, prescription drugs and protection Social Security and Medicare. Finally, the true cost of these tax cuts hits just as baby boomers are retiring and the Social Security and Medicare trust funds are running at a deficit. We have more options than the House leadership would have us believe. The first option is the one we are looking at now: passing a $2.4 trillion, 10-year tax cut and hoping the rosy economic forecasts are correct and that spending cuts can be made. The second option is to pass a smaller tax cut now, make spending cuts and then see if the surplus is real. Once the surplus is guaranteed, then it will be time to pass more tax cuts. I will be guided by several principles on the tax cut question. I will do what I believe is right, not just politically popular at the moment. I will listen to the citizens of Central Texas before making a final decision. I will try to look at the numbers honestly--without the hype and false promises. I will support fiscally responsible tax cuts this year, but we also have a moral obligation to our children to reduce our $5.7 trillion national debt and a responsibility to protect Social Security and Medicare for our seniors.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the First National Bank Texas for 100 years of service to the people of Killeen and Bell County. Originally known as the First National Bank of Killeen, it was organized with capital stock of $25,000 on Feb. 27, 1901. It has provided uninterrupted service to Central Texans through two World Wars, the Great Depression, the construction of Fort Hood, the Cold War, 18 U.S. Presidents and the dawn of a new millennium. The bank also has been a trendsetter: the city's first elevator was located in its lobby in the 1960s and the bank introduced the first automated teller machine to the area in the 1970s. The bank continues to innovate in the areas of retail and Internet banking. Today, February 27, 2001, the bank, now known as First National Bank Texas, will celebrate its 100th year anniversary with a community-wide celebration. The bank, the oldest bank in Bell County, has had its ups-and-downs but ultimately it has flourished over the years. It now employs more than 1,100 Texans across the state, with 690 in Bell County. The bank is one of the largest nongovernmental employers in the area. Modern reminders of early bank leaders C.R. Clements and Will Rancier are with us today in the form of the C.R. Clements Boys and Girls Club and Rancier Avenue. I ask Members to join me in offering congratulations to the First National Bank Texas on a century of growth and service to Central Texas families and businesses.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, every day when this House goes into session, we put our hands over our heart and finish the pledge to our American flag with the words ``with liberty and justice for all.'' All too often we then go back to our busy daily schedules of phone calls and meetings. But to Henry B. Gonzalez, those words ``with liberty and justice for all'' were not just a phrase to be spoken on the floor of this House the beginning of each day. They were not just a nice phrase to be put in high school civics textbooks. Those words were a passion of a lifetime. ``With liberty and justice for all.'' He believed it. He fought for it. And he sacrificed for that high principle. Because of that, America is a better place today. Henry B. Gonzalez personified to me what is good about America. What is good about America is not that we are a perfect land but that we are forever in the struggle to try to come closer to reaching the high ideals of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Henry B. Gonzalez took the principles of that Constitution and the Bill of Rights and fought year in and year out to see that they were not just words on a piece of parchment, but they were a reality for all of God's children living here in America, people of all races and all colors and creeds and religions. There is a saying that I will never forget that was given to me by a young Hispanic girl several years ago that I met. She was a 9-year-old girl fighting for her life against cancer. She gave me a little card that I will never forget, and I think it is appropriate to repeat the words of that little girl's card today, because to me they reflect the meaning of Henry B. Gonzalez's life. This is how that card went--(The gentleman from Texas spoke in Spanish--``Cuando morimos, dejamos todo lo que tenerras y nas llevarnos todo lo que dimos''), when we leave this world, we leave behind all that we have but we carry with us all that we have given. To me, Henry B. Gonzalez had a great deal to carry with him when he left this world, a person who never forgot the least of these amongst us. He made a difference for all Americans. He made America a better place for us and for our children. For that as well as his decency and his dignity, we will never forget our friend and colleague Henry B. Gonzalez.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I made an error on rollcall vote No. 549 by voting ``nay'' on H. Con. Res. 426, a resolution concerning violence in the Middle East. I support H. Con. Res. 426 and intended to vote ``yea'' in favor of this resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate Mabel Griffith Legg on her 100th birthday and to thank her for becoming a teacher and sharing her life with countless numbers of students during her career. She was born October 6, 1900 on a farm near Athens, Texas and graduated from Palestine High School. Mabel Legg moved to Waco, Texas, in my Central Texas congressional district, in the 1920s. She passed the teacher certification test during her junior year of high school and later earned her bachelor and master of arts degrees from Baylor University. She taught high school English and directed plays for 26 years at the Waco State Home and for another 14 years at La Vega High School. Through her inspiration many hundreds of her students have made significant contributions to our nation and humanity. She has been a longtime member of Highland Baptist Church where she taught Sunday school for 25 years and where she is still active in Sunday school and Bible study. I ask members to join me in honoring Mabel Griffith Legg for devoting her lifetime to teaching others and to congratulate her on her 100th birthday. Congratulations and happy birthday, Ms. Legg.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to congratulate the Midway All-Stars little league softball team for taking home the trophy for the Girls' Little League Softball World Series. On August 19th, these young women, ages 11 and 12, ended another outstanding season. The Midway girls are eight-time world champions, having also won the world title in 1997, 1998 and 1999. They also were world champions from 1992-1995. I think it is safe to say that the team dominated in the 1990s and has already captured the first championship in the new millennium. The latest Midway girls' triumph was international in scope as teams from the Philippines, Germany, Canada and the United States competed for the title of world champion. Before heading to the championships, this year's squad had to get through teams at the district, sectional, state, and southern region levels. The team consists of girls from the small community of Hewitt/ Woodway right outside of Waco in the heart of Texas' 11th Congressional District. Members of this world championship team include Ashley Davilla, Rachel Fahlenkamp, Courtney Heard, Kacy Horn, Emily Lindsey, Hannah McGrew, Destinee Mordecai, Bethany Northern, Amanda Pack, Natalie Pendley, Rebecca Pryor, Brandi Rawls, Kelsey Sage, Elissa Stiba. These young ladies have shown what it takes to win: teamwork, hard work, self-discipline and commitment. These same qualities will continue to serve them throughout their lives. The team was very capably led by a coaching staff that includes Randy Sage, Kyle Heard and Andy Horn. They devoted many hours to the girls and their sacrifice was key to this victory. I ask members to join me in congratulating this year's world series team and their coaches for this outstanding athletic accomplishment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak not against the underlying bill but specifically in regard to the so-called charitable choice language in the bill. Let me make five points about that language: First what it says is Federal tax dollars can go directly to churches, synagogues and houses of worship. I believe that is clearly unconstitutional and for good reason. Federal subsidies of our churches and houses of worship is something we have not done for 200 years in our country. The second point. It mentions this language under the guise of not wanting to have discrimination against religious organizations. That might be cute marketing but it is faulty logic and it is unconstitutional logic. What that says in effect is that the Bill of Rights and the first amendment thereof discriminates against religion. The reason Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson and our Founding Fathers set up a distance between government and religion and church and state was to protect religion, not to discriminate against it. Their argument is that I guess the Bill of Rights is discriminating against religion. The third point is it talks about stopping discrimination. Charitable choice language in this bill actually subsidizes religious discrimination. Very clearly it says you can take my Federal tax dollars, your Federal tax dollars, and put out a government paid for sign that says ``No Catholics, no Jews, no Protestants need apply here for this federally subsidized job.'' That is wrong. It is wrong to have Federal taxpayers paying for religious job discrimination. The fourth point is that charitable choice language in the name of helping religion is actually going to bring government auditing on our churches. According to the language of the bill itself, the churches and houses of worship are going to have to face the same auditing requirements as non-religious entities. I am not sure our religious entities are helped in America by having Uncle Sam come in and audit. This language is unnecessary, it is harmful, it is unconstitutional, and it should not be in this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. For clarification purposes, it would allow dollars to go either directly from the Secretary or from one of the partners directly not to Catholic charities but to St. Mary's Catholic Church and communities somewhere in our country. I appreciate that. One of the concerns that I have had about charitable choice in so many other bills is that what that then does is either require the Federal Government to not be accountable for how those dollars are spent or to actually have the Federal Government go in and audit the books of churches and synagogues and houses of worship. I see in the gentleman's bill actually language in there saying that if the church actually or house of worship separates the funds, then the Federal Government can only audit that particular account. Does that then mean if a church that gets this money directly under this program does not separate that, then the Federal Government will have to come in and perhaps audit all of the books of that church?

Mr. EDWARDS. The church decides who to hire; the church does not get the money directly?

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EDWARDS. In this bill, okay. But I guess the point I would raise is that if the church is involved in hiring people and being responsible for expenditures of Federal tax dollars, it opens up the possibility that in some way or another a church or a house of worship is going to have to be audited in order to ensure the taxpayers that their monies are being spent for the purpose for which this bill intended. Mr. Speaker, clearly my greatest objection is not that this is good legislation. It has worked well and could continue to work well, but it is wrong even in the best of legislation to take our Federal tax dollars and give to any organization and say they can take those Federal tax dollars and put out a sign that says, such as a Bob Jones' related church they could say, no Catholic need apply here for a federally funded job. I understand why the Civil Rights Act says the Methodist church can hire a Methodist pastor, a Jewish synagogue can hire a Jewish rabbi. That is why there was an exception in the Civil Rights Act for that kind of quote/unquote discrimination, but the Civil Rights Act passed in the 1960s never envisioned Federal dollars going directly to pervasively sectarian organizations. In fact, I found it interesting in this bill it says it has to be consistent with the establishment/separation clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The 1988 Kendrick case, Bowen versus Kendrick, basically said clearly one cannot send direct tax dollars to pervasively sectarian organizations.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, a little over 24 hours ago, as a father, I was reading at home in Waco, Texas, my home, to our 3-year-old and 4- year-old sons. As a father who cares deeply about encouraging my children to learn how to read and to enjoy reading and learning, I appreciate deeply the chairman's leadership in literacy programs before this and previous Congresses, but I rise tonight to express the same reservation mentioned by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott). It seems to me to continue on a great program, and the program, the Even Start program is a great program, it is not necessary to use Federal tax dollars to allow organizations to discriminate against American citizens based simply on their own religious faith. It is not necessary to not only allow but to actually subsidize with Federal tax dollars religious discrimination in order to give children an even start in life. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask, perhaps with the agreement of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), if I could ask the chairman perhaps a question. With the chairman's indulgence, if I could just clarify a point by asking him a question, if I could, on page 20 of the bill it talks about treatment of program participants. In fact, if we go back to page 17 it talks about, under section 1213, religious organizations included and partnership participants. Could I ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), so we can be clear on the definition, when the term religious organizations is mentioned in this language does the chairman intend that that includes directly churches, synagogues and houses of worship or separate entities, perhaps secular separate entities set up by those churches, synagogues and houses of worship?

Mr. EDWARDS. They can receive the funds from the fiscal agent?

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this vote is very clear. It is nonpartisan. If my colleagues favor using Federal tax dollars to discriminate based on religion for federally funded jobs, then vote ``no'' on this motion. But if my colleagues think it is wrong to take the American people's tax dollars and put out a sign that says no Jews, no Protestants, or no Catholics, no Muslims need apply for this federally funded job, then they should vote ``yes'' for this motion. I would suggest it is wrong to discriminate against any American citizen based on religion. I think to use Federal tax dollars to subsidize that religious discrimination should be intolerable, and it should be unacceptable in this bill or any bill that passes this House. I urge, for that reason, a bipartisan ``yes'' vote on this motion to recommit.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week I was unable to be present in the House for rollcall votes 430 through 438. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcalls 430, 431, 432, 434, 435, 436, 437, and 438 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 433.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have also learned, speaking of cake with a 3-year-old and a 4-year-old at home, that if we give them the ice cream first, they are very unlikely to eat the vegetables and the meat. If we pass in effect a trillion dollar tax cut this year, we are not going to see the House having the courage to pass a trillion dollars in spending cuts to match that. So what we are going to do is we are going to decrease their ability to pay down the national debt. Let me point out when we do that, we are really increasing taxpayers interests on the national debt. So I guess in conclusion to our first question tonight, the Republican tax cut proposals that have passed the House so far this year, are they fiscally responsible? I think the answer is no. They are based on uncertain, perhaps terribly false assumptions about where the economy in the world will be over the next 10 years. They ignore the fact that we already have a $5.6 trillion national debt. Let me clarify. Nobody on this floor tonight is suggesting tax increases. We just want to make our top priority paying down the national debt, which is probably the best way to get a permanent tax cut to the gentlewoman who sits on the Ways and Means Committee. The best way to give a permanent tax cut to the American people is to pay off the national debt. That would free up $200 billion a year. Now, to put that in perspective, that $200 billion could be passed as a major tax cut, a permanent tax cut. It could fund two-thirds of our national security needs in America, over two-thirds, in fact, of our military budget. College loans could be provided for students all across this country; grants. All sorts of things could be done, including permanent tax cuts with that. So I think it is very clear to me, when we look at the facts, that Republican tax proposals this year are fiscally irresponsible and perhaps that should take us to the second question. That is, if we are going to have tax cuts, whatever level they might be, a trillion dollars or a billion dollars, should they not be fair to average working families? I think that would be a good discussion to have, and I would just start it by making one point and then yield to my colleagues. I did a little research on the 1999 tax bill that passed the House, that ultimately the American people rejected so clearly that our Republican colleagues did not even try to bring it up for a veto override after they listened to the American people and their constituents in August. I did a little research and I found out that a working family at the lower end of the income scale, compared to the richest 1 percent of families in America, would have to have been born 32 years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence to enjoy the same tax benefits over all those 200-plus years that the wealthiest 1 percent of families got in year one. Now, even with the miracles of modern medicine, I do not think the average working family is going to live that long, the point being that the tax cuts were skewed to help the wealthiest families in America. I think the proposals this year reflect unfairness. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) to talk about the distribution of the Republican tax cuts and then to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) who is a member of the Committee on Ways and Means that handles these tax measures.

Mr. EDWARDS. If I can respond, I know the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) has small children. I have a 3-year-old and a 4-year-old, both sons. I can think of a few things that I would like to pass along to them as one Member of this House and to say to their generation, we are going to take a Nation that was $5 trillion to $6 trillion of national debt and pass on to your generation a debt-free country. When we talk about tax cuts today, it does not take a lot of courage to take our grandchildren's credit card and with that credit card charge multitrillion dollar-tax cuts, most of which will go to the wealthiest families in America. I have a problem with the child or grandchild of an average working family having to take their credit card from their generation to give Bill Gates a tax cut, as has passed the House this year. I think that is unfair. Going back to the comments of the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) minute ago, it is the pay-for philosophy and rules of the Congress that have gotten out of this terrible hole where we are mortgaging our children's futures of the 1980s before we came to the House. It is the free-lunch bunch mentality of tax cuts do not cost anybody anything and let us not offset tax cuts with spending cuts. It is that free-lunch bunch mentality that got us is in trouble in the 1980s. Just as we are climbing out of that horrible hole, what a horrible mistake for our children and grandchildren it would be to take that free-lunch mentality and go back and add up the national debt, rather than pay off the national debt.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.

Mr. EDWARDS. In fact, I hope we can speak in just a few moments about the question of are the proposed Republican tax cuts in the House this year fair to average working families; and maybe I can conclude on the first question that we want to address tonight, and perhaps the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) would want to respond and discuss also the issue of the fiscal responsibility of this as well as get us into the question of are the Republican tax cuts fair to average working families or not. I want to conclude by saying this: the 1997 tax reconciliation bill not only had tax cuts that benefited a wide range of American families of all income levels, but it also had spending cuts. Many of those tax cuts were paid for. I have not seen pay-fors for the Republican tax cuts that have passed the House this year. The pay-fors are a hope and a wish, a hope and a wish that some economist who we do not know his or her projection is going to be correct for the next 10 years. If they are wrong, our grandchildren, our children are going to pay a dear price.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comment. The question is, if we have a certain amount of tax cuts to provide, who are we going to give them to? I think the American people ought to ask, whose side is Congress on? Are we going to be on the side of the working folks that are struggling or the wealthiest one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans who have already gotten a substantial tax cut over the last several years? I again yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).