Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman for his stirring words. I can say in northwestern Pennsylvania, we have watched the developments in Kansas with horror, because it was just a couple of decades ago that we had a series of major tornado events that very much marked, seemingly immutably, many of our rural communities. And I think of Albion, Pennsylvania, and how it took years for its downtown to bounce back. Can I reassure the gentleman that I think all of his colleagues appreciate his plea, appreciate the terrible dilemma facing so many of his constituents? And you can count on our solidarity in this effort. And it seems a little trite to point this out, but I have to say, the gentleman has always been one of the most eloquent voices for rural America. He has done a great job here tonight of laying before us the plight of this community. But we are particularly grateful for his advocacy tonight, and I want to say, our prayers will be with you. Our resources will be with you, and Northwestern Pennsylvania will be there for Kansas in any way we can help out.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I am going to keep my remaining remarks brief and, again, salute the gentleman for taking the time to come down and share the experience of his district and his community with this awful weather disaster, which we in northwestern Pennsylvania certainly understand and certainly we will reach into our pockets and be generous in helping our fellow Americans. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to, for a moment, return to my prior topic, put my green eye shade back on and talk about the AMT and its potential effect on taxpayers. You know, one point that I hadn't had the opportunity to make earlier, was that over the past few weeks, in the ramp up to what we fear will be an attempt to use the AMT as a basis for a broader tax increase, we've heard made the strange argument by our friends on the other side of the aisle that somehow, the AMT is falling on more families because of the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. This argument has been echoed within the Ways and Means Committee, and it's bizarre on the face of it. But there are actually arguments that are being made trying to connect these dots and square this circle. The argument is that, as a result of reduced income tax rates relative to the AMT, more taxpayers are subject to the AMT. Conversely, this logic maintains that if income taxes are increased, less people would be subject to the AMT. It's an odd reform that raises taxes on Americans, and this smells an awful lot like robbing Peter to pay Paul. After all, if taxpayers are paying the AMT, or paying the basic income tax, one way or the other, what is relevant to them is how much they're paying. The argument we are hearing from the other side simply runs roughshod over the facts. The AMT is growing significantly because the tax brackets involved were never indexed to inflation. Clearly, no American is worse off under recent tax relief. And fewer taxpayers are subject to the AMT than otherwise would be as a result of the patches that that tax relief contained. I have, I believe, a number of charts, but I am not going to trouble you with them at this time of the evening, that demonstrate that this problem has been stated in an unusual way. It is misleading to claim that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts led to more people paying the AMT. The fact is, between the patches and the tax cuts, fewer people are paying the AMT today than would have under pre-2001 tax laws. This is a very important revelation. The fact is, past Congresses have moved, in budget after budget, to protect the middle class from the ravages of the AMT. Notwithstanding that, the AMT now hits nearly 3 million taxpayers, where it was originally designed only to hit a few hundred. Without a patch, the AMT would fall on 23 million taxpayers. Because of that added tax liability on 20 million taxpayers, fixing the AMT is certainly a challenge. But to me, it's a much bigger challenge to argue that somehow we should let the AMT fall on these people when it was never conceived as a tax to be applied to them. The fact is the AMT at the current rate runs the risk of crowding out the rest of the tax code and becoming the Tax Code, and that would be a disaster. The AMT does not treat families as favorably. It does not treat small business investment as favorably. It doesn't have the nuances of the current Tax Code, and it simply has higher rates. We believe that in the end, the real solution is fundamental tax reform, to move to a reformed tax system that contains no AMT but through its simplicity also requires no AMT to guarantee that everyone pays what they are obliged to pay. Through simplicity we can reduce the tax gap. We can make the Tax Code more predictable, and we can provide through fewer loopholes fewer opportunities for people to take unfair advantage. That is the real solution at the end. I believe, though, that we are going to see this year a concerted effort by the new majority to do what they did the last time they were in the majority, and that is to push through massive tax increases. The AMT, it looks like, is going to be their first excuse to do it. So it is going to be the first real test of this Congress, whether it is going to take a different route than that that we traditionally expect or whether it is going to go down the old path of tax and spend, raising taxes, expanding the size of government, and ultimately hitting the taxpayers in newer and more subtle ways. Enacting French tax structures is not the solution to growing the economy. It is not the solution to the deficit, and it is not the solution to the AMT. I think the time has come for Congress to deal with this issue honestly, to bring it out into the open. My hope is that our committee, the Ways and Means Committee, will have an opportunity to do hearings specifically on this point. As ranking member of the Select Revenue Measures Subcommittee, I also hope that we have the opportunity there to more closely examine the AMT and to build on recent hearings to look at actual solutions and come up with a solution that reduces the tax burden and protects the middle class rather than simply raising taxes. That may be a challenge that requires statesmanship, but I believe the time has come to deal with this issue directly. Anyone who, I believe, signs on to what the papers tell us might be the solution here can't claim that they are following certainly the dictum of Americans for Tax Reform, which years ago got many Members of Congress to sign a pledge not to raise taxes. I believe that any AMT solution that raises taxes will put Congress on record as being in favor of Big Government and higher taxes. I believe that we need to look at creative alternatives and the time has come for that. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to take my party's leadership hour.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today I introduced legislation that would shorten the depreciable lives of electric distribution assets from 20 to 15 years. I feel this legislation, is necessary to spur investment in a time where the demand for electricity is at an all-time high. Despite continued energy efficiency improvements, electricity consumption is expected to increase 41 percent by 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration. To meet this growing demand, electric companies must expand and upgrade the nation's electricity infrastructure. The need to expand the nation's distribution infrastructure will require significant investment. According to a recent study by the Brattle Group (``Why Are Electricity Prices Increasing? An Industry-Wide Perspective''), if recent investment trends continue, distribution investment will average $14 billion per year over the next 10 years. This investment is almost triple the projected amount of annual investment in new transmission capacity and is likely to exceed capital spending on generation capacity over the next decade as well. The American Council for Capital Formation released an analysis yesterday of the depreciation treatment of energy assets of the U.S. compared with 11 other countries. The analysis concluded that the U.S. generally has less favorable tax depreciation rules for electric distribution rules than a number of the U.S.'s major trading partners. The U.S. has slower cost recovery during the first five and ten years after the investment than the comparison countries. For example, U.S. capital cost recovery for distribution lines in the first five years is 29.5 percent compared to 40 percent in China, 58 percent in Korea and 50 percent in Taiwan. Nine of the countries analyzed had faster cost recovery than the U.S. From a competitive standpoint, our depreciation rules need to be updated. My bill will begin to tackle part of the problem. Investment in electric distribution facilities--in wires, transformers, substations and all traditional utility distribution facilities--is needed, first and foremost to keep pace with growing customer demands. Distribution investment also is needed to replace and modernize our nation's aging distribution grid. Tax depreciation incentives for electric distribution systems also would help mitigate the cost of other factors affecting spending on distribution infrastructure. For example, some companies are being directed to place new and/or existing distribution lines underground, particularly in urban areas. Undergrounding power lines costs five to ten times the cost of overhead lines. In addition, large distribution system expenditures have been necessitated by widespread hurricane and storm damage experienced in 2004 and 2005, which has impacted energy and material costs across the nation. The Brattle Group report estimates that underinvestment in transmission and distribution systems costs the American economy at least $20 billion a year--a figure certain to grow if transmission and distribution infrastructure investment does not keep pace with demand. In 2005, we reduced depreciable lives for transmission assets from 20 to 15 years as part of the Energy Policy Act. Similarly, Congress should do the same for distribution assets. This action will spur investments needed to update the aging distribution infrastructure to a modern, automated, high-performance network.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. In its present form, I am.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in my view, there are three Grand Canyons in America. One is famous, and it is in Arizona and, I think, familiar to most in the West. Another is well known in the eastern United States, and it is in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania. The third has opened up since the last election. And here, Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the grand canyon, the gap, between the rhetoric of the Democratic Caucus in the House of Representatives, as witnessed on the floor of the House in the last Congress and in previous Congresses, and the policies of the Democratic Congress since being sworn in in this Congress. I remember, Mr. Speaker, fondly, some of the speeches that were given on the floor of Congress on behalf of the Social Security system. Some fierce, even lachrymose presentations that any additional funding for any new priority inevitably would be at the expense of the balance of the Social Security system, which is seriously in the red. In other words, new spending, because we were running a deficit, was inevitably at the expense of the Social Security system. I have heard our friends on the other side of the aisle make the case repeatedly in previous Congresses to restrict spending because additional funds would be coming out of the Social Security system. But, Mr. Speaker, since the election, Democrats seem to have muted these concerns and Democratic actions have been very different. Mr. Speaker, I propose to give our friends on the other side of the aisle an opportunity to bridge the Grand Canyon. I propose to give the majority a small, perhaps symbolic, but very important opportunity to reach out and express their commitment to fiscal policies that preserve the Social Security balance for what it was intended for: to fund retirement savings. Mr. Speaker, by commingling our Social Security surplus with our deficit-ridden general fund, we potentially expose our Social Security system to risk by shielding our policymakers from their spending decisions to the full consequences and the full balance sheet. The time has come for us to change that practice. Specifically, this motion says that the funding authorized for the Advanced Technology Program will be capped at the previous year's appropriated amount until such time as the Social Security surplus is not used to foot part of the bill. There is no doubt that the ATP program has great merit. But I think we have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, is increasing funding for the program more important than saving the Social Security surplus for future beneficiaries? Mr. Speaker, I serve on the committee of jurisdiction, and recently we had an opportunity to hear from the Social Security actuaries one more time that the Social Security system is at risk, is under enormous pressure, and that the time has come to take decisive steps to make it solvent so that its promise can be fulfilled to the next generation. What we are proposing here today is maybe to begin this process in a small way and create an opportunity for all of our friends in this institution to go on record firmly in an important policy decision and make it clear that we are not going to raid the Social Security fund in the future. This is a very clear issue. It is a very simple issue. It is an opportunity to cut past the rhetoric and, frankly, create an opportunity for us to do something very significant on one of the major issues facing the country. Mr. Speaker, I hope everyone in this body will join me in supporting this very important initiative on behalf of the Social Security fund. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering legislation that, in my view, represents the first brick in a Chinese wall of tax increases. Generating revenue by assuming that Americans with more than $5 million in income will increase their annual withholding by one-tenth of 1 percent simply makes a mockery of PAYGO. The majority is exploiting a statistical quirk in the way that the Joint Tax Committee does its revenue estimates, and will have accountants, not normally known for their high spirits and good humor, roaring with laughter all over the country. Perhaps, in the aggregate, there are enough people in America making more than $5 million who will pay an extra $2,000 in estimated taxes to raise revenues as much as anticipated, but this seems more likely to be an instance where the Joint Tax Committee's scoring rules and common sense have dramatically parted ways. If the Judiciary Committee thinks the companion bill to create a new Member from Utah and add voting rights to a Member from the District of Columbia is such a good idea, surely they could have found some program within their jurisdiction to trim by an offsetting amount. And they didn't find a user fee in their jurisdiction to increase by just a few dollars. In fact, despite the fact the Democratic majority created a budget that includes more than $2 trillion in spending, they could not even trim $3 million from that total to pay for this rather modest initiative. To put this in perspective, the majority could have offset this bill by reducing entitlement spending by just two ten-thousandths of a percent. By not going down that route, this bill confirms what we have all suspected: the Tax Code is going to be the ATM machine that pays for all of the new majority's fondest initiatives. The bill today may be cheap in total dollar terms, but we will not be so lucky the next time around. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in my view, H.R. 1906 represents what will be the first of a series of bizarre revenue raisers, Rube Goldberg devices, and tax gimmicks to be trotted out to pay, first for small things, and then pay for the demands of the majority's budget, which includes the largest tax increase in American history, nearly $4 billion over 5 years. It also demonstrates that the majority's PAYGO promise that new entitlement spending could be offset with entitlement spending cuts is hollow and cynical. If they can't even find $3 million of entitlement savings for this bill, can we expect them to pay for their new programs with anything other than a significant tax increase ultimately on the middle class? This makes even traditional budget gimmicks, like putting routine spending into an emergency spending bill, or bypassing the budget resolution by using ``advanced appropriations'' look pristine by comparison. The process for this bill's consideration is flawed, deeply and fundamentally. It did not go through the Committee on Ways and Means. This is another example of the new majority ignoring their own promises for regular order. The procedure, Mr. Speaker, for considering the broader issue of expanding the House of Representatives itself is deeply flawed. The example being set today that you can split a bill into separate elements so as to limit what amendments and motions will be germane is the triumph of form over substance. The proposal before us only adds more complexity to the Tax Code. And think about this: if you thought filling out your taxes wasn't tough enough, our friends on the other side of the aisle are raising the level of difficulty to complicate the code and increase the risk that an inadvertent error will have the IRS demanding interest on your underpayment. At least it is better than the last version of this proposal, which generated an even more ludicrous $3 million by raising the safe harbor amount for people with incomes over $150,000 by just three one- thousandths of a percent. Mr. Speaker, this is a flawed bill. It is a silly exercise. And I think it is appropriate that we vote it down.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I reclaim my time? And instead allow the leader on his own time to pose those sorts of questions.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, it is my time and I will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to yield to the leader on the leader's time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. General Leave

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it would be my privilege now to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege for me to yield 5 minutes to a gentleman who brings marvelous expertise to any tax debate, who is entitled to wear a green eye shade if he chooses, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just briefly yield myself 15 seconds to thank the last speaker for her eloquence and her marvelous remarks and to say that I am very proud to stand with her today as one of the 22 who voted for the preceding bill. I am very proud of the fact that at a time when we are debating the needs of democracy all over the world that we have taken the time in the House to move forward to correct an anomaly in our own representation and create an opportunity for the gentlelady who has for many years so well represented the District of Columbia to have an opportunity fully and legally to vote on the floor, representing her people. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I do have one other speaker who has appeared, and one who has made an immense contribution to the debate on the previous bill. So it is my privilege now to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis). (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you it is a privilege to be on the floor today to play a role in having passed the last bill which our last speaker spoke about with great eloquence. It is a real privilege to be here with the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) who certainly has had a long career of fighting for people's voting rights and civil rights. It is great to look across the floor and see former Secretary Jack Kemp, a 20-year veteran of this institution, present here today. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of principle, I voted for the last bill, and as a strong supporter of tax simplification and fiscal responsibility, it is my privilege to vote against the bill that is before us at this moment, which is a procedural grotesque, a gimmick, a trick, a ploy, a ruse, and one that I think represents the poorest of possible tax policies. I ask my colleagues to vote this bill down and send a clear message that we don't support this kind of chicanery on the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained by a meeting in my office during rollcall vote 213 providing for a conditional adjournment of the two Houses. If I had been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, whatever the rhetoric, the Democratic budget resolution fails to keep faith with the American people. Instead of embracing fiscal responsibility, it underwrites a saturnalia of spending propped up by, and listen to my words, the largest tax increase in American history. Instead of maintaining pro-growth tax policies that grow the economy and reduce the deficit, this budget clobbers the American economy by requiring nearly $400 billion of new revenue. Instead of protecting middle-class families, it lays the groundwork for tax increases on a whole new level of taxpayers. Instead of setting new priorities, it throws priority setting to the wind and undercuts the benefits of tax policies that have clearly helped the middle class. The details are stunning. For starters, the Democratic budget threatens to reduce the child tax credit by half, increase the lowest tax bracket from 10 to 15 percent, reconstitute the marriage penalty and eliminate incentives for higher education savings like the student loan interest deduction. In my home State of Pennsylvania, the average taxpayer can expect to see an estimated $3,000-plus increase in their annual tax bill. That is an increase in the tax bill for a working family of more than $15,000 over a 5-year period. That is a different standard of living. So much for their empty rhetoric about children and families. Not only does this budget contain the largest tax increase in American history, it also chooses to employ smoke and mirrors instead of underwriting real financial relief from the AMT for Americans. For years, the AMT has been a growing monster because while originally intended to close loopholes for the very wealthiest taxpayers, it was never indexed for inflation. It is now hitting more and more middle-class taxpayers. As a result, this year, without relief, 23 million taxpayers will be forced into AMT status and hit with a significant tax increase, ten times the number than if it had been indexed to inflation. The Democrats' budget does nothing, sets aside no resources to address this problem. Our friends on the other side of the aisle fail to include an AMT repeal in their budget. They don't even include the bare minimum step of a patch to keep it at bay as Republicans have in previous years. Instead, this budget resolution holds millions of middle-class taxpayers hostage to a record tax increase. Don't let the rhetoric on the other side of the aisle fool you. The reserve fund that is folded into this resolution is utterly meaningless. This is a piggybank that doesn't even rattle when you shake it. America's working families deserve better. I urge every Member who cares about working families, cares about protecting their earnings to vote ``no'' on this budget today.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of House Resolution 106.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act. This bill would make permanent the tax treatment of speedways and racing facilities around the country. This legislation will provide needed certainty to track and speedway operators regarding the depreciation of their properties. For decades, motorsports facilities were considered as ``theme and amusement facilities'' for depreciation purposes. Congress codified this treatment as part of the Jumpstart our Business Strength Act of 2004. The Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act would simply make this treatment permanent, helping facility owners make long-lead time decisions on major capital investments. My congressional district is home to Lake Erie Speedway, a \3/8\-mile track that hosts a full schedule of races, including the Mid-Atlantic Asphalt Racing Alliance and NASCAR Whelen All-American Series. Lake Erie Speedway can accommodate up to 7,000 race fans and has a substantial impact on the Erie County economy. Pennsylvania is home to 60 motorsports facilities, including Pocono Raceway, which hosts two NASCAR Nextel Cup races each summer. These facilities are an important part of the fabric of our State's economy. Indeed, a recently-released report, authorized by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, found that motorsports facilities have a combined impact of over $390 million on the State's economy. Because of the importance of motorsports to my district and State, I am cosponsoring the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act. This legislation will make permanent the well-understood and widely-accepted depreciation classification of motorsports facilities. The legislation will provide fair treatment and needed certainty to the dozens of facilities in Pennsylvania and the hundreds located throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Motorsports Fairness and Permanency Act.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the current debate on the floor on Iraq policy, I would like to offer the following observations. First, I respect the President's constitutional role as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, and I appreciate President Bush's offer to entertain suggestions from Congress regarding Iraq policy. I understand that success in Iraq depends on bipartisan support at home. I applaud U.S. troops who are serving in Iraq with professionalism and bravery. They deserve the support of all Americans. It is becoming self-evident that multiple, extended deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have strained the military. Current deployments and those to come will have lasting impacts on recruiting, retention and readiness of the all-volunteer military. Unfortunately, sectarian violence in Iraq between Sunni and Shia Muslims is increasing, and the failure of Iraqis to reach political settlements and support a unified government greatly contributes to the increased violence. I believe it is time for Iraq's government and security forces to step forward and bear primary responsibility for internal security. As the gentleman from North Carolina noted, the former head of the U.S. Central Command, General John Abizaid, told Congress last November that sending in more U.S. troops would not contribute to success in Iraq because it would prevent the Iraqis from taking more responsibility. It is clear that Iraqi public sentiment opposes the continued U.S. troop presence. In November, the Iraq Study Group called for new diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and the region and a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces that will allow the United States to ``begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly.'' Unfortunately, the Iraqi Government has made little progress toward assuming more responsibility for security, disbanding militias, reconciling sectarian differences and improving essential services. Therefore, I have reluctantly concluded that I have to disagree with the President's plan to send in an additional 21,000-plus combat troops. While I applaud the President's reassessment of U.S.-Iraq policy, I joined with several of my colleagues in January in informing the White House that I did not support an expansion of American troop strength on the ground, and nothing that I have learned since has caused me to reconsider my position. Nevertheless, Congress should not take any action that would endanger U.S. military forces in the field, including the elimination or reduction of funding for troops in the field. Most Americans fundamentally understand the long-term security interests of the United States would be best served by an Iraq that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in the war against extremists. Overall U.S. military, diplomatic, and economic strategy should not be regarded as an open-ended commitment but should be conditioned upon the Iraqi Government's meeting benchmarks, including the deployment of additional Iraqi troops in Baghdad, equitable distribution of resources without regard to sect or ethnicity, the use of oil revenues to benefit all Iraqi citizens equitably, and granting military commanders authority to make decisions without political interference. Mr. Speaker, with very minor edits, the remarks you have just heard from me summarize the resolution on Iraq offered by Senator Warner in the other body. It is one of the alternative resolutions we should be debating here today. Unfortunately, the majority leadership does not want to allow a full and fair debate on Iraq. When the Democrat leadership in the other body tried to force a vote on the resolution without an opportunity to offer meaningful amendments, the minority was able to insist on their right to a real debate rather than this phony pretense. Unfortunately, we do not have that ability in this Chamber. So I will vote in favor of the resolution before us as offered, as narrow and as inadequate as it is, but I cannot help but express my frustration that the leadership of the House has squandered an opportunity to allow a full and fair debate with real amendments, not just to Republicans, but to all Members of the House, including their own Members whose voices are stifled by this decision to put political calculations ahead of the national interests and a robust debate. I am not sure what the leadership of the majority party is afraid of. If they have the votes to reject alternatives, then they lose nothing by allowing them to be offered. If they do not, they will quickly learn, as we did, that if you need to use procedural games to avoid a tough vote, you have already lost on the underlying issue. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for allowing me to be a part of this debate.