Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that observation. I will tell the gentleman that the joint leadership, the Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and myself were at the White House earlier this week, as the gentleman probably knows, and met with the President. But the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations in the other body observed that we may hold over 11 of the appropriation bills until next year. Now, that is a process that we have followed in the last 2 years because we have obviously passed the majority of appropriations bills in the year after the fiscal year began, in January and February, as the gentleman recalls. I am wondering, can the gentleman tell me, if we have some 3 weeks left, are we contemplating the passage of the 13 appropriations bills prior to adjournment, or are we planning on a continuing resolution or an omnibus appropriation bill of some type?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the leader had to leave early to catch a plane. So for the purpose of inquiring of the chairman of the Committee on Rules the schedule for the coming week, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that information. I might ask, and I know it will be the leader and the leader's office, but part of the leader's distinguished staff is on the floor, so he will hear us. I know my friend from California will be appreciative of this. As I understand it, one of the planes to California is at 2:55, or late, just before 3. This says ``early afternoon.'' The request on our side has been that if we could try to conclude by 1:30 so they could get from here to Dulles in time to catch that plane, so, of course, they could get home by sunset, if we could try to do that?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. With today's vote, the House and the Senate have now both gone on record in a bipartisan fashion in overruling the overtime regulations which were perceived obviously by a majority of the House and a majority of the other body as putting at risk millions of Americans losing their overtime. In light of the fact that the House has passed that and the Senate has also passed it, not in the same bill, can we expect, does the gentleman think, that the conference report will reflect the views of both Houses? We are very hopeful, of course, that that will be honored by the conference committee. I would be glad to yield further.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time. I start by reiterating the observation that the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has made. It is very nice to get up and say with a chart, this is what we have spent. Those figures are undoubtedly accurate. What is not accurate, as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) so correctly pointed out, was that those were not the figures that the Republican House budget proposed in years past. In point of fact, when they talk about the 10-year period of time, the fight almost every year between the Clinton administration and the Republican House and sometimes Senate was that we had not put in sufficient funds to meet our obligations as it relates to education, Title I and other educational objectives. Invariably, the President got his way. So, yes, the figures are higher, but they are not higher because the Republican Committee on the Budget proposed them as such. Mr. Chairman, this bill, in my opinion, fails to meet the crucial priorities that the citizens of this great Nation expect and deserve in education, in health care, in medical research, and in many other areas, including the promotion of the quality and safety of work in America. But as I have said before, this is not the fault, and I reiterate, not the fault of the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) neither sits on the Budget Committee, nor, in my opinion, was he very enthusiastic about the Committee on the Budget's product. And it is certainly not the fault of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young). As a matter of fact, earlier this year the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) made the correct observation that the budget was not real, and the numbers projected in the budget were insufficient to meet the obligations of the Committee on Appropriations to provide for the needs of the American people. That was the chairman of our committee speaking. Instead, this bill's deficiencies have been caused by the Republican majority's irresponsible and unrealistic budget resolution for fiscal year 2005. This is not an unusual budget resolution. It is a political document, not a fiscal document. It was made for the purposes of making political points, not for investing in our people. It abandons fiscal discipline and makes crucial investments in the American people virtually impossible. One would think that, because the Republicans have been in charge and they have proposed not spending appropriate funds even though they say they are going to, that we would have saved a lot of dollars. But in point of fact, as the whole country knows, we have been going deeply into debt over the last 40 months. In fact, the President's acceptance speech in New York says he wants fiscal restraint, but he has led this country, along with the Republican majority in this House and this Senate, from a $5.6 trillion surplus to a $3 trillion to $4 trillion deficit in 40 months. That is almost a $10 trillion turnaround from fiscal responsibility to fiscal irresponsibility in less than 4 years. Despite the rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle, the inescapable fact is that this bill underfunds the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act by at least $9.5 billion this year. That is in the authorization bill, they imposed a mandate on the States. I supported that bill. We want accountability, we want performance, we want quality education for every one of our children. We said we are going to require you to do certain things, States, but we are going to give you resources to help you accomplish those objectives. We are $9.5 billion short in that promise, and $25 billion short over the last 3 years, short from what the President, in signing the authorization bill, said we were going to do. Unfortunately, we are falling behind in other areas as well. At a time when this Congress and this administration proudly tout the doubling of National Institutes of Health just a few years ago, NIH today only gets the President's request level. This represents the smallest increase in NIH funding in 19 years. As all of our citizens know, NIH is charged with the responsibility of finding a cure for cancer, making heart disease less fatal, finding a cure for diabetes, seeing if we can find how to prevent Alzheimer's disease, and responding to the AIDS crisis in this country and around the world. We are short-funding those critical efforts that afflict and threaten our people. Moreover, it is simply not enough to keep up with the medical inflation and will force NIH to lose momentum on the scientific progress they gained from the doubling that Republicans and Democrats all so proudly talked about. In addition, Head Start, a program that Ronald Reagan said was a success, George Bush I said it was a success, and Bill Clinton clearly said it was a success, is cut by $45 million below the President's request. Thousands of children will have no seat in Head Start, notwithstanding the fact that we think it works. Ryan White HIV/AIDS programs are largely frozen. The maximum Pell grant is frozen. And the Department of Labor is slated for an overall cut of $98 million. My friends, this bill is insufficient. It may well be better than a continuing resolution, but it is insufficient to meet our obligations and responsibilities. How sad it is that we pass the people's bill with insufficient resources to meet the people's needs.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. For those of us who met this extraordinary young man, it was really in many ways a life-enriching experience. It is hard to believe that someone as young as Mattie had such a depth of understanding of life. His mother is a wonderful lady who transferred to Mattie her own courage, and he had that in great abundance. But it was his wisdom far beyond his years that impressed everyone who met with him. When you listened to Mattie, he spoke as a child; but when you listened to what he said, he spoke as a very wise man. Mr. Speaker, Mattie Stepanek was someone who enriched the lives of all with whom he came in contact. I had an opportunity to see him every year for a number of years at the softball tournament that the International Association of Firefighters conducted in Prince George's County on behalf of Jerry Lewis' telethon on muscular dystrophy. Mattie would attend and he would speak, and everyone there came to hear Mattie. The rest of us were simply surplus. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) for introducing this resolution and thank everyone who has been involved in making sure that this resolution comes to the floor and that we observe the passing of an extraordinary American, an extraordinary young man, an extraordinary child of God.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I supported the Defense of Marriage Act. I rise now in the defense of the Constitution of the United States. I rise now in defense of the separation of powers. I rise now in defense of a Nation of laws, not of men and women. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to seriously consider the ramifications of the legislation under consideration. If this bill becomes law, it will represent the first time in our history that Congress has enacted legislation that completely bars any Federal court, including the United States Supreme Court, from considering the constitutionality of Federal legislation. Thus, it contradicts the Supreme Court's historic ruling more than 200 years ago in Marbury v. Madison, which enunciated the principle of Federal judicial review of Federal laws and established the separation of powers doctrine. How dramatically different has that made America than every other nation in the world, in fact? A Nation of laws. In Marbury, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: ``It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'' This legislation, however, would undue the deference and respect that Congress has given to the principle of judicial review. It would intrude upon the principle of separation of powers; and as a result, I believe it is unconstitutional. This legislation also would undermine the independent Federal judiciary. Even the majority's witness, hear me colleagues, the witness called by the majority, Professor Redish, said that if Congress strips the courts of jurisdiction it would, the majority's own witness, ``risk undermining public faith in both Congress and the Federal courts.'' That was your witness, not ours. And there is little doubt that this bill would set a dangerous precedent. The author of the Defense of Marriage Act, one of the most conservative Members that has served in this Congress, Bob Barr, said this: ``My main concern with H.R. 3313 is that it will lay the path for the sponsors of unconstitutional legislation to simply add the language from H.R. 3313 to their bills.'' Bob Barr, the sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act, said that. If this end-run of judicial review becomes law, what is next? No judicial review of laws restricting freedom of speech or religion or laws affecting the right to vote? I was elected to the Maryland State Senate in 1966. One of the first bills I voted on in January of 1967 was to repeal the miscegenation statutes that then were on the Maryland books. America has nevertheless stood strong. Let us reject this undermining of what America stands for, a Nation of laws, not of men and women.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Salvatore and Myra Raspa of St. Mary's County, Maryland for their leadership as outstanding educators and service to their community. In 1961, Sal was employed as a science and chemistry teacher at Great Mills High School. After teaching for seven years, he was appointed Assistant Principal and in 1978 became Principal of Great Mills High School. He later became Supervisor of Instruction for Science and Health with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, St. Mary's County Public Schools. He was also Supervisor of Transportation and Assistant Superintendent before his retirement from the St. Mary's County Public Schools in 1999 after 38 years of service. Dr. Raspa was dedicated to his profession and accordingly received numerous awards and commendations such as recognition from the VFW for Outstanding Achievement and Exceptional Leadership in the Community, the Governor's Citation for Outstanding Commitment to Public Education, recognition from the Naval Air Warfare Center and The Maryland Science Center, and the Joint Board of Science and Engineering Education Award as an Outstanding Educator. He also received the Governor's Award for Voluntary Service in Prevention of Drugs and Alcohol as well as the American Legion Award for Contribution to Youth in St. Mary's County and special recognition from Lions Clubs International for Promoting Drug Awareness Programs--Skills for Adolescence. Myra Raspa began her teaching career as an English and Publications teacher at Leonardtown High School, where she was responsible for publishing two major publications: The History and Culture of the Chesapeake Bay and The Heritage/History of The St. Mary's County Fair. During her 20 years with the St. Mary's County Public Schools, she also received several awards and citations, such as the Citation from the Southern Maryland Legislative Delegation for ``Outstanding Educator and for Contribution to Youth'', the Governor's Citation for ``Excellence in Education'', Recognition from Comptroller Louis L. Goldstein for Exemplary Publication, The Heritage, Citation from St. Mary's County Commissioners for ``Outstanding Contribution to Students of St. Mary's County'', St. Mary's Board of Education Certification of Recognition for ``Outstanding Contribution to Student Achievement'', St. Mary's Award to Recognize Talent in Teachers, The St. Mary's Council on Children and Youth ``Outstanding Contribution to Youth'', recognition from Dr. David W. Hornbeck, State Superintendent of Schools for ``Outstanding Educator'', and National Council of Teachers of English for ``Outstanding Publication'', and a Commendation from Senator C. Bernard Fowler, Senator of Maryland, for ``Exemplary Contribution to Youth,'' and a Commendation from the Environmental Matters Committee for ``Excellence in Education.'' She is currently an Instructional Resource with the Department of Curriculum and Instruction with a focus on high schools. Mr. Speaker, dedicated educators like Sal and Myra Raspa are today's hope for a better tomorrow. They are the role models to whom students and others within their workplace and their community look for guidance and support. By pointing students in the right direction, such educators contribute to the future accomplishments of their students. They have applied this commitment to molding children's future to their own home, as well. Myra and Sal's children are Sal, Jr., Joseph-- deceased, Scott, Angela, Victor, and Anthony. Myra Raspa had to undergo a major juggling act between continuing her education and taking her children to Boy Scouts, band practice, football practice, wrestling practice, swimming lessons, and so forth. All the children attended Great Mills High School and were given their diplomas by their father during his tenure as Principal there. All are college graduates and are successful and are contributing to society. Sal and Myra consider their children their major accomplishments. As busy as Sal and Myra were, they still took the time to find a way to involve the entire family in a tobacco farming business for a number of years when the children were teenagers, even venturing into an experimental curing process which was monitored by the University of Maryland. The Raspas also operated an air conditioning and refrigeration business at one time. The Raspas have constantly demonstrated their commitment to service through their participation in other civic activities in St. Mary's County. Sal served four terms on the Democratic Central Committee and served as chair for two terms. He belongs to the Lexington Park Lions Club and received the Melvin Jones Award in 2002, which is the highest award given by Lions Club International. He was elected to the St. Mary's County Board of Education in 2002 and currently holds the position of Vice Chairman. Myra has been active on many county and state committees including the State Department of Education Standards Setting Committee for English; the Maryland Assessment Consortium; the Gifted and Talented Task Force; Integrated Support Team; PreK-12 Intervention Task Force; Project SMART Grant Advisory Committee; MSPAP MEGA-TASK Developer; Content Coordinator for English/Language Arts/Writing MEGA-TASK, Maryland State Department of Education; and TASK-WRITER for High School Assessments, Maryland State Department. Both Sal and Myra Raspa are still very active in St. Mary's County and continue to advocate for children. They believe in contributing for the betterment of the community. Mr. Speaker, on this day I wish Dr. and Mrs. Raspa well in their future pursuits.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Mike Bessler, the Chief Publications Clerk with the Office of Official Reporters under the Clerk of the House. Mike will be retiring on July 30 after 23 years of service to the House making sure our committee transcripts are accurate, properly bound and delivered on time. I am pleased to have this opportunity to commend one of my constituents for his outstanding service to this institution. Originally from the Bronx, New York, Mike served a 4-year tour in the Air Force, stationed at Wright Patterson in Ohio and Shemya in the Aleutian Islands. He was finally discharged from Andrews Air Force Base, and with his wife, Peggy decided to stay in the Washington, D. C. area, where he spent over a decade in the private sector before being hired by the Office of Official Reporters in January 1981. He has served in that office with distinction ever since. Mike has spent his years working closely with the House committees to ensure their satisfaction with the transcripts. Through his dedicated supervision of the Publications Office, he has been the quintessential dedicated public servant. Those who worked with him are privileged to have worked with an individual of Mike's level of professionalism. Mike and Peggy are the proud parents of two daughters, Michelle and Kelly, and doting grandparents of Erica, Ezra and Zoe. Mike looks forward to spending time with them and enjoying gardening, home projects, and devoting more time to a lifelong fascination with film and movies. Thank you, Mike, for your many years of dedicated, professional service to the House and the country. Best wishes to you and Peggy in your retirement.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) for his comments and very important observations. Clearly he is correct. We need to not talk about simplification; we need to do simplification. We need to do fairness so that the American public is better served by their system and better able to support themselves and their families. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the very important Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and his very important contribution to this discussion. In closing, let me say that we are committed to working, not only on our side of the aisle but working with our Republican colleagues as well, towards simplifying this code, making it fairer, reducing these 10,000 pages so that the anomalies of which the gentleman from Texas just spoke in terms of the deduction for the Hummer and for the Porsche will not make our tax code unfair so that the average working American who goes to work every day, and as Bill Clinton said, plays by the rules, will not have an undue tax burden placed upon them because so many others take advantage of one of the loopholes included in these 10,000 pages and do not pay their fair share. That is not fair. That is not good tax policy. That is not good for America. So we are pledged as Democrats, as Americans, as Members of this House sent up by our neighbors here to represent them, to work unceasingly and tirelessly on making this code simpler, making it fairer, making it more efficient, making for a better code, a better America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Michigan that I was very interested in his remarks, and I agreed with a lot of his remarks. Where we would disagree is our responsibility is if we are going to buy things to pay for them. And I would say, with all due respect to my friend, for the last 40 months we have not been doing that. We continue to buy and we are not paying. And that is why that half- a-trillion-dollar debt to which he referred has been accumulated, and this year it may be a little less or a little more, but I agree with his general proposition that we need to come together, and if we are going to buy, pay for it and not pass it along to future generations, because as the gentleman so correctly pointed out, if we incur debt today, it is inevitably taxes tomorrow. It is, I think, appropriate that we transit from a discussion about the deficit that confronts us, the obligations confront us, and talk about the way we pay for what government is asked to provide. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be leading this Democratic special order tonight on an issue that confronts millions of Americans every single year, the unbelievable complexity of our tax laws. All of us, of course, bear some responsibility for the complexity of our Tax Code. Democrats and Republicans and every American, every American who believes that the tax preferences that he or she utilizes are worthwhile. Considered individually, the tax preferences that are part of the code, of course, can be rationalized: the charitable deduction, a very worthwhile effort; the mortgage interest deduction, which has provided for America being now one of the largest home-owning countries in the world, a good provision. Collectively, however, they are a jumble of confusion that causes unfair results and has a corrosive effect on our democracy. As Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, who is no longer with us, perhaps because of candor, said, ``One of the unseen consequences of our Tax Code's complexity is the sense it leaves with taxpayers that the system is unfair and that others pay less tax because of special advantages.'' A few facts, Mr. Speaker, illustrate the scope of the problem. In 1913, the Tax Code was a mere 500 pages. Today, the code and regulations total more than 60,000 pages. Four common forms: Form 1040 and Schedules A, B, and D take an estimated 28 hours and 30 minutes to prepare. There is a lot of talk about simplification, but we have not moved towards simplification, and Americans are rightly frustrated. Americans are rightly angry about this annual challenge that they have to pay correctly the taxes toward supporting their government. When the IRS started tracking this information in 1988, that is how long it took to fill out forms, the average paperwork burden was 17 hours, 7 minutes. Even the simplest form in the IRS inventory, the 1040EZ, now requires 3 hours and 43 minutes to prepare, up from 1 hour and 34 minutes in 1988. It is called EZ. There are a whole lot of Americans who do not believe it is easy. Complexity costs more than $100 billion a year in accounting fees and the value of taxpayers' time to complete their returns. This is roughly equivalent, Mr. Speaker, to what we spend to run the Departments of Education, Homeland Security, and State. Think of that. The dollars that we spend to fill out our forms are equal to what it costs us to run the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Education. Not surprisingly, more Americans than ever rely on tax professionals, 56 percent, in fact, compared to 48 percent just 14 years ago, in 1990. But even tax professionals cannot guarantee accuracy. The General Accounting Office recently found that 2 million taxpayers who used a preparer took the standard deduction when they would have been better off itemizing. That says something about our system and perhaps something about preparers. If the administrative burden does not convince people that the form is crucial, the crisis in noncompliance surely should. The IRS has estimated that there is a $311 billion annual tax gap due to underreporting, underpayment, and nonfiling, $311 billion owed but not collected. What does that mean? That means that somebody has to pick up that slack. Frankly, today nobody is picking it up because we have a deficit larger than that $311 billion, which means, as the gentleman from Michigan said earlier, that future generations are going to pick up that gap. They are going to pay that bill. And, in fact, all of us pay higher rates because too many pay not their fair share of that $311 billion. In March, Nancy Killefer, the chairwoman of the IRS Oversight Board, told the House Committee on Ways and Means, ``The IRS does not have the resources needed to accomplish its mission.'' Let me repeat that. ``The IRS does not have the resources necessary to accomplish its mission.'' What is its mission? To collect the revenues from each of us to pay for the government that we ask for. John Kennedy said that taxes were the price of freedom. That is correct. We have established an agency to collect those revenues. Nancy Killefer says it does not have the resources to do so. She went on to say, ``It continues to be out gunned and outmanned.'' By whom? By those who want to avoid paying their fair share. That same month, Deputy Treasure Secretary Sam Bodman informed Congress that the IRS intended to walk away from more than 2 million delinquents tax accounts last year that total nearly $16.5 billion dollars. What message does noncompliance and lack of enforcement send? What does it result in? For too many the answer is clear, that it may pay to cheat. In fact, an IRS survey found last year that 17 percent of taxpayers, nearly one in five, believe it is acceptable to cheat, up from 11 percent just 4 years earlier. Now, just like the people who go into a store and they take something off the shelf, put it in their pocket and walk out and do not pay for it, guess who pays for that item? All of us who come behind and buy that product, because we build in the price of cheating. Well, there is no difference here. While more people believe that cheating is acceptable, fewer and fewer face audits. In 2003, individuals were audited at a rate of 6.5 per 1,000 returns, and 75 percent of those were computer-generated, non-personal audits. Compare that to the audit rate of 12.8 percent in 1997, or even 9.9 percent in 1998, the year Congress passed tax reform legislation. Audits for business also are down, from three per 1,000 returns to two in 1,000 in 2003. Mr. Speaker, if they caught only two speeders out of every 1,000 speeders, what kind of enforcement would that be? What kind of constraint would there be to stay within the law? Leaders in the Republican Party have repeatedly proclaimed their commitment to tax reform and simplification. For example, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader, stated in April 2001, ``We are pushing forward with our campaign to reform the Tax Code. We are making it fairer, flatter, simpler and less burdensome to the American people.'' That is what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said in 2001. But the facts, Mr. Speaker, clearly demonstrate otherwise. Since 2001, Republicans have made 227 changes to the Tax Code and added more than 10,000 pages to the code in regulations. Mr. Speaker, I want the camera to go right to the end of my finger here. This is 10,000 pages. In 40 months, this is just \1/2\0th of those 10,000 pages, 500 pages. That is the number of pages the Republican Party has added to the Tax Code and regulations in just the last 40 months. Today on the floor, of course, we spent about an hour on tax simplification. Wonderful. By the way, in passing that tax simplification, we added more pages to its complexity. We need to do better. We Democrats believe that we can do better, and we intend to do better. Additionally, the Republicans propose another 109 provisions in the FSC ETI bill, the bill that tries to fix the problem found in unfair competition in the WTO, the trade scenario. So we passed a bill to solve a $4 billion problem that cost us $150 billion, which we did not pay $35 billion of. That is the party that wants to make our code more simple, less complex, fairer. It was a grab-bag of special interest provisions, just as most of these pages are as well. Just today, our Republican friends considered two bills as part of their tax reform and simplification week. But let us be honest. As I said, they spent 40 months complicating the code. They devoted 40 minutes to making it simpler. Today, there is an increasing momentum among taxpayers for real reform. Mr. Speaker, Democrats will take the lead on this issue when we regain the House majority in November. We are going to make it simpler. We need to defuse the middle-class time bomb. We talk about it, but we have not acted on it, the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is no longer serving its purpose, at least not as intended. We need to take a hard look at looking toward a return-free income tax system, simplify tax rules for small businesses, stop individuals and corporations from gaming the system and reform international tax laws that encourage American companies to move jobs overseas. The American people, Mr. Speaker, are acutely aware of the unnecessary complexity and dire need for real tax reform in America today. We Democrats have been talking about that. When we are in charge, we are going to do it, not talk about it, as our friends in the Republican Party have done. The American people need, the American people deserve, a tax system that is simpler, fairer and more efficient. I want to look at some of these quotes. Newt Gingrich, 1997: ``So we want to move towards a simpler Tax Code that takes less time to fill out, that is easier for the American people.'' 10,000 pages since that time, and, indeed, more, added to the Tax Code. President Bush, March 17, 2001: ``Americans want our Tax Code to be reasonable and simple and fair. These are the goals that unite our country, and these are the goals that have shaped my plan.'' My plan? My plan? What plan? There has been no plan submitted to the Congress of the United States. There is no plan in front of the Committee on Ways and Means to which the President referred. There has been no simplification. There has just been these 10,000 pages of additional special interest provisions added to the code. No plan, Mr. President. But, then again, you only said that 40 months ago. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), a month after the President said his simplification plan was on its way: ``Because of the Tax Code's mind-numbing complexity, millions of hard-working men and women waste countless hours every April. We are pushing forward with our campaign to reform the Tax Code. We are making it fairer, flatter, simpler and less burdensome to the American people.'' 10,000 pages have been added to the Tax Code since the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said he was bringing us a fairer, simpler Tax Code. John Snow, the Secretary of the Treasury, this year: ``The administration has made tax simplification a priority, and we look forward to working with Congress to achieve it. A simpler code is something we owe honest taxpayers, and the worst thing of all for the tax cheat.'' Amen, Mr. Secretary. Where is the plan? Nobody here has seen it. Is it in the Treasury Department? Is it in the White House? Or perhaps it is on its way down Pennsylvania Avenue. Where is the plan? Lastly, Scott McClellan, the President's Press Secretary: ``The President is committed to making the Tax Code more simple and fair.'' February 2004. No plan, no fairness, no simple plan. 10,000 additional pages. I now would like to yield to some of my colleagues to speak on particular aspects of how we can make this fairer, simpler and a better code. I yield to my friend the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott), a new Member of Congress, but a veteran of 20 years in the Georgia Senate and one of our most able legislators.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and for the passion that he brings to the effort to make this a simpler, fairer Tax Code for the welfare of our people, for small business, and all of those who must comply with a system that has become extraordinarily complicated. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), a senior member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, is that the movie in which the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) starred?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State, a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, for his remarks. And then that, of course, as the gentleman points out, is the purpose. The tax simplification purpose of ours is not going to be just tonight, it was not just 3 days ago when I gave a statement to the press and to others; it is a commitment that we have for all Americans to make this a fairer, simpler system for them and their families, and for every small businessperson in America so that they can feel that we are not placing an extraordinary burden on them. Paying is burden enough. Complicating the system and causing them hours and hours and costs to comply is too much for them to expect, and we need to change it, and we Democrats are going to change it. I thank the gentleman from Washington for his remarks. I now am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanual), who has been very involved in our efforts to focus on tax simplification and who is a leader in this effort.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) for his contribution tonight, but more importantly, for his contribution to spurring the effort of tax simplification and tax fairness for middle-class Americans, but I would suggest to him that those families, of course, cannot site an offshore post office box and therefore avoid taxes. But to some degree, we ourselves have created 10,000 pages in which Americans normally look to how do I reduce my obligation in taxes. That is a normal thing for people to do, and the fact that we have made it so complicated allows some people to take advantage of loopholes that perhaps were not contemplated but exist; and the unfairness then is not only to our working-class, middle-class families but also to those competitors of theirs who do not take advantage of those loopholes, who keep jobs in America, who are paying their fair share of taxes here in America. So tax fairness is not only tax fairness in terms of middle-class taxpayers but, frankly, all taxpayers so they can have the confidence that their liability based upon the income that they make will be proportionately the same as their competitor, as their fellow citizen. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to another member of the Committee on Ways and Means, extraordinarily able member of our caucus, who does an extraordinary job in focusing on fairness to working families, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin).

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) for acting. We are acting too late, but it is never too late to do the right thing. We live in a new world, a world in which it is impossible to say that we do not know, that we have not seen, that we have not heard. Because we live in such a world, to remain silent and inactive is an immoral act; it is an act of indifference and negligence that condemns us as human beings. The Second World War and the Holocaust have been referenced, the Holocaust appropriately so, because that was an act of eliminating a people because of the fact that they existed. This is an act of trying to eliminate a people, not because they are aggressors, not because they are a danger, but because they exist. It is incumbent upon not just the United States, but on all the world to act when it is confronted with genocide. It is an act of self- preservation for us to recognize what is being done and to act, for if we do not, we will not live in either a safe or a civilized international community. Very frankly, we watched in the past decade a genocide occur in Bosnia and Kosovo, and we interviewed some blue helmets who were there on the ground and reported back that, yes, they had seen atrocities committed, but their assignment there was to report, not to act. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) mentioned Dante's reference to those who maintain their neutrality in the face of moral outrage. This is an important act we take, but it is not enough, because words will not save those children. Words alone will not protect those women from assault and ravage. Words will not feed those people. Words will not prevent the death; but words hopefully will be the beginning of action, a call to morality, a call to civilization, a call to the international community to live out the promises that it included in the United Nations charter, with hope of a new and better and safer and more moral world. That is what this resolution is about. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne). I thank him for his commitment, his leadership, and his steadfastness. I urge all of my colleagues, all of us, everyone, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, north, east, south and west, to affirm this commitment, this definition, this call to action, this call to a moral world.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Sandra Feldman, who has retired as president of the American Federation of teachers. A union activist for nearly 40 years, Sandy started her career as a teacher, and was elected AFT president in 1997 after serving as president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City for more than a decade. Under her tenure, the AFT continued its strong advocacy for educational reforms, but also expanded its efforts into educational research. The AFT released major studies on the teaching of reading, and on how to improve teacher training. She also personally advocated for more aggressive early childhood efforts, including ``Kindergarten-Plus'' which would allow disadvantages children to start kindergarten in the summer, and keep them in school during the summer before first grade. In addition to her work on strengthening and reforming public education, Sandy has been a tremendous advocate for the right to collectively bargain, and has worked to strengthen health care and retirement benefits for her members. Her dedication to her members and their families is legendary. She has left an enduring imprint on the lives of generation of union workers. Her tireless efforts to secure a better quality of life for working people is a testament to her tremendous energy and commitment to others. Her experience, determination and vision will be greatly missed.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Later.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman said the Morocco Free Trade will be early or later?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his information. Mr. Speaker, the majority leader mentioned two appropriations bills, the District of Columbia and the Military Construction bill. Can the gentleman give me an estimate, if he knows, of what days those two bills will be considered?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, when President Bush was campaigning for office, he said that if we were humble and treated our allies and other nations with respect, that they would relate well to us. I chaired the Helsinki Commission of this Congress from 1985 to 1995 and have served as the ranking member until this past year when I became the whip. I will tell my friend from Indiana, I went to country after country after country and said to them, you need to accept election monitors, because you need to ensure that the world is confident that your elections are honest and aboveboard. I will tell my friend from Indiana that I believe America's elections will be aboveboard, but our Nation, I tell my friend from Indiana, ought to be too big, too confident, too proud to say to somebody, you cannot come to the United States and see for yourself. Because if we ask of others that they accept monitors, are we too proud, too arrogant, too self-satisfied to say to the world, but you cannot come to America, the freest, most open, most democratic land on the face of the earth? I say to my friend from Indiana, I hope my colleagues reject this amendment, not because as some here will assert there is wrongdoing in America but because America ought to be proud to invite all of the world to come to America and see how democracy works. Do we make mistakes? We do. But are we proud of our democracy? We are. Come to America. See us act. See our democracy. Be proud.