John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I feel certain that the gentleman was not referring specifically to me, because I do not have Federal health insurance. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am in no way trying to defend or impugn any question of what the Committee on Resources did, but I think the appropriate place to have a look at that is through the Committee on House Administration or through the bipartisan Committee on Franking. I expect that will be done. Not on the floor of the House. I know they do not want to miss an opportunity to make political hay over this, but the fact of the matter is, this is an inappropriate place to have that discussion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 701 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGOVERN), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 701 is a traditional open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 4754, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2005. The rule does not restrict the normal open amending process in any way, and any amendments that comply with the standing Rules of the House may be offered for consideration. H. Res. 701 provides 1 hour of debate in the House on the bill, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. H. Res. 701 waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of Rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution. In order to facilitate the consideration of amendments on the floor, the rule gives the Chair the ability to provide priority in recognition to those Members who have preprinted amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, H. Res. 701 provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by noting the work of the subcommittee in bringing this legislation forward to the House floor. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) testified together before the Committee on Rules yesterday in bipartisan support of their work product, and they have done a good job in setting the funding priorities of these departments and agencies within the budgetary limitations we currently confront. Mr. Speaker, debate time on the rule should primarily focus on the fairness of this rule and the wide open amendment process that it outlines for House debate and consideration. However, I do want to note that this appropriations bill maintains the continuing pledge of the House to meet the challenge of international terrorism and to ensure that law enforcement across the Nation has the resources necessary to combat crime in America. Funding for the Department of Justice, in particular, is indicative of the Committee on Appropriations' obligation to provide the necessary funds to address terrorism, increase our Nation's intelligence capabilities and maintain a focus on law enforcement threats such as illegal drugs, cybercrime and espionage. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for an open amendment process for consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary appropriations bill. I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also want to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Ranking Member Serrano) for a very fine job done under strained circumstances. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 3574, the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act. The Committee on Financial Services ordered the bill reported on June 15, 2004, and has yet to file its report with the House. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 8. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill, as reported, on June 15, the text of which will be available later this evening on both the Committee on Financial Services' and Committee on Rules' Web sites. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules may meet this week to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 2828, the Water Supply, Reliability, and Environmental Improvement Act. The Committee on Resources ordered the bill reported on May 5 of 2004 and filed its report with the House on June 25, 2004. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 8. Members should draft their amendments to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this structured rule, and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mrs. Myrick, for yielding me this time. H. Res. 686 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 4548, the FY2005 Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005. It is a fair and balanced rule that deserves the support of the House. It makes in order a total of ten (10) separate amendments to the underlying bill, three from members of the minority and the remainder from members of the majority. These ten amendments were more than half of the 18 amendments submitted to the Rules Committee. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of the underlying measure, H.R. 4548, which authorizes funding for critical intelligence programs for FY2005. I want to commend Chairman Goss for bringing this legislation to the floor. As Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for the past eight years, the gentleman from Sanibel, Florida has served this country with honor, integrity, and distinction. His tenure has been marked by a tireless effort to improve and reform our nation's intelligence capabilities. He has never wavered in his steadfast desire to invest in this critical government function, and while there is still work to be done, his leadership has helped the intelligence community deal with a turbulent global environment. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4548 provides the tools necessary for a strong and effective U.S. intelligence mission as we wage a war against terrorism. Intelligence efforts serve as the first line of defense against terrorism and oppression. Without a strong commitment to this effort, our freedoms and this democracy are vulnerable to the fear and terror of others. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the blessings of liberty afforded to the citizens of this great nation are preserved under any possible means. By passing H.R. 4548, we are upholding this intention. As such, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H. Res. 686.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 449 and commend my friend and colleague, Mr. Burns of Georgia, for bringing this resolution, honoring the life and many accomplishments of the late Ray Charles, to the House floor for consideration today. Ray Charles was born in Albany, Georgia on September 23, 1930. When he was only seven, he lost his eyesight to glaucoma. As a teenager, his family sent Ray to the St. Augustine School for the Deaf and Blind, where he learned to read and write music in Braille. At the age of 15, Ray graduated from St. Augustine and went out on the road as a traveling musician. Throughout the 1950s, his young career began taking off, as evidenced by the fact that during this period of his career, he played at Carnegie Hall and the Newport Jazz Festival. From 1960 to 1966, he won 9 of his 12 Grammy awards, as he forged a unique style, incorporating elements of jazz, blues, country and western, swing, and gospel. In addition he was a very talented pianist, who could also play the saxophone and had a voice that was distinctive in both tone and range. A few of his major hits include ``What'd I Say,'' ``Hit the Road, Jack,'' ``I Can't Stop Loving You,'' and ``Georgia on My Mind,'' which became the state's official song as he made it one of his signature performances. Amazingly enough, his popularity continued well into the 1990s, almost 40 years after he started. In 1993, he won his last Grammy for ``A Song For You.'' Sadly, Ray Charles died earlier this month, at the age of 73 on June 10, 2004 after a lengthy illness. Ray Charles once stated ``I just want to make my mark, leave something musically good behind.'' It is certain that he left more than something ``musically good behind''--he left behind a legacy as one of the finest and greatest American musicians of the late 20th century. He will be sorely missed. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to join me in approving this measure.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 671 provides for the consideration of H.R. 4503 under a closed rule as well as providing for the consideration of H.R. 4717 under a closed rule. I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in supporting this rule so that the full House can proceed to consider the merits of the underlying legislative measures. In particular, I want to urge the House to approve H.R. 4503, which is a comprehensive energy plan that focuses on developing and implementing new energy technologies, as well as increasing current energy reserves through cutting edge methods and technologies. It closely follows the text of H.R. 6, the final version which the House passed last year but which has fallen victim to a filibuster by the minority of the other body's membership. In recent months gas prices have increased from an average of $1.34 to over $2 per gallon. Furthermore, the average family is paying 25 percent more for energy than they were in 1998. We must take action, but more importantly Congress needs to take the right kind of action. Increasing the supply of energy will help bring prices down, while imposing governmental mandates and requirements will simply drive energy prices higher. The ability of our economy to continue growing and creating jobs, as it has for the last several quarters, depends on affordable energy prices. H.R. 4503, H.R. 4517, and 2 other energy-related measures that the House will consider later today are explicitly designed to increase energy supplies, bring prices down and make the United States more energy independent. Energy drives the American economy, and this legislation would allow us to reiterate our commitment to the economy and send the message to the American people that our consumers and businesses need a new far- sighted, free, market-oriented energy policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. On an October evening in 1975, before he announced that he would seek the Republican nomination for President, Ronald Reagan addressed the 20th birthday celebration of The National Review. It was an uplifting and humorous speech until the end, when he somberly quoted Whittaker Chambers. Two decades earlier, Chambers had written, ``It is idle to talk of preventing the wreck of Western civilization, it is already a wreck from within. That is why we can do little more now than snatch a fingernail of a saint from the wrack, or a handful of ashes from the fagots, and bury them secretly in a flower pot against that day, ages hence, when a few men begin again to dare to believe that there once was something else, that something else is thinkable, and need some evidence of what it was, and the fortifying knowledge that there were those who, at the great nightfall, took loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth.'' Chambers spent 13 years in the service of the Soviet Union as a spy. He always believed that the world was engaged in a battle between the two great religions, communism and freedom. He believed that communism could not survive in a world where people believed in a higher power. Freedom, on the other hand, could not survive in a world where people did not. A nascent faith took hold in Chambers, and in 1937 he left communism for freedom. As he did so, he told his wife that he feared they were moving to the losing side. This is what Ronald Reagan was thinking of in October of 1975. Communism was ascendant, and free people were losing their confidence, becoming fearful and timid of the future, and over the following 4 years, the Soviet Union increased its influence in 14 sovereign nations around the globe. I was privileged to travel in his campaign plane in 1976 when he was in the Southeast, and in several meetings thereafter, with large numbers of people or small numbers of people, he always spoke less than anyone else in the room, enjoyed watching others have it out, and indeed, the next day he may not have remembered the name of everyone in the room, but he never forgot who he was. He never forgot who he was. Michael Deaver tells a wonderful story about walking on a street with Ronald Reagan in 1978. By this time, he was easily recognized. A fellow kept inching close to him on the street wanting to say hello. Reagan saw him, looked over, reached out his hand and said hello. The man said, ``May I have your autograph, Mr. Milland?'' Reagan wrote Ray Milland on his paper and walked on. Michael Deaver said, ``Why didn't you tell him who you were?'' Reagan said, ``I know who I am. He wanted to meet Ray Milland.'' That was pure Ronald Reagan. He was not interested in making sure a stranger knew of his importance. He cared about making this one stranger happy. Four years later he was President. He faced a military where one- third of our fleet was in dry dock, one-third of our planes could not fly for lack of spare parts. Our soldiers were practicing with pretend bullets. The economy had a 21 percent interest rate and a 14 percent inflation rate, and we were in trouble. On January 20, 1981, President Reagan addressed these challenges and then said this: `` . . . together, with God's help, we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. ``And, after all, why shouldn't we believe that? We are Americans.'' Over the next 8 years, his economic policies took an economy from $2.5 trillion to $5 trillion. Revenues to the Federal Treasury went from $519 billion to $1.054 trillion. We created 20 million new jobs, and on the foreign front Reagan was the first President since 1917 to ignore the bureaucracy and speak truth to evil. Eight years later the evil empire was crumbling, and the Cold War was over. I always thought that the biggest missed opportunity of the past 60 years was to not have celebrated the end of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan deserved that, and now he takes his leave. It has been a very difficult decade for Mrs. Reagan and the family, but for those of us who love freedom, we remember a man who dared to believe that there once was something else, that something else was thinkable. He gave us evidence of what it was in the fortifying knowledge that he would be there at the great nightfall to take loving thought to preserve the tokens of hope and truth, and he was there. Not a bad final act for a B actor from Dixon, not bad at all.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules committee, Ms. Pryce, for yielding me this time. I support passage of H. Res. 656, which is a closed rule, and urge my colleagues in the House to join me in doing so. The Rules Committee received a couple of amendments to H.R. 444, but a rule of this nature was needed in order to allow the House to work its will on H.R. 444, without getting into a number of issues unrelated to the goals of helping displaced workers return to good jobs. I want to commend Mr. Porter of Nevada for his effort in bringing H.R. 444, the underlying legislation, to the House floor. This bill provides for the creation of personal reemployment accounts, allotting $3,000 to help unemployed individuals find new jobs. This is a new approach to reducing unemployment, and it allows individuals to have more control over their job search. Those unemployed individuals who are eligible for these reemployment accounts may use the money toward job training, child care, transportation, or other programs that would assist them in returning to work. Additionally, under H.R. 444, if an individual finds employment before the 13th week of benefits, he may keep the left-over money for his personal use. Therefore, it creates an additional incentive for unemployed individuals to find work quickly. This is another part of our plan to help workers find good jobs. This Congress understood that by reducing the tax burden and improving economic incentives, we could boost economic growth and increase the flow of resources into production. That occurred by following the implementation of the Republican tax relief plan. By reducing the tax burden on small businesses and families, we are creating more economic activity which means more jobs for all Americans. Today, we are taking another step to help unemployed workers, and this bill will give those seeking a job another resource to assist their efforts. H.R. 444, is not a ``hand-out'' for our Nation's unemployed; instead, it offers them a ``hand-up.'' By giving individuals more control of their job search, they have the opportunity to become self-reliant. For these reasons, it's very important that we pass H.R. 444 today. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding this time, and I rise in opposition to the underlying resolution. I will agree with the argument that the Founders could not have envisioned airliners being used as missiles against skyscrapers, or even the U.S. Capitol. I do not, however, subscribe to the theory that the Founders were unable to envision in their minds a terrorist attack with the ability to take the lives of Members of Congress en masse. On November 5, 1605, 13 co-conspirators placed 36 barrels of gunpowder in a cellar beneath the British House of Lords with the intent of destroying the entire British parliament and killing King James I, who was charged with convening the legislative body on that day. Only through an anonymous letter and the quick action of a few members of Parliament was a British soldier named Guy Fawkes arrested minutes before he was to light a fuse that was designed to spur a revolution in England. My point is that the Founders were cognizant that a terrorist attack on the government resulting in the deaths of scores of Members of Congress could occur. The Founders drew a great deal of our constitutionally-formed system of government from the British parliamentary system and English common law. They were perhaps the greatest political thinkers in history. Yet, despite this knowledge of British history and clear references in the Federalist Papers to the dangers of any effort that would deny the right of elected representation, there are those who have argued today under the assumption that the Founders never contemplated such a situation. Despite knowing that a surprising and devastating attack could befall this government, the Founders were adamant in their belief that under no circumstances were Members of the House to be selected by any means other than popular elections. Elections are the key events that connect the American people to their government, and these elections have a legitimacy no appointment process ever could. Although we can all agree that an attack on this body would threaten the fabric of this country, that same fear should not drive us to weaken the very foundations upon which this Congress, as the Federal government's legislative branch, operates. Federalist No. 52 says it best: ``the right of suffrage is very justly regarded as a fundamental article of republican government. To have submitted it to the discretion of the states would have been improper . . . for the additional reason that it would have rendered too dependent on the State governments that branch of the Federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone.'' In addition, I am concerned that the constitutional amendment before us today would not only override H.R. 2844, which already passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 306-97, but it would remove the Congressional authority to expedite special elections in emergencies under its existing Article I, Section 4, clause 1 authority. H.R. 2844, as passed by the House, is designed to ensure that the House can be repopulated by legitimate democratic means within 45 days after an attack causes multiple vacancies in the House. The proposed constitutional amendment also includes a provision that states that ``Congress may by law establish the criteria for determining whether a Member of the House of Representatives or Senate is dead or incapacitated . . .'' I am quite concerned that this particular provision would deny the House its existing authority to address incapacitation by House Rules. This is an authority the House Rules Committee is already exercising. The provision of the constitutional amendment needlessly involves the Senate in how the House operates. By doing so, it would unfortunately make addressing continuity in government more difficult than it already is. Mr. Speaker, and I continue to believe that government should neither exist nor change but with the express will of the people by whom and for whom it is created. I am hopeful that the prevailing will of this body will reflect that of our nation's Founding Fathers and will ultimately preserve its own popularly-elected nature by defeating this resolution. With that Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in the House to join me in voting against this resolution.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, when the Republican transition occurred in December of 1994, I was charged with the responsibility of interviewing people and finding hires for the top five positions in the House, and one of those was Parliamentarian. I frankly came at it with some suspicion. If someone could be working so long for the other party in control, could that person be fair? And he convinced me over two meetings that his job was not to be fair or unfair, but to know the rules. He has proven that he does, with an even hand; and I join all my colleagues in thanking him in his service to his country.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) for yielding me this time in support of H. Res. 644, the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4359, the Child Credit Preservation and Expansion Act of 2004. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule which provides that the minority will be able to bring an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the House floor for consideration by the full House. In this respect, H. Res. 644 is in line with the recent history and tradition of the House when debating tax legislation on the floor. I urge the House to approve this rule in order to give the House the opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation. With this in mind, I want to commend the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter) for bringing H.R. 4359 to the floor today. This bill permanently extends the full $1,000 child tax credit that the Congress and the Bush administration were able to enact in 2001 and 2003. Failure to get this proposal signed into law means that in 2005 an estimated 34 million families, with approximately 59 million more children, face higher taxes, as the credit is lowered to $700, and eventually sinks to $500 in 2011. Moving this bill into law will make crystal clear to the American people that President Bush and the Republican Congress are committed to protecting the tax relief that we were able to enact in 2001 and 2003. Anything less than that represents a tax hike. And clearly, based on recent economic reports, a tax hike is exactly what our economy does not need as it continues to grow. In fact, as Treasury Secretary Snow stated this week, effective monetary and fiscal policies, ``of which the President's tax cuts are a part,'' are enabling the economy to perform very well. This President and this Congress understood that by reducing the tax burden and improving economic incentives, we can boost economic growth and increase the flow of resources into production. That is what has occurred by following the Republican tax relief plan. By removing the heavy burden of government from the backs of small businesses and families, we are creating more economic activity which means more jobs for all Americans and ultimately more revenues to the Treasury. We need to permanently extend this tax credit for American families, and I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in supporting this bill's passage and enactment into law. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so we may proceed to consider the underlying legislation.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule for the defense authorization bill. In total, this rule provides 9\1/2\ hours of debate on a number of key issues affecting our military and our national defense. The underlying legislation, H.R. 4200, passed the Committee on Armed Services by a vote of 60 to 0, and it meets the challenges of a Nation whose soldiers are at work in Afghanistan, Iraq, and across the globe in the fight against terror. Following almost 5 hours of hearings yesterday in the Committee on Rules, we have provided the opportunity for further debate by making in order 28 amendments, including 10 Democrat amendments, 15 Republican amendments, and three bipartisan. This is a fair and traditional rule for a DoD authorization bill that will permit the House to support our Nation's men and women in uniform and ensure that our defense capabilities remain second to none while having excellent debate later today on a wide array of amendments. Mr. Speaker, this important bill falls well in line with what the Founders envisioned when they crafted article I, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which states that Congress shall have the power to ``raise and support Armies,'' as well as to ``provide and maintain a Navy.'' Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, our Nation bore witness to one of the most horrific crimes in history. Today, our Nation's servicemen and -women are fighting for freedom in the civilized world on multiple fronts across the globe. Our commitment to these ideals depends on our military and our military personnel, and this bill is a statement that we will continue to defend freedom and ensure that our homeland remains safe. First, this legislation provides the funding needed to continue the U.S. military's transition into the 21st century. H.R. 4200 authorizes nearly $2 billion for the U.S. Army to procure weapons-tracked combat vehicles; $10 billion for the U.S. Navy for shipbuilding and conversion; and over $13.5 billion for the U.S. Air force to procure additional aircraft. The authorization for these and other programs will help ensure that the U.S. military remains the most efficient, most lethal, and most effective fighting force in the world. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot possibly hope to maintain the level of excellence obtained by the U.S. military without the achievements of the men and women who proudly wear the uniform. I am continually impressed by the resolve, patriotism, and commitment exhibited by these heroes day in and day out. As such, this Congress must work to reinforce this strength, and H.R. 4200 makes good progress towards that end. I am pleased that the underlying legislation contains a 3.5 percent pay increase in base pay for military personnel. H.R. 4200 also recommends the elimination of out-of-pocket expenses military personnel must contribute toward housing costs. Both of these provisions will not only help ease the burden placed on military personnel and their families but should also help to ensure that the U.S. military is able to retain these highly trained personnel. Mr. Speaker, it is undoubtedly true that not everyone will be satisfied with this measure. What we must remember, however, is that the primary responsibility of this government is to provide for the common defense of this country. As one of the Founders put it, wise and free people direct their attentions first to their own safety. As such, I urge my colleagues to support both this rule and the underlying measure, H.R. 4200, to not only uphold the obligations of the Congress and the Federal Government, but also to show our men and women in uniform that their service to this Nation and their fellow Americans does not now nor will it ever go unappreciated.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this modified, closed rule, and thank my friend and colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and traditional rule for legislation that amends the Internal Revenue Code, and I am pleased that the House will have the opportunity to consider the merits of the underlying legislation, H.R. 4275, as well as an amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Rangel. Mr. Speaker, this rule before the House, H. Res. 637, will give Members of the House an opportunity to consider legislation that will spur economic growth and save taxpayers money by providing tax relief for working Americans. I also want to commend Mr. Sessions, my friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, for introducing this important legislation. H.R. 4275 would permanently preserve the 10-percent income tax bracket, which was created in the 2001 Bush tax cut in order to reduce the burden on working Americans. As a result of this tax relief, currently, the first $7,000 of individuals and $14,000 of couples' taxable income is taxed at 10-percent instead of 15-percent. If we fail to enact H.R. 4275, tax brackets will revert to their pre- 2001 levels at the end of this year. For example, the ten percent bracket's income limits would return to $6,000 for individuals and $12,000 for couples in 2005, causing 73 million working Americans to pay higher taxes next year. Additionally, the ten percent bracket would disappear completely after 2010, and taxpayers could face an average tax increase of $2,400 over the next decade. Lastly, over 24 million low-income workers will be pushed into a higher tax bracket. Therefore, compared to 2004 levels, many individuals and businesses will face higher federal taxes if we fail to enact H.R. 4275. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule so that we may proceed to debate the underlying legislation.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, Mr. Speaker, their own study, because the gentleman and I have met with them, shows the economy will grow faster under this system than the current system.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to those of my friends in the Asian Pacific community for honoring those who have served. I would like to spend the next hour talking a little bit about the economy and what we can do to even improve it more. We should be grateful for the growth we have seen. Four years ago, we saw the dot- com bust that cost $5 trillion in value for shareholders, we saw the beginnings of corporate fraud, which have been dealt with, and we saw a downturn in the economy which is causing losses of jobs. President Bush, to his credit, stood tough by a decision to leave people more of the money they earn in their own pockets, and had several important tax cuts; and the American people, not government, not Congress, not us, but the American people have turned around an economy to create a boom that is going on right now, with 600,000 jobs created just in the last 2 months. The American people deserve the credit for that, but there is still one anchor on the neck of the economy. The biggest drag on the neck of the economy is the IRS. 230 years ago, Adam Smith wrote that the market was the invisible hand of the economy. I agree with that. And 230 years later, we can say that the visible foot on the throat of the economy is the IRS code. We spend 6.9 billion man-hours just filling out IRS paperwork. At $20 an hour, which is a $40,000-a-year job, that is $240 billion lost. Corporate leaders tell us they spend more calculating the tax implications of a business decision. A friend of mine who was on a board of directors came back from a meeting of one of the Fortune 100 companies, and he said, ``We spent 80 percent of the entire meeting calculating the tax implications of a business decision. We should be thinking about our shareholders, our employees and our customers, and not the government.'' We believe we spend more than 6.9 billion man- hours just calculating that. Studies have shown that we lose 18 percent of our economy to people making decisions for tax reasons instead of economic reasons. That is a $180 billion loss. All of this is to say the following: the American people spend upwards of $500 billion a year to comply with a code to send in just four times that much to the government. And who pays it? The consumer. This is not rich corporate America or investing America. All of the bills of corporate America are paid by the final consumer, who cannot pass those costs on. The consumer picks up the entire tab. We have studies that show for a small business to collect $100, comply with the Tax Code, remit that $100 to the Federal Government, it costs them $724. This is not an efficient way to raise our revenues. It is time for the IRS to go away, it is time for the income tax to go away, and H.R. 25 will do just that. H.R. 25, which has tonight I think 49 cosponsors, would abolish all taxes on income, the corporate income tax, the personal income tax, the payroll tax. Seventy-five percent of America pays more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It would get rid of the gift tax, the estate tax, the capital gains tax, the Alternative Minimum Tax for a one-time-at- the-checkout retail sales tax. Americans would pay taxes when they choose, as much as they choose, by how they choose to spend. And to untax essentials. We would not define them; that is a political operation that would be fought in the halls here. Nor would we follow you around to make sure you spend on essentials. That is a police operation we cannot afford. We would use the government's definition of poverty-level spending, which is that spending necessary for a given size household to buy their essentials. It is determined every January by the Department of HHS. For my mother that is $9,500 a year. For my daughter and son-in- law and four grandsons, that is $30,000 a year. For George and Laura Bush and their two daughters, that is $24,500 a year. Their check at the beginning of every month would totally rebate the tax consequence of spending up to the poverty line. Beyond that, we are all discretionary spenders, and we all pay the same. Over the last 9 years, Americans for Fair Taxation has raised privately and spent $25 million on economic research, market research, spreading the word. The most compelling study we have is from Dale Jurgensen, who is the head of economics at Harvard, that says today, 22 percent of what you spend at retail is the imbedded cost to the IRS. Twenty-two percent of what we pay for at the checkout counter is paying the tax bills of America. If you take a loaf of bread that has been touched by a seed company, a farmer, a combine operation, a trucking company, a processing company, a bakery, a cardboard manufacturer, a distribution company, a retail outlet, the people who make tractors and plows, all of those companies have income tax costs and payroll tax costs, and accountants and attorneys to avoid the tax costs, and the consumer pays it. The consumer pays everything. And when you think about it, there is no mechanism for a business to pay a bill, other than through price. In 41 years, my wife and I have built six businesses. We always looked for that ``secret drawer'' where the money just kind of piles up and you help yourself to it to pay your tax bill and your payroll taxes. It is not there. Our patients, when I was a dentist, our customers in business, paid our labor cost, our light bill, our rent and our tax bill; and our studies say that the tax component in the price system is 22 percent of what you spend. We say abolish that system, repeal the Tax Code, let competition quickly work that out of the system and replace it with an imbedded 23 percent, a frank and transparent tax. It will fund the government at the current level, but you get to keep your whole check, and you will all be voluntary taxpayers, as I said earlier, paying taxes when you choose, as much as you choose, by how you choose to spend. What will happen in the world? The first year we will have a 26 percent increase in exports. That is good for jobs, corporate profits and good for America. The first year you will have a 78 percent increase in capital investment. We know in a study done from 1945 to 1995, that every time we increase capital spending, we increase real take-home wages in exactly the same proportion because workers are more productive. We have overseas somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion floating around in Euro dollar markets because it is cheaper to borrow at 6 percent than to repatriate those dollars at 35 percent, and it is easier to spend them overseas at no tax consequences. All of that money would come home. All that money would come home and put new liquidity into our economy and create jobs. We know it costs $100,000 to create one job in all America. All of that money would come to job creation. We have seen studies that suggest that every major international corporation that is domiciled overseas, in Europe or Japan or Latin America, if we had no tax on capital or labor, every one of those corporations would build their next plant in the United States. We know that DaimlerChrysler really wanted to be ChryslerDaimler; they really wanted to be in New York City, but the crushing way we treat capital in America with our tax system led them to Stuttgart. We have a Social Security system and a Medicare system that is destined for collapse. A very recent study by Larry Kotlikoff from Boston College says that the 75-year unfunded liability in Social Security and Medicare; that is to say, promises we have made for retirees in that period of time for which there is no money set aside and will not be any, a shortfall, in today's dollars, not inflated dollars, but today's dollars, the 75-year unfunded liability to those programs is $51 trillion. To put that in perspective, if you started a business on the day Jesus Christ was born and lost $1 million a day through yesterday, it would take another 720 years to lose $1 trillion. In 75 years, we are going to have a shortfall of $51 trillion in those programs. The entire wealth of America, that is everything we own of value, our cars, our homes, our retirement programs, and our shares, including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The entire wealth of America is $43.8 trillion. If we were to take everything away from every American and apply the value to the shortfall in those funds, in those two programs, we would cover 80 percent of the shortfall. We say fund Social Security and Medicare out of the sales tax, go from 138 million workers paying into the system to 300 million Americans buying every day, paying into the system, plus 51 million visitors to our shores, and fund Social Security and Medicare off the overall size of the economy as opposed to the number of people working in it or the amount we are willing to tax those workers, and we would double the revenues to those categories in 15 years by doubling the size of the economy in 15 years, well before we need to do so. We hear a lot of talk from people, in our Treasury Department particularly, that a tax of that amount would cause evasion of an enormous scale. My response to them is twofold. Number one, we are already paying this; it is just hidden. The cost of living is going to be about the same, but we will keep our whole check. But more importantly, currently, all you have to do to evade taxes is to lie on your tax return, put down the wrong numbers, sign it, send it in, and the chances are that nobody will know. You have a less than 1 percent chance of being audited. Under our system, you are going to have to have somebody cooperate with you, conspire with you to cheat. Now, I do not know how many friends you have that are willing to go to jail for you. I have none. I have none. It is going to be tougher to cheat on this system, because it is going to take two to do so. Secondly, on the evasion issue, the IRS currently tells us that they collect 75 percent of the taxes that they know are owed. They are unwilling to guess how large the underground economy is, because no one knows. Well, 6 or 8 months ago a book came out on this issue by an economist who said that three pieces of the underground economy, pornography, illegal drugs, and illegal labor, those three pieces comprise a $1 trillion economy, untaxed. Under our system, if they wanted to buy that loaf of bread or a new house or a new car, they would pay their fair share. Always in these discussions in politics, it comes down to who is going to win and who is going to lose. My argument has been consistent: Everybody is a winner. If you can become a voluntary taxpayer and be untaxed on essentials, everybody wins. If we can give you a tax system that gives you in a free society the privilege of anonymity, no one should know as much about it as their government does, you are a winner. But in point of fact, the people coming out the best in this system are people living at or below the poverty level who are currently losing 22 percent of their purchasing power to the current system. They will have a huge increase in purchasing power. Frankly, this is a tax on accumulated wealth. The left should love this idea. If you pay taxes on your earnings, you pay taxes on building a business, you pay capital gains tax when you sell it, this system is going to tax you one more time when you or your heirs spend the money. They should love that. To those who have accumulated wealth, I would just say this: You are already paying this tax. But what do you think is going to happen to your nest egg if all the world's investors are going to invest in our economy with no tax consequences? I do not know, but I can tell my colleagues of two nationally known names who manage money and say, I do not know what the value of the Dow Jones would be at when you pass this bill, but in 2 years it will have doubled. All the trillions in the world would be in our economy, buying our shares, increasing the value of the nest egg, and creating jobs. There are all kinds of reasons to do this, most important of which is freedom, giving you the freedom to make your own decisions and not be under a corrosive system. But right now, as the Secretary of the Treasury told me, this would make us the largest magnet for capital and jobs in history. So I suggest to my colleagues, several of them who have not signed this bill, to sign it. I suggest to you that if you want to create jobs, the way to do it is to get the tax off capital and labor and the jobs would come. For the very reason today jobs are going overseas because of the Tax Code, they would come flocking to our shores tomorrow. And let us move on and build our economy. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, first of all, the IRS would be gone. Our Treasury Department would have several thousand people contracting with the States to do the collecting. Forty-five States are already collecting sales tax. They have mechanisms in place to judge whether there is fraud involved. We would contract with the States to collect the money and we would pay them a quarter of a percent for everything they brought in for doing so, just as we would pay the retailer a quarter of a percent for collecting it. Every household in the State would sign up with that State once a year or, if they had children during the year, sign up again, and list the numbers of people in the household and their Social Security numbers so we do not have people living in every household. And then the Social Security department, which currently sends out about 45,000 checks a month, would handle the rebate. We envision the rebate to be nothing more than a computer click. This government is moving dramatically toward getting rid of checks, moving just to electronic transfers which are a nickel or a dime to make instead of the cost of taking postage and envelopes. So we think that every household will do nothing more than a computer click to put enough money in their account previous to the first day of the month; previously on spending it, that would totally untax them in terms of spending up to the poverty level.

Mr. LINDER. A resident of the United States and a resident of that State.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the 23 percent was calculated in 1995, and since we have had significant tax cuts since then, it may be less than 23 percent. We have to go back to the committees that the gentleman deals with on the Committee on Ways and Means to have new studies done on that. But in 1995 it was revenue neutral, which means it brings in exactly the same amount of money as the current system does. But let us point out that the average income-earner today spends 28 percent of their income to the withholding of the IRS, of the Tax Code, and another 8 percent roughly for their Social Security and Medicare. So as an individual spending, I would rather give up 23 percent of what I spend than 34 percent of what I earn. It will encourage great earnings and great savings.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, today, the House will debate H. Res. 577, a resolution recognizing 50 years of relations between the United States and the European Union. I hope the House overwhelmingly approves this resolution. The U.S. and EU not only have shared values and an indisputable friendship, but also shared global responsibilities. Responsibilities that are grave in light of the terrorist threat facing our world today. The U.S. and EU must continue to work together to root out terrorism around the world, and seek to promote peace and stability. I am pleased to note that members of the EU and the U.S. are currently working alongside each other in both Afghanistan and Iraq to combat terrorism, and to ensure that these countries successfully make the transition toward democracy. In addition to our shared interest in promoting global security, the U.S. and the EU share economic interests. The U.S. and the EU have the largest bilateral trading and investment relationship in the world with transatlantic flows of trade and investment amounting to roughly $1 billion a day. Mr. Speaker, President Bush has stated that strong ties between America and Europe are essential to peace and the prosperity of the world. I believe that both sides will remain committed to fostering the relationship so that together the U.S. and the EU can promote their common goals and interests in the world much more effectively.