Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the outrageous gas prices that plague this Nation are a direct result of failed energy policies by the Clinton-Gore administration. High gas prices have devastated Americans from every walk of life, from our seniors on fixed incomes who are struggling to pay for the rising cost of home heating oil, to our families, farmers, and those who rely on transportation to survive. The jump in prices do not just affect individual family budgets, but also impact the districts across the country that rely on tourism dollars, especially during these popular summer months. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton-Gore administration has refused to take actions while Americans everywhere have been left to suffer. If this trend continues and gas prices remain high, our economy will certainly feel the impact. This may not be the legacy that President Clinton had in mind.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our National Missile Defense System. Last Saturday, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization conducted a flight test over the Pacific. Unfortunately, a missile anomaly occurred which had nothing to do with the concept being tested. The booster simply did not separate from the kill vehicle and, therefore, the kill vehicle was not freed so that it could function. Opponents of a National Missile Defense System thus have no basis for saying we should abandon our efforts. This was only the third of 19 planned tests. Successes and failures are to be expected as we perfect any defense system. This was not a concept failure. Mr. Speaker, developing a missile defense system is one of the most civilized things we can do. When deployed, and God forbid, we need to use it, it only protects. It protects the people we love and does not destroy our enemy. This is the ultimate in defense. Mr. Speaker, the so-called rogue nations are developing their capabilities to attack our people. As outlined by the Constitution, we, in Congress, have the obligation to provide for the defense of this country. We must go forward. We should not yield to political pressures. We must develop the National Missile Defense System.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, it is the year 2000. But over the past few months, there has been some debate about when the new millennium actually begins. Some argue that the new millennium begins in 2000, while others argue that it does not technically begin until 2001. But no matter what millennium we are living in, the marriage tax penalty makes no sense. How can the Government justify charging married couples an extra $1,400 in taxes just because they are married? The Marriage Penalty Tax Relief Act is a reasonable bill that will put some common sense back into our Tax Code. Some people may continue to disagree about when the 21st century begins, but everyone can agree that working families should not pay extra taxes just because they are married. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will join us in delivering fairness to working families and voting yes on the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, America's truckers are a vital part of our economy. Truckers deliver the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the materials we use to build our homes. Unfortunately, for the past several months truckers have been hit particularly hard by rising fuel prices. These outrageous fuel prices are threatening the livelihood of thousands of truckers across the United States. When truckers cannot afford to fill their tanks, they will be forced off the road. Without trucking, commerce in our Nation would grind to a halt. With gas prices continuing their steep rise this summer, an even greater number of truckers are being threatened. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has admitted that the Clinton-Gore administration was ``caught napping'' when it comes to fuel prices. And now the American people are forced to foot the bill for the Clinton- Gore failure. How unfair.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, rising gas prices are a serious concern to Americans everywhere. The hike in fuel prices has hurt the truckers who deliver our food and clothing. It has hurt our farmers who need gas to run their farm equipment. It has hurt the average American who just wants to get to and from work. The Clinton-Gore administration has often claimed it feels the pain of the American people. But instead of working with OPEC to increase oil production or moving to temporarily suspend expensive regulations, the administration is choosing to play the blame game. The administration's new claim is that gas companies are engaging in price gouging. Gas companies are not to blame for our fuel prices, the Clinton-Gore administration is. While they are focusing their efforts on shifting the blame, the American people are the ones paying the price. This is not price gouging, it is ``price-Gore-ging.''

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to note that LEAA is in support of this amendment. They oppose any legislation which would limit the sources from which firearms could be procured. If this is really gun safety, the police should be the first in the country to want this. I understand that a third of the policeman who are shot are shot with their own gun. When this technology is mature, the police will be the first to support it. The fact that they are not supporting this should send a message to us that we do not need to be supporting planning in this bill which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development could use to require or influence the purchase of guns only from those companies that have been coerced into a settlement with the government to avoid a long and expensive lawsuit. When this technology is mature, it will be there. And us passing silly legislation that this amendment would be is not going to hasten the orderly development of that technology. There is nobody that I know of who does not want safe guns, and the police should be the first who would want this, because it would assure their safety because a third of them when they are shot are shot with their own gun. Furthermore, what this does is to clearly violate longstanding Federal procurement regulations, which require that what we are doing to purchase is going to be the best value for the dollar, not going to be something that supports a political agenda. What this amendment does is to make sure that the best firearms are going to be procured to meet the requirements of those who are procuring them without any political pressure, to give preference to a company that has been coerced by the Federal Government into agreeing to something to avoid a lawsuit which would cost them a lot of money. This could just be the first step. What next? Will the FBI and other law enforcement agencies follow HUD if we permit this to go forward. I would hope not, because I am sure that what every one of these agencies wants, what every one of their members wants is the best firearm, the safest firearm to protect them. We cannot just legislate safety. Safety has to come from development. And when that development is there, the first people who are going to support this are the law enforcement officials themselves. They are now opposing what is in this legislation. They are supporting this amendment. That should send a clear message to us that the right vote on this amendment is a yes vote.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, no senior citizen or disabled American should be forced to choose between buying food and paying for the prescription drugs they need. It is that simple. Yet, for thousands of seniors, this is a choice they have to make. The average Medicare recipient uses 18 and a half prescriptions a year. Some conditions are treated very successfully with medication, but it frequently comes at a high price. For example, stroke patients take clot-busting jobs that can cost upward of $1,700 a year. For seniors on a fixed income, this is a staggering sum. The Republican plan helps seniors facing this choice. It offers affordable options that allow Medicare recipients to choose a plan best fitting their unique medical needs. By providing prescription drug coverage for everyone, Republicans want to make sure that no senior citizen or disabled American falls through the cracks.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Republicans believe that no senior citizen or disabled American should be forced to choose between buying food or buying the prescription drugs necessary to keep them alive. Prescription drugs have become a major component of quality health care in America, and they have saved and improved many lives. But these miracles frequently come with a substantial price tag, one that many Medicare recipients on fixed incomes cannot afford without insurance. Republicans believe the way to solve this dilemma is to create a fair and responsible prescription drug plan that is affordable, available, and voluntary for all Medicare beneficiaries. It is the right and moral thing to do. By making prescription drug coverage accessible to everyone. Republicans want to make sure that no senior citizen or disabled American falls through the cracks.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, William Shakespeare once wrote, ``For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause.'' Hundreds of years before the death tax was even conceived, Shakespeare captured the worries felt by thousands of Americans, hoping to leave their life's work to their loved ones. Sadly, this dying wish often does not come true for those trying to leave a small business or family farm to their relatives. The death tax thwarts them at every turn, costing surviving relatives up to 60 percent of the business or property's worth. Mr. Speaker, this is blatantly wrong. Fortunately, today the House has an opportunity to right this injustice. Before us today is H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act. This common sense legislation challenges the IRS's assertion that grief also should be taxed. The death tax is un-American, and it deserves an appropriate burial. Vote in favor of H.R. 8.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in a movie called Meet Joe Black, Death disguises himself as a young man named Joe Black so as to better observe life on Earth. While watching a dinner party, one guest remarks to another that the only 2 certainties in life are death and taxes. Joe Black responds, death and taxes, what an interesting pairing. For years, the IRS has thought so too. Americans are currently subjected to the death tax, a law that taxes families up to 60 percent of their loved one's savings, or the worth of their farm or family business, upon their death. This unfair tax prevents more than 70 percent of America's small businesses and family farms being passed from one generation to the text. This week, the House will vote on legislation to repeal the death tax. I urge my colleagues to support preserving the American dream by voting to end the death tax.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Chairman, when I came here several years ago, I bought the argument that if we engage with China that they would change and so I voted for most-favored-nation trading status. Well, China did change. They got worse. Our own State Department says that their already poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the last year as the government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent. Documented human rights abuses include extrajudicial killings, torture and mistreatment of prisoners, forced detentions, arbitrary arrest and detention, lengthy incommunicado detention and denial of due process. They continue to steal our intellectual property rights as they ignore copyrights and patents. Slave labor goes on, perhaps intensified. I am particularly concerned about the theft of technology. They have stolen our missile secrets. They have stolen our bomb secrets. Contrary to our Constitution and in violation of our laws, they sought to and perhaps were successful in buying the last presidential election. They threatened to nuke us if we object to their intentions with Taiwan. It is simplistic and naive to believe that either the PNTR or membership in WTO will move China toward international development, as President Clinton says, in the right direction. Certainly what they are going to do is what every major power does; they are going to do what is in their own best interests, advancing their own strategic interests. Finally, I am particularly concerned about the effect of this on our national security. Last year we had a $68 billion trade deficit. This is money which they could and did use to arm themselves. Those arms may very well be used against our people. For two very good reasons, a no vote is the right vote. First of all, we need to send the message that this is unacceptable international behavior; secondly, it is really not very bright to arm your enemy.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taylor-Jones-Bartlett amendment. I have seen the recruiting brochures. We did promise lifetime health care in a military facility for those who honorably served their country for 20 years or more. For a decade now, we have broken that promise and we are paying a high cost for having broken that promise. It hurts us in recruitment. When their father, their uncle, their grandfather tells them that the military did not keep their promise to them, why should they think we are going to keep our promises to them? Three of our services are failing to meet their recruitment totals, and this is part of the problem. It is hurting retention. When they look ahead to what will happen to them when they retire, they wonder if they can trust us, and so they are not staying in. They will not retire. They are leaving the service. Properly administered, this program should cost no more than what we are now doing. As a matter of fact, the Medicare reimbursement is only 95 percent of what it is in the other hospitals. This means it actually ought to cost the taxpayers less. If the program is crippled now, it is only because it is not being administered correctly and we need to change that. It is very important that we keep our promises to our veterans, not just because we made them and that is what honorable people do, it is important because it is hurting us now in recruitment and it is hurting us now in retention. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge a positive vote on this amendment.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, America is the most prosperous Nation on Earth and yet some seniors are forced to choose between putting food on the table and the prescription drugs they need to lead healthy and productive lives. That is just not right. Republicans are working to make sure that is a choice seniors no longer have to make. While I share the goal of President Clinton and Democrats in Congress, their proposal may endanger existing drug coverage that some seniors already have. It could give the Federal government too heavy a hand in controlling drug benefits and deny seniors the right to select the coverage that best fits their needs. Republicans have a voluntary plan to make prescription drug coverage affordable and available to American seniors. Republicans are working to protect seniors from runaway drug costs so that their retirement remains secure and they have greater peace of mind. That is a brighter future for every American.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I have a button which I sometimes wear. It says, ``Politically Incorrect and Proud of it.'' I probably ought to be wearing that button tonight, because what I am going to say is going to be deemed politically incorrect by some. You see, I rise in strong support of Dr. Laura. Mr. Speaker, under the guise of freedom of speech, my children and my grandchildren are put into a sea of filth and violence on television and the Net. Yet, when Dr. Laura recapitulates spiritual and moral values espoused by countless civilizations through millenia of time, pagans and Christians and Jews and Muslims, she is accused of hate speech. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise to defend Dr. Laura and her right to freely express her religious convictions, her deeply held religious convictions, without fear of being called a bigot. If her rights are denied, all our rights are at risk.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, Americans must speak up for freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and traditional morality by defending Dr. Laura's TV show against politically correct antibigotry bigots. That is why I would like to read into the Record excerpts from an excellent column from the April 8 issue of World magazine by noted professor of journalism, Marvin Olasky. The article is entitled, ``Support Dr. Laura: Don't back GLAAD, get mad at the anti-bigotry bigots.'' Now I quote, ``Long-time World readers know that I advocate political alliances between religious conservatives and libertarians, and social- issue alliances between biblical Christians and theologically conservative Jews and Muslims. We need such alliances, I believe, because God has not placed us in the ancient land of Canaan, the theme park that Israelites were told to make their own. Instead, Christians are called to live amid sin in a modern Babylon. . . ``Dr. Laura Schlessinger has reportedly surpassed Howard Stern and even Rush Limbaugh as the most-listened-to radio person. She regularly reaches over 20 million radio listeners on 450 stations in the United States and Canada with a message that emphasizes biblical morality. More Americans may soon hear that message: Paramount recently signed up 85 percent of U.S. television markets to air her hour-long talk format television show. But homosexual activists are now campaigning to stop her influence from expanding further. . . ``Dr. Laura (now 53 years old) has become an Orthodox Jew--and that means she has increasingly presented an Old Testament-based critique of homosexuality. To those who disagree she says, rightly, `I am reiterating what God said. To them, that makes me `hateful.' I'm sorry --talk to God about it.' Since groups like GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, don't want to talk to God about it, they have instead put pressure on Paramount to stop the Dr. Laura television show before it starts. GLAAD's posture is ironic in one respect; as Dr. Laura told our reporter Lynn Vincent earlier this year, `I think it's quite fascinating that a group that's talking about civil rights wants to curtail my right to make a living, speak my point of view, and to have my religious convictions.' ``Www.stopdrlaura.com, one of the new attack websites, bills itself as `a coalition against hate.' The Stop Dr. Laura movement lists e-mail addresses and phone and fax numbers for the Paramount offices, giving homosexuals and their apologists an easy way to maximize harassment of Paramount executives. One of the dot-com brains behind the attack, John Aravosis, said, `The show's going to be canceled. This is going to be living hell for Paramount for the next year at least. E-mails will keep flying and flying and flying. Everyone on-line who's progressive is going to know that Paramount is a bigot.' For progressives, of course, `bigotry' only goes one way. ``Former Member of Congress Pat Schroeder attacked Dr. Laura by saying, `The pledge of allegiance says, `with liberty and justice for all.' What part of `all' is unclear?' That question should be turned back to Mrs. Schroeder. What about liberty for Dr. Laura. ``If the attack just came on the Web, it would not be so serious but leading liberal publications have become lapdogs of the homosexual lobby. GLAAD in 1998 met with editors of Time magazine to tutor them on the politically correct way to cover homosexuals in their publication. Time editors followed up obligingly with a flurry of pro-gay coverage, prompting GLAAD to trumpet the magazine's `truly remarkable turnaround.' On March 20 Time had the predictable story, `Dr. Laura, Heal Thyself.' So, for that matter, did Newsweek, with its standard hit-piece use of adjectives . . . and out-of-context references . . . ``Dr. Laura issued an ironic statement: `We are all made in God's image, and therefore, we should treat one another with love and kindness.' But for activists, sincere overtures of peace will not suffice, and only Dr. Laura's unconditional surrender is acceptable . . . ``If a person of Dr. Laura's prominence and proven appeal can be kept off television, tyrants have seized control of the airways and no one who doesn't bow to political correctness is safe . . . ``The best way to ask Paramount executives not to be swayed by the GLAAD offensive is to send a letter to Mr. Frank Kelly, Paramount Television, 5555 Melrose Avenue, Hollywood, California 90038, or an e- mail to television@pde.paramount.com.'' Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to rise in support of Dr. Laura.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the men and women of the Hampstead Volunteer Fire Engine and Hose Company No. 1 of Carroll County, Maryland. The fire company was founded on February 13, 1900, and will celebrate its 100th anniversary on April 15 of this year. The founders' goal was to establish fire protection for their little town. One hundred years later, the town has grown and the company has grown from just a few men to more than 100 active and associate members whose goal today is the same, to provide the highest level of fire and emergency medical service to their community. From the daunting task of fighting fires to responding to accidents and emergency medical situations, the Hampstead volunteers have remained stalwart members of the Hampstead community. Keep in mind, these are volunteers who come to the aid of their neighbors day and night, without pay and oftentimes with complete disregard for their own well-being. I am certain the citizens of Hampstead join me in congratulating the Hampstead fire fighters and look forward to another 100 years of exemplary service.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, is there a relationship between how much money is spent on education and how well students do? If I look at a graph showing SAT scores since 1960 and spending on education since 1960, I note that spending just keeps going higher and higher while SAT scores keep going lower and lower. Or if I look at how much money is spent in cities like Washington, New York, Chicago, or Kansas City, I note that school districts that spend the most money often have the lowest SAT scores, presumably meaning the worst schools. What am I to conclude? Mr. Speaker, when I talk to teachers, and I don't mean education establishment bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., when I talk to teachers in the classroom they all agree that it is important that schools are adequately funded. But no one, virtually no one, says that money is the most important thing. So what makes for better school achievement? Most important are loving parents who teach their children that education is important. No government program can do that. That is something that money cannot buy.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I have got this straight. I am supposed to be impressed that the government is not going to spend more money than it has. I am supposed to rejoice that the government is not going to make our $5 trillion national debt any worse. I am supposed to brag to my constituents that Washington is going to balance its budget. Well, Mr. Speaker, by the standards of Washington, yes. Balancing the budget should not be a big deal; it should not be treated as some great achievement. But I must say, after 30 years of expanding the welfare state every year, balancing the budget is no mean feat. Balancing the budget, which to me is only common sense, is an extraordinary thing in a town that has seen nothing but deficits since 1969. This balanced budget is proof of two things. First, the Republican Congress is serious about its promise to balance the budget. Second, deficit spending does not have to be a way of life. Now that is something to brag about.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the airplane, the theory of relativity, the polio vaccine, Mr. Speaker, all of these discoveries occurred during the 20th century, and they have changed our society. None of these extraordinary accomplishments would have been possible without a basic education. Yet, as we begin a new century, American children striving to achieve great things already start at a disadvantage. Our Nation's education system ranks well below other industrialized nations. In fact, in math and science, our 12th graders rank among the lowest in the world. In a nation as great as America, there is no excuse for this. American children deserve more. That is why I support H.R. 7, legislation that allows family to set aside money tax-free for proven education improvements such as tutors, computers, and books. Fifty-two million families of school-age children, 76 percent of whom attend public schools, would benefit from this bill. It is time we prepared our children to succeed in the 21st century. Let us pass H.R. 7.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take issue with the United States Mint's misguided decision to denigrate our Founding Father in their current advertisements promoting their new $1 coin. A current television advertisement campaign has an image of George Washington dancing in a night club. And here is an ad from last Sunday's Washington Post which shows George Washington with two drinking women. Here is one from last Thursday in the same newspaper, the Washington Post, which shows George Washington with the phrase, ``Change Happens.'' Now, we all know the origin of this phrase, blank happens, and it is disgusting. I can say with complete certainty that our first President would not approve of this portrayal of himself. And it gets worse. The Mint has initiated a $45 million advertising campaign of which this is a part. That is the taxpayers' money. These funds come directly out of the Treasury Department's budget. I am quite sure this money could be spent on more productive activities. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder many of today's youth have little or no knowledge of our Founding Father and first President, George Washington. This type of treatment by our own Government agencies only goes to further denigrate the image of one of our greatest citizens, and this advertising campaign should be halted immediately.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be withdrawn as a cosponsor of H.R. 3844.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, today hundreds of truckers mount a demonstration in the Nation's capital. America's truckers are a vital part of our economy. Truckers deliver the food we eat, the clothes we wear, and the materials used to build our homes. Unfortunately, for the past several months, truckers have been hit by rising gas and diesel prices. These outrageous fuel prices are threatening the livelihood of thousands of truckers across the United States, which is the reason for their demonstration today. When truckers cannot afford to fill their tanks, they will be forced off the road. Without trucking, commerce in our Nation would be ground to a halt. With gas and diesel prices expected to continue rising through the summer, even a greater number of truckers are going to be threatened. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has admitted that the Clinton-Gore administration was asleep at the wheel when it comes to gas and diesel prices. Now the American people must unfortunately foot the bill for the Clinton-Gore failure.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like us for a few moments to think about what raising the minimum wage means. What we are doing is telling a business that certainly they are prosperous enough to pay a dollar more an hour to their employees. This is clearly, then, an attempt on our part to mandate something, which clearly we cannot mandate; and that is prosperity. If we can mandate prosperity, then there are some other things that I would like us to mandate. How about happiness? It is just as reasonable that we can mandate happiness as we can mandate prosperity. If we can mandate prosperity and happiness, then I am particularly interested in mandating longevity. If we really can mandate prosperity, then why should we stop at a small dollar an hour increase? Why do we not make the minimum wage $10 an hour or $20 an hour. See, if we really do have the power to mandate prosperity, why should we be so miserly in the delegation of this power. Let us make it $10 an hour or $20 an hour. The minimum wage is not an issue in the district that I have the honor of representing. I see signs out at sheet stores $7.25 an hour. But I will tell my colleagues where it is important. It is important in those areas where we are cutting off the bottom rung of the economic ladder for those who need it most. Who works for minimum wage? Young people living with their parents count for 37.6 percent of those on minimum wage. 85.1 percent of all those on minimum wage either live with their parents, are single and live alone, have a working spouse, or extended family members and nonrelatives living in the home. Only 5, let me repeat this, only 5.5 percent of minimum wage earners are single parents, and only 7.8 percent are in married single-earner families where the household may or may not include children. What I want to do is to give all the payroll taxes back to head of family that is working on minimum wage. I want to give more than that. I have no problem helping the working poor. But what we cannot do is pretend that we can do something we cannot do, and that is to mandate prosperity. The marketplace determines, we cannot possibly determine the value of a job. The marketplace determines the value of a job. But I will tell my colleagues what we can do is come in after the marketplace has determined the value of a job, and then we can help, we can help so that person, that family can live a reasonable life. I need also to say that this bill is clearly unconstitutional. I carry a Constitution, and I will tell my colleagues, they can search this from front to back, article 1 section 8 has in it all of the powers of the Congress. There is not even a hint in the Constitution that this is something that we can do. Doing this makes a mockery of the 10th Amendment, which says that if one cannot find it in article 1, section 8 the Congress cannot do it. Minimum wage eliminates jobs. That is why my colleagues have not made it $10 an hour or $20 an hour because they know that eliminates jobs. This small increase will also eliminate jobs. If one makes eating in McDonald's too expensive, those jobs simply disappear. If one makes the product that is produced by a manufacturer too expensive, those jobs go to the Pacific Rim. We do not need to hurt those that we are pretending to help by trying to do something that we clearly cannot do. Let us let the marketplace determine the value of the jobs and let us help in a lot of ways after the marketplace determines the value of the job.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, when someone in a family dies, the whole family necessarily goes through a very painful experience. Losing a loved one is difficult enough, but unfortunately the Government makes it even tougher. This is because of the death tax. Today when someone dies, the Federal Government assesses a tax of up to 55 percent on the value of his or her estate. This makes it nearly impossible for farmers to pass on the family farm to their children or for a small business owners to pass on their life's work to their children. This is ridiculous. Mr. Speaker, Americans should not have to visit both the IRS and the undertaker on the same day. We need to give Americans relief from the death tax. This week we are voting on the Small Business Tax Fairness Act which would lessen the tax bite families feel when a loved one passes away. This is the right thing to do. I hope my colleagues will join me in helping give the American people relief from the death tax.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, if a senior citizen wishes to be a part of the work force, there is a lot to consider: The work environment, the hours, the wages. There are a lot of things for a working senior to look at. But one that should not have to occupy a senior citizen's mind is the potential impact that their new job could have on their Social Security benefits. Yet working seniors across the country have to do that because of the Social Security earnings limit. Because of the earnings limit, senior citizens between the ages of 65 and 70 who join the work force risk losing part or all of their Social Security benefits. This is simply not fair. Senior citizens have spent their entire lives earning these benefits and our government should not be punishing them simply because they choose to keep on working. Today, House Republicans bring up a bill that will repeal the earnings limit. Many senior groups, including the AARP, support this bill because they recognize that it is unfair to punish working seniors. I hope that my colleagues will agree. Let us repeal the Social Security earning limits and give our working seniors a break. They have earned it.