Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for that, but we always reserve the power, and I have come to this floor many times to question precipitous deployment without lawful consultation with Congress and without an authorization of Congress. I have gone so far as to sue past Presidents over this issue, but we were denied standing in the courts. So in this case, as my colleagues know, I believe that we would be given that opportunity. We can certainly grasp that opportunity by staying in town and going into session the moment we hear the accords have been signed, and then framing a resolution that properly addresses the concerns around those accords. That is the way we should proceed. So we are being given a pretty crummy choice here tonight, which is to undermine the peace negotiations by voting no or vote yes on something when we do not fully absolutely 100 percent understand the conditions and terms. Mr. Chairman, I wish that the leadership on the other side would reconsider perhaps, pull the bill, keep us in town and take up this issue when it is more timely.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying amendment, the Gejdenson amendment limiting the U.S. share of the operation 15 percent, and in opposition to the second degree amendment. I was a bit puzzled by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who preceded me in the well, who stated that we were voting on an agreement that was not yet complete and, therefore, we should vote against it. I share part of that concern. I wish that the leaders of the House had held this debate until the agreement was complete. I talked to the White House today. They assured me that if an agreement is reached, and I believe if we vote in opposition to this resolution an agreement will not be reached, that there would be a minimum, absolute minimum, of 3 days before U.S. troop deployment could begin. That would give the House more than ample time. We could stay here this weekend and conduct the Nation's business with the full facts of the peace agreement before us instead of having to vote in the context of are we undermining the peace agreement that might happen or are we not, which is what we are doing right now in this debate. There is no one in this House whose been a stronger proponent for more than a decade of the restoration of the rightful powers of the Congress when it comes to war powers. As my colleagues know, there are a few who have been more critical of the lack of participation of our wealthy NATO allies in many things, including their own defense during the years of threat by the Soviet Union. But that said, the timing of the resolution before us and the debate are very troubling. As my colleagues know, we should not be having a debate on authorizing the use of U.S. troops under not yet totally clear conditions while the negotiations are ongoing. Mr. Chairman, I really fear that a no vote here by the House of Representatives tonight will embolden Mr. Milosevic and his genocidal henchmen and keep them from signing an agreement. Some say we are bullying him. Well, someone has got to stand up to the bullies in this world, and perhaps it is time that the United States did. On the other hand, a yes vote is problematic in that we do not have the final agreement before us. The gentleman spoke the truth. What should happen is we should stay in town. If an agreement is signed on Saturday, we can meet on Saturday, we can meet on Sunday, we can meet on Monday, and then we can consider a proper authorization which could have conditions on length, duration, size of the deployment, scope of deployment, objectives and all those things in it for an up or down vote. That would be the proper way to proceed in this matter.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican-led House of Representatives is about to do something that is nearly unique in our nation's history. It is about to cast a party line vote to impeach a President of the opposite party against the will of the majority of the American people. The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Henry Hyde, said at the beginning of this process that impeachment must be bipartisan in order to be legitimate. Well, Mr. Speaker, this process is the furthest thing from bipartisan. Every vote in the Judiciary Committee was along party lines, and the final votes on articles of impeachment will almost certainly be party line votes, as well. This sorry chapter in the nation's history creates a new gold standard for partisanship--a standard that will be hard to beat in the decades to come. But this impeachment drive is illegitimate for other, more fundamental reasons: the charges brought against the President by House Republican leaders are not only lacking in merit, they are not the kind of high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant impeachment. Chairman Hyde has painted his crusade in moral terms--he claims to be upholding the rule of law. The rule of law is not at risk here, but the Constitution is. The Constitution reserves impeachment for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. It does not say fornication, adultery and other high crimes and misdemeanors. Nor does it say perjury, evasiveness and other high crimes and misdemeanors. These are misdeeds that have other remedies under the law. Calling them impeachable offenses demeans the Constitution and undermines our system of government. And finally, Mr. Speaker, this impeachment is illegitimate because it is taking place in a Congress that the voters have rejected. In the election just six weeks ago, the American people made clear their distaste for impeachment. Many of the members of this House who will vote today lost their elections last month--in many cases their support for impeachment was one of the issues that led their constituents to reject their candidacy. Yet those very members are here today supporting impeachment and violating the will of the voters who turned them out of office. Mr. Speaker, I expect to hear a rising clamor of calls for the President to resign. That would be an even greater disaster for our democracy than this partisan proceeding has been. Having voted--however illegitimately--for impeachment, the nation, the Constitution and the President deserve a trial in the Senate. We must determine once and for all whether these charges are grave enough to warrant impeachment. And these unproven charges must be judged. The President is innocent until proven guilty, and Chairman Hyde and his colleagues have not made their case.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Member after Member has risen on the other side and said the President should not be above the law. He is not. Ken Starr is free to prosecute the President, indict him, perhaps while in office, but definitely after. It is not ordinary criminal or civil law in question in this debate, it is Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution regarding impeachment. Impeachment is a special punishment reserved for the President of the United States and other Federal civil officers. The founders set an incredibly high bar for impeachment. Constitutional scholars all agree, the framers of the Constitution did not want a President to be impeached simply because a majority of the Members of Congress disagreed with his policies or found his morals repugnant. The Republican majority has not raised and proven offenses that meet those standards. Rather they have met the standards met by Gerald Ford 25 years ago. He said an impeachable offense is anything 218 Members of the House will vote for. That is an unconstitutional and cynical standard. The alternative of censure would serve as well in this matter. A near unanimous House could deliver a stinging and historic rebuke to the President with a motion of censure, and we will be denied that vote, and we are denied sufficient time to speak on the floor. Member after Member on the Republican side has stood to plead the force of law--that no citizen no matter how powerful should be above the law. There is total agreement on that point. The President should not be above the law for purposes of criminal prosecution. Mr. Starr is free to attempt to indict the President for criminal wrongdoing--if not while the President sits in office he could certainly be prosecuted in 2 years after leaving office. It is not ordinary criminal or civil law in question during this debate. The law that binds the House of Representatives in this proceeding is the Constitution of the United States article 2 Section 4 regarding Impeachment for ``Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' Impeachment is a special punishment reserved for the President and other federal civil officers. The Founders set an incredibly high bar for impeachment: At the time of the Constitutional Convention, ``High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' had 400 years of precedent in English law--it meant serious official misconduct and abuse of the powers of the government by the King or one of his officers. Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as ``political'' actions that involve injuries done to the society itself. George Mason spoke of ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' Constitutional Scholars all agree that the framers of the Constitution did not want a President to be impeached simply because a majority of Members of Congress disagreed with his policies or found his morals repugnant. We do not have a parliamentary system of government where a Prime Minister can be removed from office at any time. A strong and independent Presidency is vital to our Constitutional order. Now the leaders of the Republican majority have puffed up with a booming voice much like the puny wizard in the Wizard of Oz in an attempt to raise the President's outrageous, reckless and morally offensive behavior to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. He lied to the American people and offered misleading and possibly perjurious testimony in a civil trial and a grand jury proceeding. These are not trivial matters. The question is simply whether the special Constitutional remedy of impeachment should be invoked for these particular offenses. The Wizards on the other side have puffed up these offenses to Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Justice, and Perjury in their Articles of Impeachment. The Republican Majority has not raised and proven offenses that meet the standards set by our founders. Rather they have met the standard uttered by Former President Ford a quarter of Century ago--that impeachable offenses are whatever 218 Members of the House of Representatives say they are. That is an incredibly cynical and unconstitutional standard, yet that is what is revealed when we rip the curtain of puffery from the rhetoric of the other side. The Alternative of Censure would serve us well in this matter. A near unanimous House could deliver a stinging and historic rebuke to the President with a motion of censure. But, after cutting the Constitutional legs out from under standards for impeachment the Republican leaders would have the House believe that the Constitution's silence on the issue of Censure means it is Constitutionally barred from consideration. It is not Constitutionally barred it is politically precluded because the Republican leaders feared that had the option of censure been before this House along with the option of impeachment Censure would have garnered more support. The procedures followed in bringing these Articles of Impeachment to the floor at this time, in this manner with no option for censure are abuse of power by the leaders of the Majority. This is a tragic day in the history of the United States House of Representatives and a tragic turn of events for our sacred system of government. The repercussions will reverberate in our society for decades to come.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, impeachment of a sitting President is one of the gravest responsibilities and powers given to the Congress by the Constitution. Once it is undertaken it will throw the nation into turmoil and paralyze Congress and the Executive branch for months on end. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, ``[Impeachment] will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.'' Impeachment is, in effect, the repudiation of a popular election. It is a constitutional last resort and should not be undertaken lightly or in a partisan manner. There is no question that President Clinton's behavior has been outrageous, reckless and offensive. He lied to the American people and offered misleading and possibly perjurious testimony in a civil trial and a grand jury proceeding. These are not trivial matters. The question is whether they warrant the constitutional remedy of impeachment. When I began serving in this office, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. In order to understand and fulfill my constitutional duty, I have studied the writings of the framers of our Constitution, as well as the opinions of many noted legal and constitutional scholars. If the President's misdeeds meet the constitutional standard for impeachment, my oath of office would oblige me to vote for his impeachment regardless of my party affiliation. However, if my best judgment is that his offenses do not cross the constitutional threshold, I owe it to the Constitution, to history and to my own conscience to vote against his impeachment. The Constitution states that impeachment is to be used only in the case of ``treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Treason and bribery are unambiguous and represent serious abuses of the office of President and direct attacks on our nation and the integrity our constitutional system of government. By adding ``other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' the framers of our Constitution knowingly chose a phrase that had been in use in English impeachment trials for nearly 400 years. ``High crimes and misdemeanors'' was historically understood to refer to serious official misconduct and abuse of the powers of government by the King or one of his officers. This is clearly the meaning the framers intended. Alexander Hamilton characterized impeachable offenses as ``political'' actions that involve ``injuries done to society itself.'' George Mason stated that high crimes and misdemeanors are ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' Impeachment is the constitutional remedy for gross abuse of the official powers of the President's office or, in the case of bribery, criminal actions in the pursuit of official power. Crimes that do not rise to this level are not impeachable, but can be prosecuted in criminal or civil court. (It is not clear whether the Constitution would allow the President to be prosecuted in criminal court while in office, but there is no doubt that he can be prosecuted after his term expires.) Constitutional scholars all agree that the framers of the Constitution did not want a President to be impeached simply because a majority of members of Congress disagreed with his policies or found his morals repugnant. We do not have a parliamentary system of government where a Prime Minister can be removed from office at any time. A strong and independent Presidence is vital to our constitutional order. I have maintained an open mind throughout the Independent Counsel's investigation and the Judiciary Committee's hearings. I was prepared to consider any new evidence or charges brought forth by Mr. Starr or the Committee. As you know, Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr has spent nearly five years and more than $50 million investigating this President. His original charge was to investigate a dubious real estate deal that happened before Mr. Clinton became President. Mr. Starr has produced no evidence of wrongdoing in the Whitewater matter. At least 15 congressional committees as well as the Federal Bureau of Investigation have undertaken their own investigations of Whitewater, ``Filegate,'' the administration's campaign finance activities, and assorted other allegations of official wrongdoing by this President and his administration. But in the end, we are left with one charge and one charge only: that the President has a private, consensual sexual affair and lied about it. The House Judiciary Committee alleges that the President committed perjury. Perjury is a very serious matter. However, it is far from clear whether the President's misleading testimony in the Paula Jones civil suit or before a grand jury fit within the law's narrow definition of perjury. Even if it can be proved that the President committed perjury, the question remains whether perjury about a private sexual affair is in the same league as treason, bribery or other gross abuses of the official powers of the office of the President. In the final analysis, I am forced to conclude that it is not and will vote against impeachment in the House. If the Independent Counsel believes he has a strong legal case against the President, he can and should bring criminal charges against Mr. Clinton. Nothing in the Constitution prevents that outcomes. But impeachment is not only inappropriate in this case, it is profoundly damaging to the Constitution and our nation's interests. This has been a sad chapter in our nation's history and it's not over yet. As Alexander Hamilton predicted, it has aroused intense and passionate partisan feelings. In fact, I have received more mail, e- mail and phone calls on this matter than on any other issue during my tensure in office. It is safe to say that no matter how it ends, it will leave a lasting mark on our democracy.

Mr. DEFAZIO

Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise in support of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, of course I support our troops and I will support this resolution. But I have profound concerns about not only long term United States policy toward Iraq, but about the lack of congressional authorization for the President's use of force. Congress, not the President, has the constitutional authority to declare war or initiate broad, non-defensive hostilities against foreign nations. Yet every Congress in modern times has failed to protect its prerogatives. As a result, Presidents from Harry Truman to Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have run roughshod over weak-kneed congressional leaders, and spent the Nation's wealth and the lives of its young people in overseas entanglements. During my time in Congress, I have consistently opposed Presidential war-making, whether it was initiated by Republican Presidents or Democrats. Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and a war criminal who threatens the long-term peace and stability of the Middle East. His continuing efforts to build weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. The United States needs to continue to work with its allies and the international community to nullify this threat. But after being briefed by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last night, I am not aware of any immediate threat that justifies this nearly unilateral action by U.S. forces--an action that has not been authorized by the U.S. Congress and an action that is opposed by a number of our allies. There was no reason in this instance that the President could not have come to Congress for its support in this action. There is no reason that we could not have taken the time to garner more support from our allies. Ultimately, it is up to Congress and its leaders to insist that this and future Presidents seek and gain the approval of Congress when U.S. Armed Forces are sent to war. Otherwise we can look forward to an endless series of foreign entanglements and overseas wars. So, while I support this resolution supporting our troops, I will continue to oppose Presidential wars and question United States policy toward Iraq.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the do-nothing Congress is limping to a pathetic end, one final $500 billion bill. Just to my left there is a copy bound with twine 2 feet tall. It weighs 40 pounds. Who among the rank and file Members of the House can say they have read and understood the entire package? Half the Members here could not even lift it, let alone read it. The chairman of the Committee on Rules said it was about readiness. For once we are in vague agreement. This bill is about readiness, campaign readiness. It is stuffed to the gills with election-year goodies. The gentleman meant military readiness, but from the quarter of a million dollars that the Pentagon is going to be forced to spend to study the effect of stay-awake gum on the troops, to the C-130J airplanes that they are going to be forced to buy that will be built in the Speaker's district, and they will have to retire other good planes 10 years early to accommodate them, it is much more of an assault on the orderly readiness of our troops than it is a help. Of the $7.5 billion stuffed into the Pentagon budget in this bill, perhaps $1.1 billion, 14 percent, can be said to truly be going to the readiness needs of our men and women in uniform. Is $1 billion more for the Star Wars fantasy that has wasted $50 billion, so far with no successful experiments, is that the readiness that our troops need? I think not. Is $2 billion more for intelligence agencies what they need? Just 3 years ago the National Security Agency lost $4 billion in its budget. That is right, it misplaced $4 billion, because it was trying to hide it from our enemies, and they had a bunch of different bank accounts around. They forgot they had the money until a new auditor came in and found it, and they need another $2 billion? I do not think so. The gentleman spoke about fiscal responsibility. This bill is financed with $20 billion out of the future social security trust fund, the so-called surplus in emergency spending. That is not fiscal responsibility.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, Congress would have adjourned one week ago after only 108 days work without an additional penny for public education, but the President held the Republican majority's feet to the fire, and so now, a week later, we have got $1.2 billion, new money for smaller class size; $871 million has been replaced for the Summer Jobs for Youth Program that they wanted to kill; $250 million for Youth Opportunities, and $160 million add-on to Head Start. This is a victory for Democratic priorities. But unfortunately this gargantuan 4000-page budget bill further reflects the difference in the budget priorities of the Republicans and the Democrats. The Republicans in this are going to add $9.1 billion to an already bloated Pentagon budget, another $1 billion into the Star Wars fantasy where we have already dumped 50 billion with no results. Not a penny, not a penny here on earth, to help rebuild or build new schools, but another billion dollars for the Star Wars fantasy. That is a sad commentary on their priorities.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, what a difference a week makes. Last week the Republican leadership was cruising toward an early adjournment after the Congress had worked only 107 days despite the fact the Congress' work was not yet done. They had hoped to roll it all into one giant bill that none of us would have been allowed to read or understand under a special rule, and vote on it, and leave town, and go home and spend their special interest money to get reelected. Well, things have changed. Here we are, Day 111. Pretty heavy lifting for this Republican led Congress. We have now worked 111 days in Congress with our $137,000 salary. Of course the average American working for $40,000 or so has worked 202 days so far this year, and they have had to finish their job day in, day out, every day of the year before they go home to their families. But this Congress has not. But there is a change of heart in the Republican leadership. Maybe? No, not really. They have not decided to address the major work left undone, not at all. They are held here against their will. They still refuse to address health maintenance organization insurance industry reform, patient provider rights so people can have a right of appeal when they are denied tests they need to restore their health, and when their doctors order tests to restore their health and is denied by the insurance industry. They will not touch that with a 10-foot pole because of the tens of millions of dollars flowing in from that industry to help their reelections. Teen tobacco prevention? That has dropped off the charts, too, because the tobacco industry is providing one heck of a lot of money for their reelections. Social Security? The only time they addressed Social Security was to attack the trust fund to attempt to give it away by calling it a surplus and spend it as tax cuts. Now, held in D.C. against their will, they have discovered something. The people of America would like to see an investment in the public education, in the investment of their kids, in the education of their kids. Let me say the Speaker earlier, the President has just come recently to this; he just discovered education. The President proposed back in January smaller class size, 100,000 new teachers and a major reconstruction program for the one-third of our schools that are falling apart and the other one-third that are obsolescent. They are the ones who did not discover it until this week, until they had to discover it. There has not been a single hearing held by the Republican led Congress on the issue of 100,000 new teachers, smaller class size or the crumbling state of our schools and federal assistance for them. They had ample time. We took three votes, three votes in this Chamber on school vouchers, taking our tax dollars and transferring them to private religious institutions. That is their agenda: do not help the public schools, help the private schools, help the religious schools despite what the Constitution might say. They have spent a lot of time trying to eliminate the Department of Education that administers the Head Start program and the student loan programs. They have attempted to cut, and we blocked, school lunches for small children. They have enacted or tried to enact tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers to send their kids to private schools, again abandoning the public system, eliminating the summer jobs program for kids, eliminating the school to work opportunities for high school students, eliminating the in-school interest subsidy for student loans, and I heard someone over here wax eloquent about what they have done to lower the interest rate on loans. Yes, a tiny, tiny, tiny bit, but you were really drug kicking and screaming to that, too, because the banks did not want to give up anything on these loans where they never lose a penny that are guaranteed by the Federal Government. They cannot even be discharged in bankruptcy. They still want outrageous rates of interest. So finally the Republicans paid them off. The banks are still going to get the high rate of interest, the taxpayers are going to pay it, and the students will get a tiny, tiny cut, less than 1 percent. Oh, that is a great deal, that is a great way to do this. Get rid of the banks, give the loans directly to the kids through the schools. You could give another 600,000 students loans next year at a much lower rate of interest. They have tried to eliminate the Safe and Drug-free School Program and after school programs. That is quite a record. But they have become born again on the issue of public education. Now they say what they really want to do is fight over how the money they did not want to spend on public education is spent because we have held them here against their will. Because they want to bolt out of town without finishing their work, we have managed to get another $1.1 billion commitment for education. They are saying, well, they are really concerned about how that money might be spent. They want it to be spent under something called title VI. Title VI, the first 16 percent goes to administration. Republicans like that. And the other 84 percent can go to anything, does not go to teachers, smaller class size. It is not even necessary to be invested in rebuilding our schools. They can spin and spin and spin as much as they want as they wax eloquent about the importance of public schools. They are a billion point one late and 4 days late.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Day 111 of this Congress. This Congress has worked 111 days this year. The average American has worked 202 days so far this year. The Republican majority is being held against its will in Washington, D.C. They wanted to adjourn last Saturday after 108 days of work. Because so far as they were concerned, their job was done. They had served the special interests. They had killed insurance industry HMO reform, they had killed for the tobacco industry cessation of teenage smoking, and they had served Wall Street very well. When they wanted to adjourn last Saturday, there were zero dollars for the after-school programs, zero dollars for the school-to-work program, zero dollars for new teachers. Today because the President and the Democrat minority kept them in town to work just a few more days, they might even put in 115 days this year, those programs are funded and now they want to say, ``Well, it is really about how we want to spend the money, that billion dollars on the new teachers. It is about local control.'' That is not the point. They did not want to spend a penny on these new education programs. It is very clear. You wanted to adjourn without one cent additional for education.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority says there are two reasons we cannot approve the President's program for local education, for teachers, for smaller class size and school improvements. One, they say there is no time. Well, the President made the proposal in January. Since then, this Congress has worked 110 days here in Washington, D.C. Not bad for a $137,000-a-year salary. But the average American, at a $30,000-a-year salary, has worked 201 days, while these clowns have only worked 110. And they say there is no time to do the people's business. Then they say there is no money. There is no money for kids, for education, for schools. Yet on the front page of the Washington Post, they document more than $50 million stuffed in the DOD bill with no consideration, including a quarter of a million dollars for pharmacokinetics research. That is the study of the use of stay-alert chewing gum, which is manufactured in the hometown of one member of that committee. One quarter of one million dollars will be spent, but there is no money for teachers, no money for kids, no money for school. Shame on the Republicans.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it is day 110 of this Republican-led Congress. We have worked 110 days here in Washington, D.C., and you have got to wonder, why is not the Nation's work done? The average American has worked 201 days so far this year while Congress has worked only 110, first time in 24 years. We have had funding crises before at appropriations time, but it is the first time in 24 years, since the passage of the Budget Act, that the leaders of the House and the Senate, now both from the same party, have failed to agree on a budget resolution. Now, the casualties of this do-nothing-to-offend-powerful-special- interests Congress are things that the American people want and need, but they will not be considered nor passed by this Congress. Health maintenance organizations, HMO health insurance reform, millions of Americans in this next year will be denied needed tests, needed referral to specialists and needed treatment, some will probably even die because of this neglect. They have no right of appeal under current law. The insurance industry is exempt, the HMO industry, from liability. And they are exempt from antitrust law, and the Republicans do not want to do anything to rein them in and give patients and providers, the doctors who are gagged and want to talk about this any rights, because there is a lot of campaign cash flowing from those special interests. Teen smoking is up. We are all alarmed. We just read about it last week. There was legislation proposed in the House and the Senate by the Democrats to reign in teen smoking. Guess what? The campaign contributions of the industry speak louder than the needs of suffering Americans and kids who will become addicted to tobacco. Social Security, nothing except an attempt to raid the Social Security trust fund which they are now calling a surplus. It is the money that is supposed to pay future retirement benefits, to raid it for tax cuts. Remember last year's tax cuts were paid for by reducing Medicare reimbursements and raising Medicare premiums, that is how those tax cuts the previous gentleman spoke about, those things that are wonderful for the middle class. Look at the statistics on the first year of the tax cuts. People across America should compare their forms for 1996 and 1997 and see what they got. If they are a family that earns less than 59,000, the average was $6. If they earned between 59,000 and 112,000, the average was $61. But if they are in that stratospheric 1 half of 1 percent who earn over $600,000 a year, $7,381. Now, someone rose earlier when I raised this on the other side and said, well the middle class tax cuts will kick in later. Why did not the middle class tax cuts kick in first? Why did the tax cuts for the most wealthy people in the country come first? Because that side of the aisle is servicing them because they are servicing their campaigns. What about education? The President had an initiative, he proposed it in January, school construction, crumbling schools, crowded classrooms, smaller class size, more teachers. They tell us we have no time and no money to address those needs, no time and no money. Yet they added $4.1 billion to the Department of Defense budget that was not requested by the Pentagon, things that ranged from transport plans in the Speaker's district, retiring other serviceable transports 12 years early so we could build those in the Speaker's district, to a beauty, pharmacokinetics research. The American taxpayers are going to spend 1 quarter of $1 million on pharmacokinetics research, unrequested by the Pentagon in the next year. What does that mean? It means in a powerful Republican Member's district a company called Stay Alert makes gum that you can chew that has caffeine in it. It is called Stay Alert. And he has ordered the Pentagon to pay that company a quarter of a million dollars to investigate what that might do for our troops. They did not like gum in the barracks when I was doing my basic training. But I guess he wants to introduce gum into the barracks, or I do not know what the deal is. But why did the American taxpayers have to pay a quarter million dollars? We do not have money for teachers. We do not have money for smaller class size. We do not have money to do a whole bunch of things around here that benefit average American people, but we have a quarter of a million dollars to spend on pharmacokinetics research for the Stay Alert Gum Company. They chew it, they are going to stay awake. Truckers chew it, they stay awake. You drink coffee, helps you stay awake. Give me the quarter of a million dollars, hell, I will do the study for $10,000. This is absurd. There is money. It is a matter of priorities. The people have got to choose whose priorities they prefer. The priorities that service the tobacco industry, the insurance industry, military industrial complex, or the priorities that serve the American people.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, here it is. It is the 109th workday of this Congress in Washington D.C. Thank God we were in session all weekend, although most Members of Congress have not been here. The leadership has not been evident. But that brings the Congress up to a grand total of 109 days. Now, the average American holding only one job, and I have a lot of American families in my district holding two or three jobs trying to make ends meet, but those who are just holding down one job have worked 200 days so far this year. No wonder the Congress' work remains undone. Congress, under the Republican leadership, has worked in Washington, D.C. 109 days. Many of those partial days, like the day that we adjourned at 4 o'clock in the afternoon on a Wednesday because the Republicans had a huge fund-raiser in New York and they had the corporate jets waiting for them out at National Airport, and they all had to jet up to New York and hold this gala event to rake in a few tens of millions of dollars from their corporate sponsors, the same corporate sponsors who wanted them to kill any attempts to curtail teenage smoking and go after the tobacco industry, and the Republican leaders delivered. There is no legislation coming out of this Congress to curtail that, and the rate of teenage smoking is skyrocketing with all the tragic consequences down the road. Then the insurance industry. They provided quite a few jets that afternoon because they had a real big one they wanted to kill. Tens of millions of Americans are in what are called HMOs, health maintenance organizations. What we found out about these HMOs is that they save money by denying Americans and their families and loved ones needed care. The insurance bureaucrats will deny your doctor, will deny you a referral to a specialist, so that they can fatten their bottom line. Tens of millions of Americans were demanding patients' rights. Even the AMA weighed in. They wanted providers' rights. The doctors are fed up with this too. They want to be able to refer their patients for needed tests. But, guess what? The insurance industry is capable of delivering tens of millions of dollars to the Republican leadership, and, behind closed doors, they decided to kill that legislation. There will be no HMO insurance industry Patients and Providers Bill of Rights in this Congress because of special interest money. Now, the chairman of the Committee on Rules rose the other day and said it does not matter that we didn't do HMO reform or anything about teenage smoking. It does not matter that we have not passed the education package to decrease class size, to increase the number of teachers and rebuild our crumbling schools, because we did one big thing in this Congress, we passed a tax cut. Well, let us look at the statistics for the tax cut that was passed by the Republican majority. The families earning less than $59,000, I hope they would all look at their tax return for this year, the 1997 tax year, and compare it to the 1996 tax year and see how much the savings were. Those who got it, about one family in five earning less than $59,000, they got $6. $6. Very generous of the Republican leadership. Now, families between $59,000 and $112,000, they did a little better. They got $81. That is, those of them who got it. That is 20 percent of the families in that tax bracket. But, ah ha, thank God some people really got relief under this bill. Two-thirds of the small number of families in this country earning over $112,000 a year, those whose incomes average $660,000 a year, well, they got a tax cut of $7,135. Very nice. Very nice. It could help pay one year's cost for a kid to go to a state institution of higher learning. Of course, their kids are not going to the state institutions of higher learning. But it could pay for that from one of those other families. The families earning less than $59,000 will get $6 to put toward that education, and those between $59,000 and $112,000 will get $81. So that is the grand accomplishment of this Congress. That is reason enough not to have done anything for education, for class size, for more teachers for the crumbling schools. That is reason enough for the Republican leadership to have denied tens of millions of Americans patients rights when they need a referral to a specialist, when they need a test, when they need treatment. They are denied, with no appeal, and the Republicans have denied them legislation to fix that. It was within the power of this Congress, but the big money spoke louder than the millions of Americans who needed help. Then the teenagers getting hooked on tobacco, well, too bad for them too, according to the Republican leadership. There was not time to take care of that problem.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for yielding the time to me. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the committee has taken action in the area of consumer telephone slamming. I introduced the first bill on this subject on July 9, 1997, with the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Smith). It was a bipartisan approach to a problem created by a little too much deregulation. Now a number of people listed on my bill were here and voted for the telecommunications deregulation. I did not. I was one of 16. I foresaw many of these anti-consumer problems coming from totally unfettered deregulation, and I am pleased to see that the committee recognizes that either the industry has to adopt a strict code to stop slamming people for profit, or there will be new rules in place to take the profit out of that activity. Madam Speaker, I think the committee could have gone a bit further. I know the industry objects strongly to having written authorization. I do not believe that would impede the commerce in this industry and believe it would make even one more step toward fully protecting consumers. So we may find that steps taken are not totally adequate, but this is progress. Sometimes when huge industries get deregulated, consumers get shafted. They have been shafted now for 2 years by unscrupulous members of the industry who are slamming them for profit. This bill will go a long way toward closing that door on the unscrupulous operators. I congratulate the committee on taking the first steps in this area.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today is day 109 of work for this do- nothing Congress. No budget, not done, we are going to do another temporary continuing resolution to fund the entire United States Government at 2:30 this afternoon. The Republican leaders would like to blame the President for the fact that they have failed for the first time in 25 years in Congress to produce a budget resolution and a budget to send to the President. The reason they have failed is we have only worked 109 days here in Washington, D.C., and many of those days were starting at 5:00, out at 6:00. A lot of Americans would love to have that kind of a schedule. The average American has worked 200 days this year. Day in, day out they have produced. They have worked, and they have gotten a modest salary. The Republican Congress has worked only 109 days in Washington, D.C., and failed miserably in its most basic task, producing a budget, let alone in producing other legislation to protect Americans against health care fraud and other issues.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. To go back to the student loans for a moment, because that is something that I am pretty exercised about, there was an absolutely Titanic struggle here on behalf of the banks to say, the bankers actually came in to me and I said, I always thought the theory of interest was that there was risk. With these student loans, the government guarantees that you get 100 percent back no matter what happens, plus your interest, no matter what happens. The student dies, goes bankrupt, leaves the country, you will get it back. So why are the interest rates so high? Their eyes got big and they looked at me and said, well, very profitable. Yes. Guess what? We can charge the students 8, 9 percent interest for loans that are guaranteed by the Federal Government. So after much pressure from our side and from the parents and the families and the kids, the Republicans had to lower the interest rate just a little bit for the kids, but they gave an additional subsidy to the banks. So the banks are still going to get a guaranty of 100 percent repayment. They are still getting obscenely high interest rates. Interest rates are falling through the floor and the banks are getting an increase in the interest rates and the kids are not getting the loans. Direct student loans, take out the middlemen. What do we need the banks in the middle for? Why should we guarantee the loans and give them a subsidy and give them those high interest rates and take the money out of the kids' pockets? If we had direct student loans through the institutions, through the kids, like I got when I was in college, another 600,000 kids could get student loans of $4000 or $5000 this year, if we just took out the banks' profits. They say, that is too complicated. They said we tried to do an experiment. It did not work. Ross Perot was running the program. But it can work, and that can be a much better way of doing this. And you can give more kids a higher education. I just want to make one other point before I have to leave. The gentleman touched on this. From what they have not done, by not reforming HMOs and the insurance industry, from what they have not done in terms of dealing with teenage smoking, from what they have not done in terms of raising the minimum wage or protecting the environment, they have gotten some very rich and powerful friends. And those rich and powerful friends are rewarding them handsomely. That is why they are in a hurry to get out of Washington, D.C. now, not because they want to do a good job or get the job done or leave with the job done. They want to get home and start spending the obscene amounts of campaign cash that they have piled up. I would just ask the people that are watching television today, when they watch those ads come piling out in October and up in the first few days of November, when they see them four and five to one, as a Democrat, I would like them to think, where did all that money come from? Where did all that money come from? It came from the HMOs. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman forgot a couple highlights of things they did propose. They did propose elimination of the School to Work program for high school students. I suppose somehow in their world that is going to better prepare our students for employment after school and to compete in the world economy. Beyond me. I wish they would come down here and explain that. I thought it was a pretty good thing to have school to work opportunities for high school kids. In fact, my State has embarked statewide on a program to bring that about. They have also eliminated in school interest subsidy for student loans. I borrowed a bunch of money to go to college. I thought it was a lot of money when I graduated. I owed about $12,000 when I got out. I am talking to kids now getting out with bachelor's degrees from higher education with $25- and $30,000.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, Congress is still in Washington, and we are here on a Sunday because the Republican leadership has simply failed to do their job. It is quite simple. For the first time in a quarter of a century, since the adoption of the Budget Act, Congress has failed to adopt even a first budget resolution. The leaders of the House, otherwise known as the flatterer society, and the leaders of the Senate, perhaps a slightly more progressive group recognizing the shape of the earth, have failed to agree on the basics of a budget. The leaders of the House want to have a huge tax cut raided from the Social Security trust funds. The leaders from the Senate somewhat prudently have not decided to do that. But, then again, the leaders in the House, when confronted with anger across America from people being denied essential care for themselves and their loved ones, and physicians even rising in anger when they are being denied tests and care that they know that their patients want, with all that pressure, the insurance industry, which pretty much sponsors the other side of the aisle at election time, could not be fully protected. So they passed, better than not, but not much of a patient and providers bill here in the House, an HMO bill. But even that was too much for the leaders in the Senate because it might jeopardize their fund-raising with the insurance industry in a year when they hope to make big gains in the Senate. Of course tobacco, well, that did not go anywhere on either side with the Republican leaders, despite the fact that the American people are appalled to see the rise in teenage smoking and what that will yield 10 and 15 and 20 years down the road. So here the Congress has no budget, many major bills denied. But at least we could salvage something. We could salvage the President's education initiative, something that all Members of Congress, no matter what side of the aisle they come from should be able to agree upon. They should be able to go home to their own districts and see the fact that the schools are crumbling and overcrowded, and there are trailers parked on what used to be the playground because there are too many kids to fit in the school. If they went inside the school, the public schools, they would find that the classes were about twice what they were when they were kids when they went to public school. A lot of people on the other side of the aisle did not. They would see that the teachers are carrying more classes and working harder. There is no counselors anymore in most of the schools. They would support the President's initiative to help add teachers to the schools, reduce class size, and rebuild our crumbling schools and make them safe for our kids. But they tell us there is no money to do that. There is no money to do that. Wait a minute. Was it not the same leadership here on the House side just a couple of weeks ago who jammed through tax cuts that were paid for by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund, otherwise known as the budget surplus? They could find money to do that. They could find money to cut taxes in an election year favoring the usual suspects. But no, there is no money for the schools and the kids and the teachers. They say there is no money. Look at the Department of Defense appropriation this year. It adds $4.1 billion, not million, billion dollars of pork projects that were not requested by the Pentagon. This is the same Pentagon that has now come up to the hill and said, we need more money, we need gas for the tanks, the soldiers do not have ammunition, the housing is crumbling for the enlisted ranks. I want to take care of those things, but guess what, the Republican majority already spent that money. They spent it on pork projects that the Pentagon did not ask for. But they tell us there is no money for the kids and the schools and the teachers. Now, somehow they can find money for the mythical space station that we are building with the former Soviet Union. This thing is only about 2,000, 3,000 percent over budget, 10 years behind schedule. We keep pretending that they are going to build parts of it over there. Now we have to pay them to build parts of it over there, in addition to building the parts over here, but pretending they are building them over there. It has no mission. There is $40 billion over the next 10 years. But there is no money for the schools and the kids and the teachers. What is wrong with these people? What is wrong with them? Where are their priorities? Well, they do have some priorities when it comes to education. Eliminate the Department of Education, priority number one. Divert billions of dollars from public school funding to private school vouchers. That is their answer to the crumbling public schools. And the large class sizes and the lack of public funding, take that money and give it to the private schools. Cut school lunches for poor kids and end equal opportunity for higher education. Cut student loans, give higher subsidies to the banks so they will give some student loans.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I said the people watching. I did not say you, the people watching. I did not attempt to garner their attention directly. In any case, the point is made.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the speaker who preceded me in the well waxed eloquent about the President of the United States leaving town for a short while tomorrow to do some fund-raising for the Democrats, and he took great opprobrium to that. But I would remember twice in this Congress in the midst of the legislative session when the House went out of session, in the middle of the week, on a Wednesday at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, so the Republicans could get on corporate jets and fly up to New York for the largest fund-raiser held in the history of the United States. Their corporate buddies flew them up there. Wasn't that nice? What is the result? The work is not done. It is not surprising. Congress has been in session 108 days working here in Washington, D.C. this year. The average American working for wages has put in 200 days so far this year, and they have gotten their job done, every day, day in and day out. Congress, having worked under the Republican leadership one-half as many days and being paid generously quite more, has not gotten its work done. There is nothing for the President to sit down and talk to the Republican leadership about. The Republican leadership cannot even agree among themselves. On the House side they have tried to cut taxes by taking the money and stealing it from the Social Security trust fund. The Republican leadership in the Senate has wisely chosen not to go down that path. The Republicans in the House passed a de minimis, not very helpful, but better than nothing HMO reform to give patients some little bit of rights, nowhere near what we would have done on the majority side or even some Republicans wanted to do on their side and were blocked by their own leadership. The Senate has denied that. So there is no agreement between the Republican leaders of the House, the Flat Earth Society, and the Republican leaders of the Senate, those who are sometime in the era of Christopher Columbus and discovered the Earth is round, but not much further ahead of that in history. They cannot agree. So how can the President sit down with a bunch of turkeys who cannot agreeing among themselves within their own parts I? Yesterday when we were talking about the failure of the Republicans to do anything for education, smaller class size, more teachers, rebuilding and building schools across America, something that would be a real benefit to the American people, when we talked about the failure to do anything for patients rights, when we talked about the attacks on the Social Security trust fund, the chairman of the Committee on Rules jumped up and said, ``That is right, but we have cut taxes.'' Now, I would ask those who are listening today, are your taxes really lower than they were four years ago when the Republicans took power? In fact, the answer is no. The first returns on the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act are in. The results are striking. Seventeen of the 80 percent, that basically figures out to about 14 percent of the people earning less than $59,000 a year, got a generous tax cut of $6. I hope you did not spend it all in one place. Maybe you put it away for retirement or the kids' college. That is great. Now, we go after the $59,000 to $112,000 bracket. They did a little better, $81. But that is not where the money really went. Guess what? Two-thirds of the taxpayer relief under the Republican bill passed last year went to people whose incomes average $660,000 a year, and guess what? They got $7,135. Now, the families struggling on a $59,000 income got $6. The families struggling, the Republican constituency, just struggling to make ends meet on $666,000 a year, they got $7,000. But, don't worry, they will spend that money in a way to put Americans to work. Of course, the Republicans are against any increases in the minimum wage and they are following a trade policy which is driving down wages in America. But they have done great things for the American people, great things, but they cannot get their work done here in Washington, D.C. They have raised a pile of money, and they want to go home and spend it to change the subject from what they have not done in Washington, D.C. or what they have done in killing HMO reform, in killing tobacco legislation, in attacking the Social Security trust fund, and what they have not done for education and what they have not done for average working families. Shame on the Republican Party.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is in a big hurry to go home and spend the piles of campaign cash that they have raked in from special interests as a reward for all the legislation they have killed in this Congress. First they killed campaign finance reform, essential if they could rake in the money and spend it. They killed tobacco legislation. A lot of money coming there. And then they killed, outrageously, patients' rights, something that millions of Americans are demanding, are being oppressed by HMOs, they killed that. Guess what? A lot of money coming in from the insurance industry. Then a couple of environmental laws, the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and others. Yes, they are in a big hurry to go home. It is a lot of work killing legislation that would benefit millions of Americans, at the behest of a few wealthy special interests, while pretending to serve the majority of people in this country. They are in such a hurry after 107 days of work. As of today the average American has worked 200 days. Congress has worked 107. They have not got their job done. Now they want to pass legislation funding the majority of Federal programs and not allow Members of Congress time to read it. They say it is so essential we get done and we get home. Why? Why can we not have one or two extra days to read the thousands of pages of legislation they are about to try and jam down our throats? I think it is going to be because of what is in there, all sorts of special pork. We know they are going to stuff it full of pork, and what is not in there? There is not going to be funding, if they have their way, for education. They are not going to fulfill the President's program on school construction, new teachers, smaller class sizes. There is not going to be patient protection. There is not going to be a summer youth program. There is not even going to be low-income heating assistance for senior citizens. No, that is right. They do not want us to read it. They do not want us to debate it. They want to jam it down, go home and then start running all their ads with the huge amount of money they have raked in from the few special interests they represent.