Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief and this will wind up our debate on this. I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from Massachusetts has said, because I think it is an extremely important point. If this is ruled against us, this will become another precedent for the House slipping a very important decision under the carpet, avoiding a vote, and doing something that I think the people want to know about, need to know about, and need to be included in, in terms of the debate. I think raising the debt ceiling is a very important and necessary thing. I know that we have all had the experience of putting things on credit cards. When you get the bill, it sometimes is a surprise and you have got to reorder your priorities to pay the bill. This is a case where the national credit card has been used, and now we are not even considering whether to pay the bill, we are just considering whether to call the credit card company and raise the limit on the card. If we can slip that in without a vote and a discussion, the next thing, we will be able to declare war by putting it in a rule and not having to vote on it, or some other major act of this government. I plead with the chairman, I plead with the majority to allow us to vote for a 1-month increase in the debt ceiling, let us get a bipartisan budget that is good for our troops, good for our war against terrorism and good for these great United States of America.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Chairman giving me the opportunity to explain my position on this amendment and on this point of order. This bill is being considered under a rule that does not include language on the full faith and credit of the United States until the Committee rises, and then the language comes into the bill at a point too late for this body to consider that language or amendments to that language. We think that it is in order and should be in order to make an amendment to that language, and we feel it so strongly because we know and believe that if that language persists in the bill, it will be used in a conference to bring about language lifting the debt ceiling, in other words, raising the debt limit for the United States, raising our credit card limit, which will come back in a conference report and be a fait accompli. This is an important moment in the economic history of this country. We worked our way out of debt over a long period of time in the 1990s in a bipartisan way. The gentleman from Tennessee's comments were well taken. It was bipartisan. After the 1993 budget, we passed a budget in 1997 and worked our way out of debt, in fact, to the point where a year ago we were talking about surpluses. My friends on the other side of the aisle a year ago insisted on a tax cut, half of which went to the wealthiest people in the country. We can argue it till the cows come home about that tax cut, but that tax cut, in our view, now constitutes at least half of the cause of the reason that we lost the surplus, and we now face huge deficits for as far as the eye can see. I can certainly understand my colleagues' position. I do not agree with it on cutting taxes to that extent, but I understand that they wanted to do that. I understand that they wanted to articulate that to the American people, but when it comes time to pay the bill for that tax cut, they do not want to be seen. They do not want to have a vote. They do not want to have a discussion. The reason it is important is that in effect what we are doing is we are raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds in order to pay for a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Let us be straight about it. So you bet we want a debate. This is an important moment. I would vote for an increase in the debt ceiling to get us another month of time. I realize we cannot fail to have an increase in the debt ceiling; I know that. When I was in the majority, I worked hard with these Members to get them to vote to increase the debt ceiling, and it was hard to do, but we did it because we have to do it. Of course, we have to do that, but what I want more than that is about a month on the debt ceiling so we can get to what we ought to be doing, and that is, having a budget summit, a budget conference, a budget meeting, with you and the administration and the Senate to come up with a new budget. You can bet that every family who lost someone on 9/11 has had a budget meeting in their household. They have sat around the kitchen table working on a new budget for their family. Our American family had a tragedy on 9/11 that we are trying to respond to here today, and in all common sense, we should be sitting at a table with trust and respect for one another's viewpoint and adjust our budget for the change in circumstances that our country faces. When you did the tax cut, we did not know about 9/11. We did not have a war going on in Afghanistan. We did not have all of these needs for homeland defense and homeland security. In the name of common sense, let us pass a debt ceiling today for one month. Let us sit down and have a budget summit. Let us find a budget that will save Social Security and Medicare. We are going to have the baby boomers coming in about 8 years to get their Social Security benefits. How in God's name are we going to take care of them if we have not adjusted the budget? Now is the time to do it. I ask the chairman of this committee to allow this amendment, let us put in some new language on debt ceiling. Let us get to a budget summit for the American people. Let us save Social Security. Let us do what is right for the American people at this time of peril. Point of Order

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge Members to vote ``no'' against this rule. Over 1 year ago, Republicans passed an economic plan. They said at the time that their plan would generate economic growth, protect the surplus that we built up in the 1990s, and safeguard Social Security. Republicans enacted a giant tax bill for the wealthy, while promising that there would be enough room in the budget for Social Security, education, Medicare prescription drugs, and the defense of the United States of America. Today, Republicans are making it clear that they are refusing to confront the consequences of their economic plan. This rule is an outrage. It places full faith and credit language in the bill to avoid a desperate request by the President's Secretary of the Treasury to bail the administration out of the economic folly of their own making. It hides the fact that Republicans took a record surplus, turned it into a huge and mounting deficit, and put Social Security in jeopardy. It makes a mockery of the Republican rhetoric to safeguard the trust fund. It makes a mockery of the Republican votes to create a lockbox. It ignores and it weakens our intergenerational contract and commitment in the 21st century. Instead, Republicans refuse to work with Democrats. They deny debate on a plan the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) sought to offer. That plan provides a way out of spending the Social Security surplus. It puts Social Security first, not last. It is sensible. It is responsible. It is the right thing to do for the American people. Republicans did not give it one second of time on this floor today. They are silencing the voices of the American people on the future of Social Security. Now is not the time to give the Federal Government carte blanche to run up the debt. Our economic future is at stake. People's retirement security is on the line. We ought to be talking today about a 1-month extension of the debt limit. We ought to be coming back here in the next month to talk about how to fix this problem. We ought to have a budget summit between the President and the bipartisan Congress to find out how we can write a budget that is in tune with the changed circumstances that we have faced since September 11. We need to bring both parties and the President to the table, and we need the parties to work together. We need communication. We need collaboration to put our fiscal house back in order, to save Social Security first and today. The American people deserve a comprehensive, fair debate on Social Security. So I hope Members will vote ``no'' on this rule, and I hope Members in both parties would decide to vote ``no'' on this rule. I can tell you that every family who lost somebody on September 11 has been around the dining room table trying to figure out a new budget because of their changed circumstances. Well, America had a tragedy on September 11, and, as a family, we ought to be sitting around the table in respect and honesty to work out a new budget for this country. We cannot do that through gag rules that silence the voices of the American people on this side of the aisle. Vote ``no'' against this rule.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, May 3, 2002 was a sad day for the City of St. Louis and for our entire community. On that day, St. Louis Firefighters Robert Morrison and Derek Martin were killed, fighting a fire in the performance of their duty. Although neither thought of himself as a hero, Firefighters Morrison and Martin, both 38 years old, were heroes in the truest sense of the word. They risked their lives every day to protect the citizens of St. Louis, and considered that they were just doing their jobs. They didn't become firefighters for the money or to become famous. They joined the Fire Department out of a sense of duty to their community and a desire to help others. Their belief in duty and honor and self-sacrifice formed their lives, and was reflected in the way they conducted themselves on and off the job. Mr. Speaker, the loss of these fine young men is a great tragedy. Their wives have lost their loving companionship; their children have lost the love, guidance and example of very special men. The entire St. Louis Community grieves with these families. Firefighters Robert Morrison and Derek Martin have left a legacy of decency and bravery that won't be soon forgotten, and we are grateful to have had them among us.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Make no mistake about it, Democrats are in strong support of providing much-needed and deserved resources for our men and women in uniform in a time of war; and we stand with the President in the war against terrorism, which this legislation will allow us to wage more effectively in the year ahead. There are a number of very important issues that deserve and need to be debated as we move our military into a new era. Republicans are using this bill to undermine the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty, and the Wilderness Act. They refuse to accept input from the States, local communities, environmentalists, even the committee of jurisdiction over these environmental issues, the Committee on Resources, before action was taken on this bill. They are eroding environmental protections in a way that is completely inappropriate and unnecessary. There are also critical nuclear policies that are being excluded from this debate like the future of nuclear testing, the direction of our national missile defense program, the funding for our non-proliferation programs in Russia and a host of other issues, including congressional oversight of military tribunals, U.S. policy toward Colombia, and management and oversight of major procurement programs. This is symptomatic of a pattern we have seen in the past months of a majority that wants to close down debate on issues that are critical to the American people. This has become a gag rule House, by a majority that is simply uninterested on the issue of free and fair debate. This Republican leadership shuts down debate on our alternative amendments in the pension reform bill. Just a few weeks ago, they refused to make our amendments in order on the budget debate and they did not make the Moore substitute in order either in that debate; and months ago this leadership denied a responsible debate on campaign finance reform. They wanted to break the bill into pieces in an effort to sink it. So they forced the House to use a discharge petition just to get the bill on the floor with a fair process. Then with the debt ceiling, the word is that we will not have a free and fair debate about how to deal with the misguided Republican economic program that was passed last year. Republicans are talking about tacking that bill on the supplemental appropriation. Again, let us not have a debate, let us not even have a questioning, let us not have a free discussion of issues that affect Americans in their everyday lives. I think this rule is an abomination. In the days before this, we always had pretty much an open rule on defense bills. There were times in the past that we have taken a week to consider a defense bill, and we allowed Republican and Democratic amendments alike. Let me tell my colleagues that these are important issues that people care about out in the country. This House is being run with gag rules day in and day out. It must end. Vote against the previous question; vote against this rule. Let us let America into its own defense policy.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a vote against the Yucca Mountain approval resolution. I hope this resolution will be turned down. I commend the courageous people fighting against it, lead by the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) and Dario Herrera. I am sorry that the Bush administration went back on its word approving this untested, dangerous measure. Whether or not to allow storage and transportation of waste is a decision with important consequences for people in my district and across America. It is a fact that scientists are still debating whether Yucca Mountain is safe. The General Accounting Office a few months ago said that storing waste at Yucca could infect water supplies and release deadly toxins into the surrounding air. It cited 293 scientific questions for which the Federal Government has no answers. Even if we begin shipping this waste today, we will still have nuclear waste stored all over this country decades from now. But my biggest concern is that it makes no sense to have all of this material traveling across the country by truck and rail. We have seen just in the last month a number of tragic rail accidents. Even the Energy Department says that inevitably there will be derailments of trains headed to Yucca Mountain. I had a train derailment in my district a year ago in Webster Groves, Missouri, where a whole train turned over. Luckily, it was only coal; but it was coal that was spilled a few feet from homes and schools in Webster Groves, Missouri. The people in Webster Groves in the days since then have said to me, what if it had not been coal, but nuclear waste? We have no plan, we have no resources, we have no training for dealing with such a derailment in St. Louis. We have only one hospital bed in the entire metropolitan area to treat severe radiation exposure. This is not a question about isolating the risks. Yucca Mountain, in reality, simply spreads it around. I know there is no perfect solution, but we can begin now to invest in better ways to store waste at the sites we currently use. Authorities in Pennsylvania have an approach that puts an emphasis on technology and innovation, an approach that avoids having to cart and haul this waste all the way across the United States. It puts the waste in reinforced facilities. It benefits people in Pennsylvania, and it benefits all Americans. I simply think, in conclusion, that science and logic is on the side of leaving this hazardous material on site until we find a better solution. I hope Yucca Mountain will be rejected.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, with this resolution today the House of Representatives is standing in solidarity with the people of Israel and for peace in the Middle East. We are defending a people, a democracy, and a friend that shares our commitment to the universal values cherished by all human beings in the world. Since 1948, America has stood with Israel when Harry Truman rejected the advice of his staff and formally recognized Israel as a sovereign nation. Since that time Israel's strength and America's leadership have been essential in advancing these goals. We cannot stand on the sidelines as Israel's security and the prospect of peace are undermined. We must not waiver in our commitment to those, Arab and Israeli alike, who have chosen the path of peace. A few months ago I visited the Middle East and saw firsthand that Israel is in a moment of great danger. Over the past several months Israel has endured terrorist attacks unrelenting in frequency and severity. In the past 18 months, more than 450 Israelis have been killed and over 4,000 have been wounded in attacks. For a country the size of Israel, these numbers are staggering. Proportionally, this equates to more than 21,000 American deaths and over 200,000 American injuries. Yet the Israeli people remain strong, and they remain determined to increase their security and pursue a lasting peace in the region. The American people are also committed to these goals: first, to preserve and strengthen Israel's security; second, to help Israel and its neighbors end the violence and the threats posed by terrorism; third, to resume a dialogue among those committed to a just and lasting peace for all. This is not an issue that politics should infect. What is important here is that Americans stand together and be bipartisan, and that the administration and the Congress speak with one voice as much as humanly possible on this issue. We must continue to lead efforts to bring about peace in the Middle East. We are committed to the vision of two independent states living side by side in peace, security and prosperity. We seek a resolution of the conflict between Israel and all of its neighbors. We recognize the humanitarian needs of all people in the region, and we support efforts to address these needs. This is an important issue for the security of every human being in America, everybody in the Middle East and maybe everybody in the world. With this resolution we will stand by Israel, we will stand for peace, and we will stand for a future that brings peace and prosperity to all of the people of the Middle East.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this motion. There have been some intimation here that this is a political debate. This is not a political debate. It is about people putting food on their table for their family and their children. Last week in conference, House Republicans blocked a proposal to restore Food Stamps to legal immigrants. It is a proposal that has the support of House Democrats, the Senate, and the Bush administration. It benefits over 350,000 people. It helps keep people from starving until they can put food on their table on their own, and it provides a safety net for those less fortunate and need assistance. House Republicans sought to block it, and block it they did. This is a responsible proposal, and it is simply the right thing to do. Legal immigrants who work hard, live by the rules, pay taxes, even serve in our Armed Forces deserve access to Food Stamps. Equal treatment, fair treatment, we should be promoting these values. But instead of supporting policies that embody these values, Republican House leaders prefer to dole out subsidies to corporate farms. In this debate, that is their priority. In this debate, this is what they decided to do. It is bad policy and it is wrong to send people a message that responsibility is a value that we are going to ignore. Legal immigrants have not had access to Food Stamps in the past 5 years. In the past 5 years, children have gone hungry as a result. This Congress should not end until we have taken action to restore Food Stamps to legal immigrants. We should reward the value of hard work. We should reward immigrant families who strengthen our economy and our cultural life. Let us restore Food Stamps. Let us get the job done this year. Vote ``yes'' on the Baca motion.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for the motion to recommit and, if that fails, against this legislation. Last year, the Republicans passed their economic plan. Due to their plan, we lost $4 trillion in surplus in about 15 months. We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth. We lost the chance to promote opportunity in people's lives. And, most importantly, we lost the chance to pay down the debt and be ready to stabilize and take care of Social Security for the baby boomers. But, worst of all, the plan was dishonest. When you presented the plan, you could have gone ahead and not had a sunset in the plan and made the tax cut go out into the future, which is what you are trying to do today. I believe you did that because you wanted to mislead the American people and the Congress on what was actually happening. You had another chance when you presented your budget a few weeks ago to say that the tax cut should not have a sunset, that it should go out into the future. Once again, you did not do it. You did not do it because we are already back into the Social Security trust funds spending those dollars for current revenue needs. We are already back into the Social Security trust fund spending those dollars for current needs. We passed in this House five times a lockbox that said we would never spend the Social Security funds. Majority Whip DeLay vowed the people's hard-earned money would be saved so they can enjoy their well-deserved retirement. Majority Leader Armey vowed that the House is not going to go back to raiding Social Security and Medicare. In 2001, Chairman Nussle vowed that this Congress will protect 100 percent of the trust funds. Period. No speculation. No supposition. No projections. I think that everybody here probably voted at least once for the lockbox. Well, if you vote for this bill today, you are throwing the lockbox on the ground, breaking it open and taking all the money out of it finally. This is the definitive vote in this Congress on whether you want the economic plan to be permanent or whether you want to save Social Security, stabilize Social Security and ensure that it will always be there for every citizen. In truth, the bill that we ought to have in front of us today is not this bill. The bill we ought to have in front of us is how to make certain that Social Security will not be privatized, that it will not be raided, that it will always be there for everybody in the future. The Republicans have a plan of privatization. We think it leads to cuts in benefits and raising the retirement age. You do not want to bring it up this year because you do not want it to be an issue in the election. But mark my words, it is going to be an issue in the election, and the issue is, who is for Social Security and who is against it? Who is for saving Social Security and who is for reducing it? Who is for making it stable and who is for tearing it apart? The lockbox is broken open. This is the definitive vote of this Congress, not on taxes. That has been decided. The issue is, what is going to happen to Social Security? I urge Members to vote ``no'' against this bill. Vote for the motion to recommit. Save Social Security and Medicare. Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this rule. The rule is unfair. It does not allow an adequate debate on the most important issue we will decide on the floor of this House this year. It is a travesty that we have 3 hours to talk about the most important set of decisions we will make perhaps in a generation. We should be talking about a different budget today. The budget should be based on values, on opportunity, responsibility and community. But this Republican budget, which is the only thing we are able to consider today, fails on all counts. It is not honest. It shows deficits as far as the eye can see, in large part because of the Republican economic program that we passed about 9 months ago. First of all, we have squandered the surplus, squandered the surplus, $4.5 trillion, gone in the flash of an eye. Gone. $4.5 trillion, gone in the flash of an eye. Twelve months ago we had it; now it is gone. Of course, the loss of that surplus means that we cannot fulfill our promise to the lockbox. Five times in this House 220-plus Members of the Republican Party voted solidly for the lockbox. By voting today for this budget, they are breaking into the lockbox. We are not keeping our word. Let us look at the words. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) declared the House of Representatives is not going to go back to raiding the lockbox. He said, ``Not a dime's worth of Social Security or Medicare money will be spent on anything other than Social Security and Medicare.'' The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the distinguished chair of the committee, said, ``This Congress will protect 100 percent of Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Period. No speculation. No supposition. No projections.'' These are words that mean something. They are being broken. The Speaker of the House in the same month said, ``Since I have been Speaker, we have not spent a penny of the Social Security Trust Fund, and,'' he said, ``we don't intend to.'' Promises are being broken. The contract is being broken. The word, our collective word, is being broken by what we are trying to do here today with this budget. $1.8 trillion will be spent from Social Security in the next 10 years with this budget. We do not even have time to talk about it, to debate it, to worry about it. We said a number of years ago, let us put Social Security first. This budget puts Social Security last. We are in essence taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund and we are spending it on everything else. It is last. That is not what we said to the American people. Then there is prescription drugs. Oh, we all ran ads on prescription drugs. Oh, we are going to take care of prescription drugs. Where are the prescription drugs in this bill? The program that is described in this Republican budget is paltry. It does not affect most of the senior citizens who thought they were going to get something out of this program, because, once again, I guess it is prescription drugs last in Medicare. We are going to put it behind everything else. Let me just finally say this: I guess my greatest worry is that we are doing this without anybody in the country much knowing about it. How many people in the country actually know what happened to Social Security in this budget? It is 3 hours, I fear, because we do not want them to know what is happening to their Social Security. This bill has real live consequences for people, millions of people all over this country. Let me just tell you my story as kind of a symbol or an analogy of what is happening to lots of other people. My mother called me a week ago and she said, ``I bounced some checks.'' She is 94-years-old and she still keeps her own checkbook. She lives in independent living in St. Louis. She said, ``I bounced some checks. It is the first time I have ever done it in my life. Please, when you come home next, sit down with me. We have to figure this out.'' So I sat down with her and we went over all of her checks. She lives in independent living. The cost is $2,500 a month. She has got a prescription drug bill of about $600 over that. So her monthly outgo before she gets to spending money is about $3,100 a month. Her Social Security is $1,200 a month. My brother and I, we are lucky. We are fine and we can help her with the difference. But as we were going over her checks, she kept saying to me, ``Dick, what if the Social Security check were to stop coming? How would we do this?'' She even suggested to me, ``Maybe I ought to move out of this place because we cannot afford it,'' because her prescription drug bill has been going up every month. She is 94. She and millions like her and their families should not have to be worrying about all this. What if she were in a family that did not have people like my brother and me who could help her? We are fortunate. What if she did not have that money coming in to take care of her prescription drugs, to pay her monthly bills? This budget has real live consequences for the people that we represent. Are we going to privatize Social Security? Are we going to cut the benefits? Because that is the logical conclusion of this budget. The President has said he wants to privatize it, which means you have got to come up with a lot of money that is not in this budget. The only way you are going to get it is to cut the benefits. Is that what we are saying to the American people today? I hope it is not. This is the most important budget that you will vote on probably in your time in this Congress. A year ago we had surpluses; today we are breaking the lockbox. A year ago we had taken care of Social Security first; this budget puts Social Security last. A year ago we had the money for prescription drugs; today we are not going to have a decent prescription drug program. It is a travesty that we have 3 hours to talk about the most important fiscal decisions that will have consequences in everybody's life in this country. I urge Members to vote no on a ridiculous rule and vote no if we have to vote on this budget today. Let us get to a summit. Let us get to a discussion. Let us get to a family discussion with the President. Let us work out a budget for America that is a real compromise, that will keep the word and the promise of the United States Congress to the people of this country.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a debate about the budget and Social Security. Tomorrow Republicans mark up their budget in committee. Next week they put it on the floor for consideration. Their budget will reveal the following facts: Republicans spent $4 trillion in surplus funds. They created deficits as far as the eye can see. They drained $2 trillion from Social Security, breaking promises made repeatedly to safeguard these funds. Their policies reversed 8 years of progress. Their budgets brought a historic reversal that impacts people's lives. Fifteen months ago, unemployment was under 4 percent. We were having serious discussions about what we were going to do with this huge and mounting surplus. How much should we save for Social Security? How much should we put into Medicare? How much should we invest in a prescription drug program? Should we put more money in education? Should we pay down more debt? And there were many who said that we could do all of it because the surplus was so enormous. So where are we today, March 12, 2002? We are not discussing what to do with the surplus. The surplus is just about gone. Today we are having that tired, troubled discussion we had for much of the last 20 years: What are we going to do about the deficit? How are we going to save Social Security? What are we going to do to save Medicare? And how are we going to take care of health insurance for the unemployed? This is a Republican budget that breaks promises made over and over in the last 3 years to protect Social Security. It fails to keep our inter-generational contract and commitment. It threatens the retirement security of millions of baby boomers. In the aftermath of Enron, it is the height of irresponsibility. Five times, Republicans put bills on this floor to create Social Security lock boxes. They voted five times to make the trust fund for Social Security inviolate. They voted five times to save Social Security first. Yet, they put forward a budget that jeopardizes Social Security just as the baby boomers are about to retire. Their budget spends the Medicare surplus in each of the next 10 years. It makes a meaningful Medicare prescription drug program impossible. It reduces our commitment to public education, and it cuts programs promoting clean air and water that makes a difference in children's lives. This is not a debate in the end about the budget. It is a debate about integrity, and it is a debate about responsibility. It is a debate about the values we want guiding our budget decisions. What are our values? In this budget, our values call for keeping our commitments by saving Social Security first. Our values call for adding a real prescription benefit to Medicare, where it belongs. Our values call for making every public school a great and successful public school. Our values call for paying the Federal debt down. Our values call for cutting taxes in order to promote long-term economic growth and opportunity. I will never forget 1993. We balanced the budget. We made tough choices because we believed in opportunity, responsibility, and community. We put that plan together using the right values. So I urge Republicans, let us pass a budget that invests in national security, homeland defense, education, prescription drugs and our environment, and keeps Social Security sound and puts the Nation back on the path to fiscal health. Let us have an economic growth summit to reach the goals we all share. Let us get about keeping our commitments. Let us get about saving Social Security first and doing it beginning today.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge a full and fair debate on Social Security. Three months ago, the President's commission issued a report. It called for sweeping changes to the Social Security system. It called for the creation of private accounts. It called for three plans to meet these goals. Then last week, in a speech to the Cato Institute, the majority leader urged a debate on this issue. He urged us to reform Social Security. He urged us to privatize Social Security. And the President of the United States argued the same in speeches also delivered last week. Yet in Congress, Republicans are refusing to have that full and fair debate on their schemes of privatization. Do they have something to hide? We hear that soon we are going to get a proposal to send certificates out to seniors, at a cost of $14 million, that tells them that if you are over the age of 62, your benefits will never be cut. The first question is, What if you are under 62? What should they assume? We are also told that CRS and other agencies have said that there is no legal effect to this document. It is not anything that anybody can rely on. Jo Anne Barnhart, the Social Security commissioner, suggests that the plan would drain millions of dollars from the administration's fund and alarm seniors who did not get their certificates. I could not agree with her more. The certificate idea is a political exercise that will squander taxpayer time and taxpayer money. It will create confusion. And it is an insult to seniors who put their faith and trust in Social Security. We do not need a secret plan on Social Security. We do not want people to go into the voting booth and elect candidates next fall who say, ``Oh, I'm going to guarantee your Social Security benefits,'' and then turn around the day after the election and cut their benefits in some scheme of privatization. I am not afraid to stand on this floor and fight for my beliefs. I say to my Republican colleagues, in the words of the old hymn, ``be not afraid.'' That hymn says that if you believe in something and you care about it, you ought to go ahead without fear. I want a debate on this issue before the election, not after the election. If Republicans fail to put Social Security on the floor, I intend to mount a discharge petition to bring up the Presidential commission's plans so that we can have a full and free debate, the House of Representatives at its best. I think it is essential. Social Security is at the heart of our retirement security system. Thanks to Social Security, millions of Americans avoid poverty. They have lived their lives free from fear. People with disabilities and surviving family members have put food on the table because of Social Security. They have roofs over their heads. For 67 years, Social Security has been there for the people of this country when they have needed it. My mother is 94 years old. She lives in an independent-living facility in St. Louis, and about half the costs of that facility every month come from her Social Security. You better believe she cares about Social Security. And you better believe I care about Social Security. And you better believe that millions of Americans care about Social Security. And you better believe that there are millions of people out there who care about Social Security and are concerned and rightly concerned about secret Republican plans to wait until after the election to put forward plans that will cut their benefits. We are not talking about an academic exercise here. We are talking about people's lives and what happens to them every month. We are talking about the biggest changes in the program that the President has proposed in the history of the program. We are talking about a sea change in the way this program works. The Republican Party has always sought to weaken Social Security. In 1935, they voted against it. In 1964, they wanted to make it voluntary. And in 1994, Representative Armey appeared on national television admitting that ``I would never have created Social Security.'' Today, the Republican slogan seems to be, ``Save Social Security last, not first.'' In today's New York Times, Paul Krugman is dead on. His argument is that Social Security has never been a simple pension fund. It really, he says, is a social contract. Each generation pays taxes that support the previous generation's retirement and expects to receive the same treatment from the next generation. Republicans propose to allow younger workers to place their payroll taxes in private accounts, in effect to break this ongoing contract, in Krugman's words. He says, we are left with two options: make room for the trillions diverted into private accounts by slashing baby boomer benefits, or use money from other, unidentified sources to replace the diverted funds. The Republican plan makes promises that sound too good to be true, because they are too good to be true. According to Krugman, private accounts will create a financing crisis requiring sharp benefit cuts or large infusions of money from unspecified sources, or both. Republicans say privatization will not cost a dime. The Social Security actuaries say it will drain $20 trillion from the budget. Republicans say privatization will strengthen people's retirement security. Tell that to the employees at Enron. They cannot even pay the cost of health care for their kids. Republicans say that 40 years of neglect have permanently damaged Social Security's financial health, in the words of Majority Leader Armey. Bob Ball, an expert on the subject, calls this statement flat out untrue. Our challenge is to strengthen Social Security into the future. We need to honor our commitments. We need to strengthen the trust funds. We need to save Social Security first. America had a golden opportunity about 15 months ago. Fifteen months ago, we could have passed tax cuts to promote long-term economic growth while paying down the national debt and investing in Social Security for Americans everywhere. Republicans rejected our approach. Today, the President's budget breaks pledges by both parties. Both parties promised to safeguard the trust funds. The President's budget invades them for the next 10 years. It drains $1.5 trillion from the trust funds, and plans proposed by his commission fail to explain how we will pay for privatization. And they will lead to cuts in benefits for seniors, even for individuals opting out of private accounts. This is not a debate about numbers. It is a debate in the end about our values. What is the value we place on Social Security? Our values call for understanding that Social Security will be solvent for the next 36 years, at a minimum. Our values call for recognizing that people have faith and trust and confidence in our most respected program. Our values call for realizing that Social Security offers economic security not just to seniors but to widows, disabled Americans, and children of parents who die before the age of 65. Our values call for keeping our intergenerational contract and commitment in the 21st century. Our values call for keeping our word to the seniors of this country. Our values call for investing in Social Security today, not tearing it down as baby-boomers retire a few years from now. I urge Republicans, be not afraid. Let us get about having a real debate before the voters speak in November of this year. Let us get about the task of saving Social Security first and today. Breaking the Contract (By Paul Krugman) If converting Social Security to a system of private retirement accounts is such a good idea, why can't advocates of that conversion try, just once, to make their case without insisting that 1+1=4? Last week George W. Bush did it again, contrasting Social Security benefits with what retiring workers would have if they had invested all the Social Security taxes in the stock market instead. As an article in The Times pointed out, this was a misleading scenario even on its own terms; financial planners strongly advise against investing solely in stocks, and a diversified retirement account wouldn't have risen nearly as much in the 1990's bull market. But there's something much more serious wrong with Mr. Bush's story. Indeed, the latest remarks perfectly illustrate how he uses bogus comparisons to make private accounts sound like a much better idea than they really are. For by emphasizing what today's 65-year-olds could have done if they hadn't paid Social Security taxes, Mr. Bush has forgotten something rather important. Without those taxes, who would have paid for their parents' benefits? The point is that when touting its plan to privatize Social Security, the Bush administration conveniently fails to mention the system's existing obligations, the debt it owes to older Americans. As with so many other administration proposals, private accounts are being sold with deceptive advertising. The truth--which Mr. Bush's economists understand perfectly well--is that Social Security has never been run like a simple pension fund. It's really a social contract: each generation pays taxes that support the previous generation's retirement, and expects to receive the same treatment from the next generation. You may believe that Franklin Roosevelt should never have created this system in the first place. I disagree, but in any case Social Security exists, and older Americans have upheld their end of the bargain. In particular, baby boomers have spent their working years paying quite high payroll taxes, which were used mainly to support their elders, and only secondarily to help Social Security build up a financial reserve. And they expect to be supported in their turn. Mr. Bush proposes to allow younger workers to place their payroll taxes in private accounts--in effect, to break this ongoing contract. But then what happens to older workers, who have already paid their dues? There are only two possibilities. One is default: make room for the trillions diverted into private accounts by slashing the baby boomers's benefits. The other is to buy the baby boomers out--that is, to use money from other sources to replace the diverted funds. Those really are the only alternatives. Last year the special commission on reform of Social Security, which was charged with producing a plan for private accounts, came to an ignominious end--it issued a deliberately confusing report, then slunk quietly out of town. But wade through its menu of options, and you'll find that in the end the commission grudgingly rediscovered the obvious: Private accounts won't ``save'' Social Security. On the contrary, they will create a financing crisis, requiring sharp benefit cuts, large infusions of money from unspecified outside sources, or both. But nervous Republican members of Congress want to send all Social Security recipients a letter (at government expense, of course) assuring them that their benefits will never be cut. And now that the magic budget surplus has turned back into a pumpkin, the government is in no position to infuse new money into Social Security--on the contrary, the government at large is now borrowing from Social Security at a furious pace. So why is the Bush administration reviving its push for private accounts right now? Did it really learn nothing from the implosion of the reform commission? I doubt it; the administration's economists aren't fools, though loyalty often requires that they pretend otherwise. A more likely interpretation is that this is entirely cynical. War frenzy is subsiding, the Bush domestic agenda is stalled, and early indications for the November election aren't as good as Karl Rove expected. So it's fantasy time: tantalize the public with visions of sugarplums, then blame Democrats for snatching the goodies away. And it doesn't matter that the numbers don't add up, because the plan will never be tested by reality.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this resolution. I am disappointed that the majority prevented us from offering a bill that would protect Social Security from further raids on the trust fund. This is not a vote about taxes; it is a vote about protecting Social Security. It is about honoring our commitments to the American people who have paid their hard-earned dollars into the Social Security trust fund. It is about ensuring security and retirement for every citizen. The resolution before us has no binding effect. It is an effort to divert attention from Republican mismanagement of the budget. Less than one year after passage of the Republican tax bill, an economic plan, more than $4 trillion of the surplus has miraculously vanished, wiped out, gone, finished; and the Social Security trust fund will be attacked every year for the next 10 years. One might say, what is happening, what is going on? Both parties repeatedly voted to safeguard the trust funds. We voted for lockboxes. We said that they would be inviolate, that they could not be picked. For years we have been promising the American people, the baby boomers, that the trust funds would only be used to strengthen Social Security and pay down the national debt. In fact, the Republican leadership insisted many times on bringing lockbox bills to the floor. Now we know that they were not serious about those bills. They were ploys. They were ruses. And the votes that were taken were not serious, and they were not honest. We have had an historic reversal. Instead of talking about surpluses for as far as the eye can see, now we are again talking about deficits for as far as the eye can see. Instead of shoring up Social Security and Medicare, we are facing a situation where the trust fund will be tapped for other functions of government. Instead of preparing for the baby boomers and their retirement, instead of adding a prescription drug program to Medicare, we are faced with a debate about saving Social Security without resources and how to dig ourselves out of the deficit ditch. The Republican slogan seems to be: Save Social Security last, not first. This resolution has a simple purpose. It is to hide the fact that Republicans are breaking their promises, going back on their commitments. This is an effort to change the subject. The American people should not and will not be fooled by this transparent ploy, and they should be reminded that the problem is that we are operating under a Republican economic policy and Republican budget priorities. We need to invest in people. We need to pass tax cuts that promote long-term economic growth and opportunity, and we need to keep our commitments to the baby boomers who paid their money responsibly into the Social Security Trust Fund. That is our challenge, and that is what the American people want us to do. That is what we need to do this year, and we should do it together, not in a partisan manner. Mr. Speaker, let us get about doing what we need to make the budget whole and to invest in the priorities that the American people want us to be investing in. This resolution is nonsense. Let us get about saving Social Security first.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I second the thoughts of the majority leader, and both Democrats and Republicans will welcome the President here on Tuesday night for the State of the Union.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, as leader of the Democratic Caucus, I have been directed to report to the House that the Democratic Members have selected as their minority whip the gentlewoman from California, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi. As a matter of information to the Members of the House, it is my understanding that this is the highest position to which a woman has been elected in the history of the House of Representatives.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, as I said previously, I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for their hard work on this alternative. They have worked endlessly to put together what they believe to be the right trade policy for our country. I agree with it entirely. I think it is the kind of vision that we need in trade. I think it is the kind of vision that we will ultimately come to in trade, and I urge Members to seriously consider voting for it. The only way we will get these changes made in trade policy is if we have the votes to pass this kind of a motion. So I strongly recommend it to Members. I honor their hard work and scholarship, their seriousness of purpose. It is a remarkable job that they have done, and I urge Members to vote for what I believe to be the right vision on trade for America now and in the future.

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) for a tremendous job in putting together the motion to recommit that we will be talking about in a few moments. They are truly hard workers, and they truly care about a good trade policy for our country. I thank them for the hard work that they did to put this together. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask Members to vote yes on the motion to recommit; and if it does not prevail, I ask Members to vote no on the underlying bill that has been presented here by the Committee on Ways and Means. Let me first say that I would have hoped that we could have been on the floor today with worker relief. We are 11-plus weeks since September 11. We have thousands of workers who have lost their jobs. While we seem to find time for insurance company relief and airline company relief, and now a big trade bill, and lots of appropriation bills, all of which are important and all of which have great support, we cannot seem to find time to take care of the most important thing in front of us. I said last week, I guess it is because we are not unemployed. If one is unemployed, unemployment is the biggest problem. They cannot get health insurance today. They cannot support their families. I talk to unemployed workers every day. Their problems are right now, this week, today. I would hope that we would get relief for them soon. They need it. We have to do it. They deserve it. Rather than taking up every other manner of bill, I hope we would take that up. But let me direct my remarks to the bill from the Committee on Ways and Means and why I think it is ill-advised and why the kind of bill that will be presented on the motion to recommit I think is the right way to go. Let me say that over 20 years now, we have made great progress, in my view, on trade policy in America. Trade policy today is not what it was 20 years ago. There is a good reason for that. In trade negotiations, 20 years ago the only thing that was ever really considered were tariffs. It was a matter of trying to get down high protective tariffs all over the world so that trade would take place between countries. Today, we have moved way down the road and the issues are not just tariffs, the issues are really about compatibility: how do we get intellectual property laws in countries to be properly enforced; how do we get capital laws to be enforced. What we have brought to the table and tried to get on the table is the question of whether or not labor laws, human rights laws, environmental laws, health and safety laws, should be just as much a part of trade negotiations as intellectual property laws and capital laws. Now, we have made a lot of progress. We had a treaty with Jordan that was recently brought to the Congress that dealt with those matters, to the satisfaction of the Government of Jordan and to the satisfaction of the United States. We now go to another WTO Round. There are lots of other free trade treaties that we want to negotiate, that we should negotiate; but it is vital and important that the full range of issues that should be in those negotiations are on the table in the core text of the treaties. I was at Microsoft last week, and one of the executives at Microsoft said to me, our intellectual property is still being pirated in China. We are not being paid for our Windows software in China. They can buy it on the street corner, pirated copies. You need to do more, he said, to enforce the intellectual property agreements that are in the treaties with the WTO and now China. Labor unions, workers, people concerned about the environment, people worried about health and safety laws have the same feeling about things they care about. At the end of the day, I think what this comes down to is what one worries about. What do Members care about? If they care about getting wages up in countries abroad, if they think trade is a long march to bring about compatibility across the world so that we have real compatibility in countries, if we really worry about having consumption as well as production, if Members believe we have to build economies all over the world from the bottom up so people have enough money in their pocket to really buy things, then they would agree with me that we need to have a little bit different trade policy that I think is suggested in the motion to recommit, and not suggested in the bill the Committee on Ways and Means brought forward. Now, let me end with this. I was in Pueblo, Mexico recently and I met with people in a factory there that went on strike, put together an independent union, something that has not often happened. And they won their strike because the leader of the new independent union, a woman, went to each house of every worker in that plant and got them to support the strike. And they said to me, when I met with them, how great it would have been had we had a provision in a trade treaty with Mexico that they could have used to try to get labor laws in Mexico to be properly enforced so it would have been easier for them to succeed in what they finally succeeded in. One of the first times that it has happened. I think we need to help people like that in our own self-interest and in the interest of our economy. Trade is a critical issue going forward for this country. I agree with a lot of the statements that have been made on the other side of the aisle. We are the leader, we are the one that needs to bring trade policies to the world. But in order to do it correctly we have to insist that all the right issues be on the table. And that is what this debate is about. I urge Members to vote yes on the motion to recommit. I urge Members to vote no if that motion to recommit does not succeed. We can come back here, I am confident if we turn down this ill-advised bill, and we can reach a bipartisan consensus on a trade bill that should get 400 votes on the floor of this House of Representatives. Let us do that and do it very soon.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote no on the previous question so an amendment can be offered to include worker relief in the base bill. It had been more than 2 months when we passed the bill to help the airlines, since the Speaker promised to bring up a bill soon to address the critical issue of worker relief. It has been now more than 2 months. We have taken up all kinds of appropriation bills. We have taken up all kinds of other legislation. We have dealt in two instances with the airline industry, all of which we needed to do, and I am not opposed to the basic idea of doing something about insurance and the real estate industry. I understand the problems that the committees tried to deal with, and I am sympathetic with trying to do something about it. I am opposed to some of the matters that got freighted on to this bill, and so I am going to vote, if this bill survives the process, because of what has been put in it with regard to civil justice system. The basic idea of dealing with the insurance industry is a sound idea. What I am unwilling to do and I think a lot of us are unwilling to do is to take up one more bill to deal with one more industry without finally dealing with the most important problem that faces us as a country today, and that is the thousands of people that have become unemployed in America who have no income, no health insurance, and no ability to deal with the problems they now face. I have thought a lot about it. Why are we constantly dealing with other matters before we deal with the most important matter in front of us? I have finally come to the conclusion that it is a result of the fact that we personally are not facing these problems. We intellectually know that people out there are hurting, but I guess we are not hurting. We are all employed. We all have health insurance. We just do not get it. I was asked recently how the people in St. Louis, who I represent, were dealing with the anthrax attacks here in Washington, and I have talked obviously with my constituents a lot about what was happening here in Washington with anthrax, and they understood it intellectually, but they did not understand it the way I understood it. The analogy I have used is, it is one thing to have your aunt or uncle diagnosed with cancer. It is another thing when you are diagnosed with cancer. It takes on a new meaning. We have thousands of people in this country who have no unemployment insurance, and they are unemployed. Probably today about 40 percent of the unemployed do not even qualify for unemployment insurance because of the changes that have been made in the laws across the country in the last years. And none of them have the money, even if they get unemployment insurance at 6- or 7- or $500 a month, or $300 a month, none of them can afford their COBRA health insurance, none of them. Just imagine in your own family, if your income had been wiped out, you were not going to get a check at the end of the month, and you lost your health insurance, what happens to your kids? What if your kids get sick? What are you going to do? That is the bill we ought to have on the floor today, and we are unwilling to continue taking up bill after bill, as necessary and as important it may be, until we deal with this single most important issue that faces the American people. Vote no on the previous question. Vote against the rule, and let us come back on this floor today or tomorrow and deal with the most important problem facing this country. We may not understand it because it does not affect us, but I can assure my colleagues it affects thousands of people in districts across this country. Let us come back and do the right thing.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentlewoman. I obviously agree.

Mr. GEPHARDT. I thank the gentlewoman from California for taking this time, this special order, and bringing up this matter that is so important to all Americans. I admire the work that she has done consistently over a long period of time to try to get hate crimes legislation passed here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, last year we came very close to making this bill the law of the land. Bipartisan majorities supported it in both Houses of Congress. We argued that the country needed to take a strong stand against brutal crimes committed against people because of who they are. We said attacks on Americans because of race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender or disability were attacks not just on individuals but assaults against all Americans. We argued that law enforcement agents at all levels should have better tools and resources to find those responsible for these crimes and to see that they were brought to justice. We had heard too many stories of people beaten and brutalized and murdered because of who they were. Matthew Shepherd was tied to a post and left to die by two men because he was gay. James Byrd, Jr. was tied to a truck and dragged through the streets and killed because he was black. Ricky Brydsong was shot dead on the streets of Chicago because he was an African American. Children at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles were fired upon and then the perpetrator went and killed a Filipino American. There are countless other stories of people who have been victimized or assaulted that did not make headlines and went unreported. But in the end, the Republican leadership thwarted the will of the majority and blocked the bill from being enacted. Today, in light of the events of September 11, I believe with all my heart that this law is needed more than ever before. We need to bring this bill up and pass it in order to increase the power of law enforcement officials and send a message to the entire country and to the world that hate crimes in the United States will not be tolerated. We need to demonstrate today that we will not let terrorists with hate in their hearts divide the greatest country in the history of the world. We will not let them turn Americans against one another in the most diverse society on the face of the Earth. We will not let them instill fear of our fellow citizens because of appearances or perceptions or heritage or backgrounds. We must, and I repeat must, pay close attention to divisions breaking out among our citizens in the wake of September 11. We need to avoid the mistakes of our past in targeting certain citizens. We need to remember what happened in World War II to Japanese Americans and to my colleagues and friends, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and Norm Mineta, who were put in camps because of who they were. We need to send a clear message to all that we will never accept or condone violence or hatred against any of our citizens. We need to put a stop to recent attacks on American Muslims and Arab Americans. A Pakistani store owner was shot and killed a few days after September 11 because of who he was. Two girls were beaten at a college in Illinois because they were of Middle Eastern descent. A gas station owner in Arizona was shot and killed in his store because he was a Sikh who was wearing a turban. The attacks must stop. These attacks are un-American. They violate not just the rights of individuals but they are an affront to us all. They are crimes against all of us, and we must strengthen our law enforcement and our society to better deal with these acts. I recall what Abraham Lincoln said during the wrenching challenge of the Civil War: ``Think anew and act anew. Rise with the occasion and then we will save our country.'' I urge my colleagues opposed to this legislation to think anew, to act anew, to bring this bill up and work with us to renew the spirit of tolerance that makes America great. I thank the gentlewoman for holding this special order.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and others on both sides of the aisle who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor and to do the right thing for the American people. Mr. Chairman, the horror of September 11 is forever imprinted in all of our minds. Nineteen hijackers filled with hatred breached airport security. They carried box cutters and knives in their bags. They forced themselves into four cockpits. They rammed these planes into the heart of America. They attacked the greatest military, and they attacked the greatest commercial buildings in the history of the world; and they killed thousands of people in the blink of an eye. The system that allowed that to happen is still failing us today, 7 weeks after that happened. We hear stories about a man who just last week boarded a plane with a gun in his bag. Screeners failed to stop him. We hear stories about people who stuff box cutters into seats and leave them in seats. Screeners fail to stop them. We hear stories about people trying to bring pocketknives on planes and succeeding still today because screeners fail to stop them. Two weeks ago the Federal Aviation Administration gave 20 screeners in one airport a surprise test. Seven failed the test last week. This is police work. The companies that have been doing this have failed the American people. They must, and I repeat, must be accountable for their failure. It is time for them to be accountable. It is time for them to be replaced. The Young bill perpetuates the status quo. The Oberstar-Ganske bill creates a better improved security system. We must put security in the hands of the law enforcement officers. The American people, the brave, decent, wonderful people of this country deserve law enforcement in the airports. Federal law enforcement patrols the shores of the United States. They guard our borders. They track terrorists down. They are standing right now outside this Chamber protecting us and the people in this building. They protect the symbol of democracy. I ask all of you, do you want to contract out the Capitol Police? Do you want to contract out the U.S. Marines? Do you want to contract out the FBI and the Customs Service? I do not think so. If it is good enough for us, it is good enough for the American people. And today is the day to take that stand. We have a bill that passed the Senate 100 to nothing. Every Senator, Republican and Democrat, voted for that bill; and we can pass that bill tonight. We can put it on the President's desk later tonight. It can be the law of the United States of America by tomorrow morning. We do not have to have a conference on whether tubas should be considered carry- on luggage. That is in the manager's amendment. We do not have to start worrying about whether to end the liability on the companies that failed us. We do not have to worry about whether the airline executives can have increases in their compensation. We can start buying machines tomorrow to check every bag, to start reinforcing the cockpit doors, putting more marshals on the airplanes. We can increase the competence of our X-ray scanners. This is a night to act in the people's interest. This is not a time for politics as usual. It is a time to do what is simply, obviously right for the American people. A lot of people have said to me, what is going on? Why can you not get the bill done? Well, I think yesterday's Wall Street Journal tells us what is happening. The companies that have the contracts, the lowest bidders do not want to give up the contracts. So they have hired Washington lobbyists to come and lobby the administration and lobby the Congress to try to hold on to their contracts. I do not mind them wanting to hold on to their contracts. But in the name of God, it is time to end those contracts and to do what is right to make people safe. Finally, I urge Members to consider the people who are on the frontlines. I have here a note, every time I have get on an airplane now I get a note from the pilots. This is the note I got 2 weeks ago. And the pilots said, Why can you not get something done to increase our security? Why can you not get these simple, obvious provisions done so that flight attendants and passengers and pilots are not responsible for security? This is the time to act in a totally bipartisan way. I have been inspired by the American people in this crisis. I read a story the other night in the New York Times, the city of Middletown, New Jersey, where 250 or 300 people had been lost in September 11, in the World Trade Center. They quoted a woman who had lost her husband. She had three little kids and she said, before this happened I did not even know my neighbors' names; and she said in the last days, neighbors from all over this region who I had never met and never knew came and brought flowers and brought food and brought notes of sympathy and came and hugged her and held her so she could get through the horror of what she was facing. She said what most helped her was the sense that she, in the end, was not alone. This is a great country. We have great people, and we have to act in their name tonight. We have to do what is right for them. Forget politics, forget the lobbyists, forget contracts and simply stand tonight in a bipartisan way to do what is right for the American people. This is a great country. Let us make it safer than it has ever been. Let us pass the bipartisan Senate bill. Let us make it the law of this great country tonight.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, bring up the aviation security bill, reject the Republican tax cut bill and support the Democratic alternative to strengthen our economy. The Republican tax cut bill is disappointing for two important reasons. First, while it is important to pass legislation to strengthen our economy, it is more pressing today to pass a strong airline security bill to put this responsibility in the hands of Federal law enforcement officers. This is the people's highest priority. Congress and the country should take action on this priority today. Millions of Americans witnessed what happened on September 11. They watched as hijackers with hate in their hearts smashed two planes, full of innocent civilians, into the Twin Towers. They heard about what happened in Pennsylvania and in the Pentagon, and they are resolved that we do as much as we can to make sure that what happened on September 11 never happens again. It has been 6 weeks, 6 weeks, since this happened. We were able to get on the floor in a matter of days with a bill to cap the liability of the airlines. I supported that bill. I thought it needed to be passed quickly. But I also thought that simultaneously we should be passing a bill on airline security and a bill to help the unemployed workers of the airlines that have been partially out of business in the last 6 weeks. It is unexplainable to me that we could be here 6 weeks after this event and not have an airline security bill on this floor long ago. I plead with my friends in the other party to put that bill on the floor today or tomorrow. Let us not leave this week with passengers and flight attendants and pilots worried about security. We have got to do it. I have been on flights to St. Louis. You have discussions going on with people on the plane trying to figure out who is going to be the vigilante committee to take care of security on the plane if something happens. It is unacceptable to leave here this week without doing this bill. I do not know who is going to win. I have my views, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has his views, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) has his views. On the other side, others have different views. I do not know who is going to win. Let us just put it up. Let us see who prevails. Let us let the House work its will. Well, the other issue is what to do about the employees, and I just urge Members to understand that this stimulus bill is the wrong bill with the wrong provisions at the wrong time. People who lost their jobs as a result of September 11 are today worried about two things: one, where are they going to get the money to support their families, to pay their lease or their rent or their mortgage payment? How are they going to afford food and clothing, and how are they going to afford health insurance, which is their great need? This Republican bill does not help them. It does not help them as much as they deserve to be helped. In fact, it does almost nothing for them. It sends money to the States without clear direction of how the money should be spent. It could be used for other things in the unemployment system. And there is not enough to really help people with the greatest need they have, which is COBRA, to be able to continue their health insurance. This bill is a giant tax giveaway to the largest corporations and the wealthiest; it violates the principles to which the bicameral bipartisan budget leaders agreed; and most egregious in my view, is that almost all the assistance goes to the big givers and special interests. It gives 86 percent of the total benefits to special interests that do not need the help. It permanently repeals the alternative minimum tax for corporations. It gives immediate refunds to companies that paid this tax as far back as 1986. That is $21 billion in total refunds and $5.5 billion to eight of the largest corporations in America. Now, we did the airline bill that gave billions of dollars that were needed for the airlines that were on the ground. I guess now we are going to come back and make sure every large corporation in the country gets billions of dollars. It contains a permanent reduction in the capital gains tax to benefit again the top 2 percent of income earners. It accelerates tax rate cuts, but the break does not help 75 percent of the people who pay income taxes. The workers who have lost their jobs get bread crumbs from this bill. This bill gives $9 billion to Governors to spend on unemployment, but CBO estimates that only $1 billion or $2 billion will go to the people who really need the help. The Republican bill is an effort, in my view, to fulfill a wish list of special interests who line up in these halls to lobby for more tax breaks and more tax giveaways. I urge my colleagues to consider our alternative. Our bill reflects the values that we agreed to with our budget leaders a few weeks ago. It puts money in people's pockets quickly, it focuses the help on those who need it most, and it will make a positive difference in the lives of millions of people. What happened 6 weeks ago was the worst thing that has happened in our country in my lifetime, and what has followed every day has been another kick in the teeth to our country and our people. I want us to fight back. I want us to win this fight against terrorism. But we will not win this fight against terrorism if we do not stick together, believe in one another and help all of the people in as equal and fair and equitable fashion as we can. We need our workers who are out of work to be with us every step of the way, with their corporation employers and with their community leaders. We need to be bound together as brothers and sisters in the greatest challenge that this country has ever faced. I just urge Members to understand that this bill is not consistent with that value and that sentiment. I plead with Members to vote for our alternative. Let us help everybody. Let us bring America forward together.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to three brave firefighters from the Mehlville Fire Protection District in St. Louis County. Steve Mossotti, Joe Schmidt and Dave Waser each have, more than 20 years firefighting experience and service to our community and, in addition, are members of the Missouri Urban Search and Rescue Task Force 1. The Task Force consists of highly motivated and expertly trained search, medical, rescue and technical specialists and are utilized as resources to local communities and work directly for the local fire department commanders. Messrs. Mossotti, Schmidt and Waser were part of the first Task Force groups to arrive at ``Ground Zero'' in New York City. They departed Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri shortly before 10 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, as part of the Federal Emergency Management response to the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center. Their acts of heroism over an intense and very dangerous eight-day period at Ground Zero are so impressive that it would be easy to overlook the men behind these acts. They were not fearless but, in spite of fear, acted in a selfless and courageous manner under unimaginable conditions, searching for victims of the attack and for the rescuers who lost their lives in the line of duty. This is the mark of a true hero. These men belong to a very special group, and the memories unique to their experience at Ground Zero will remain with them all their lives. They will never forget those who paid the ultimate price. I pray that we will never forget the profound debt of gratitude we owe to them, and to all who responded by giving their best in this time of the Nation's great need. Their acts of bravery and their commitment to the Nation and to their fellow men exemplify the highest and best tradition of fire and rescue workers everywhere. We owe Steve Mossotti, Joe Schmidt and Dave Waser our most profound gratitude. Now that they are safely home in Missouri, I join the residents of Garden Villas South in paying them special tribute at this ceremony today, Saturday, October 27, 2001. Gentlemen, we as a nation commend you again, and thank you for your selfless courage. You have made us proud.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank my colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), for leading us in a united way to help win this war against terror. I rise to commend all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for their work in the committee on this bill. I am disappointed in the breakdown in bipartisanship that has happened and the breakdown in the real collaboration that I think went on on the committee on this important piece of legislation. I want to say to the Members that I have had the feeling in the last days that we have begun on bills like this one to have real meaningful collaboration and that that is what we are supposed to do here. We are supposed to honestly and rationally meet with one another, communicate with one another, compromise with one another to reach consensus solutions on important problems, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) did exactly that on this committee. But now their work and the work of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and others, which was an alliance that represented compromise, that is the way this Congress has to perform in this moment of national crisis, has been put aside, because someone else wants a different solution. I have no problem with disagreement. What I have a problem with is not honoring honest compromise reached honorably through hard work and effort. I salute the Members who did that, and I wish that we were talking about the bill today that they presented. But it has been upset, and we are prevented now from doing what we ought to be doing; and I am sorry about that. I am honestly depressed and sorry that we are not acting in the highest manner. But I also rise today to say that even that bill, which would have been better, should not be the bill that is on the floor today. Today on this floor we should have a debate and a vote on strengthening aviation security in this country, to federalize screeners and put air marshals on every flight. Last night the Senate passed 100 to 0, 100 to 0, it does not happen very often, 100 to 0, a strong aviation bill to give people maximum security on the ground and in the air. Right now we are seeing vigilante committees set up ad hoc to go after hijackers if it happens on an airplane. Yesterday I read in the newspaper that air travelers are steeling themselves for attacks. They make pacts in their seats to fight hijackers if they should wind up on their flights. One man, 245 pounds, an ex-football player, said, It would be a bad idea for someone to try to hijack a plane when I am on it. I will tell you that, he said. I think the American citizenry as a whole, he said Wednesday, are pretty pumped up about this right now. Well, I applaud vigilance, and I applaud courage, and I believe in the courage of the American people; and I am in awe of the people on the plane who crashed in Pennsylvania who tried to save lives. They died so that others could live. But while we need vigilance, we do not need vigilantes; and that is what we are going to have until we get on with this business of taking care of airport and airline security. As the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) just said, 3 days is all it took us to financially deal with the airlines' problems, and I voted for it and I was for it. But the truth is, at the same time we did that, we should have been dealing with airline and airport security. We need it done professionally. We need trained professional Federal law enforcement officers. That is the bill that we ought to be taking up today. We have got to go home this weekend and face our constituents and give them an answer for why we have not done this. There is no good answer. A minority of the majority is stopping us from taking this up because they do not like the outcome on the bill, just like somebody did not like the outcome on this bill out of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the majority, a nonpartisan majority of this House of Representatives, to work its will in the people's interest. I beg the leadership of this House, bring up airline security today, and bring up the Judiciary-passed bill on anti-terrorism next week.