Dick Gephardt

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I ask the majority leader his timing and a time line on the consideration of the tax bill tonight. The reason I ask is that, as the majority leader knows, a lot of our Members are wanting a time line that they can depend on. A lot of Members have events at home with families and they have plane reservations and they would like to be able to rely on those reservations if it is going to be tomorrow morning. They wanted a time line on when the majority thinks this bill will actually find its way to the floor.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to vote no on this rule and to give every child the first-rate public education that he or she deserves. I believe, and I think most Members believe, that education is the challenge of our time. And after the early promise of a bipartisan accord on education, before getting sidetracked by a partisan tax cut bill, we are on the floor with probably the first truly bipartisan effort of the Bush administration. I congratulate the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) on bringing this truly bipartisan bill to fruition. This, in our view, is real compromise. It is real bipartisan legislation. It is the product of two sides coming together for the sake of something larger. Democrats did not get everything that we wanted. Republicans did not get everything that they wanted. But both sides were able to forge agreement on more accountability, better- trained teachers, high-quality teachers, and after-school programs which we know make schools safer. That is why Democrats are deeply disappointed with the rule that the Republicans have put forward today. This rule prevents us from offering amendments that we believe are critical to an excellent public education in the Information Age. It squelches debate on the most important issue that we know, preventing us from bringing two key amendments; to modernize public schools and help get smaller class sizes for our children. Something clearly happened between the goodwill in committee and bringing this bill to the floor. Instead of building on what was an honest compromise in the committee, the Republican leadership has backed away from the promise of education reform and opening the door to reducing resources for after-school and other critical programs. It has opened the door to undoing school accountability, an issue where the President and all of us on the Democratic side agree. And it is revisiting the flawed voucher scheme that will not turn around failing schools, will leave children behind, and that Members of both parties have rejected. Now, we need to improve public education for children by building new schools and repairing school buildings, something that both Democrats and Republicans have proposed. By ensuring smaller class sizes, by hiring new teachers, by providing new resources, not less, we live up to the true promise of education reform that truly would leave no child behind. We believe with all our hearts that bipartisan amendments on building new schools, on repairing and refurbishing schools and allowing for smaller classroom size would command bipartisan majorities in this House today and next week when we take up this bill. We ask Members to turn down this rule and give us a rule that will yield a real, real bipartisan education bill for the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker: this motion to recommit symbolizes the direction I believe we should be steering U.S. national security policy in the 21st century. Last year, our diplomats made significant progress, negotiating an agreement with North Korea in which it would end its ballistic missile program. Unfortunately, President Bush has backed away from these discussions, publicly telling South Korean President Kim Dae Jung that the North Koreans could not be trusted. Meanwhile, the administration is proceeding full speed ahead with plans for a costly missile defense system, whose initial purpose is to defend against ballistic missiles from North Korea. These actions and others strongly suggest that the Bush administration is taking us down the wrong path: toward a policy of isolationism, unilateralism, and disengagement that jeopardizes our security and undermines our leadership role in the world. We must resist this direction. Instead, we should convince the Administration that there is a better way to serve our interests and enhance the security of our citizens. We must choose leadership over isolation. We must work to shape the international security environment rather than simply insulate ourselves from it by relying excessively on a defensive shield. We should choose cooperation over unilateralism, and collaborate with our allies like South Korea, not alienate them. Finally, we should choose engagement over disengagement, and pursue verifiable agreements like the one with North Korea that can eliminate real threats to our security. By adopting this motion, we will demonstrate our commitment to reducing threats to the United States, at their source, before they spread to other unfriendly nations or are launched against us. And we will indicate that we want our foreign and defense policies to go in the direction of preserving America's security through leadership, engagement and cooperation.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and against the Republican tax bill which I think is fiscally irresponsible and the wrong plan for America. Republicans in the last days are so committed to this massive tax cut for the wealthiest special interests that they are even suggesting that cutting taxes is a substitute for a real energy policy in our country. This is a full-service operation. To sell a tax plan, they are willing to use any argument that is available to try to convince the country that the tax plan is the right thing to do. First, it was the economy that was in trouble. That is why we needed the tax plan. Now it is the energy problem that causes the need for the tax plan. I fully expect it is going to be suggested as the cure for the common cold. We should be voting today, rather than on this plan, for immediate relief from soaring electricity prices. We should be directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do something now to give people in California relief. This tax bill will not give the ordinary citizens in California, in Oregon, in Washington, and through the rest of the country that are facing huge increases in energy prices any reasonable relief. If milk prices in California had gone up the way energy prices have gone up in California, a gallon of milk in California today would be $190, for a gallon of milk. This tax bill offers no reasonable relief for the middle-income families and the poor families in California and the West that are facing huge energy price increases. Gasoline in the Midwest in some places has gone to $2.22 a gallon. If you want to know where relief is needed, it is at the pump. And again, this tax bill is so focused on the wealthiest Americans, it does very little for those poor and middle-income Americans who are having to go to the pump today to buy gasoline at $2 and $2.22 a gallon. We should be passing today a bill that addresses our long-term, short-term, and medium-term energy problems in this country. But Republicans have chosen tax cuts for the wealthy special interests first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth. This is a one-trick pony. The only thing they ever want to talk about on this floor is tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. In addition, this bill becomes a budget buster. It is going to cause high deficits. It is going to cause high interest rates and high inflation. We did this in the 1980s; we do not need to do it again. It could very well, alone, wipe out the budget surplus that the people of this country have worked so hard to produce, to keep interest rates down, to keep inflation down. And again, half of it is focused on the wealthiest folks in the country, people who do not even need tax relief, instead of focusing the tax cut, as we do in our substitute, on the hard-working, middle-income families and people trying to get in the middle class. Now, finally, by passing this tax cut, if that is our choice today, it is so large that it forces things out of our budget that people desperately want. People want money for education, to build new buildings, to help local school districts hire teachers, to have after- school programs and pre-school programs. It will cause us to eliminate all of those efforts in education. We are going to take up an education bill here in the next few days. It is not going to have any additional money in it, because the budget assigns most of the surplus to this tax cut. It makes impossible a universal Medicare prescription drug program. When I go home now people come up to me and say, where is the drug program? You ran ads for it, the President ran ads for it, all the Democrats and Republicans ran ads saying they were for prescription drugs. Where is it? Well, I will tell you where it is: it is in this tax cut. There is not going to be a prescription drug program that goes to everybody who needs it in this country, because we have spent the money on the wealthiest special interests, so the people, the senior citizens of this country who want this program, are not going to get it. Where are the cops-on-the-beat? We are not going to have enough. We are not going to fight crime and prevent crime, because we are squandering too much money on a tax cut for the wealthiest interests. Where are the environmental protections? Where is the research on renewable sources of energy, on fuel cells, on trying to solve this problem in an environmentally-sensitive way? Again, we are spending those dollars in this tax cut. This is the wrong choice for America today. We could do better than this if we would pass a tax cut that is reasonably priced, that is focused on the people who need it, and will continue the economy we built in this country over the last 10 years. I urge Members to vote for the Democratic substitute and against this irresponsible tax cut that will wreck the greatest economy we have seen in our lifetime.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to urge my colleagues to vote against the Hyde amendment and for international family planning assistance that we know makes a difference in the lives of women and children across the globe. Our international family planning assistance should not be encumbered. It should be enhanced. Overpopulation leads to the suffering of women and children, poverty and environmental degradation. Family planning is critical for the survival of the planet and the people on it, and it plays a critical part in preventing the spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS, which I believe is the moral issue of our time. In one of his first official actions, President Bush decided to restore the so-called Mexico City policy and reinstate controversial restrictions on U.S. family planning assistance. The President said he wanted to make sure U.S. taxpayer dollars were not being spent on abortions abroad. Respectfully, I believe this is a misunderstanding of our law. Since 1973, U.S. policy has prohibited taxpayer funds from being used in any way, shape, or form to provide abortions. But under the Mexico City policy, nongovernmental organizations, with their own funds, cannot inform women about their options, nor can they advocate their own government's laws regarding reproduction. I believe these Presidential restrictions are harmful and will reduce the availability of family planning services to some of the world's poorest and most needy women. There is talk about compassion. In my view, this is not compassionate. In fact, these restrictions placed on overseas family planning organizations would be illegal in our own country. We are imposing restrictions on free speech, putting on a gag order that would not be allowed in the United States of America. We are asking nongovernmental organizations in other places, in other countries, to live under a restriction that we would not impose here in the United States. So the issue is simple. Do we empower women and families across the globe with the ability to plan for the number of children they will have, as is the case here in America? Or do we pull the rug out from under these important efforts? For me, the choice is clear. We must continue to work to empower women with the ability to make their choice necessary to plan the size of their own family. I was in Cambodia recently and we visited a family planning clinic. There were no abortions going on. There was no effort at abortion. They were simply giving women needed advice and education and help with what they desperately wanted, which was family planning. I could not see that without coming to the floor here today to try to change this policy. I think it is the right thing to do morally. I think it is the right thing to do for our leadership role in the world. I ask Members to examine their conscience and to examine the facts. If they will do that, I believe a majority here today will vote to overrule the President's ill-advised order on international family planning.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to vote and speak against this conference report and ask Members on both sides of the aisles to do the same thing. This is not a good budget for America. We did not get to vote the other night because we did not have two pages, but now that we have seen all of the pages, the problem was not the lack of the right pages. The problem with this budget is that it does not have the right numbers. It does not fulfill the priorities of the American people. It is a budget that is deficient in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of the right priorities that I think people have. In many ways, this budget is a definition of what we want the country to be in the next 10 years. So it is a momentous decision that we are making. I believe this is a day that we give up on fiscal responsibility. I thoroughly believe that if this budget is followed, that in the days ahead we will return to deficits. First of all, there is no cushion. The cushion that looks like is here is not here, and when the tax cuts go up, as they inevitably will, when other tax cuts that are not contemplated in this budget are actually passed, the deficits will start. We will invade Social Security and Medicare, which we said we did not want to do. We have had innumerable votes here on lockboxes, but I predict that if this budget is passed we will be into Social Security and Medicare. This is the day that we return to high deficits and high interest rates. Why in the world would we want to do that? For 20 years in this country all we ever talked about was deficits and what deficits meant to our ability to fund anything that people wanted to fund; what it did to high interest rates; what it did to high inflation. Now, with this budget, I believe we are back into deficits and back into invading Social Security and Medicare. This is the day that we give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest special interests in the country, and we cannot seem to figure out how to get a decent tax cut to the middle-income Americans who really need it. Again, half of the tax cuts contemplated here go to the top wage earners in our country, and there is not enough for the hardworking families that really need tax relief. This is a budget that turns its back on education. This is probably the most remarkable trade-off in this budget. The President sent a budget that asked for $21 billion over 10 years above inflation for education programs. The budget that the Democrats here on the House had asked for was $150 billion over 10 years above inflation for education. In the Senate, in a bipartisan way, they added $300 billion above inflation for education, for after-school and pre-school; give us more teachers, repair the school buildings, all the things that Americans are asking for across the country to improve public education. Yet, this budget takes out every cent of the increases that the President asked for or we asked for or the Senate asked for. We are at a flatline budget for education if this budget is voted for. How in the world do we explain to anyone what we have done on education? We are right back to where we started, after a long trip of public relations saying to people we want to help education, and now we are not doing that. Then I think if this budget is passed, there will not be a Medicare prescription drug program. In fact, I do not think there will be a prescription drug program of any reasonable kind that will affect the people in this country. When I go home now on weekends, people come up to me and say, ``Hey, where is the prescription drug program?'' Everybody had ads in the campaign, Republicans and Democrats alike. We all said we wanted a prescription drug program. I defy anyone to find that program in this budget. Why do I say that? I say that because I think the budget tries to get to $300 billion over 10 years for a prescription drug program. The problem with that is it spends the Medicare surplus. It is really taking the money out of the Medicare surplus to give it to prescription drugs. I do not think we are going to do that. I do not think we are going to have a prescription drug program if this budget is our budget. I did not even get to low-income energy assistance, COPS on the beat, conservation and renewable programs for energy. If one goes out in America today, all anybody can talk about is $3 gasoline and not having enough electricity. If one goes out on the West Coast, they are having brownouts and blackouts. People are focused on energy and there is nothing in this budget to deal with the energy issue, which is on the lips of every American today. Let me sum up by saying just one thing. This budget is a farce and it is a fraud. At the end, America deserves better than that. We can do better than that. I would pray we could send this budget back to the committee. Let us have a real bipartisan process where ideas from both sides are incorporated into a final product. Let us give America a budget that is worthy of this great country.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against this estate tax bill, and I ask Members to vote for the Democratic alternative that will be sponsored by the gentleman from New York. I firmly believe that we should cut estate taxes for family farms, for small businesses, and for very wealthy individuals. I think we have the only bill that achieves this goal in a sensible and responsible and evenhanded way. Our bill eliminates taxes for individuals with estates worth more than $2 million, and couples worth more than $4 million. We exempt 99 percent of all farms. As the Wall Street Journal reported today, we give more relief, relief to estates valued at less than $10 million through the year 2008. I quote from the article: ``An estate tax plan by Democrats offers speedier relief than the Republican proposal.'' The Republican bill does not repeal the estate tax for another 10 years and hides the true cost of this tax cut. It is a gimmick. This is not an honest tax cut. It is an attempt to white out the cost and keep the numbers down so they can continue to argue that their tax cut is reasonable when the exact opposite is true. This bill creates loopholes that people will use to evade income taxes. It is tilted to the top 374 estates in America, and it is so unreasonable, given the other needs in our country and our budget, that many Americans who stand to make the most from the Republican bill do not even support it. The best off in our society have formed a coalition against this Republican proposal. Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffett, George Soros and many others have said, do not give us this big tax cut. We do not want a huge windfall. We can afford to pay a reasonable estate tax. We recognize that America is a community, and people who have profited the most, in their view, have a responsibility to give something back. This is a message of fiscal responsibility, discipline, moderation, and we support it. Today we hit the $2 trillion mark. In less than 3 months, the House of Representatives has passed $2 trillion in tax cuts, including interest. It is so much money, it makes one's head spin. It busts the budget. It gobbles up the available surplus, raids Medicare and Social Security, crowds out all kinds of other priorities. We will not be able to make the necessary investment in education if we want to give all of our children a first-rate, excellent public education, if we really want to leave no child behind. We will not have the resources to hire more teachers, build more classrooms, create more preschool and after-school programs. We will not have an affordable Medicare prescription drug program. We will not be able to extend the solvency of Medicare and Social Security so it will be there 9 years from now when the baby boomers start coming to ask legitimately for their benefits that they have been paying taxes for years to support. Now, let me finally say that when we add up these three, we are at $2 trillion. I am told there are more coming, and we are going to get to $3 trillion. I will say one more time for anybody that will listen that what we are doing here is something we did in 1981, and it took us 15 years to correct the problem. At the time, in the early 1980s, there was a book written by a man by the name of David Stockman called The Triumph of Politics. He was the OMB Director for Ronald Reagan. He served in this body. And the gist of this book is that the mistakes that were made in the early 1980s were very hard to correct and caused immeasurable economic difficulty in this country. I read from the end of his conclusion in this book at page 394. He is arguing at the end of the book for a tax increase to solve the fiscal problems that we faced. He said, ``In a way, the big tax increase we need will confirm the triumph of politics. But in a democracy, politicians must have the last word once it is clear their course is consistent with the preferences of the electorate.'' He said, ``The abortive Reagan revolution proved that the American electorate wants a moderate social democracy to shield it from capitalism's rougher edges. Recognition of this in the Oval Office,'' he said, ``is all that stands between a tolerable economic future and one fraught with unprecedented perils.'' I quote David Stockman to this House of Representatives. If we do not learn from history, we are forced to repeat it. This is a mistake that we will pay for for years to come. One can break the tax cut into parts, but one cannot break its effect on the overall deficit and the overall economic policy of this country. We should not make this mistake. We made it before. We do not need to do it again. We talk about responsibility. We need every citizen in this country to be responsible. But if we expect the people of this country to be responsible, we as the leaders of this country need to be responsible. Mr. Speaker, enacting this tax cut, along with all the others, is totally irresponsible and should not stand. I beg Members to vote against this proposal and vote for the Democratic proposal, which is responsible, is fair, and is consistent with a low deficit, fiscally responsible policy for this country.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding to me, and I rise today on behalf of all Members to give our prayers and sympathy and love to Norm Sisisky's family; to say to his constituents and all of his friends that we grieve together in his passing. It was a shock today to learn of his death. It was unexpected. It came as a bolt out of the blue this morning. It hurts all of us. We are all diminished by his loss. He was a wonderful Member of this House, a wonderful representative of his people in Virginia. I think the thing that I most remember about him is when I would come through this door that he always sat by, he was always happy. He was always upbeat. He was always funny. He always had a wonderful way of putting things that made fun of or light of, in a way, what was serious on the floor here in the right way. He used to kid himself in front of others about the fact that he came from some wealth, but that he voted against his own interests, and that his family would be mad at him because he did that. He had a love of life and a love of public service that I will never forget. He was a real patriot. He loved this country, and he wanted our country to do better. He wanted us to prosper. He wanted our people to be secure. He cared a lot about national defense. He cared a lot about our ability to have a strong defense and to have a strong intelligence effort. He asked me to be on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I worked to get him there. He enjoyed his days there. He did a wonderful job there. He added a lot to that effort. He was always bipartisan. I never heard him say a harsh word of anyone on either side of the aisle. He loved the House. He loved the fact that we decide things here on behalf of 250 million-plus people, and he was humble. He never saw himself as being better than anybody else anywhere in the country, anywhere in the world. He was a son of Virginia, and he was a son of God. He believed in helping the people that he was sent here to help. Even though he was elected to the Congress, and he had greater personal wealth than probably most people in the country, he always remembered the people that had it tough and were poor and had a hard way to go. We are going to miss Norm Sisisky. We grieve with his family, and we pray for their comfort and understanding at this time of great sorrow. We include every Member of this body in grieving the passing of a great American patriot.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against the Republican tax bill and for the bill sponsored by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and our ranking member on the Committee on Ways and Means. I take this position for several reasons. First, I ask Members to consider the real differences between these two tax cut proposals. The Republican bill increases the child credit, but only for some families. Their child credit does not fully phase in until the year 2006, which means that some families will not see any relief because their children will turn 16 before then, and they will be too old to be eligible for the tax cut. Millions of families of all income levels will be disappointed because Republicans give people nothing in the marriage penalty relief until the year 2004, and they will not get the full tax cut that the Republicans promise until 2009. What does all of this delay and all of these gimmicks really say to the American people? That despite all of the rhetoric about cutting taxes to help with the immediate economic downturn, I do not think my friends on the other side are serious. They are not serious about providing relief this year when it is most needed. Their tax bill does not help people for another 3 to 5 years; in some instances, 8 years. This delayed phase-in is the direct result of a larger tax plan that spends the entire available surplus that is not even there yet that may never materialize. Well, this is not right and it is not fair. I ask Members to consider our bill, which is responsible, balanced and fair. Our bill doubles the standard deduction for married couples so they get relief this year. Our bill recognizes that we are in a period of economic uncertainty, so we give people immediate tax relief which we think will help them get through the uncertainty of the time we are in. But the most important reason to vote against the Republican bill is that it is part of a much larger tax plan that leaves no room for the other important priorities of the American people. After today, this House will have already passed $1.8 trillion in tax cuts when we include the interest. If Republicans continue with their plans and put forward, as they are apparently planning, the estate tax and their other tax bills, then the additional tax breaks that they have said they will pass as part of the President's plan, which is a floor, will cost about $3 trillion once the smoke clears. The Republican tax cut package raids the Medicare trust fund as early as 2005. It does nothing to help the economy because it is so back- loaded. It crowds out other priorities vital to millions of seniors, military families, and women and children. It results in a budget that cuts existing services like Cops on the Beat and after-school programs to make our public schools safe for our children. Most damaging, the Republican tax plan could bring back the high deficits, high interest rates, and slow growth that we saw at the end of the last Bush administration. We have to keep in our mind that the goal is to keep the economy moving, to keep unemployment down, to keep growth going up. One of the best ways to do that is to keep interest rates down. So I argue to the Members, think about the effect on the economy and what the Republican tax cut does not do, what it crowds out our ability to do for the ordinary families in this country who pay interest costs on house payments and car payments and furniture payments every month. Married families and children would be better off with our plan. We provide sensible tax relief for all taxpayers. We focus relief on those in the middle and those trying to get in the middle who need our help the most. Plus, we give people a country free of debt by 2008; a Medicare prescription drug program for all seniors who want it; a Social Security and a Medicare trust fund extended to 2050 in the one case and 2040 respectively, at least 11 to 12 years added solvency of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds; more quality teachers; more Cops on the Beat; and school buildings in repair and enlarged and rehabilitated. We give people lower interest rates. For an average family of four, 1 percent off interest rates means $1,500 a year in savings on a car payment and on house payments. If one adds a reasonable tax cut, about $700 a year, one is going to wind up putting more money in the pockets of a typical family than the larger tax cut that would likely keep interest rates a point higher. So I urge Members to consider this argument when they cast their vote on these two bills. Consider the actual real-life consequences of the decision we are making on the floor today. Consider what happens if these surpluses do not materialize. Consider what happens if the projections turn out to be wrong. What if we find ourselves in debt again, as we did in the 1980s, as far as the eye can see? We have been there. We have run this experiment. We ran it for 15 years, from 1981 to 1995. It did not work. We should be more humble about our thoughts about economics. We should be more reticent to take this risky river boat gamble to go out into the deficits when we could keep the surpluses. It is time to keep interest rates down, unemployment down, inflation down. This is a 20-year decision of this body. It is easy to make this decision. It is hard to correct it. It took us 15 years to 20 years to get over the last mistake. Why would we want to do that again? I urge Members to examine their conscience, examine the facts. Vote against this Republican bill. Vote for the more sensible common sense Democratic alternative.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I ask Members to consider voting against this budget resolution and to support the Democratic budget because I think it is a better budget. When one does a budget, one makes choices. One makes choices between size of tax cuts, how much is going to go to pay down the debt, how much goes to Medicare, prescription medicine, how much goes for education, how much goes to support the environment. I suggest to Members that we are making a mistake with this budget. Let us think of it as two products. First, we have the Republican budget product. It is a $2 trillion-plus tax cut, most of which goes to the wealthiest Americans. If we buy this budget, this is what is contained in this plan, this program. On the other hand, if my colleagues vote for a Democratic budget, they get much more. It is a better product. We get lower interest rates. Yes, we get a tax cut focused on middle-income Americans, but we also get debt-free by the year 2008. We get a prescription-drug benefit for all senior citizens. It extends Social Security to 2050, Medicare to 2040. It extends both about 12 years. More quality teachers and more cops on the beat. So the question is which box do we want for the American people. I suggest that this is a decision that will be with us for a long time. I was here in 1981. We had a new President who came saying that he wanted a budget that included a large tax cut. We came to this floor in 1981 and debated that budget. The President said that it would not cause large deficits, that it would create jobs, that it would bring down interest rates and inflation. After we lost our alternative to that tax bill, many of us sat on the floor and wondered what we would do, how we would vote. I was getting calls from home, people saying give the new President a chance; and I did. I voted for the Reagan tax cut. Then the deficits began, as we worried they would. First it was $100 billion a year, then $200 billion, then $300 billion, then almost $400 billion. We went from $1 trillion in back debt to this country to almost $6 trillion in debt. It took the budget summit of 1990 and the Budget Act of 1993 and 1997 to begin to get that deficit under control. Now, instead of having deficits as far as the eye can see, we have surpluses for the first time in 20 years. Why? I ask my friends in this Congress, why would we want to go back and repeat that mistake again? When I went home these last weeks, constituents came up and said where is the Medicare prescription drug program that I thought was going to be coming after the election? Where is the furthering of the solvency of Medicare and Social Security? Where are the smaller classrooms with better teachers and more classroom sizes? These are the issues that people are deciding in this budget debate. I plead with Members, turn down this budget and let us do a budget that does not send this country back into bankruptcy, back into high deficits, back into high interest rates, back into high inflation. We still have time to avoid it. I urge Members to vote against this misguided wrong-headed budget.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his life, really, and his leadership and what he means to all of us. I want to thank him for holding this trip. I told him personally the other day how much I appreciated the work that he and his staff does to help the Faith and Politics Institute put on this weekend. This is the first time that I have had the chance to be with him. I have wanted to come and could not make it happen but was able to come this year. I want to thank all the Members, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the Members who are here from our side who participated in this event. It was, in a word, moving to all of us to be part of this event. It was, in my view, one of the most important things that I have been able to do in my entire life. Because until you go to Selma and meet with some of your colleagues and hear the history of what happened and how it happened and what it meant in their lives and to see them still alive today and still fighting for these issues was truly moving. There is no substitute for it. There is no way to read about it. There is no way to even see a television show about it and understand it the way you can when you are actually in the spot and meeting with these wonderful American citizens who improved our country so importantly. I felt like I was meeting with history. It would be kind of like meeting with patriots in Concord or Lexington or Gettysburg or some other place in our country where momentous events occurred that made our country what it is. It is also an understanding that the right to vote is basic to our democracy and that we have to always fight, even in today's circumstance, for people's right to vote. It is obviously a different fight today, but it was certainly that compulsion to want freedom and democracy that led the gentleman from Georgia and his colleagues to commit the heroic acts that went on then. And then, of course, to remember that 10 days after Bloody Sunday, President Lyndon Johnson came to this room and personally delivered his voting rights legislation and gave the most stirring address of his presidency. I doubt that would have happened, it certainly would not have happened in that time, if he had not done and his friends had not done what they did. President Johnson defined the national imperative to overcome the tyranny of discrimination and bigotry. President Johnson recognized, as President Lincoln had recognized a century before, that a nation divided could not stand. He got all of us to make a commitment to voting rights. I would like to quote one of the things that he said in his speech. He said, ``Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and very difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have an equal right to vote. There is no reason which can excuse the denial of that right. There is no duty which weighs more heavily on us than the duty we have to ensure that right.'' It took a while longer, but he finally convinced the Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act. We stand today with the challenge before us again. We have to improve on our election process. We have been meeting in bipartisan ways to try to make that happen. I am convinced that if we have faith in one another and we work with one another, we can improve the election process in our country in the year 2001, in the year 2002. We are not there yet, I guess is what I am saying today. What we saw a few weekends ago, what the gentleman did 36 years ago was the beginning of another effort in our history to ensure the basic fundamental right of our democracy. He made great progress, and he is our hero because he did that. But we have a similar obligation now. In a different time with different issues, a different set of challenges, we have as much of an obligation as the gentleman from Georgia had 36 years ago to see that we ensure this right for every American today. It was an honor to be with him. I do not know of a time that I have spent in my life that was more productive or useful than that weekend. I thank him for making it possible. I look forward to working with him and Members on both sides of the aisle in the days ahead to try to advance these issues and these challenges to a more successful conclusion. We are on the road. We are not there yet. We are going to get there sometime soon.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against the tax bill offered by the Committee on Ways and Means and to vote for the substitute offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). I arrive at that position for a number of reasons. First, I think that it is wrong to be taking up a tax bill without a budget. In fact, without even spending a moment deciding what the budget will say. By assigning 900 and some odd billion dollars to a tax cut that this bill encompasses, we are making decisions that will make it difficult, or different at least, to make other decisions that we might want to make in the budget, how much debt we are going to pay down, how much we are going to assign to defense or education or health care or all the other functions that are in the budget. So the cart is in front of the horse, and we should be waiting for this tax bill until we have considered the budget. A second reason that I urge Members to look at the Democratic alternative is because the forecasts that are the premise of the context for this tax cut bill so often are wrong. In fact, CBO recently said that they are always wrong. Now, sometimes they are better than we thought they were going to be; sometimes they are worse. The other day the weather forecasters said we were going to have a big snowstorm in the Northeast. A lot of us listened to that forecast. People decided not to fly. Flights were cancelled. Airports were closed. People stayed home from work. People went and got shovels and bought water and flour and bread. Then it did not snow. When it did not snow, none of us were surprised because often weather forecasts are wrong. We are taking an action today, if we vote for this bill, that really leaves us less alternatives in case the forecasts are wrong. Why would we want to do that? The third argument I would make is that the thing we have to keep most on our mind is what action can we take that will best help the economy, that will make the economy go forward? I had lunch the other day with a very wealthy individual, and he said why are you doing this big tax cut? I used a lot of the arguments that my friends on the other side of the aisle make, and that I believe and we all believe, and that is we have a big surplus and we ought to give taxpayer money back to taxpayers. That is the right thing to do. That will help the economy. He said, yes, a tax cut of a reasonable size will be helpful to people, but he said remember the most helpful thing to all of us is keeping the economy working. Then he said, think about this: 1 percent off interest rates would pick up for an average family of four about $1,500 a year savings in car payments and house payments. If we add that to a reasonable tax cut, he said, maybe $800 a year, we are going to wind up putting more money in those people's pockets than by the larger tax cut that would probably keep interest rates up. We have to keep in our mind that the goal here is to keep the economy moving, to keep unemployment down, to keep growth up, and one of the best ways to do that is to keep interest rates down. So I argue today, think about what this does to the economy and to ordinary families in this country who pay interest rates every month. Another reason that I think we need to reconsider this tax cut and to go for the smaller alternative is because it allows us to take care of other alternatives in the budget. The President has talked very dramatically about what he wants to do in education. Query: Will we have the funds to do what he wants to do, what we want to do, in education? Will we be able to take care of Medicare and Social Security? Ken Conrad, the other day, made a very important statement. He said we could make a mistake on a tax cut in 1981 but we did not have $4 trillion in debt at the time and we did not have the baby boomers come into the Social Security fund 9 years from now. We all voted 2 weeks ago to put Medicare in a lockbox. The budget the President sent that encompasses the tax bill, part of which is on the floor today, invades the Medicare Trust Fund. The lockbox has already been picked if we vote for this kind of a tax bill. Do we really want to do that? I do not think so. Then there is the issue of fairness. If we are going to deliver tax relief, let us deliver it to the people who most need it. We have 12 million families in this country with 24 million children who will not get one red cent out of the Republican tax cut. They pay payroll taxes. They do not pay a lot of income taxes. Our tax bill, on the other hand, delivers real help to them. Finally, let me simply say this: President Bush came just a few days ago to this Chamber. He came to Washington just a few weeks ago to be inaugurated, and he said he wants to be the uniter and not the divider. He said he wants to change the culture in this town; he wants to compromise; he wants to work with all parties and all people to put together compromise, bipartisan solutions to our problems. His rhetoric has been welcome. The American people want us to work together in the middle to get things done, but I must say with all due respect that this tax-cut bill, coming without a budget, is another my-way-or-the- highway approach to legislating in this Congress. The President, my friends on the other side of the aisle, could easily sit down with the Democrats on the Committee on Ways and Means, and we could reach an honest compromise on taxes. Everybody in this Chamber is for tax cuts. It is a question of how much they cost and to whom they go. Surely in the spirit of real compromise, we could come together and find an answer to this question that would get 400 votes on this floor today. We could do that. I believe that with all my heart. So I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, let us stop this approach to legislating. We are going to have a bipartisan retreat this weekend and we go in the spirit of trying to find bipartisan answers, but we cannot just be bipartisan in West Virginia. We have to be bipartisan in this building, and we have to work together and do the hard work of finding those compromises that we can both live with. We should have a tax bill on this floor today that gets over 400 votes. The American people would appreciate it, and I believe that it is what the American people told us they want us to do in the election of November. Vote against this bill. Vote for the Democratic alternative. Let us do better the next time.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry day in the House of Representatives, and what I am afraid is going to be a sorry week. Ten years of studies and work and comment are being swept aside with 1 hour of debate in our House of Representatives. This is not right, and it is not the right way to do this. It is not right for American workers who will be seriously affected and degraded by this decision that we are making tonight. Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why we could not spend the last 3 hours that we have been in this building at least on this floor talking about what went on over the last 10 years. We could not find it within ourselves in this House of Representatives to spend the last 3 hours when we were in recess to be on this floor at least discussing this matter. We know there is a disagreement about this, that is legitimate, but to not allow the Members of this House to be out here, when the law that calls for this procedure says that we are going to have 10 hours of debate, when we did not have another thing to do on this floor, to not allow this debate to go on is reprehensible. It sure is not bipartisan. This is an issue that affects real people, people that work on computers, poultry workers, factory workers, and what we are saying is that the science says that these regulations are the right thing to do. We believe with all our hearts that OSHA and these kinds of regulations have not only helped the safety of our workers, but has saved companies money by preventing these injuries, and employers who have used OSHA regulations like these to their benefit have had a better bottom line than companies that simply blindly fight these things. This is a mistake. It is a mistake for people. It is a mistake for workers. I simply ask our friends on the other side who are running this procedure, please, the next time before my colleagues do something like this, they stop and think about what they are doing to the process of this House and, most importantly, what my colleagues are doing to the hard-working American people who are out there everyday giving it everything they have to make a living for their families and would like to be in a safe working environment. Vote against this bill. It is an abomination.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure to name the courthouse in Boston the Joe Moakley Courthouse. Joe has been a great friend to all of us. He has been a great strong right arm of this caucus and this House. He has played a pivotal role in the leadership of this House in many, many different ways: as a member of the Committee on Rules, as the ranking member on the Committee on Rules, a member of our leadership organization, as a member of our ranking Members' organization. We admire tremendously the service that he has brought. What really sets Joe Moakley apart is his relationship with his constituents. We all know that he has all of these wonderful roles, dean of the delegation for Massachusetts, ranking member on the Committee on Rules, a leader in the House in so many ways. He has done so much in Central America. He has done so much with many of his constituents in many, many ways. But I think that above all else is his humanity, his humanness, his relationship with each of us individually and collectively. He is to me the embodiment of public service. At his press conference where he announced his retirement, Joe said the people I represent are more than constituents, they are family. That is the way Joe Moakley treated everyone. He treated everyone he met, his constituents, even total strangers as part of his family. He was always funny, he was always friendly, he was always warm, he was always loving of other people. And he always will be. I think, more than anything that we can say about Joe Moakley today, we can see that he has embodied in everything that he has done the humankindness and love that all of us should like to represent. We love you, Joe, and we look forward to working with you in the days ahead in this Congress to make things better for the people of America and the people of Massachusetts.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Members of the House, families of House Members, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen. First, I want to say that I thought a few moments ago about asking for a recount, but I decided against it. This is a day of celebration for candidates and our families, and it is also a day of celebration of our continuing experiment in democracy, which we again have successfully achieved, even in the face of a very close election. What sets America apart is that despite very difficult events, we decide elections by the rule of law, and we have peaceful transitions of power. Mr. Speaker, I called you after the election to congratulate you, and all of us on the Democratic side extend our congratulations to you and your Members today. We hope for a bipartisan atmosphere in this new Congress, and we understand that this requires not just words, but deeds and actions. We know that our differences on issues are heartfelt and real, but I hope the closeness of the margin between our parties in the Congress will be viewed as an opportunity, not a hindrance. This is the people's House, and we are all proud to be part of it. It is not a Republican House; it is not a Democratic House. As a recognition of that principle, it is our hope that in gestures, both small and large, on the part of each of us as individuals and as leaders, we will make that principle a daily reality. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Democratic colleagues, we honor your leadership and we respect your majority. Our pledge is to meet you halfway and, in return, we hope that great things in these 2 years can be accomplished for the American people that we serve. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it is my honor to present the Speaker of the House of the 107th Congress, the gentleman from Illinois, Dennis Hastert.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rules changes proposed by the majority, which I believe contradict the promise of working together in a truly bipartisan spirit because they undermine the rights of Democratic Members. They also fail to address what I think is the most pressing issue that comes out of this troubled national election, and I urge all Members to support the Democratic alternative to give Democrats fair representation on committees, to accurately reflect the closeness of the margin in the House and to give this House the impetus to move forward quickly on electoral reforms to ensure that every citizen's vote in this country counts in every election from now. In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot of talk about bipartisanship and about compromise, about finding consensus and common ground. We applaud the verbal commitment to bipartisanship, but we also believe that bipartisanship must be more than just words. It must be backed up with deeds and actions. The Republican proposal that changed the rules, we think, does not meet this test. It does not change the ratios on committees to reflect the true makeup of the House and the will of the voters, and it does not begin to address the issue of electoral reform, which I think is one of the top priorities of the American people. We hope for a bipartisan atmosphere in this new Congress, and I hope the closeness of the margin between our parties will be viewed as an opportunity, not a hindrance. This is the people's House. It is not a Republican House; it is not a Democratic House. To advance progress, we must recognize and practice that principle, and the first step is to allow the committees who do the work of the Congress to reflect the way people voted in this election. We must have electoral reform. Our alternative makes electoral reform a top national priority for our country to reflect the will of the American people. Our proposal calls for swift action to make sure that every vote cast gets counted, including military votes. Voices were stifled on election day. This is completely unacceptable. We should not have unequal voting procedures in any part of the country or ever hear again about voter intimidation. It is wrong, and we should do everything in our power to right those wrongs by working together to expand the franchise and to make sure that every vote cast gets counted. This is a great democracy, and in our democracy voting is the most important right, so let us pledge today to make every effort to protect the rights of every American. In closing, let me urge all of our colleagues to support the truly bipartisan, truly fair, truly just package that the Democratic Party puts before the House. I appeal to have a discussion of all the rules changes that affect this House, including the unilateral decision to reconstitute the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and to diminish the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce and the decision to narrowly draw the minority's ability to offer motions to recommit. So, vote yes on the Democratic motion. Let us begin the process of electoral reform and achieve true parity on all of the committees of the House. Let us reflect in the House the decision of the American people.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Democrats in the House and as a Member of the House, I rise to express our collective grief and sadness at the suddenness of this very, very, very negative event that has happened to all of us. I have served here nearly my entire time with Julian Dixon, and, as others have said, I have never known a more gentle, conciliatory, wonderful human being as we have known in Julian Dixon. He served in this body in the most sensitive and difficult positions. He served as chairman of the Committee on Ethics in some of the stormiest and most difficult times in our past; he has been ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; he has been a subcommittee chairman and then ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. All of that is important, but I guess what is most important to me, and I think to all of us, is that he embodied to us the best in public life. He was a beautiful human being. He loved others, he cared for others. Everything that he did was with grace and excellence. He typified what it means in this country and in the world to be a public servant. We are deeply saddened by this unexpected tragedy. Our hearts and our prayers go out to his family, go out to his constituents, go out to all of his beloved friends, in California and around the country. To the members of the California delegation, all of us give our deepest sympathy, and all of us will pray in the days ahead for the comfort and understanding on behalf of his family and his loved ones.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the Democrats in the House and as a Member of the House, I rise to express our collective grief and sadness at the suddenness of this very, very, very negative event that has happened to all of us. I have served here nearly my entire time with Julian Dixon, and, as others have said, I have never known a more gentle, conciliatory, wonderful human being as we have known in Julian Dixon. He served in this body in the most sensitive and difficult positions. He served as chairman of the Committee on Ethics in some of the stormiest and most difficult times in our past; he has been ranking member on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; he has been a subcommittee chairman and then ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations. All of that is important, but I guess what is most important to me, and I think all of us, is that he embodied to us the best in public life. He was a beautiful human being. He loved others, he cared for others. Everything that he did was with grace and excellence. He typified what it means in this country and in this world to be a public servant. We are deeply saddened by this unexpected tragedy. Our hearts and our prayers go out to his family, go out to his constituents, go out to all of his beloved friends, in California and around the country. To the members of the California delegation, all of us give our deepest sympathy, and all of us will pray in the days ahead for the comfort and understanding on behalf of his family and his loved ones.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply saddened by the loss of Henry Gonzalez. Henry was a good colleague, a good friend, and a real champion of the poor and all underprivileged Americans. In many ways, Henry was a trailblazer. The first Mexican-American from Texas to serve in the House, Henry always fought hard for his constituents in San Antonio. He was in the House for 37 years. His extraordinary length of service was matched only by his commitment to fairness and equality for every American, regardless of race, religion, or ethnicity. Henry was one of the early leaders of the modern civil rights movement. In 1953, one year before the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Henry was a member of the San Antonio City Council, and he helped pass a measure of desegregate city facilities. In 1956, three years later, Henry won election to the state Senate, and become the first Mexican-American in that body in over 100 years. By the way, he won that race by 309 votes--after three recounts, and it was a good thing that he won. Because he continued the good fight. In 1957, Henry spent 22 hours filibustering bills that supported segregation. Henry brought that same spirit to our Congress. In 1961, he was sworn-in to the House, and as he raised his right hand, left hand, he clutched a bill to end poll taxes, which discriminated against the poor and minorities. And this bill ultimately found its way into the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As a Member of Congress, Henry fought for low-cost housing so people would have a roof over their heads. And he became a real force in our body for the principle of equal opportunity. Henry was also one of the greatest Chairman of the House Banking Committee. He helped repair the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and he helped steer the country through the savings and loan crisis. Deeply committed to his constituents and to his Caucus, Henry was a terrific ally who did so much for Democrats because of what it meant for the American people. Henry's passing leaves us with a void that can't be filled. But we will never forget his extraordinary dedication and service to this Congress and the country. His career is an inspiration to all of us, and humbly, we will work as hard as possible to fulfill his vision for all Americans.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this continuing resolution, our twelfth in 5 weeks, to keep the government operating; but I deeply regret that we have reached this point and I am deeply disappointed by what has happened to America's education priorities in the last 72 hours. On Sunday night, after 3 days of no negotiations, Republicans met face-to-face with Democrats on a good faith basis to resolve our differences on education. Democrats asked Republicans whether they had full authority to negotiate a final deal and they answered, yes. In an example of bipartisan compromise, both sides came together and both sides sought common ground. Negotiators toiled late into the evening. Each side made concessions, as must be done in a bipartisan compromise, and consensus was reached through sensible dialogue. I give great credit to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and I give great credit to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), and the Senators who were involved. The bill that came out of that room was a bipartisan bill that would have lifted up every community and every school in this country. This bill included full funding for 100,000 new teachers, teacher training, after-school programs and a billion dollars for school repair and school modernization. Less than 12 hours after the agreement was reached, the leaders of the Republican Party ripped this deal apart as a favor to a business lobby. The Republican leadership bowed to business lobbyists who, according to the Washington Post, were making, and I quote, ``urgent calls to the Hill to try to block this compromise,'' simply because they did not like worker safety provisions that protected workers from repetitive stress injuries. This Republican-led Congress scuttled a bipartisan agreement that would have provided local districts with the means to hire new teachers and build new classrooms so that we could get smaller classroom sizes, so that our children could be better educated. Mr. Speaker, I guess it is not a surprise, because Republican leaders have spent the last 6 years frustrating America's agenda, a bipartisan agenda, by giving in to special interests. On every one of these issues, the Republican leadership has taken the side of the special interests over America's agenda. We tried to get an affordable, effective prescription medicine program; we forced it on to the agenda with the help of Republican members, and it was scuttled in conference; and it is not going anywhere, because I guess the pharmaceutical companies did not want it. We worked with Republicans to force on to the agenda of this House an effective and enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights, and it has been stifled in a conference committee because I guess the insurance companies did not want it. We could have had targeted tax cuts for college and long-term care and child care, but instead we passed huge tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans instead of getting something done in a bipartisan way that we could have gotten done. We fought for sensible gun safety legislation, but it is stifled in a conference committee, I guess as a favor to the National Rifle Association. We have tried to get a sensible increase in the minimum wage; but it too is stifled, even though it has strong bipartisan support. We forced on to the agenda of this House campaign finance reform, which is desperately desired by the people of this country, and it too passed by a bipartisan vote in this House, and it has been stifled in a conference committee. There is a pattern here, Mr. Speaker. There is a pattern. Bipartisan efforts, which even passed by bipartisan votes on the floor, are being held hostage by the special interests of this country and by the Republican leadership that is running this Congress. The Speaker said 2 years ago that the trains were going to run on time and that we would finish our budget in regular order. Well, it is 4 weeks into the fiscal year, we are 6 days away from a general election, and we have not gotten the work done that we could have gotten done if the leadership of this Congress would have simply let the bipartisan majority that was trying to break out and do these things to be able to do them. And as a result, we have a dysfunctional Congress; we have an ineffectual Congress. Education is our most important priority. We have schools with cracked walls and no air-conditioning and leaky windows. We have cornices falling off of buildings. We have kids in temporary structures, in movable classrooms, in inadequate facilities in the wealthiest Nation on Earth. Our children deserve our help in getting them the world-class education that every child in this country deserves. Let us pass this resolution, let us stay here in these next days, and let us get the job done for America's children. We may not be able to do the health issues, campaign reform, gun safety or the minimum wage; but in the name of common sense, let us get done something in these last 2 or 3 days for the children of this country. Let us get them better classrooms, let us get them more teachers, let us get them a better education.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this continuing resolution, our seventh in 5 weeks. But I deeply regret that we have reached this point. We should never have found ourselves in the mess that we are in, and we must stay here and work each day until we complete the business required by the law and for the American people. Let us do the rare thing and come together in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish some meaningful things for the American people. Let us stop closed-door partisan meetings. No more sending up bills at 7 a.m. with only a few hours for review. No more tax breaks for special interests and lopsided bills that we know the President will not sign. There is a list of missed opportunities in this Congress. Republicans killed the bipartisan hate crimes law supported by large majorities of both houses. They support the pharmaceutical companies by refusing to let us even vote on a bill that puts prescription drug benefits in the reliable world of Medicare. Partisan tax packages are put together without consultation or negotiation with the President or Democrats in Congress. Just yesterday, Republicans brought up a tax package that gave a lot to the HMOs and not enough to patients, people, hospitals, nursing homes, and home health care agencies. Minimum wage increases are put in bills that give maximum benefit to special interest. And this week, Republicans tried to give more tax help to wealthy bondholders through school construction bonds that do not give public schools the incentives or the help they need to modernize their schools. So we have amassed a record of partisanship with virtually no accomplishments. We still have time in the few remaining days of this session to work until the last hour of the last day. We can pass the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. We can pass the bipartisan hate crimes bill. We can pass a school construction credit that will really help local districts relieve the burden on local property taxpayers who may be willing to vote for bonds under those circumstances so that we can get smaller classroom sizes. We can pass an enforceable, effective Patients' Bill of Rights. We can pass a prescription medicine program under Medicare that will allow everyone in a voluntary and universal way to be able to access that very important benefit. We could pass campaign reform that gets rid of the flood of soft, non-Federal money in the campaigns. We could get meaningful gun safety legislation that would take the danger out of our classrooms and our other public institutions. We still have an opportunity in these last days to get all of those things done, or at least some of them done. And so I plead with my friends on the other side of the aisle, and my side of the aisle, let us work together in the remaining hours of this session. Let us produce legislation that will be signed by the President and that will help all the people of this country. Time is not yet up. We can do this. But to do it, it takes a spirit of bipartisanship and communication and working together to get these things done.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me for the purpose of talking about Congressman Bill Clay on the occasion of his retirement from the Congress. Let me first say that I have known Bill Clay for over 25 years. We both served on the St. Louis Board of Aldermen many years ago. We both come, obviously, from the same city and really in a way grew up together in the City of St. Louis and have had many of the same experiences in our time in politics. I clearly remember when I first got elected to Congress, Bill Clay invited me to lunch and we sat and talked about what it was like and what it meant to be in the Congress. He has been a mentor to me and has helped me in everything that I have done in public life. He is one of the finest human beings that I have ever met. He is a leader in every sense of the word on a whole range of issues that go from civil rights, which he has been deeply and intimately involved in through his entire career, through education, through health care, through labor and human rights and every other issue that is of importance to the people in his district. Perhaps most importantly he has always stayed deeply connected to the people who elected him. Never was there a time when he did not go home regularly, meet with his constituents, solve problems in the community, help people with community issues, and try to be an advocate for all of the people that he represented. He was also one who believed in politics. He is a politician in the truest sense of the word. And I admire that, I think, most in him, because he realized that to make change in our world, we have to be involved in political life. For most of his career in the Congress and in the Board of Aldermen, he was also a committeeman in the City of St. Louis political operation. He believes in political action. He also believed in civil disobedience when political action could not get the job done. I remember one of the first times I learned about him, he was engaged in, I think, a sit-in at a prominent bank in St. Louis in order to get proper civil rights with regard to that institution and other institutions like it in St. Louis. But never did his civil disobedience keep him from being involved in the political process. If he could get it done in the political process, he got it done in the political process. And to this day, he obviously has been involved in politics in the truest sense of the word. He has raised a wonderful family and his children, to his everlasting credit, are also involved in politics. And, in fact, we know his son is now running for the seat that Bill is leaving and retiring from, and I believe and hope that he will be elected. But, again, he is in public service like his father was in public service, his daughter has been involved in politics. The whole family is focused on political life and how we can improve our country, how we can improve our community. Bill Clay never stops fighting for what he believes in. He is the dean of our delegation. We will miss him in every sense. He is tenacious. He never gives up a cause. He has a wonderful sense of humor. He always makes fun of himself and makes fun of the funny things in politics that we all laugh about. In 32 years of service, no one fought harder for labor rights, for human rights, for education, and as I said, for his constituents. He was first elected in 1968. In his groundbreaking book, Just Permanent Interests: Black Americans in Congress 1870 to 1991, he wrote that the congressional election that year ``. . . reflected the changing fortune of blacks in American politics.'' With his classmates, Shirley Chisholm and Louis Stokes, he came ``. . . to Washington determined to seize the moment, to fight for justice, to raise issues that had been too long ignored and too little debated.'' And he did all of it. Mr. Speaker, he was and remains a passionate and forceful voice for the people in his district, for equal treatment of all Americans, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity. In representing the hopes and aspirations of the people of his district, he built an institution within this institution that has stood for equal representation and opportunity. He was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, which we are all so proud of today. He created one of the leading voices for African Americans in the Nation and an influential force in the House of Representatives. I might add that if the majority changes in this institution in a few days, for the first time in the history of this institution, the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means will be an African American, the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary will be an African American. And I dare say if he had decided to stay, the chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce would have been an African American. But none of that could have happened if Bill Clay had not helped form the Congressional Black Caucus and helped people of minority status run for the Congress and become Members of the Congress. And we would not have as many African Americans and Hispanic Americans and Asian Americans in the Congress if he had not fought those fights many, many years ago. He has also been on the side of working men and women. He was a leader on the minimum wage, protecting worker rights, getting safety in the workplace. He authored most of the legislation for working people over the last 32 years. He was a labor supporter who gave no ground to those who attacked the right to organize, who attacked worker protections and the right to earn a decent living. Working families in this country, labor union members have never had a better friend and they will never have a better friend in this Congress than Bill Clay. He was deeply committed to making sure that every child in this society should be able to realize their full potential. He was the leading supporter of historically black colleges, the beacons of advancement and achievement for African American young people. He helped craft the Family and Medical Leave law that has helped so many families today. He challenged every Member of this institution to live up to the ideas of equality and justice and enshrine those ideas into our laws. We are going to miss Bill Clay. I asked him before I came down here whether he had decided what he was going to do next year and he said, ``Well, I have not even thought about it.'' I am sure he has not. But I am convinced that his service for the people of this country does not end with his leaving the Congress. He will continue to fight in other capacities for the people of this country. This is a great leader. This is a heroic leader that we will miss in this institution. But I am only assured that knowing him, he will not stop the fight. He will be out on the field every day that he is on this earth fighting for children, fighting for civil rights, fighting for human rights, fighting for this democracy. Finally, let me say that America is a better, more just, more civilly equal society today because of the work and the commitment and the passion and the leadership of Bill Clay. We cannot say more about any of us who have ever served in this institution. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, ``Thank you, Bill. God bless, you. God bless your family.''

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to a Republican tax package that reflects this Congress at its worst. This package reveals the larger flaws of the Republican tax philosophy that have been on exhibit over these past years, really a 6-year attempt to give tax cuts to people and institutions that do not need them and not giving tax relief to people and institutions that need tax relief. First, there is nothing in this bill that guarantees a single new school will be built. The only thing we have had from Republicans is a consistent effort to fuzz the issue of who is for school construction and who is against it. Two days ago, Republican leaders rejected the bipartisan Johnson- Rangel bill supported by 228 Members, Democrats and Republicans, to help districts with school construction; and they came up with a different plan that was a day late and a dollar short. The largest part of that plan creates incentives that we think actually delay school construction, and half the benefit does not even go to school districts but to bondholders, private investors, not children, not principals, not teachers, but bondholders. This is a typical ploy, part of an effort to fool people into thinking that they support education. This has become an exercise in illusion. They put forward school construction provisions that bear resemblance to Democratic and bipartisan bills in name only. They trudge to the Capitol and hold press conferences a few hours ago and talk about middle-class fairness when nothing could be farther from the truth. We call on the leadership to bring up the bipartisan school construction measure to help modernize our schools in the Labor-HHS-Education bill. The Johnson-Rangel bill reduces the burden on local taxpayers struggling to finance new school construction in their communities. We further urge the leadership to set aside their opposition and drop the tax cuts that really do not perform a useful function. They should provide enough funding for teachers, emergency school repairs, after- school programs, teacher training and put all of these measures in the Labor-HHS-Education bill so that the President can sign a bill that improves our schools this year in all of these ways. This package is just as flawed on the health care side. After blocking an effective Patients' Bill of Rights, an effective prescription drug benefit under Medicare, now Republicans come forward with a package that does not help the vast majority of Americans or square with the needs of working families. The BBA piece does not do enough for people and hospitals and gives too much for HMOs. Their deductions will not substantially reduce the number of Americans without health insurance, they weaken employer-based health coverage, and they do virtually nothing for families who provide their own long-term care. We support restoring cuts to Medicare. We want tax relief. In fact, the President and Democrats have put forward a sensible bill that helps fix the problems for providers and beneficiaries in Medicare and Medicaid and gives relief to families and hospitals that truly need it. But Republicans choose to go behind closed doors and not tell us what is in their tax package until a few hours before it comes on the floor. They choose the path of conflict, not consensus. Dictation, not dialogue. Well, the President is going to veto this bill; and we are going to be right back here where we started passing more CRs because we were unable to do the work of working with one another to get the job done. The package we reject today reflects the larger problems with misplaced priorities, misplaced tax cuts, and raids on Social Security. Just today, a nonpartisan group of financial experts predicted that Governor Bush could not cut taxes and divert Social Security payroll taxes without blowing a huge hole in the budget. The Nation's best economists and actuaries found that by 2015, Governor Bush's plan would return us to the days of big deficits. His plan would undermine Social Security, and we would be headed right back to where we were in a sea of red ink in the 1980s. This makes clear that the Bush plan would weaken Social Security and ruin fiscal discipline. So we are not getting our work done. We are not hiring a single new teacher. We are not improving a single new school building. We have not spent a dime on quality teaching and after-school programs. We need to make the passion and purpose of this Congress in its closing days our children, our public schools, our teachers, our parents, our children, making sure that every child in this society is a productive, law- abiding citizen. We are now going to have to pass a new CR every day because we are behind in our work. Let us get to work together to find a consensus to get these things done and get them done in the next 2 days.

Mr. GEPHARDT

Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this combined District of Columbia and Commerce, Justice, State appropriations conference report, a conference report the Republicans decided to put together in a partisan way in the middle of the night last night. The provisions on the District of Columbia are fine, and we could have supported them. But the other side insisted on putting forward a Commerce, Justice bill without the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act and without the bipartisan hate crimes legislation that both Houses and Congress have supported. This is a bill without fairness and without justice, and that is a shame. This could have been a good bill and could have gotten strong bipartisan support, a bill that could have lifted up millions of people in this country. Instead, this legislation does not include the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act, the only act that would fix several unfair provisions in our immigration laws. LIFA would have afforded Central American and other immigrants the same treatment Nicaraguans and Cubans previously received. It would have let people stay here with their families, while applying for an adjustment in their status. It would have updated our laws so immigrants who came here before 1986 could stay. But Republicans inserted watered-down language that denies parity to Central American and other immigrants who have not had the same opportunities to become citizens given to Nicaraguans and Cubans. It does not do enough to allow people to pay a fee and stay in the United States with their families while applying for an adjustment in their immigration status, and it does not let people apply for citizenship who arrived here before 1986. This conference report could have made an important advance in civil rights. Instead, a small group of lawmakers decided once again to thwart the bipartisan will of this Congress and the will of a majority of the American people by refusing to include hate crimes legislation. Law enforcement officers would have had the enhanced tools they need to investigate and prosecute these awful crimes. We could have sent a strong message that crimes committed against people simply because of their race, gender, ability, or sexual orientation are evil and offensive. We could have strengthened the values we as a people hold dear: human respect, tolerance, and understanding. Further, this conference report denies the Justice Department the funding it needs to pursue tobacco companies in court, and it provides inadequate language that does little to protect the privacy of Social Security numbers and prevent them from being bought and sold. Amy Boyer was stalked and killed by a man who purchased her Social Security number over the Internet, and there is no reason why we cannot stop another similar tragedy with tougher protections. So this bill is an insult to the legislative process. The Republicans have made no effort to address issues that would have secured Democratic support and the President's approval. The President has said he will veto this conference report. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation. Let us go back to work in a bipartisan way to resolve these important issues. That is what the American people expect us to do, and we should not let them down.