Lindsey Graham

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, Americans who take an increasingly cynical view of politics and politicians often claim that politicians are all the same, and those who do not vote justify their passivity by saying it does not matter. Half the people in America who are eligible to vote choose not to, and there is something that we need to address. There is an issue on the radar screen of most Americans called reforming the IRS. Hopefully we can convince folks that we are serious about changing Washington. The Democratic Party had Washington for 40 years and there has been no major effort during that period of time to change the way we tax the American people and the way the IRS works. We have been in town for 3 years, and there are major overhauls of the IRS looming and some have come to fruition, with the help from the Democratic Party, which convinces me if we pick the right issue and drive it hard, people will come our way. Now the IRS has to prove that one has done something wrong; one does not have to prove oneself innocent. I would ask every taxpayer in this country to watch this debate, closely follow who is leading it, and I can promise that the Republican Party is going to take our hopes and dreams for a new Tax Code for a new century and we are going to boldly go forward, and I hope our colleagues in the Democratic Party will join us.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today, the Parents and Teachers Know Best Act, that would send funds currently appropriated to the Goals 2000 Program directly to every local school district in the Nation with few strings attached. All Members of Congress care about our Nation's children. We all want to see America's education system work better, our children obtain the best education they can and succeed to the best of their abilities. But our debate over Federal policy is not about who cares more, but how to effectively improve education in America. Goals 2000 is a Federal program where the Department of Education administers and monitors national education standards. The establishment of this program was the beginning of the Clinton administration's strategy to substantially increase the role of the Federal Government in our local schools. It is the hallmark of the Clinton administration's attempt to transfer authority to run our country's schools from local communities to Washington. While this administration failed to nationalize our Nation's health care system, they are trying through a slow, step-by-step process to federalize our Nation's schools. For example, as part of this process, the Clinton administration and the Department of Education are continuing to pursue, without congressional authorization and in direct contravention of current law, their proposal for a system of national testing. These national tests will clearly and quickly lead to a national curriculum designed by favored interest groups and Federal bureaucrats. My legislation begins an effort to roll back the rising tide of nationalization and federalization. This bill will significantly reduce the Federal role in determining standards but will maintain the funding. It cuts the layers of bureaucracy and red tape that bog down our goal of improving our children's education. It requires money go directly to every school district in America with few strings attached. The Goals 2000 Program has done little, if anything, to improve the performance of America's students in the classroom. Indeed, by taking money that could best be used by a teacher in a classroom and giving it to a bureaucrat, this program has prevented local school districts from using their tax dollars to improve schools. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Federal spending for education was estimated to be $100.5 billion in fiscal year 1997, an increase of $37.7 billion, or 60 percent, since fiscal year 1990. Even after adjusting for inflation, Federal support for education increased 31 percent. We certainly have not seen a 31-percent improvement in our education system. We are spending enough money, but we are spending it in the wrong ways. My bill will abolish the increasingly intrusive role of the Federal Government in education and give educators at the local level the freedom they need to educate students in a way that meets the unique needs of their community. I believe decisions about education should be left up to local communities, principals, teachers and parents. Because of this growing Federal interference, State and local governments are spending too little money in the classroom, and too much money on bureaucracy. According to the Digest of Education Statistics, in 1993 only $141 billion out of $265 billion spent on elementary and secondary education was spent on instruction. The National Center for Education Statistics pointed out that in 1994 only 52 percent of staff employed in public elementary and secondary school systems were teachers. These statistics clearly demonstrate the need to get more funding into the classroom. This legislation also promotes accountability in education. By giving the control of these funds to local school boards, parents can hold local leaders accountable. If parents are unsatisfied with the performance of their schools, they can vote their school board officials out of office. Parents can't vote a nameless, faceless Federal bureaucrat out of their office. Some have characterized Goals 2000 as a voluntary program. Supposedly, States can receive grant money from the program without any direction or coercion. To believe the Federal bureaucracy, whether overseen by a liberal or conservative administration, would not try to mandate and control education programs through national standards, or leave their imprint on how the money is spent is, at best, naive. Since the inception of the U.S. Department of Education in 1979, its budget has doubled to over $32 billion. Now, 50 percent of all mandates regarding how to educate children emanate from Washington. However, they only provide 6 percent of the money. Test scores remain low, dropout rates are stagnant, and, overall, the Nation's education system is lagging behind other industrialized countries. The Parents and Teachers Know Best Act will encourage parental involvement in education, as well as empower teachers and local school board officials to establish or continue education programs that meet the unique needs of their community. My goal is to put the money in the hands of those who know our children's names, those who know how to educate our children best-- parents, teachers and locally elected school board officials. At the end of the day, if we are not able to educate our children locally, then no amount of Washington benevolence will save us.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dedicated individual from the Third District of South Carolina. Mr. D. Kirk Oglesby, Jr. has been devoted to the administrative medical profession for more than 40 years. His retirement from the Anderson Area Medical Center brings to a close a remarkable career, one that has greatly benefited the city of Anderson and surrounding communities. Like many in the medical profession, Mr. Oglesby leaves behind a legacy of care and compassion. Born in Gastonia, NC, Kirk graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Davidson College. From there, he attended Duke University and received his certificate in hospital administration. Early in his career, Kirk Oglesby developed the family practice residency. This program which meets the primary care needs for many families in the Anderson area, has grown tremendously since its inception in the 1970's. This year marks 30 years of service to the Anderson Area Medical Center. Throughout his tenure as president, Mr. Oglesby has witnessed the Anderson Area Medical Center change from a primary care hospital into a sophisticated health care system. It has been through his guidance that the hospital is committed to promoting healthy lifestyles among members of the community. But Kirk Oglesby has served his community in many other ways. He has been a long standing member of the Rotary Club and the Chamber of Commerce. Students at the Clemson University College of Commerce and Industry and the College of Nursing have benefited from the time he has spent with them and his wealth of experience. His distinguished work with the South Carolina Hospital Association and the American Hospital Association have benefited all Americans as these organizations have worked to make the health care system in the United States the greatest in the world. To his credit, the American Hospital Association bestowed on Kirk their Distinguished Service Award in 1997. Because of his many achievements and great contributions to his State, in 1993 former Governor Carroll Campbell awarded him South Carolina's highest civilian award, the Order of the Palmetto. I am gratified to know that Kirk will stay in Anderson after his retirement and continue to serve his community for many years to come. His service to the people of Anderson and to the Third Congressional District will be both missed and admired for many years to come.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to provide a limited overtime exemption from section 7(k) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for public sector employees who provide emergency medical services (EMS)--the same FLSA exemption afforded to fire protection personnel. Without this change in law, there will continue to be circumstances in which EMS personnel are working the same tours of duty as either fire protection or law enforcement personnel, but must be paid overtime for any hours worked in excess of 40 hours during any workweek. In some localities, such as Pickens County, SC, EMS functions are entirely separate from fire protection and law enforcement activities, but their job duties are identical. There should be no difference in the treatment of EMS personnel under the FLSA simply because of the manner in which emergency services are provided by local communities. Furthermore, in many jurisdictions, the majority of emergency calls are medical emergencies. The current situation is very expensive for State and local governments and intrudes on their management of fire protection and law enforcement activities. Section 7(k) of the FLSA provides a partial exemption from overtime for those employees engaged in fire protection and law enforcement activities. Employers are allowed to establish work periods of up to 28 days, and overtime compensation is not owned until fire protection employees have worked more than 212 hours and law enforcement personnel exceed 171 hours of work. There have been conflicting rulings by the Federal courts of appeal on the issue of whether EMS personnel are covered by section 7(k). There also have been different interpretations by the courts of the regulations on this subject. This has led to confusion and large financial liability on the part of State and local governments. The bill I am introducing today revises section 7(k) so that EMS personnel qualify for the same partial exemption from overtime as fire protection personnel. Mr. Speaker, the FLSA, passed in 1938, mandates a rigid interpretation of the 40-hour workweek. The law's worker classification and compensation requirements are not reflective of the contemporary workplace. Contradictory court interpretations of the FLSA have provided windfall judgements for some employees. These costly judgements against public sector employers have a direct impact on budgets supported by taxpayer dollars and also affect public safety services. The existing liability for many States and localities is estimated to be in the millions of dollars, and the potential for future liability creates tremendous fiscal uncertainly. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation which promotes the mandate of public accountability and fiscal responsibility to which State and local governments must adhere.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond; my name was mentioned. We are declaring war on people who just want to write checks as politicians and go home and feel good about it and still leave the crummy school system behind. We are declaring war on the status quo. We are fighting for parents. That is the war we are engaged in, and we choose the parents over the entrenched bureaucracy, and we are going to win that war.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and the committee for doing something that is probably long overdue in this country, and that is giving people choices that they have yet to have. If you are a parent sending your kid to a public school system and you are pleased with it, good for you. If you are a parent sending your kids to a public school system and you are worried about them, that you are afraid they are going to get beat up or they are going to meet a drug dealer when they go in the door, or that the plaster is falling down on them, or somebody at school really does not have their best interests, well, there is a new crowd in town giving you some options you never had. There are some friends on this side of the aisle who agree with this idea, and there are some that do not, but this is a debate long overdue to be had in this country. Public schools in this country by a large extent, I think, do a great job. I am a public school graduate, but there are places in our country where nobody in this building would send their child, and we need to do something, and all we hear is, spend more money, spend more money, spend more money. Do my colleagues know what makes someone better? Competition makes them better. It will make us a better Congressman when somebody will run and want to take your job away. It will make the public school system better, where they failed, if there is somebody else in town that can take that child and do a quality job and give the parents the choice that they are lacking today. This is a pilot project, but this is really a debate about the status quo versus reform. We spent money in the name of spending money. Forty years later, we have got a situation that is never going to change by just spending money. If my colleagues want to improve anybody's state in life, provide some good healthy competition. And this finally addresses the basic problem of public education. It is a monopoly that does not respond to anything in some situations, and now there is a new act in town where parents, nobody else but mom and dad, get a choice that people in this room can afford but they cannot. And if someone is doing a good job as a public educator, they have no fear from this. If they are failing the parents in our communities, we better get better, and it is probably not good English, but we better get our act together, because people can go somewhere else if we have our way. It is long overdue.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation that removes the short-, mid-, and long-term distinctions on capital gains tax which were part of previous law and included in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. This change simplifies capital gains tax assessments by removing arbitrary time constraints and applying the rates now, instead of in 2006. Without this change, gains made within the short- and mid- term rates will receive no tax break at all unless they are held for excessive periods of time. The very idea of the Federal Government dictating time constraints on the holding of investments runs counter to the fundamental concept of our market-driven economy. With present holding periods, how can we conclude that an 18-month investment is better than a 17.9-month investment? For example, if an investor reaped $1,000 in capital gains, they would receive a return of $602 after taxes if they held it for 17 months and 30 days. But, after holding it for 1 day more, their after- tax return would jump to $720. That is a ridiculous 20 percent difference in 1 day. This legislation removes these conditions. As we discuss the modification and simplification of the present Tax Code, this bill demonstrates Congress' desire to bring about an immediate beneficial change. It is becoming more and more evident that the Tax Code is a growing impediment to families, small business, and investors. While we conduct hearings and debate on what changes are to be made, streamlining the capital gains tax regulations in the interim shows the American people we are making progress toward a simple and lasting solution. No changes in the gains tax percentages are made in this measure. The rates, agreed to by the Clinton administration earlier this year, would simply be applied without the time constraints. It is not only bipartisan, but logical as well. No concessions are made to corporate or big business capital gains taxes, nor is this bill designed to aid the wealthy. It allows individuals the opportunity to make investment decisions based on the market, rather than by obtuse Government time constraints. The rates in the present law are fair, the holding periods are not. Mr. Speaker, this is a tremendous opportunity to help American families invest for their future. This bill removes frustrating obstacles for small businesses and investors who are often stymied in their efforts to reinvest their gains immediately because of the excessive losses they would incur under current law. I urge my colleagues to support this technical change to the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Removing the time constraints on capital gains tax demonstrates our desire to simplify the Tax Code and help Americans invest without unnecessary restrictions.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, as to Mr. Dornan's case, I believe the procedures that the House has to review elections are being followed. It is a question of how many ineligible, illegal people voted. That is something we should take up, and I am confident that as a body we will do a good job of doing that when the time comes. Education. A lot has been said about education. Apparently there is a great confrontation about the Nation. The President said he would veto the Labor-HHS bill if we do not agree to national testing. Mr. President, you just do that. If you want to federalize education, we will have a fight. It is a fight long overdue. Your agenda has been since day one to take everything local and make it national. National testing is a $39 million farce, 90 to $100 million to implement the test in 1999. It is truly a local function being done in abundance. We need to stop testing children. We know the problems. We need to start educating children. If he wants to veto the bill and shut the Government down to federalize education, I think that is a debate that is long overdue, and I await that day.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Chairman Bliley and the Commerce Committee for passing out of committee H.R. 1270, The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1997. Fifteen years ago the Department of Energy, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, was given the responsibility of determining the best location for a centralized nuclear storage facility and for readying it to receive irradiated fuel by January 1998. The rate payers, our constituents, have financed this operation at a cost of $13 billion. We have built and tested shipping containers and found them to be reliable and safe. Our European counterparts regularly ship similar canisters both domestically and internationally. With the passage of H.R. 1270, we can consolidate our spent nuclear fuel in a centralized facility. So why the holdup? The problem is not money or safety, but politics. As we wait for passage of H.R. 1270, the price tag to our constituents grows. Continued delays could force nuclear powerplants to build additional storage space at the rate payers' expense. Furthermore, because Congress fails to use the funds accumulated in the nuclear waste fund, other nonrelated projects siphon money from this depleting account. It is time that money collected for the nuclear waste fund be spent for its intended purpose and that the administration keeps their promise to the American people. Let's stop wasting our citizen's money and finish the job: Support H.R. 1270.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Goodling amendment. I want to compliment the gentleman from Pennsylvania for having the guts to say nationally what people locally are saying about national testing. In my district, I presented a flag to a local elementary school. We talked very glowingly about what the flag meant and how much we should honor and respect it. The one thing that I left with that meeting was that there are good, polite kids at that school, and every teacher was following this debate, and every administrator was following this debate and said, please do not impose upon us another testing regime. Give us some assets to implement the changes we need to make in South Carolina to improve education. If you are a taxpayer out there channel flipping, you might want to stop for a minute. This debate involves your money. It is going to take $15 to $16 million to design the tests. In the year 1999, it is going to take $90 to $100 million to administer the tests. That is a lot of money. At least I think it is a lot of money. The question you ought to be asking is take a few minutes to go to your local education board, to your superintendent, to your teachers, and write your State representative and ask those folks what are we doing in our State right now to test our students, and see if that suffices. This really is about power. If you do not have an agenda, you ought not be in this place. My agenda is clearly to take the education debate and get it home and get as much resources into the hands of a teacher who knows the child's name and less resources here in Washington. Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

Mr. GRAHAM. Strike what I said, Mr. Chairman, and I will make it to the Chair. Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest that everybody in the country do is do what I just said a few minutes ago. Take some time to find out how much money is being spent at the local level and see if this $100 million program does any good, or if we should take the $100 million and give it to the classroom teacher who will actually meet their child every day and see if it will help produce a better result. Let me tell my colleagues politically where we are. The State has already voted on this. They decided not to give the Department of Education the ability to fashion the test. It passed in the Senate, but there is going to be a Washington-picked group that will design the test. One reason I think the Black Caucus and the Hispanic Caucus is against this is they do not want some elite group in Washington designing a test for their children, not knowing anything about their community, and creating standards that may not be appropriate for their community. If you give the power to test, you are eventually going to give the power to change curriculum. It has traditionally been in America a local function to test and prepare students to learn. A local teacher will show up in your classroom, somebody that lives in your community, who will probably see you Friday night at the ballgame. Would it not be nice to be able to talk to that teacher and tell her or him that, I support you and your endeavors to educate my child, and I am against giving more money in Washington, DC to do the job that you are capable of? That is what this debate is about. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] has got a lot of guts. He is willing to take the feel-good 30-second, 60-second sound bites and fight for values. I think his agenda is what most people's agenda in the education business is. Give me more of the assets available in education, and I will do a better job. A dollar spent here in Washington will not do what a dime spent in a classroom in South Carolina will do. Let us take the money, the desires, hopes and dreams we have for our children and put it in the hands of the people who will actually meet the child day in and day out, and do not buy into the dream that Washington knows best. If you want to send your kid to a Washington, DC school system, come up here and go. You would not stay here 1 minute.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Chairman Goodling is one of the reasons we have reached this agreement. I hope people will accept this as being what it is, moving the ball a bit forward, not backward.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, a question. Does this include the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] regarding the needle exchange program?

Mr. GRAHAM. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would shift $55 million from the Goals 2000 Program to the IDEA Program. I think a lot has been said about both programs. I understand that there has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes to try to bring several issues to resolution. I would like for someone, maybe the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], to detail what the agreement is, or the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. But until we get to that point, let me make a couple of observations about how I feel as an individual Congressman, and I think that feeling is shared by many in this body. A little bit of history about Goals 2000: It started in the Bush administration with an effort to try to set standards to make us competitive with the Japanese and Germans and other international competitors by having national goals to achieve in education. Unfortunately, every good idea that starts in Washington winds up somewhere a little different than you wanted it to be. We found that when we try to implement national standards, no matter how noble they are, that the people who implement them have a different view of how the world should work. I would just make this observation, the Department of Education is in the hands of folks I consider more liberal, more on the liberal side of the House. One day that will probably change, as politics is subject to change. My basic objection is, I do not think we need close to $400 million to $500 million in the hands of bureaucrats in Washington to put their personal stamp of approval of how States administer education. The whole idea of the carrot-and-stick approach is a bad idea. However, we do not get what we want all the time in life. In the 1996 appropriation process, the House had zero dollars for this program; and in fiscal year 1997, we had zero dollars. I think the House spoke very clearly where it felt the $400 to $500 million should be spent. It should not be funded through bureaucrats in Washington; it should be spent at home, so people at home can do the best job educating the children. The people at home are the ones that know their names. However, having said all that, in trying to get through a very tough process, I do believe we have reached an agreement that covers several issues. I would be glad to yield to the subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. GRAHAM. I would like to thank the chairman. A lot of people have worked hard to put this together: Chairman Goodling, our Education Committee chairman; the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. But the folks who started this, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg], the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Souder], the others who spent hours trying to make this bill more acceptable for a lot of people, I want to thank them, because the hours have, I think, resulted in a product that I feel a little better about. Life is give and take. Sometimes you have to fight for what you want. I think we fought in a very fair, acceptable way that makes the people in America more proud of the House. At least, I would like to think that, anyway.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. I congratulate the gentleman on that move, because it has turned out to be a very good move. But that is not really the point I am trying to make. The point I am trying to make is, you have a certain number of people on the payroll of OSHA. What do they do every day? Voluntary compliance is one way for an employer to meet the goals and requirements that we place upon them. We have found that maybe if we have more business involvement in voluntary compliance programs that we can get there a little easier and save money for the employer, to let them share the benefits from the savings with their employees. What I am saying is, when you have a fixed population of workers at OSHA, where should they be spending their time? How should you fashion your work force at OSHA? How many people should be in the ``gotcha'' business, and how many people should go around every day informing and advising industry, ``Here is the latest thing out on worker safety''? That is what I am trying to talk about. We have gotten a lot of feedback. It seems to me they are on the enforcement end, the ``gotcha'' end; about two-thirds of their people do that job. We are trying to get a work force mix that probably will do a better job, if you take most of OSHA employees and get them away from the ``gotcha'' business and you send them into the industry and advise people, and you try to get people up to speed as to what is the best way to make sure that the workers are safe.

Mr. GRAHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, to kind of pick up where my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia, left off, I also am on the Education and the Workforce Committee, and this is my third year in Congress, and hopefully every year you learn a bit about how programs work and where money ought to be spent. At the end of the day, it is a judgment call. The Committee on Appropriations has made some choices that are their version of how it ought to be. Now we have a chance, as Members, to come in and suggest how these choices might change, and does it make sense to rearrange the money and spend money here and take money from there. Mr. Chairman, the question of money and people is always an intriguing question. If I thought just by increasing appropriations bills we could prevent all workplace deaths, I would do so. If I thought just spending more money would take every family and every parent that has a disabled child and get the most out of that child, I would gladly spend the money. Sometimes it is not about how much you spend but the way you conduct the program, who is controlling the money, who has say-so of how it is spent; that is probably just as important as the amounts. The OSHA laws in this country, in my opinion, have in the past focused more on the bureaucracy and more on the paperwork side of the House, rather than on whether or not it is really making the workplace safe. I think that is inevitable. As an agency grows, just like any other business in America, it looks for ways to continue to grow. This Congress, the 104th Congress, the first Congress I was in, I think inherited a mess. I think we have been working at times in a bipartisan fashion to straighten that mess out. But when we look back at what it was like when we first came here, we had an OSHA agency where 8 out of 10 violations were paperwork violations, and there is no use blaming the Democratic Party for that, because many times the OSHA organization was under Republican control. The facts are it just was not working right. It got soft. We were throwing money in the name of worker safety, but we were not looking at outcomes. We have had numerous hearings in our committee about outcomes. That is the change I have seen in the last 3 years. We are asking questions about programs that have never been asked before, before we write the check. Let me tell the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] some of the questions we have asked about OSHA. One of the basic questions I have asked, if you had a limited pot of money, which I think it is time to start thinking in those terms, where would you spend that money? Would you increase the number of investigators and increase the fining capacity, or would you direct more money into the area of educating businesses to make the workplace safe? We have asked numerous people from OSHA about that mix, and they are doing studies right now: Where is the best place to put your money? Is it in enforcement or is it in education? We have been finding, I think, consistent----

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can pick up with the passion we just saw, but that is good news. This is an amazing day. Mr. Speaker, the firmness and fairness of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] brought this deal about. I hope the American people understand that. Our Republican leadership team has done a good job, but the best decision they ever made was to let the gentleman negotiate for us. It has really helped a lot. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] is going to vote for this bill, I understand. I know this is difficult. I congratulate him for making what has to be a difficult compromise, but I think the Nation is better off. I am not going to talk about the details for the next few seconds. The important thing to me is that we are taxed from the time we get up in the morning and drink our first cup of coffee to the time we go to bed and watch a show on television and pay cable taxes. We are taxed from the time we are born until the time we die. Today we get just a little bit of our money back, and a little money and power flows out of Washington today. We do not need to worry about the details. The most important thing that you need to understand about today is that, when President Clinton moved to the middle and agreed that money and power need to come home in a fair way and said giving money and power back to families, businesses, and local government is a good thing, the public has rewarded him, and they should, and the Democratic Party. But let it be said, as a member of the Contract with America class, that our legacy to this country is that new people came to Congress and sang a different song, and that tune has been picked up by people who have never sung it before and it is music to the American public's ears.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, congratulations on a super effort to give a little money and power back to the American people. One thing I want to say: I was outside listening to the debate. If my colleagues have got kids at home, go and mark down on the calendar that the Democratic and Republican parties on the same day put a bill in to cut taxes. I am not going to say a bad thing about my friends on the other side of the aisle. I appreciate them trying to cut taxes and send some money and power back home. I just wish they would stop distorting what we are trying to do. They are making everybody in America rich to get the numbers up. But that is OK. This is a good day. Both parties are trying to send back some of their money. Unfortunately, one party cannot let go of the past by demagoging everything we do. We will get over that one day. Two and a half years we have been in charge, and the best results I can show the American people what it means to have us in charge is we got both parties wanting to cut taxes. Quit trying to defend stuff, Mr. Chairman. Be happy. This is a good day the Lord hath made and let us rejoice in it.

Mr. GRAHAM

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Greenwood County, of the Third Congressional District in South Carolina, on their 100th anniversary. Founded in 1897, Greenwood County began when over 1,100 residents petitioned South Carolina Governor W.H. Ellerbe requesting a special election for the formation of a new county. Now, a hundred years later, over 59,000 Greenwood County citizens anxiously await their County's birthday to celebrate its proud past and bright future. Through the years, the citizens of Greenwood County have had the foresight and vision to facilitate growth throughout the County. Now, Greenwood County is home to many thriving businesses, cutting-edge industries, and close-knit families who represent a wholesome all- American way of life. These outstanding citizens characterize their proud past and their overwhelming confidence in the future. Greenwood County residents have become active participants in commemorating this special event. The month-long-celebration festivities include essays, exhibits, lectures, and old photos to be enjoyed by the young and old, native and transplant. In addition to various planned activities, a special song to commemorate the Greenwood County Centennial was written. As a successful and eventful chapter closes in the history of Greenwood County, I send my best wishes for a flourishing and thriving future. It is an honor and privilege for me to represent Greenwood County and their interests in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to watching the growth and development of Greenwood County over the next 100 years.