Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman for yielding me time. Joe Moakley. I first encountered Joe when I was a young Congressman and took an amendment up to the Committee on Rules. It was probably an ill-advised amendment, but Joe was very gentle and very kind and kind of let me know the errors of my way and was straightforward. On subsequent times, when Joe was chairman and in charge of that committee, I used to go up there, and he was about as straight as you could get as a person you would find on either side of the aisle. He was fair, he was honest, and he did not hesitate to tell you sometimes the error of your ways. But I got to know Joe probably even better. He shared an office down the hall. When I became deputy whip, we shared an office across the hall, and we would meet. In those days Joe was not in very good health, but Joe was always cheerful; he always had a good word to say and an optimistic outlook. Even though I was not here in the days of Tip O'Neill, I think probably Joe carries out the best tradition of the Irish-Catholic-Boston politician. He was of good nature, of good humor, and knew the art of politics very, very well. The last experience I had with Joe is I had the great honor of sharing a trip to Rome with him this January. He cochaired a Congressional delegation to Rome to carry the Congressional Gold Medal to present to the Pope. I think I saw Joe Moakley probably in his very best time. He relished that trip. He relished the opportunity to present that medal to the Pope, and he said to me that was one of the greatest experiences he had while serving in the Congress of the United States. We will remember Joe for a lot of things, first of all his service on the Committee on Rules. We will remember him for his work in El Salvador, something we did not always agree with, but certainly something that was certainly from his heart, and he was committed to that. But I last saw Joe 2 weeks ago. I took a quiet trip to Bethesda and stopped to see him. Joe was sleeping, probably one of his last days, but he was at peace. I remember just a couple of weeks ago when we unveiled his portrait in Statuary Hall. Joe, I think, looked forward to that. It was certainly a time that we had to honor him while he was here and we could appreciate it. The glow on Joe's face that day pretty much matched the glow on that portrait. I think that is how we will always remember him, that cheery face that today hangs in the Committee on Rules. We will always remember Joe Moakley in this place.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, today, I would like to join with my colleagues in commending the American Football Coaches Association for providing parents with identification kits to locate children who are missing. In 1997, the American Football Coaches Association--concerned about the 800,000 children who disappear every year--launched the National Child Identification Program. Their group distributes millions of identification kits that can be used as a means to locate lost children. Parents use the kits to make ID cards for their children, containing important identifying information, such as a picture, fingerprints and the location of a child's medical and dental records. The American Coaches Association deserves to be recognized for taking the lead on this important issue. This respected group saw that they could help American families, and they have worked long and hard to achieve that goal. Through the National Identification Program, they are providing a valuable resource for parents who are looking for missing, kidnapped or runaway children. These kits provide parents with the peace of mind of knowing that they have their child's vital statistics at their fingertips in the event of an emergency. I want to thank the American Coaches Association for handing out kit after kit at churches, schools and community events. Their work could be essential in returning missing children back to their families. They have made a generous contribution to our nation, particularly, to our nation's children.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, and I thank him for his diligence and his hard work. I thank my friends on the other side of the aisle. And to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, we are all in this process, and I think there were a couple of Democrats that were involved very heavily in this conference for a lot of hours. I am just advising my colleagues that revisionist history and trying to talk about different things, facts still remain facts. Let me just say that maybe we just ought to tone down our rhetoric this morning, because it is not a Republican victory nor is it a Democrat victory if this bill passes today. The American people win. The American people, who get up in the morning, the farmer in Nebraska this morning that has been up for 3 hours doing chores, he is going to get a better break on his taxes. And that farm he spent his whole life on he may be able to pass on to his children and grandchildren. The truck driver driving across the delta of Mississippi this morning, trying to get home to his family for Memorial Day, he is going to get a better tax break so he can take better care of his kids and plan for his kids' education. He wins on this. It is the single mother in California, whose kids were up early this morning watching the TV. Not this. They are watching cartoons. Maybe it is the same thing. But anyway, that mother will be able to take care of her children. She gets a better tax break. She can plan for her children. And there are benefits for her that have never been in another tax bill. I hear a lot about the budget, and I hear about Presidents in the past. It was 1996 and 1997 and 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001 that this Congress balanced the budget for the first time in 40 years. And because we balanced the budget, we started to pay down the debt. And, yes, in September of this year we will have paid $650 billion down in public debt, and we have a surplus that allows us to give back to the American people. It is time we give to the American people. Because if we do not give them that surplus, we will spend it and we will have bigger government, and we will have more programs and we will not see a surplus again. It is time that we get on with this issue, it is time we get on with this work, and it is time we give the American taxpayer a tax break.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Robert E. Brunner of Illinois Tool Works in Elgin, Illinois, who recently was recognized by the Industrial Fasteners Institute with its first-ever Leadership Award for his tireless efforts on behalf of the fastener industry. As many in this House know, the fastener industry is a vital part of our economy and fasteners are a basic building block of manufacturing. Billions of fasteners are used annually in the U.S. in automobiles, airplanes, tanks, ships, bridges, heavy equipment, and virtually every other manufactured product. Thousands of Americans are employed in hundreds of fastener manufacturing facilities throughout the nation, including my own district in Illinois. In 1999, the industry and many of its key customers, guided by the leadership of Bob Brunner, came together to support innovative, dynamic legislation governing the regulation of fastener quality, H.R. 1183 of the 106th Congress. This legislation, which became P.L. 106-34, is the culmination of nearly ten years of efforts to regulate fastener quality without unduly hampering the industry's efforts to remain competitive and innovative. As the IFI noted in the proclamation announcing Mr. Brunner's honor, this award ``honors outstanding contributions by an individual who has provided direction, vision, and focus toward the timely resolution of strategic issues challenging the mechanical fastener industry and the many markets it serves.'' Bob Brunner's leadership excellence in marshalling industry resources to focus on this critical issues helped ensure a successful, comprehensive, inclusive resolution to the matter. The fastener industry, Illinois Tool Works, the State of Illinois and the Nation have benefited from his energy and enthusiasm. This award and the recognition of this House are richly deserved.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today I want to thank Joelle Rice, the assistant manager of the cloakroom, who is retiring from the Hill after 34 years of dedicated service. Joelle is responsible for making this House run smoothly. Day after day, Joelle keeps Members and staff up to date on what is happening on the floor. She lets us know what we are voting on, what time we are voting, and what time votes will end. Members have relied on her for years for good information; and no matter how busy she is and no matter how many phones are ringing off the hook, she delivers. Thank you, Joelle, for all that you have done for us. You have served this Congress well. Joelle, we wish you and your husband, Wes, the best in your future years together. Thank you.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, first of all, with all due respect to the minority leader, yes, we have all been sold soap before; and sometimes bigger boxes of soap do not necessarily get the job done, especially when bigger boxes of soap mean more government. I remember one time when my wife was breaking me in on just how to wash the laundry. If you put too much soap in that machine, bubbles came out, and it gushed all over. We had soap all over. Everywhere was soap and bubbles. Mr. Chairman, that happens with government, too. If we put too big of dollars in government, what happens is spending goes up. We will never see a balanced budget again. We will never see a surplus. That is what this is all about. This is all about trying to lay out what our plans are for our children and grandchildren and our lives in the next 10 years. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of work done on this bill, and there are a lot of points of view, and I appreciate what everyone did because it laid down the parameters of debate on what people really wanted to do and what their vision for the Nation is. Those are the choices that we will have to make, and the vote in a few minutes will give us the chance to make those choices. Mr. Chairman, the choice here is a choice between government that grows too big, too much, too fast, too big a burden on the American taxpayers, or a budget that holds the growth of government down to slow growth of government and takes a little bit of that extra money, not all of it, not half of it, but just a part of it, and says, we need to take some of that money, and we need to pay it back, we need to give it back to the people that made it in the first place. Mr. Chairman, that is what this choice is all about. So there is tax relief for the American people. So people who get married are not paying an extra $1,400 because they are married rather than being single. Or if you have a small farm or family business and you want to pass it on to the next generation, you can do that without the Federal Government coming in and confiscating 55 or 60 percent of it. Probably everybody who pays taxes deserves a little tax relief. When we cut across the board the marginal tax rates, that means thousands and thousands of Americans in this country who pay taxes now will not even have to pay taxes. But it also means the man and wife that go to work to support their children that earn the $60,000 or $70,000 a year, or $40,000 or $50,000, are going to have more money in their own pocket so they can make decisions about their kids and families and what kind of education they are going to have; or maybe just pay the bills or the tuition to a sports camp, something special for their family. Those are the choices that we are trying to take away from government bureaucrats with too much spending and give it back to the American people who know what their priorities are, that have the right and deserve to spend more of their money the way that they see fit. Mr. Chairman, this budget is also about children and about children in a very special way. It is about education. When you talk about education, sometimes it just kind of goes over some people's heads. But where real education takes place, and I spent 16 years in a classroom, education takes place in a classroom with good teachers and parents who care. We put more dollars not into some bureaucracy, not for some bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., to lay down more paper and more busywork, but we put dollars in the classroom so teachers can do a better job and parents can get more satisfaction sending their children to school and knowing something good is going to happen. Mr. Chairman, we have talked about this budget a great deal. There has been a lot of debate on this floor today, but this budget, crafted by the President, worked on by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), and I thank him for his great work, really goes to the heart of what we want to do for the future of this country and for the moms and dads and children and our grandchildren. We can make this a better place to live. We can make, through this budget, better choices for people to make because they can make their own choices and have better education for their kids. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to support us today and pass this budget resolution because it is time we do it. Let us go to it.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The name of this legislation is significant for two reasons. First, this bill promotes economic growth by returning money to the private sector, alias the American taxpayer. Who among us can say that the economy does not need a little encouragement? Consumer confidence is down. Energy prices are up. Economic growth is stagnant. The economy needs a boost, and this tax relief will provide that boost. It will give consumers more money to pay off credit card bills. It will give families more resources to pay off high energy bills, and it will give parents more money to pay for education expenses. It will give the private sector more money so it can grow more. Second, this tax bill gives taxpayers some relief also. Mr. Speaker, taxpayers need some relief. They need relief from the highest tax burden put on taxpayers since the end of the second world war. Many of these tax incentives were put on taxpayers to help balance the budget. Well, the budget is balanced. In fact, we now have the largest tax surplus in our Nation's history. That means the American people are paying too much in taxes, giving too much of their money to the government and not enough money to their families. Now is the time to give taxpayers some relief. I have heard criticism on this floor from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle and it is based on that we do not have the process right. Well, let me say, when we talk about process and we look at giving people a retroactive tax cut this year, I remember this year's budget, we passed it last year. We set aside 90 percent of that surplus, non-Social Security Medicare surplus, 90 percent of it, to pay down the debt. We took 10 percent of it to give people a tax break. Well, we passed tax relief out of this House and out of the Senate and we sent it down to the other end of Pennsylvania avenue, and President Clinton vetoed that. We have $8 billion set aside in this year's budget to give people a retroactive tax break. We ought to do it. It is there. We owe it to the American people. It is the right thing to do. I have heard that the argument is based on process and not on substance. Well, we need to look at substance. I know that many of my colleagues really want to be for tax relief, but for political reasons they are now opposed to it. Tax relief goes to the heart of what this country is all about. There are three things that can be done with a surplus. Some of it we need to spend. We are going to spend some money on education and defense and the needs of our people across this country. We are going to take some of that money, and as of September 30 of this year we will pay down $600 billion in public debt. We need to do that, but we need to take a fraction of that surplus and we need to give it back to the American people so that they have it in their pocket, so that they can make decisions how they are going to spend that money for their families and their future and education and the needs of their debt, their credit card debt. I do not think we ought to let politics get in the way of taking care of the needs of the American people. I remember in 1996 standing in this Chamber. In 1996, we were able to pass one of the first tax relief bills in a long time, almost over a decade. As we finished the business of the day and we went into special orders, I stood over there underneath the balcony and one of my colleagues who happened to be from Illinois on the other side of the aisle stood up and he was giving a very, very impassioned speech why we should not have tax relief for the American people; that we had a lot of responsibilities; we need to spend that money. He made a statement and said, the American government cannot afford to give this money back to the American people. There was a fellow that stood right up there in that gallery and he came to the front of the gallery and said, ``What do you mean? It is our money.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, the guards came up and dragged that guy out and we never heard from him again; but I will say something, that that gentleman was right, it is their money. It is the money of the American taxpayers. They deserve some of it back. When we pay too much to Uncle Sam, he ought to give some back. Do not let politics get in the way of economic growth. Vote for this common sense tax bill. Vote for a growing economy and tax relief for the American people.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Congressional Record the following memorandum of understanding: January 20, 2001. On January 3, 2001, the House agreed to H.Res. 5, establishing the rules of the House for the 107th Congress. Section 2(d) of H.Res. 5 contained a provision renaming the Banking Committee as the Financial Services Committee and transferring jurisdiction over securities and exchanges and insurance from the Commerce Committee to the Financial Services Committee. The Commerce Committee was also renamed the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Financial Services jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source of legislative history concerning section 2(d) of H.Res. 5 the following statement of Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier during floor consideration of the resolution: ``In what is obviously one of our most significant changes, Mr. Speaker, section 2(d) of the resolution establishes a new Committee on Financial Services, which will have jurisdiction over the following matters: (1) banks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal monetary policy; (2) economic stabilization, defense production, renegotiation, and control of the price of commodities, rents, and services; (3) financial aid to commerce and industry (other than transportation); (4) insurance generally; (5) international finance; (6) international financial and monetary organizations; (7) money and credit, including currency and the issuance of notes and redemption thereof; gold and silver, including the coinage thereof; valuation and revaluation of the dollar; (8) public and private housing; (9) securities and exchanges; and (10) urban development. ``Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges is transferred in its entirety from the Committee on Commerce, which will be redesignated under this rules change to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it will now be transferred from the new Committee on Energy and Commerce to this new Committee on Financial Services. This transfer is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction currently in the Committee on Agriculture regarding commodity exchanges. ``Furthermore, this change is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC oversight of multi-state public utility holding companies and their subsidiaries, which remain essentially matters of energy policy. ``Mr. Speaker, as a result of the transfer of jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges, redundant jurisdiction over matters relating to bank capital markets activities generally and depository institutions securities activities, which were formerly matters in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, have been removed from clause 1 of rule X. ``Matters relating to insurance generally, formerly within the jurisdiction of the redesignated Committee on Energy and Commerce, are transferred to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. ``The transfer of any jurisdiction to the Committee on Financial Services is not intended to limit the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdiction over consumer affairs and consumer protection matters. ``Likewise, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as a result of this change. ``Furthermore, the existing jurisdictions of other committees with respect to matters relating to crop insurance, Workers' Compensation, insurance anti-trust matters, disaster insurance, veterans' life and health insurance, and national social security policy are not affected by this change. ``Finally, Mr. Speaker, the changes and legislative history involving the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Energy and Commerce do not preclude future memorandum of understanding between the chairmen of these respective committees.'' By this memorandum the two committees undertake to record their further mutual understandings in this matter, which will supplement the statement quoted above. It is agreed that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will retain jurisdiction over bills dealing broadly with electronic commerce, including electronic communications networks (ECNs). However, a bill amending the securities laws to address the specific type of electronic securities transaction currently governed by a special SEC regulation as an Alternative Trading System (ATS) would be referred to the Committee on Financial Services. While it is agreed that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services over securities and exchanges includes anti-fraud authorities under the securities laws, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will retain jurisdiction only over the issue of setting of accounting standards by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to let my colleagues know that last week, on January 8, 2001, I had the opportunity to present the Congressional Gold Medal to Pope John Paul II. I was joined by my colleagues Joe Moakley of Massachusetts, Jim Leach of Iowa, Chris Cox of California, Sherwood Boehlert of New York, Chris Smith of New Jersey, Bud Cramer of Alabama, Chris John of Louisiana and Don Sherwood of Pennsylvania. Members of the other body, led by Senator Sam Brownback and Senator Barbara Mikulski, also joined us. Pope John Paul II still possesses great strength in spirit and he was quite generous with his time with the Congressional delegation. As he was leaving the end of the meeting, he waved good-bye to us and said, ``God Bless America.'' It was a moment that touched the hearts of all who were in the room. John Paul II, the man who has done so much to spread good will across the world as he worked tirelessly to bring down communism in Eastern Europe, is a hero to millions of Americans, whether they are Catholic or non-Catholic. Inserted below, you will find the remarks I made at the ceremony and the remarks the Pope made in response. Also included below are remarks made by my colleague, Joe Moakley, who traveled with us on the trip. It was a magical day and I thank the House for allowing me to make this special presentation to Pope John Paul II. ``Today, I'm pleased that the Congress has bestowed this honor to you, John Paul II, and that you have agreed to accept it. This award celebrates your life not only as a spiritual leader of a billion Catholics, but also as a peacemaker, healer and beacon of light to the whole world. ``For your more than 20 years as Pope, you have tirelessly traveled this globe preaching a message of love and truth. You have delivered your message in different languages, to different cultures, to people of different ages, economic backgrounds and political persuasions. ``You are a pillar of morality, an advocate for the poor and the oppressed and a voice for the unborn and the aged. Your strong words inspire the 1 billion Catholics you lead and impress people of various faiths all over the world. You have helped to bring down barriers that threaten our world's unity. You have played a pivotal role in the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe and you have expanded dialogue with political and religious leaders in the Holy Land. ``In this past year--the Jubilee year--you worked harder than ever to make sure your reconciling message was heard. While the holy year is now over, the beauty of your Jubilee message continues to resonate in the hearts of the world's people.''

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting in the Congressional Record the following memorandum of understanding: January 20, 2001. On January 3, 2001, the House agreed to H.Res. 5, establishing the rules of the House for the 107th Congress. Section 2(d) of H.Res. 5 contained a provision renaming the Banking Committee as the Financial Services Committee and transferring jurisdiction over securities and exchanges and insurance from the Commerce Committee to the Financial Services Committee. The Commerce Committee was also renamed the Energy and Commerce Committee. The Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Financial Services jointly acknowledge as the authoritative source of legislative history concerning section 2(d) of H.Res. 5 the following statement of Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier during floor consideration of the resolution: ``In what is obviously one of our most significant changes, Mr. Speaker, section 2(d) of the resolution establishes a new Committee on Financial Services, which will have jurisdiction over the following matters: (1) banks and banking, including deposit insurance and Federal monetary policy; (2) economic stabilization, defense production, renegotiation, and control of the price of commodities, rents, and services; (3) financial aid to commerce and industry (other than transportation); (4) insurance generally; (5) international finance; (6) international financial and monetary organizations; (7) money and credit, including currency and the issuance of notes and redemption thereof; gold and silver, including the coinage thereof; valuation and revaluation of the dollar; (8) public and private housing; (9) securities and exchanges; and (10) urban development. ``Mr. Speaker, jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges is transferred in its entirety from the Committee on Commerce, which will be redesignated under this rules change to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and it will not be transferred from the new Committee on Energy and Commerce to this new Committee on Financial Services. This transfer is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction currently in the Committee on Agriculture regarding commodity exchanges. ``Furthermore, this change is not intended to convey to the Committee on Financial Services jurisdiction over matters relating to regulation and SEC oversight of multi-state public utility holding companies and their subsidiaries, which remain essentially matters of energy policy. ``Mr. Speaker, as a result of the transfer of jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges, redundant jurisdiction over matters relating to bank capital markets activities generally and depository institutions securities activities, which were formerly matters in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, have been removed from clause 1 of rule X. ``Matters relating to insurance generally, formerly within the jurisdiction of the redesignated Committee on Energy and Commerce, are transferred to the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services. ``The transfer of any jurisdiction to the Committee on Financial Services is not intended to limit the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdiction over consumer affairs and consumer protection matters. ``Likewise, existing health insurance jurisdiction is not transferred as a result of this change. ``Furthermore, the existing jurisdictions of other committees with respect to matters relating to crop insurance, Workers' Compensation, insurance anti-trust matters, disaster insurance, veterans' life and health insurance, and national social security policy are not affected by this change. ``Finally, Mr. Speaker, the changes and legislative history involving the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Energy and Commerce do not preclude future memorandum of understanding between the chairmen of these respective committees.'' By this memorandum the two committees undertake to record their further mutual understandings in this matter, which will supplement the statement quoted above. It is agreed that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will retain jurisdiction over bills dealing broadly with electronic commerce, including electronic communications networks (ECNs). However, a bill amending the securities laws to address the specific type of electronic securities transaction currently governed by a special SEC regulation as an Alternative Trading System (ATS) would be referred to the Committee on Financial Services. While it is agreed that the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services over securities and exchanges includes anti-fraud authorities under the securities laws, the Committee on Energy and Commerce will retain jurisdiction only over the issue of setting of accounting standards by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce. Michael G. Oxley, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I guess I really should not hammer it down while I am still getting applause, but I want to thank Dick Gephardt for his gracious remarks. Dick Gephardt has been a great leader of the House Democrats. He has unified his Democrat Caucus over the last 2 years with unusual effectiveness. He has criss-crossed the Nation, doing his best to help his candidates take a majority in the House. He has worked day and night with a singular determination. I know how hard he has worked, because I had to do my best just to keep up with him. Dick, let me say that I respect your commitment to your principles, I respect and deeply admire your competitive spirit, and thank you so much for your heartfelt comments today. Thank you very much. Now that the campaign is over, I know you will put the same energy and determination that you demonstrated during the campaign in working with me to do the people's business. Thank you all, Democrats, Republicans, for this honor, to be Speaker of the whole House. Today, I stand before you at the beginning of a new year, some say the beginning of a new millennium, and certainly, the beginning of a new Congress. Today, we swear in 41 new Members in the House. One of our new Members is one of the greatest football coaches in college football history, Tom Osborne. On the Senate side, we welcome nine new Senators, including the first First Lady ever to run for public office. We have a new President in the White House who won in the closest election in our Nation's history. While times in the past 2 years have been difficult, this time of new beginnings provides us with new opportunity to reach out and to work with all of our colleagues to get the people's work done. This will be my second term as Speaker of the House, but I could not have done this without the voters of Illinois' 14th District. This past November they elected me to my eighth term in the House of Representatives. I want to thank those people from the Fox Valley and environs of Illinois for trusting me year after year to represent them in this, the people's House, in the Nation's Capitol. I also appreciate the bipartisan support that I receive from our Illinois leadership. With us today we have the Governor of the State of Illinois, we have the mayor of the great city of Chicago, Richard Daley, along with Governor Ryan. We also have the Republican leader in the Illinois House of Representatives. I thank them for joining us today. To my family, my wife, Jean, my two sons, Josh and Ethan, I thank you for your love, your encouragement, your understanding. Jean, thank you for providing me with a good dose of midwestern common sense every time I need it. And in this job, I need it often. As I said 2 years ago and it is still true, the Fox River, not the Potomac River, is still my home. My family reminds me of that fact every day. Two years ago I stood here as the Speaker of this House, untested and largely unknown. While Hastert may still not be a household name, I hope that I have earned your respect as a fair and just Speaker of this House. By this election today, I am reassured that I have performed the duties that have been asked of me to lead this House and do the will of the people. To all those Democrats who have gone out of their way to support me over the last 2 years, I value your respect and your loyalty because I had to work harder to earn it. And for the rest of my Democratic colleagues, if I have not earned your respect in the last 2 years, I hope I can earn it in the next 2. I know it is not easy to have a rival party lead the House's agenda. After all, I, too, used to be in the minority. But I gave my word that I would go out of my way to make sure your voices are heard, and my word is my bond. Our political system has endured a trial. This trial has exposed many warts in our political process. It has also exposed the great strength of our democracy. After all, our system is based upon laws, not on personalities, and ultimately, our Constitution triumphs. Our democracy is stronger also because we have two strong political parties and a vibrant opposition. Make no mistake, the system of checks and balances originally devised by our Founding Fathers works, and it will continue to work to protect the freedom of our citizens. Many have commented about the deep wounds caused by this latest political competition, but it serves no purpose to dwell on the past. After all, our country is at peace. Our economy is still fundamentally strong. Our people are united with a strength of purpose and by a desire to live the American dream. It is only in Washington where many still have a lingering animosity over the political parties. We need to get over it. We need to work together to revitalize this democracy. We need to get to the people's business. I have a great faith that we can do so. This Nation has faced greater trials, and we have persevered and prospered. A former Speaker, a gentleman from Texas by the name of Sam Rayburn, once said, ``I do believe when critical hours arise, the Members of this House will do as they have done in the past: Rise to the occasion, and show to the world that whether Republicans or Democrats, we are all Americans, and love and want to protect and defend and perpetuate the institutions of this, the best, the mightiest, and the freest government that ever blessed mankind in all the world.'' He was right then, and his words ring true today. Let us show people that even those who disagree can reach reasonable solutions for the sake of a nation. Our new president was elected on an agenda to promote prosperity, opportunity, and security for all Americans. We have a duty to consider his agenda and to help him lead America in this next Congress. Two years ago I stood before you and said that every child should have the right to a good education and a safe school. We have made some progress, but we have a long way to go. In a sense, this election was all about the education of our children. Improving education still represents one of the Nation's greatest challenges. Every child must have access to a good education and a safe environment. Every school must be more accountable. Every parent must have faith that his or her child is getting the best education possible. President-elect Bush spoke of ending the soft bigotry of low expectations. We must expect more of our teachers, more of our parents, more of our students, and more of our schools. We must make sure they have the resources to do the job without wasting money on more Federal bureaucracy. I taught government and history at a small high school in northern Illinois for 16 years. My wife taught in that same town for 34 years. I know firsthand some of the problems that our public schools face: declining test scores, rising dropout rates, complacency, decreasing graduation rates. Yet, I know hundreds of teachers personally, and I know there are hundreds of thousands of dedicated teachers who want to see our children succeed. The hundreds of Federal programs created to remedy the problems are not helping. We need local solutions. If we really want to help children learn, we need to send more dollars and decisions to the parents, the teachers, and the folks who run the schools. We need to cut Washington red tape. To show the Nation our commitment to better schools, I will reserve the first House bill, H.R. 1, for President-elect Bush's education proposal. Together, let us pledge to improve education for all of our students. Retirement security is another challenge that Congress must face. Let me begin about social security. Social security is a sacred trust. Our challenge is now to keep it working far into the future. In the last session of Congress we put Americans' social security dollars in a lockbox so that government could no longer raid those funds and threaten the future of the program. That helped social security in the short term. Now we must look to the long term. The American people deserve better than a fraction of 1 percent return on their social security investment. If this program does not do better, it will not survive. The new President and the Congress have both promised to save social security. Now is the time to make good on that promise. Together we must search for a solution to a long-term problem. Retirement security also means health care. Medicare must be modernized, and that process must include prescription drug coverage for all of our senior citizens. No senior should be forced to choose between putting food on the table and having access to lifesaving drugs. Together, we can work to modernize Medicare. National security is another challenge that the 107th Congress must face. We have done a good job of providing for more resources for our men and women in uniform, but we can do better. It is still a dangerous world out there, and our defensive capabilities must improve to keep our citizens safe. President-elect Bush pledged to work with the Congress to support our national missile defense program and provide our military with the funds they need to stay strong. This will be a top priority of the 107th Congress. Together we can work with the President to improve our Nation's security and to keep our citizens safe from international threats. Finally, we have a duty to be fiscally responsible and to take steps to keep our economy strong. The last Congress paid off more debt than any other Congress in history. That is an amazing achievement. You helped make that happen. We are on the road to pay off our public debt by the year 2013. By continuing to pay off debt, we keep our economy strong. We need to also have the responsibility to return surplus money back to the taxpayers with commonsense tax relief. We need to restore fairness to our Tax Code. It is not fair to tax people for being married. It is not fair to tax people on every penny they earn while they are living, and then tax them on what they have left over when they die. In the last Congress we made progress on these two tax fairness initiatives. This year, let us get it done. Also, there are troubling signs that our economy is slowing down. President-elect Bush has proposed a tax relief package that will stimulate economic growth. I believe we have a duty to our constituents and this country to consider this proposal. Together we can work with the new President to keep our economy strong and to give tax relief to all Americans. More than 20 years ago, I stood as a high school teacher before the classes of my high school day in and day out. I taught them about the promises and the possibilities of this Nation, this country we call America. I taught them that in America, people work hard to achieve their dreams for their families, for their careers, and for their communities. I told each student they could fulfill almost even their wildest dreams if they were willing to sacrifice and to work for that dream. Little did I know then how fate would bring me to this place and to this position, the Speaker of the House. But fate has also brought all of you here. You all have sacrificed your time and your effort, and your families have sacrificed with you, for a chance to serve in this body. You have done so because you believe that you can get good things done for your constituents and for all the American people, and that by your efforts, you can make this even a better Nation. Together we have a great opportunity to work for the American people as their representatives. There is no higher honor and there is no greater responsibility. As we promise in solemn ceremony to uphold the Constitution by taking the oath of office, let us do so with the conviction that we renew the American government with each new Congress; that we will renew our efforts by working together, fighting about principle and searching for truth through debate. Today, we are sworn in to represent the people. We participate in the greatest ongoing democratic ritual in the world. Let us always be mindful of our duties to our constituents and respectful of the traditions of this institution. Let us pray that God guides us in all that we do in these halls; that he gives us the knowledge to do the people's work, the strength to persevere, and the wisdom to know when to listen to what others say on this floor. May God bless this House. Now, it is my time to do the people's business, and it is my great honor to recognize my good friend and colleague from the Committee on Commerce, whose legislative skills I admire so much. I ask the Dean of the House of Representatives, the honorable gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to administer the oath. Mr. DINGELL then administered the oath of office to Mr. Hastert of Illinois, as follows: Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter. So help you God.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in this body from time to time there comes a time when we bring ideas together and people together to get good things done. We have to work in the House, and they have to work in the Senate and you have got a White House on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue that all have input. This piece of legislation is a piece of legislation that both bodies, and the White House, had some input in putting together. We have talked about the minimum wage, and we have talked about it far too long; and we have not done anything about it. This is a minimum wage for American working people. It is over 2 years. It is something that I have heard required and requested on this side of the aisle for a long, long time. It is reality in this legislation. It is also reality in this legislation that small businesses, and in my district 75 percent of the jobs are provided by small businesses, we give them the ability to stay in business and provide those jobs in this legislation. We talk about the waitress at the coffee shop who works maybe a job or a job and a half and tries to keep her kids in school and shoes on their feet and tries to keep a good life. She cannot afford and her job does not provide health care. But when she goes to buy that health care, she does not get the same tax deduction that an executive or somebody working in a big plant would get that benefit. This bill gives American working people who have to go out and buy their health care week in and week out, year in and year out that same tax benefit that anybody else that gets it through a corporate entity would get. My father died 2 years ago. We kept him in our home because he did not want to live in a nursing home. We gave him health care and took care of him. It did not make any difference to me whether it was a tax credit or not, but there are a lot of people that cannot afford to do that. But if you can keep a parent in your home because that is where they want to live, among their family, that families can get a tax deduction of $10,000, if you want to take care of your folks. And it is in this bill. It is good for all families in this country, whether you are middle class, whether you are at great risk or if you are upper class. That is what, if you choose to do it, you ought to have the ability to do it and you ought to have that tax deductibility for it. This bill also has something that the President wanted, and the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) over on this side of the aisle worked on, was the community renewal, new markets, so it would invest in people's homes, invest in communities, in inner cities and rural areas so that those people could have a better life, that they could have shopping where they live, they could have jobs where they live, that they could fix their homes up, that they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and there is help to do it. This bill has that in it. I guess I could go on and on. This bill certainly is not perfect. We do not think some of the things that they do on the other side of the Rotunda is always perfect and I guess they may have the same attitude about us. But we have to work on a bicameral basis, and we have to accept what bodies put in this. I am telling you, this is the right bill for this time. We need to move forward. We need to take care of families. We need to take care of senior citizens. We need to take care of people that want to buy their own health care, and we need to take care of our communities that are in the greatest need. Even though this is a great political time, and the politics are at crescendo levels, it is time for this body to quit the quibbling, to come together, and pass good legislation. I would ask Members to join us on both sides of the aisle to do it. Please support this bill.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it's sad to part ways with Tom. He's an old friend who I've known over a span of more than 20 years. He's someone I've worked with in representing the people of our state of Illinois, both in Congress and our state legislature. He's someone who helped me rally the troops when I was chief deputy whip, and he's someone who supported me for Speaker of the House. I have great respect for Tom. Since he was elected in 1991, Tom has worked for the families in Illinois' 15th District. Tom, a farmer himself, stood up for Illinois farmers' interests as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Risk Management and Specialty Crops and Research. He fought for the Republican principles he represents so that he could make American lives better--a balanced budget, lower taxes, fair treatment for small businesses, welfare reform and Social Security and Medicare reform. Tom wanted to retire so he could spend more time with his wife, Connie, his six children and his grandchildren. I hope his future years with them are filled with much happiness. I wish him the best of luck and thank this honorable and decent man for everything he has done for both the people of Illinois and the men and women of this country. I know our friendship will continue even after he goes back home.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for arranging a special order to honor an outstanding colleague of mine, Congressman John Edward Porter, for his twenty years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve alongside him for 14 of those years. In my time working with John, one thing became perfectly clear and that's his dedication to improving medical research. Serving as Chairman of the Labor-HHS Subcommittee on Appropriations he has been the greatest champion of this cause. John knows the important role the NIH plays in saving lives and conquering diseases such as diabetes, cancer, AIDS and alzheimers, and has made it a top priority to ensure the NIH has all the necessary resources to achieve these goals. John has also been one of the most fiscally responsible members of this House. In fact, when I was a new Member, there was a three-year period when John offered budget plans to try and impose a sense of fiscal responsibility on Congress. I am pleased to say that as John leaves us, the fiscal outlook of the federal government has never looked better. Although it is often overshadowed by his dedication to medical research, John has been an important leader of the ``Green Republicans'' in the House. He has been a staunch supporter of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, and has helped to enact important legislation to halt the unregulated export of waste and the destruction of tropical rainforests, as well as helped to set new standards for recycling and energy efficiency. He has also been an advocate for his district residents suffering from flood damage. For his leadership on these issues, John has received numerous awards from environmental organizations all over the world. Speaking of world issues, I have had the opportunity to serve as a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which John co-founded and currently chairs. This is an important association of Congressmen that work together to monitor and end human rights violations around the world. While it is true that John has been a strong advocate for each of these causes, more importantly, he has been the people's champion in his service of the 10th District of Illinois. He has addressed countless infrastructure needs, most recently bringing Metra rail service from Chicago out to Lake County. He has been a great supporter of the Palwaukee and Waukegan Airports by securing FAA improvement grants to provide better service for his constituents. And he has obtained funding to clean up and restore Waukegan harbor and the Skokie Lagoons. John Edward Porter has served this House with the utmost distinction and will be forever remembered for his work on behalf of biomedical research, environmental and human rights, and fiscal responsibility. He will be deeply missed by his constituents in Illinois, the Illinois delegation, and everyone who's known and worked with him over the last twenty-plus years. I wish him and his family the very best in the upcoming years.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today, September 26, 2000 marks the one- hundredth anniversary of Lees-McRae College in Banner Elk, North Carolina. This is a significant day, not just for the college, but for the entire region and, indeed, for the country. Located in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Lees-McRae has its roots in the desire of the Reverend Edgar Tufts, its founder, to bring literacy to the area. The history of Lees-McRae is a century of service to the educational and spiritual needs of the region. The college's commitment to being an integral part of the larger community is summed up in its motto, ``In the mountains, of the mountain, for the mountains.'' Because of its hundred-year commitment to values-centered education, and a century of success in preparing young people for lives of leadership and service, Lees-McRae College has made a significant contribution to the Nation. Its graduates are in all walks of life, putting into practice the values and lessons they learned at Lees- McRae. Lees-McRae College is an institution of which the entire United States can be proud. We honor its centennial as it celebrates the vision and accomplishments of its founder, the Reverend Edgar Tufts. With pride and gratitude we wish the college a second century of success.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of a letter signed jointly by myself and the Democratic Leader, Mr. Gephardt. It is addressed to President Clinton. In it, we express our views on the limits of the ``pocket-veto'' power. I also submit a copy of the letter referenced therein, which was sent to President Bush on November 21, 1989, by Speaker Foley and Republican Leader Michel. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, September 7, 2000. Hon. William J. Clinton, The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: This is in response to your actions on H.R. 4810, the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, and H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act of 2000. On August 5, 2000, you returned H.R. 4810 to the House of Representatives without your approval and with a message stating your objections to its enactment. On August 31, 2000, you returned H.R. 8 to the House of Representatives without your approval and with a message stating your objections to its enactment. In addition, however, in both cases you included near the end of your message the following: Since the adjournment of the Congress has prevented my return of [the respective bill] within the meaning of Article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution, my withholding of approval from the bill precludes its becoming law. The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655 (1929). In addition to withholding my signature and thereby invoking my constitutional power to ``pocket veto'' bills during an adjournment of the Congress, to avoid litigation, I am also sending [the respective bill] to the House of Representatives with my objections, to leave no possible doubt that I have vetoed the measure. President Bush similarly asserted a pocket-veto authority during an intersession adjournment with respect to H.R. 2712 of the 101st Congress but, by nevertheless returning the enrollment, similarly permitted the Congress to reconsider it in light of his objections, as contemplated by the Constitution. Your allusion to the existence of a pocket-veto power during even an intrasession adjournment continues to be most troubling. We find that assertion to be inconsistent with the return-veto that it accompanies. We also find that assertion to be inconsistent with your previous use of the return-veto under similar circumstances but without similar dictum concerning the pocket-veto. On January 9, 1996, you stated your disapproval of H.R. 4 of the 104th Congress and, on January 10, 1996--the tenth Constitutional day after its presentment--returned the bill to the Clerk of the House. At the time, the House stood adjourned to a date certain 12 days hence. Your message included no dictum concerning the pocket- veto. We enclose a copy of a letter dated November 21, 1989, from Speaker Foley and Minority Leader Michel to President Bush. That letter expressed the profound concern of the bipartisan leaderships over the assertion of a pocket veto during an intrasession adjournment. That letter states in pertinent part that ``[s]uccessive Presidential administrations since 1974 have, in accommodation of Kennedy v. Sampson, exercised the veto power during intrasession adjournments only by messages returning measures to the Congress.'' It also states our belief that it is not ``constructive to resurrect constitutional controversies long considered as settled, especially without notice or consultation.'' The Congress, on numerous occasions, has reinforced the stance taken in that letter by including in certain resolutions of adjournment language affirming to the President the absence of ``pocket veto'' authority during adjournments between its first and second sessions. The House and the Senate continue to designate the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively, as their agents to receive messages from the President during periods of adjournment. Clause 2(h) of rule II, Rules of the House of Representatives; House Resolution 5, 106th Congress, January 6, 1999; the standing order of the Senate of January 6, 1999. In Kennedy v. Sampson, 511 F.2d 430 (D.C. Cir. 1974), the court held that the ``pocket veto'' is not constitutionally available during an intrasession adjournment of the Congress if a congressional agent is appointed to receive veto messages from the President during such adjournment. On these premises we find your assertion of a pocket veto power during an intrasession adjournment extremely troublesome. Such assertions should be avoided, in appropriate deference to such judicial resolution of the question as has been possible within the bounds of justifiability. Meanwhile, citing the precedent of January 23, 1990, relating to H.R. 2712 of the 101st Congress, the House yesterday treated both H.R. 4810 and H.R. 8 as having been returned to the originating House, their respective returns not having been prevented by an adjournment within the meaning of article I, section 7, clause 2 of the Constitution. Sincerely, J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker. Richard A. Gephardt, Democratic Leader.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. There is one issue that should transcend politics, and this is it. Some analysts out there are saying that this is the big political vote of the year, and they may be right. But we should not vote for this out of a concern for political futures. We should vote for this out of the concern for our constituents who need our help in dealing with the high cost of prescription drugs. We should do this to help our mothers and our grandmothers and our neighbors down the street. We should do this to help those seniors that gather for coffee every morning down at the local McDonald's. We should do this to help those who rely on prescription drugs to stay alive and those who need them to enhance their already vibrant lives. We should work together to provide our senior citizens a better quality of life. No senior should be forced to choose between paying the rent and putting food on the table or paying for lifesaving and life-enhancing prescription drugs. Prescription drugs are too expensive in this country, and too many of our seniors do not have an adequate prescription drug benefit. This legislation addresses both problems in a responsible way that allows seniors to have a choice and not a one-size-fits-all Federal program. Those seniors who choose the plans offered by this legislation will reduce their prescription costs by 25 percent from the first day they enter the plan. By lowering the cost of prescription drugs, this proposal gives seniors the peace of mind that they are getting the best deal for their health care dollar. The seniors I talk do not want a handout. They are willing to pay their fair share. But they do not want to be afraid of having all of their savings wiped out if they find that they have an illness that has a very expensive drug treatment. Mr. Speaker, our plan insures seniors against such catastrophic loss from the day this plan becomes law, not 6 years from now, as the Democratic plan does. Seniors need coverage now. We all have a special concern for low-income seniors. They will be fully subsidized by the Federal Government. All seniors will have insurance against high out- of-pocket costs. Mr. Speaker, there is much talk from some members of the minority about our motivations for bringing this bill forward. They say we are doing the bidding of the insurance company. Well, I will say to my colleagues, last week they criticized the plan because the insurance company did not like it. They say that we are in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry when, in fact, our bipartisan bill would cut drug costs by 25 percent and theirs only by 12 percent. They turn to the usual excuses that this bill does not do this or it does not quite do that; Republicans do not like Medicare; or Republicans do not like seniors. It seems to me that some Members may be looking too hard for an excuse to vote against this bill. Democracy sometimes looks a bit chaotic. Those who are watching this debate can attest to that. But I am disheartened by a story that I saw on the wire last night. According to the Associated Press: ``Democrats have already begun testing campaign commercials, preparing to hit Republicans for failing to offer prescription drug coverage to seniors.'' My friends, put those commercials away. America is sick and tired of bickering. Americans want us to create a product that will benefit them. Join us in a bipartisan effort to give senior citizens a Medicare- based prescription drug benefit. The time for demagoguery is over. It is time to modernize Medicare by adding a prescription drug benefit so that all seniors can get the chance to enjoy their golden years.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Ladies and gentlemen, time is drawing late tonight. I think we have heard a great deal of debate about the role of government and how much money we should spend and whether we are going to balance the budget or we should not balance the budget. But, quite frankly, that is what the process is. If you look at the history of this immediate amendment, some folks on this side of the aisle voted for that amendment to cut because they really believed it should not have more money going in to coal research. And some people voted for it because they believe there should be money in coal research. That was the issue. And that issue cut a certain amount of money. And that is open for debate on whether we should add it to other things. Now, we have had a lot of debate. We can stand here tonight and pontificate, and we can posture and we can go well into the wee hours of the morning. There are no flights out of here. It is raining outside. And we can have a great old time, just a donnybrook. But if we want to get the job done that the American people send us here to do, we can carry on a civil debate, we can discuss the merits of it, we can vote on these issues. I think everybody knows where they are, whether they are for it or against it. I am not sure how many people are getting their minds changed in this great debate. But let us go forward, and let us get our work done. Let us carry through on what you feel strongly about and what these folks feel strongly about. Let us do our work, and I ask that we move forward.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the minority whip who just spoke, but I think he made a mistake when he walked by that funeral display. The funeral is the death of and putting away the death tax. When we talk about credibility, we can talk about a lot of things. When I first came here, we had a deficit of a huge number, $450 billion. We had a debt of $5.5 trillion. We started turning that around. Just in the last couple of years, we have said, none of our dollars in Social Security are going to go into the general fund. We are going to set that aside for Social Security. We are going to do a better job of education. We have seen a steady increase in dollars for education. We are going to help our young men and women in defense so that they do not have to be on food stamps to feed their family. We do have a surplus. We are talking about a big surplus in the next couple of years. We have two things that we can do: we can pay down the debt with that surplus, or we can give some of that money back to the people who made it in the first place. As of September of this year, we will have paid back $350 billion on the public debt. That is a first good step. We have not done it all by ourselves. We have done it with help from our friends on the other side of the aisle. I do not say it is all partisan one side or the other because we have to work on a bipartisan basis. But the other question is, what do we do? The gentleman from the other side of the aisle said, We're going to take $50 billion. We can't afford it. And where does that money come from? The Federal Government reaches in and takes it away from people who have paid taxes all their life, that have built a small business or a family farm. When they die and they want to pass it on to their children and their grandchildren, the Federal Government comes in and takes it away, 52 percent to 55 percent of that entity; it takes it away. Let me tell you a story. When I was a young man, my father-in-law died. He was a farmer in southern Illinois. I thought maybe I would like to be a farmer. But by the time that we got the death tax taken care of and at that time Illinois had a death tax, too, every tractor, every combine, every extra roll of fence, every head of cattle was sold off so we could pay the State estate tax and the Federal death tax. I might have been a good farmer. But I did not have that choice. I ran for the legislature in 1980. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and I helped take the death tax off in the State. We helped relieve that a little bit. I have always given him a great deal of credit for doing that. I was giving a speech not so long ago in Wichita, Kansas. It was a small dinner group of probably 50 people. Halfway through my speech, there was an older gentleman who stood up and said, Wait a minute, young man. He got my attention. He called me young man. He was probably 85 years old. He said, I have a small business just west of town. I write 96 pay checks a week. Something is going to happen to me someday. I want to pass that business on to my children and my grandchildren. The Federal Government is going to come in and take 52 percent of that business. When they do, we are going to have to sell every truck, every piece of equipment. I cannot pass that business on as an entire entity from generation to generation. There are 96 families in this town that will not have a job anymore. We talk about big entities, multinational businesses and big corporations. Do you know what happens when you have to sell the family farm? Do you know what happens when you have to sell that small business? You sell it to the big guys, because you get the cash out of it and pay the Government. And so when you deprive families from passing that entity, that business, that farm, that ranch from one generation to the other, you say, we are going to give this to the big guys. We are subsidizing the big guys. We are pushing the bigger and bigger entities in this country. We are taking away from the families. I say this is a vote for the families of this country, of the United States of America. Defeat the substitute, vote for the proposal, and let us get on with it.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it is a great honor to be down here, not just as Speaker of the House, but I spent a great deal of time before I got into politics as a teacher. I taught economics and U.S. history and world history and sociology and government and all of those things that we talk about here day in and day out. Every time that we see a new set of faces come in, pages in this Congress, we also see a new challenge for each of you, a challenge of learning what this government is about, actually living the lives of what people do inside this House day in and day out. It is certainly a lot different than what you read in the textbooks. It is a lot different from what you hear in lectures, because this really is the essence of this place. As we struggle here, day in and day out on issues that some of us care very, very dearly about and some of us other issues that we struggle on, trying to get things done, that is the essence of what this government is about. It is the essence of what this country is about, that we can come here and we can sit on two different sides of an aisle, and we can disagree and we can fight, but at the end, we have a product, we have a law. We have something that guide the people in this country, and for a year you have been a part of that. You have seen the struggles. You have seen the fights. You have heard the debates. You know that is something that I think you will take with you for the rest of your lives. We appreciate the work that you do. We appreciate the challenges you have taken. You know we appreciate your families giving you up for a year to have this experience here. We depend on you. We appreciate you. We thank you for what you have done, and we just ask you to go on and live the rest of your lives as best you can. You have seen what people can do. You have seen the very best and sometimes you have seen the toughest side of life here, but if you put your mind to it, you can do anything in this country. This country is an open door. It is an open book, all you have to do is write your page down. Thank you for being part of it. God bless you all.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, here we are, finally, on the floor of this great House closing the debate on permanent normal trade relations with China. Before we move into the finality of this, I want to thank those who helped make this legislation possible. I have to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). And I must say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), we have been talking a lot lately. They will be talking about us. I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), and my partners, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). I thank them all for their diligence in making this happen. But while there is one bill being debated here today, there are actually two debates going on; two questions that have to be answered. One, is granting this status to China in the best interest of the United States and the American people? And, two, is granting this status good for the people of China? I believe the answer to both is ``yes.'' Among other things, this debate is about American economic security. American negotiators have reached a tough, but fair, agreement for China's entry into the World Trade Organization. It is in fact a one- sided agreement. China gets nothing from us they do not already have, and we get lower tariffs and easier access for our exports going to China. And who makes those exports? American workers do. Regardless of whether we grant normal trade status to China, the Chinese market is opening. Someone is going to have the opportunity to sell to this vast new market. The question is who will be there when the door opens? Will it be the United States, or will it be Europe and Japan? There will be new and larger markets for farm commodities and manufactured goods in China. Who will produce those products? American farmers and American workers or European farmers and European workers? This vote today is about whether American firms set the ground rules and standards for business in China. The potential for American economic growth is huge. If we pass this legislation, U.S. agricultural exports to China would increase by $2 billion every year. That means American farmers will be selling more corn and more wheat and more citrus and more soybeans. Last year, the wireless telephone market in China was $20 billion. By 2003, that market will be up to $45 billion. Our high-tech firms would thrive in the Chinese marketplace. It is clear that passing this legislation is in the best interest of American economic security. That is why Alan Greenspan supports it, and that is one reason why we should vote ``yes.'' But there is another reason. Gradual democratic reform is taking root in the hearts and the minds of the Chinese people. But for it to continue, we must clear the way for more Americans to work with the Chinese. More trade will expose the Chinese people to powerful new ideas. Thanks to the American business presence in China, thousands of Chinese employees already have access to foreign newspapers and the Internet and to worldwide e-mail. Today this House is doing a good thing. We are showing the people and the leaders of China what real democracy looks like. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and I share a common goal, to help American workers and to encourage American reforms and human rights in China. But we differ on how to achieve that goal. I believe my approach is better, and that is why I urge Members to support this bill. But I am proud that I live in a country where the gentleman from Michigan (Mr Bonior) can be here on this floor today passionately putting forth his point of view, because that is what true democracy is all about. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is what this great House of Representatives is all about. In addition to the privilege of serving as the Speaker of this House, I am honored to be the representative of the people of the 14th District of Illinois. Like every State in this great Nation, Illinois has a lot to offer the people of China. So, in closing, I say to the people of China that we want to send you our corn and our farm machinery and our telecommunications equipment. But as we do, we are going to send along something more, free of charge. We are going to send you a glimpse of freedom and the ideals of Illinois' favorite son, Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator. Because we want for you the prosperity and the blessings of the liberty that we enjoy. This is a historic vote and a proud day for this body. I believe the vote we are casting today will help ensure our continued prosperity. Vote for the future. Vote ``aye.''