J.D. Hayworth

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois, for yielding time to me. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) for a very curious revisionist history policy. I am always happy to hear differences of opinion that, indeed, do exist. Indeed, when I was in private life, I noted with interest Congresses long before I got here that had no compulsion whatsoever about dipping into Social Security and spending money that was not here, and spending and spending and spending. My friend chooses to lampoon that, but that, in essence, was the fact. As our second President, John Adams, told us, facts are stubborn things. The fact about this bill on the floor today is that we are acting prospectively, within the rules of the House, within the rules of revenue as they exist today. Would that we could change those rules. Would that we could point out to the American people an economic fact, which is when people have more of their own money to save, spend, and invest, revenues to the government actually increase. Would that our friends on the left would take that into account. But instead, they would rather talk about so many subjects under the sun, and electioneering, rather than the fact that if we fail to act today, if we fail to make this relief permanent, due not to a situation of our own making but another body in close proximity with an arcane rule that failed to allow us to make this permanent, we will be, in essence, putting a tax back on the backs of the American people in the year 2011. I listened with interest as my friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), readily dismissed the value of $1,000. I believe the average, once this is fully implemented, the average will be about $1,400 per married couple. Again, I guess this reflects a difference in our philosophy. I know it is easily lampooned, or perhaps, from time to time, we get jaundiced about the fact, and we talk about trillions and billions of dollars. But in a very real way, $1,400 is real money to a married couple with a family. As for the other subjects addressed, I would encourage my friends to stay tuned. We are going to work to bring forth a prescription drug benefit as part of Medicare in the days ahead. We welcome the chance to work together, but perhaps it is just a difference in opinion on the whole notion of taxation. For some in this Chamber, there is no higher and better use of people's money than in the coffers of the Federal Government. That is an opinion that Members will defend by a multitude of different methods. For others of us, there is a notion that if people hang onto their own money and save, spend, and invest it, revenues to the Federal Government will increase and we will be able to take care of that, but we will be truer to the American people from this sense: the money that is spent here does not belong to Washington; it belongs to the American people. With this legislation today, setting up permanency and neutrality in the Tax Code so that married couples are not penalized, the American people will be better off; American families will be better off. I ask my colleagues to join us in support of this measure.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Returning to the debate on the floor today, it is very interesting to listen to the gentleman from California, my friend, because he seems to be of two minds. He stood here on the floor bemoaning making permanent marriage penalty relief, alleging all sorts of fiscal problems, and yet he said to support the substitute offered by the other gentleman from California. So there is an inherent disconnection right there.

Mr. HAYWORTH. No, not right now. I want to make my point.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, let me let the gentleman in on a little secret. The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) asks a very pertinent question, and given the curious mathematics of Washington, let us point out at the outset that we could take every economist in the world, lay them end to end, and still never reach a conclusion. But part of the peculiarities of the way in which we practice accounting in Washington, D.C. is with a bias towards spending. We call it static scoring. That is to say, we fail to take into account the history that we have seen for the better part of close to 50 years in the United States. For example, and again I am glad to stand here in this portion of the well, because we can point to a Democratic chief executive, John F. Kennedy, who in the 1960s cut taxes across the board. This is an approach that was reaffirmed by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and by our own current President, George W. Bush, just 1 year ago. The premise, as it has turned out, and check the numbers, as we say in baseball, you could look it up, revenues to the government actually increase when you cut taxes across the board. If we cut taxes on these millions of American families, I have every confidence that, in the long term, revenues to the government will increase, because money is being put to work on behalf of these families. Again, it comes down to this realization, Mr. Speaker: This money is not money that belongs to the Federal Government; it is money that belongs to the American people. When that money is put to work, through prudent spending, wise investment and making the money work for the families of America, it returns to the Federal Government in terms of tax revenue. Yet you would not know it from the culture of the forecasts and the evaluations of the static scorers who fail to let reality be taken into account in terms of their ledger sheets. That is the reality with which we deal. But in Washingtonese, what we will hear tomorrow is a parade of speakers stating flat out that the American people are not entitled to their money, stating somehow in bizarre fashion that the marriage penalty is a quirk, a curiosity, and, I dare say, coming to the floor, speaker after speaker, as prisoners of process, rather than champions of policy. So, again, my appeal, and I realize it is a challenge with 100-plus days to a midterm election, and I realize it is difficult for many to separate politics from policy, but I believe tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, there will be those on the Democratic side of the aisle who will join us in saying let us end the marriage penalty permanently, because it is not a Republican issue, it is not a Democratic issue, it is an issue of concern to all Americans and all American families who need to have the chance to prosper and succeed and make the most of their opportunities, for themselves and for their children.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend for making the point. I would appeal to all who come here, when you talk about tax fairness, there is nothing fair about penalizing people for getting married. I think back almost a decade and a half ago now to the news that I took my mom, when Miss Mary and I decided to get married, she said, ``Oh, honey, I'm so excited for you. After all, two can live as cheaply as one.'' My mom is a wise woman, but she is not a certified public accountant and she was not dealing with the Tax Code, because we have seen in so many cases for so long when couples would stand at the altar and say ``I do,'' they were unwittingly saying ``I do'' to higher taxes. And now with a commonsense reform that we have embraced on a bipartisan basis in this body, others on this Hill with a clever rule differentiation seek to take it away, we simply go on record tomorrow reaffirming that the Tax Code should have real fairness, that there should not be a penalty for marriage. Indeed, confronting the challenges we confront in a society, knowing how beneficial it is to have healthy, happy households where men and women in a loving relationship of marriage bring up their children, there is no reason to penalize people who work hard and play by the rules. And so tonight we come here to reaffirm our belief that we should rescind the marriage penalty permanently and tomorrow this House has a chance to go on record saying ``I do'' to lower taxes, taking away this barrier of discrimination that has affected the institution of marriage and taking another step for true tax fairness. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow again we will hear the tired old arguments of class warfare. Let me simply reaffirm what we have found through the years when we reduce the tax burden, whether it is on businesses or on families or on individuals. When the tax bite is reduced and money is put to work in terms of saving and investment and spending for those items that families need, something very interesting happens. Revenues to the Federal Government actually increase. So I come to this particular position in the well tonight symbolizing the fact that we appeal to our friends on the left, not as a Republican versus a Department issue, but as an American commonsense point of view, to permanently rescind this penalty, to make good on the efforts my friend from Illinois has championed for so long, to recognize the commonsense value that there is no need to attach an economic stigma to the institution of marriage. And now as my friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) points out, if we in fact have people tomorrow vote against making this permanent, in essence what they are doing is calling for a tax increase on every married couple. They are calling to add back taxes to their family budget. I understand in Washington, Mr. Speaker, that $1,400 on average, that is not even in Uncle Sam's change scoop on his dresser drawer. I mean we deal in millions and billions of dollars, but I would submit, as my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), has made clear so many times, $1,400 is real money to a family, in terms of a college fund, in terms of making educational opportunities available, in terms of saving for the future, in terms of buying clothes for the family, in terms of orthodontia for children, in terms of real life, real budgetary decisions made around the kitchen table. The common sense of making this tax relief permanent cannot be denied and, yes, we can have those denizens of class warfare come out and play this warped game where they define fairness in a deranged way that my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston), pointed out, the theater of the absurd so clearly to us in this body mere moments ago, but the fact is there is no reason to deprive families of money that they can save, spend, and invest for their own futures and in so doing help our country, because the economic activity in the long run will actually increase revenues to the government because people are willing to put their money to work in effective spending for their family or savings or investment for the future, and we are not talking about something that is a drop in the bucket. We are talking about millions of American families here.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding, my friends from Illinois and Georgia who join us here tonight, Mr. Speaker, and I stand in the well alongside my friend from Nebraska, traditionally at the podium given to our friends from the Democratic Party. I do so tonight to signal the fact that our vote tomorrow should be a vote that does not accentuate party lines, that when people go and register for a marriage license, they do not declare a political party preference, they are not required to register as Democrats or Republicans or independents or libertarians or vegetarians, they go and apply for a marriage license. Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, it is my fervent hope that we will see a bipartisan vote to restore rationality and common sense to the peculiar situation we find because of a quirk in the rules where we have failed to make this marriage tax relief permanent.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, later today we will take a vote to make the death tax repeal permanent. It will be a bipartisan vote, despite some of the preceding rhetoric in the well of the House, and I do not want anyone to be deceived or misled. One of the leading proponents of permanent death tax repeal in my State happened to be the standard bearer for the Democratic Party in 1994 for the office of Governor. He came to me and said, ``When are you going to repeal this death tax?'' The reason he did so was not because he fits into the realm of the super-rich. The reason he did so, he is an owner of grocery stores and he employs hundreds of Arizonians. Mr. Speaker, people of goodwill can have a fundamental disagreement. Either we can come to this floor and attempt to demonize and drive wedges and claim that it is always us versus them, or we can understand some simple facts: keeping businesses in business makes good sense for America. More than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second generation. Eighty-seven percent do not make it to the third generation. Sixty percent of small business owners report that they would create new jobs over the coming year if estate taxes are eliminated. We move to do that. Now the question becomes are we willing to make this permanent to deal with the arcane rules from elsewhere on Capitol Hill to make this permanent for job creation. We all want to save Social Security. We want to have people paying payroll taxes. The best social program is a job. The best way to ensure that the backbone of America, small businesses, stay in business, is to ensure that family-owned businesses can continue to operate. That is why it is vital for all Americans, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, vegetarians, all Americans to have the chance to keep their business in the family. There should be no taxation without respiration. Let us keep business alive.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. If the gentleman from Florida will yield, I just wanted to point out again that observation that our friend from Florida made. There is a situation at work here that is so myopic, it is almost to be penny wise and pound foolish. Because, as was pointed out in the case of Mr. Sexton and the flower shop, 20 employees, payroll taxes, people paying their income taxes, though this was a considerable hardship, the money devoted to handle all the details and red tape and the death tax itself in the long term, did it not cost the government more revenue? You see, here is the difference. And I appreciate the concept that my friend from Nebraska brings forward about taxing more, spending more; taxing less, spending less. But there is something else at work here that we have to understand about the reduction of the tax bill. When the American people have more money to put to work, when the death tax is repealed and more people are at work, guess what? Revenues to the Federal Government will actually increase, because more money is being put to work. It is called the principle of growth. So we have to be very careful here, and that is the myopia; in addition to the unfairness and injustice, lack of justice, injustice of the death tax, is that really in the long term it actually costs revenue. It is inefficient, as well as immoral.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing us to share this time. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) who again talked about education and the importance, yes, of dollars, but also the importance of accountability. It is very interesting the differences we see. My son is now 8 years of age, and I remember when he came home from school at 7, and he was talking about the concept of infinity. And he said, You know, Dad, you will never reach it because you can always add more to it. And indeed it seems, sadly sometimes, along partisan lines the notion is whatever figure is arrived at, oh, no, we can always spend more. The key of course is not just the right allocation of resources. It also of course is accountability. And, Mr. Speaker, now it is time to become accountable to the American family, to family-owned businesses, to ranches and farms and so many different concerns where the scourge of the death tax has come like a thief in the night, not only death robbing people of their lives but the death tax robbing families of their future. Our good friend who sadly is departing this Chamber, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), once borrowed Patrick Henry's admonition. Said my good friend, ``No taxation without respiration,'' and I think that is evocative not only of history but something very practical. It was one of our great founders, Ben Franklin, gifted in so many different ways, almost with the incredible prescience to see what would come in this constitutional Republic, but even Dr. Franklin with his incredible foresight never predicted that the constitutional Republic he helped to found would tax people upon their death. Remember his days as a humorist writing in ``Poor Richard's Almanac,'' he said: ``There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.'' But even Dr. Franklin did not foresee that this Republic would one day tax a person upon the event of his death and of course realty does not affect that person but that person's family. And lest anyone think this is a partisan issue, Mr. Speaker, we would thank those across the aisle who have joined with us to understand how this unfair tax should be eliminated; and we should point out for those, Mr. Speaker, who wonder why we are returning to this, it is because my colleague from Florida very capably pointed out that a rule difference, and again I am not directing this at the other body, but a rule difference did not allow for the implementation on a permanent basis of this particular repeal. And so we have the curious situation, while we made a profound move to repeal the death tax, to roll it back, as my friend from South Carolina outlined, as my friend from Florida recognizes, we have almost an absurd situation now where if one is going to die, he had better do it in the year 2010 to realize the complete benefit of repeal of the death tax. For if we do nothing, whoom, here it is back again in the year 2011. That is why I salute my friend from Florida bringing forward this notion, serving as a catalyst to make this repeal permanent. And again lest anyone think this is a partisan concern, I would point out that the one-time standard bearer of the Democratic Party in the State of Arizona for the office of Governor back in 1994 approached me 2 years ago saying ``Congressman, you have got to get rid of this death tax.'' Why? Whatever political disagreements we had in other areas, the gentleman correctly understood his business, his livelihood, of family- owned enterprise, of grocery stores, the capital involved in that business, the fact that so much of the assets are tied up in bricks and mortar and quite literally in the groceries on the shelves, and unless the death tax is repealed, then a business that had been in his family would be in danger of having to be sold off to pay the taxman. It is even more pronounced in the rural communities I have been honored to represent for the better part of a decade, with farmers and ranchers and so many small businesses owned by families but especially when we come to the whole notion of agriculture and farms and ranches and how quite literally so many families are land rich and cash poor. So much of their assets are tied up in real estate, tied up in farm machinery, tied up in those very tangible assets; and so often we have a situation where, to satisfy this tax bill, people were forced to liquidate their assets, to sell off the family farm, to sell off the family business to satisfy the tax needs of Uncle Sam. While we are thinking about this, Mr. Speaker, something else we should point out, over the years it has become painfully apparent that the American people do not rely on this death tax. Indeed, as we look back over the last few years, the death tax on an annual basis only accounts for about 1 percent of the revenue that comes in to the Federal Government. Yet three-quarters of that 1 percent is spent pursuing the families of the farmers and ranchers who pass away, the families of the people who created these small businesses, to have them pay a bill that for them is insurmountable, it seems, but in the scheme of things only accounts for about 1 percent of the revenue that comes in to the Federal Government on an annual basis. No, Mr. Speaker, we can be smarter. This House in a bipartisan way took that important step toward that great day with eventual repeal of the death tax, but we need to make it permanent. Permanency is important, for if we fail to do that, you will have the absurdity of in 2010 seeing it completely repealed but in 2011 the Grim Reaper comes back with a vengeance. I know none of us here advocate state-sponsored euthanasia; yet that is the absurdity we would have if we failed to move to enact permanent death tax relief. Mr. Speaker, lest you think this is exclusively the domain of family- owned businesses, farmers and ranchers, certainly it is important and perhaps it is more pronounced there, but I would tell you the story of a lady I encountered in Tucson, Arizona. Down on a visit there to that part of our State, a lady came up and spoke of her father's experience. Here was a man who worked hard, indeed, in a career that very seldom do we see anymore with the modern marketing techniques, but he was a milkman. He worked for a dairy. He came back from World War II and worked hard delivering milk every day, not exactly a highbrow occupation. Certainly there is dignity in every form of work, but very few people would think about that gentleman as being a captain of industry or someone with vast financial resources, but what that gentleman did was incredibly exemplary and so symptomatic of the American experience. The money he made, he was able to save judiciously. He made some wise investments coming home from World War II, getting involved, working as a milkman. His hard work and wise investments paid off in an estate that was worth millions of dollars. But there is just one catch here. As wise as he was with investments, he did not understand that, oh, gee, you have got to work on estate planning. He did not seek out a team of lawyers to sit down and make all the proper machinations to change the situation to save the funds. And so when he contracted a terminal illness, only then in the twilight of his days did he realize, despite such an exemplary life, hard work, thrift, industry, doing the right thing for his family, only then did he come to the shocking realization that somehow, despite that hard work and industry, his planning had been incomplete. His daughter told me the story how her father called her in and her sibling in and not only the challenge and the pain of a terminal illness but the realization that he was leaving them in essence with a gigantic tax bill to pay because of this death tax. Mr. Speaker, if you work hard and play by the rules, must we all be captains of high finance? I understand a modicum of estate planning. I understand the importance of insurance. Certainly having moved from broadcasting, into that profession before coming into public life, I understand the importance of life insurance and financial planning, but must we ask everyone to deal with the machinations and brain power and inner workings of complicated financial measures? No, it should be simple and this should be repealed permanently because it is wrong.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mindful of that as a broadcaster, the old time clock on the wall, it is important for us to pass permanent repeal, no matter the siren song of seduction saying ``let us set a temporary level that will accommodate some folks.'' Maybe this is a fundamental philosophical difference. When you get in the realm of targeted tax cuts, you are asking this Federal Government to pick winners and losers, and you do nothing for the business owners, the grocery store owners, the farm machinery dealership owners, the automobile dealership owners, who have significant capital sunk into that business, who literally are asset- rich and cash-poor. You exacerbate the problem. Our purpose is not to set American against American, not to get wrapped up in the I believe ultimately misguided notion of class warfare, but to allow everyone to succeed. There is one other note undergirding all of this. It is especially pronounced in Arizona, where one of our local newspapers is concerned about the price of sprawl at an acre an hour. Why do you think farms are being sold off? To satisfy the death tax. Gone is a lot of our agricultural land. That is a real problem in States like Arizona and Florida and across the country. That is another reason to make this repeal permanent.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this is a Chamber where men and women of good will can come to share points of view that from time to time may be at odds. Mr. Chairman, we recognize that an election is about 160 days away. While passions and tempers may run high, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would be able to refrain from the temptation of politics as usual. Mr. Chairman, I hear derisive laughter from the other side. That is fine and perhaps altogether appropriate, given the exercise we have seen both last night and during the course of this legislative day. But, Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that we are a nation at war; that the attacks of September 11 forever changed this country. The American people understand we should stand together, even though there are the pressures of the political calendar for some to come in and sloganeer and try to find sound bites and go back to business as usual. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Our Commander in Chief has pointed that out repeatedly, that this is a new type of war. Again, even though we rejoice in philosophical differences of opinion, only the most cockeyed of revisionists would have us believe that in previous Congresses, under previous majorities, similar rules were not employed to achieve legislative results. This becomes the question at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, or whenever the parade of sound bites and speeches ends: Are we willing to stand and deliver, not as Republicans and Democrats, not in the spirit of one-upmanship, but with the nonpartisanship the American people demand when we are a nation at war; when, in the twinkling of an eye, every American can be called upon to become a citizen soldier, every American can confront the scourge of terror? Disagreements? Sure, they will continue. They are part of a healthy and free society. They are part and parcel of the fabric of the American people. But, Mr. Chairman, it does the Committee of the Whole House a disservice to be locked in legislative combat and one-upmanship when the business of the people, and the very people my friends who have preceded me in the well talk about, the fighting men and women on the front lines, need material, need equipment. The American Nation needs to move forward with technological advances for border security, for shipping security, for homeland security. It does not do the American people a service, it does not do this body a service, to become slaves to the minutiae of one-upmanship and what passes for statesmanship by sound bite. Let us return to the work of the people, appropriate the funds needed for this war effort, discuss our differences in an open fashion in the campaign season, but not use this Chamber for the preening and the prodding and the endless parade of politics that ill serves us at this critical time.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Connecticut for offering her unique perspective and the experience that she brings to this issue and the heartfelt personal stories of real folks from the State of Connecticut, just like the real folks I sat down with yesterday in Mesa, Arizona, and just like my parents, now in their seventies, and my granddad, blessed with a long and healthy and accomplished life, to be just 2 years short of a century, of becoming a centurion. Certainly it is unfair to categorize what is before us as a ``problem.'' It is a tremendous challenge, as we live longer, healthier, more productive lives. And the key, as my friend pointed out, this is not a time to be pennywise and pound foolish, but to take reasonable steps, as we have done within our budget plan, to accommodate this prescription drug benefit in dealing with a variety of priorities. My colleague from Connecticut mentioned this, and via videotape the President of the United States joined us yesterday in Mesa with introductory remarks embracing the principles that we have espoused here on the floor of the Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is so wonderful to work with a President who, yes, as commander in chief is dealing with a stark threat to freedom and survival, but yet at the same time a President who is forward thinking, to understand what he calls truly compassionate conservatism, a commonsense approach that says not only must we survive, we must thrive in this new century, and that the most vulnerable among us, just as my friend from Connecticut pointed out, the seniors who earn $18,000 a year but find in the current situation $16,000 of that income taken up with prescription drugs, we cannot let that happen. The mandate for change is clear. The executive branch in the person of the President of the United States understands this. The people's House understands this. Now we will look to the other body to join with us to get this change made. Now, Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed out something else that is important, and, indeed, one is tempted almost to lapse into a parody of one of the old ads I would hear on top 40 radio in the 1970s talking about discounts at certain merchants: ``How do we do it? Volume.'' Mr. Speaker, it may be a parody; but it is absolutely correct. My friend from Connecticut, who has been both an accomplished legislator and a proud housewife, sitting around the kitchen table, making ends meet, I know at my house in Arizona one of our favorite places to visit is one of the big warehouse discount centers where we purchase items in bulk, in volume. As groups purchase these items, the prices are held down. We are able to do it with volume. At the risk of a poor impersonation of a parody of an antiquated radio ad, the principle still holds true, ``How do we do it? Volume.'' As more and more Americans are living longer lives, they form a tremendous resource for group buying power. I would invite my friend from Connecticut to expound on that notion.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Connecticut points this out, and we should make this clear to those who join us this evening, to those, like my parents, looking with interest at what may be available to them, now in their seventies. It is simply this realization: if we are able to pass a plan this year, if the House, with all due deliberation and sense of purpose, is able to move this forward in the coming weeks and months in a very defined period of time, and the other body takes action, it can be on the President's desk and the President signs it into law. Simply stated, if we pass a plan this year, seniors can reap the benefits this year. It is what we hear again, prescription drug coverage now. Lower the cost of prescription drugs now. My colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Speaker, offered another real point. To lower those costs, imagine what a 25 percent discount up front in a prescription drug bill would mean to a senior? I spoke earlier of the average Medicare beneficiary, the average senior, spending $2,150. Imagine an instant benefit of over $500, of $540. Think about that, in terms of purchasing groceries, in terms of paying utility bills and other commitments, or money that can be saved so that seniors have the peace of mind to pay their bills on time, to continue to be responsible, productive, honored individuals. In the great tapestry that is America, that is what we seek to do. Again, we need to stress that under the plan we contemplate, we will guarantee prescription coverage as an entitlement under Medicare; strengthening, sustaining, reflecting the changes in health care; bringing Medicare into the 21st century with a prescription drug benefit that cannot be taken away. That is so important to so many senior Americans. We want to make sure we are doing something now to make a positive difference in the lives of seniors and their families today, right now, because we understand that sets the framework for the future. As that great demographic group nicknamed the baby boomers moves into retirement, we understand that we have to make changes to reflect the changes in medical science and in medical treatment and bringing Medicare into the 21st century. Our plan will help all seniors facing runaway drug costs because of a long-term serious illness. It is a simple precept that we cannot repeat often enough, Mr. Speaker: no senior should lose their life savings simply to pay for their prescription medications. Now, there will be some who offer plans that are under strict time limits, ``now you see it, now you don't.'' It is our goal to introduce something with no catches, no gimmicks, no expiration dates, allowing senior Americans to choose the plan they believe to be right for them, voluntary, but a plan that can help all seniors, but especially the neediest among our seniors. Under our plan, it is our goal to guarantee a drug benefit under Medicare, no ifs, ands or buts. Mr. Speaker, it is a challenge and a great honor to serve in the Congress of the United States. Indeed, as many reflect to me, sometimes in conversation, I guess the first time it really happened was one morning one weekend back in Arizona out for breakfast with my wife and children, and the young woman was of high school age behind the counter. She said, ``J.D. Hayworth, you were on my history test last week. I got extra credit because I know you are my Congressman.'' And I say that not out of some form of megalomania, though goodness knows those of us that get involved in public life do so for a variety of reasons, and for purposes of full disclosure we all have a healthy, strike that, perhaps many of us have an excessive dose of self-esteem, to be candid about that. But also whatever temporal pomposities must come along with it, it is a tremendously humbling experience to serve in the capacity of a constitutional officer; to be one of 435 charged with making laws; with making decisions that affect the lives of every American. As we think about life's lessons learned, we think about those who imparted those lessons to us. Yes, teachers in classrooms across the years; but our first teachers came in our family, our parents, our grandparents, those who look to us now to be custodians of our future; to make the right decisions; to reflect the changes that need to come based on the remarkable advances we have seen in terms of health care to update and strengthen and bring Medicare into the 21st century; to renew the promise and the principle behind it, that to truly be compassionate we can hold down health care costs in the long term by adding this prescription drug coverage, and that we should not succumb to the temptation of being pennywise and yet pound foolish. One of the great gifts of our forefathers, and what Catherine Drinker Bowen called ``the miracle at Philadelphia,'' was not only giving us a remarkable document, the Constitution, and what Dr. Franklin charged was ``a Republic, if you can keep it,'' but also the means through the amendment process, through the legislative process, to make changes based on the priorities and the changes in lifestyle that Americans would undoubtedly encounter as we have encountered some 200 years later. Indeed, in these last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that when we got together at the outset of this time, we spoke of the world as it existed in 1902, a very different America, still embodying the principles of constitutional governance, but a very different time in our history, not only in terms of the march of technology, but likewise in health care. It bears repeating, Mr. Speaker, for those who may have just joined us, and Mr. Speaker, I hope those folks have found a seat, because some of this information is shocking, in 1902, let me repeat what I began our time together with, Mr. Speaker, in 1902 the average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years of age. The average life expectancy was 47 years of age. More than 95 percent of all births in the U.S. took place at home, not in a hospital, but at home. Ninety percent, 90 percent of all U.S. physicians had no college education. Instead, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned by the press and by our government as substandard. The five leading causes of death were, No. 1, pneumonia and influenza; No. 2, tuberculosis; No. 3, diarrhea; No. 4, heart disease; No. 5, stroke. We have a new set of challenges and opportunities. In this imperfect human existence, illness will be with us. We cannot completely conquer illness, but we can continue to improve the lifestyle conditions in terms of public health for all Americans, especially our honored seniors. It is not a political gimmick or a short-term, cynical fix we seek; instead, it is a change that should be reflected in Medicare, to bring Medicare into the 21st century. This is the challenge we confront, Mr. Speaker, working together, men and women of good will across the panorama of political philosophies, across the partisan divide, to heed the message of our seniors who say they need and want prescription drug coverage now; that the cost of medicines can be lowered, that we can usher in a new age of Medicare for the 21st century reflecting the changes in medical technology, utilizing some of the commonsense proposals and principles our parents taught us about the value of a dollar, weaning out waste, fraud and abuse, making the effort to continue to improve lives, to continue to improve the quality of life, and set a prudent public policy based on true compassion that is not only more effective, more responsive, but in the long term, more economical for all Americans. That is the challenge we confront, and we do not shrink from that challenge. Daunting though it may be, we welcome it; we embrace it. It is our intent to move this people's House forward to work with our President to get this done, to see action taken in the other body, and leaving plenty of time for the other body to get the work done on this legislation, as well. If we move forward this year, seniors can reap the benefit this year. Mr. Speaker, our parents, our grandparents, our Nation's seniors deserve nothing less. Mr. Speaker, I offer a word of thanks for my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who joined me for this time of dialogue on prescription drug coverage as part of Medicare, a new, stronger Medicare for the 21st century.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank my friend from Connecticut for pointing out why she is properly regarded as one of the foremost authorities and legislators in the field of public health and especially seniors' health care in the way in which we strengthen Medicare through a prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, as I share this information with my colleague from Connecticut, I know that she has conducted innumerable town hall meetings and chances just to sit down with the honored citizens, the seniors of her district in Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I think it is a safe assumption that she has heard, as I heard yesterday at the seniors' center in Mesa, Arizona, not only do seniors want to see the neediest cared for first, not only do seniors want to see a voluntary program available to all, but seniors first and foremost want to see the cost of prescription medications lowered right now, today. The gentlewoman quite properly, Mr. Speaker, referenced without characterizing the action of the other body sharing this magnificent citadel of our constitutional republic with us in the legislative branch, but we want to make sure that as a House, as the people's house, we move in a practical, no-nonsense fashion to craft this bill, including our principles, so that, as my friend from Connecticut points out, the other body will have time to work on this and not become slaves to a political calendar. Because we are all mindful it is a strength, not a weakness, of our constitutional republic that all 435 of us must stand at the bar of public opinion on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. The danger comes when temptation so overtakes others not to respond to the needs of the people but instead to twist and turn and attempt to leverage or mischaracterize what can be done for the public good. Mr. Speaker, in more straightforward language, the American people welcome a chance to put politics aside and move forward on this common- sense policy. I mentioned earlier, my colleague from Connecticut, the times we sit down with seniors. I think, Mr. Speaker, you have seen this. I just asked the question yesterday among the 300 seniors gathered for lunch in Mesa, Arizona, ``How many of you spend at least $100 a month on prescription drugs?'' Every hand in the auditorium went up. I said, ``How many of you spend $200 a month for prescription drugs?'' Most of the hands stayed up. I said, ``How many spend $300?'' A lady's voice said, ``Try $400 a month.'' Hands still remained aloft. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the average Medicare recipient spends about $2,150 per year on their prescription drugs.

Mr. HAYWORTH. My colleagues, I come here tonight not as a champion or a representative of party, but as a Member of the Congress of the United States, a constitutional officer, a husband, a father, a brother, a son and a grandson to discuss issues of great importance in what is quite literally, Mr. Speaker, our national health. I champion the fact that in this Chamber people of goodwill can from time to time disagree, and there are those who would come to champion one specific philosophy or approach of a political party or even an approach within a political party; but I think, Mr. Speaker, when we confront major challenges, we do so much better and much more effectively not as Republicans or as Democrats but as Americans first; and it is in that spirit that I come to the well of the House tonight. We confront many challenges, Mr. Speaker. Mention was made earlier by my colleagues from Texas of the fact that we are a Nation at war, and yet we are also a Nation blessed with unparalleled prosperity, and with what some would bill as problems, others view as unique opportunities. Why do I say that at this time in this place? Well, Mr. Speaker, one need only look so far as the prevalent statistics for the United States of America a century ago, 100 ago, 1902. Mr. Speaker, in 1902, the average life expectancy in the United States of America was 47. The average lifespan, 47 years of age. More than 95 percent of all births in the United States took place at home. Ninety percent of all U.S. physicians had no college education. Instead, Mr. Speaker, they attended so-called medical schools, many of which were condemned in the press and condemned by the government as substandard. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned just a moment ago the shocking statistic that the average life expectancy a century ago was only 47 years. Mr. Speaker, it might interest my colleagues to know what the 5 leading causes of death were in the United States 100 years ago. Mr. Speaker, leading the list at number 1 among the causes of death in the United States in the year 1902 was pneumonia and influenza; number 2, tuberculosis; number 3, diarrhea; number 4, heart disease; and the fifth leading killer among Americans one century ago was stroke. What is also interesting is not only the lack of a formal college education for more than 90 percent of our physicians a century ago but also an incredible change of pace and different outlook and attitude among those running the corner drugstores. One century ago in the United States of America, heroin and morphine were available over the counter at corner drugstores. Mr. Speaker, according to one pharmacist, ``Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates the stomach and the bowels, and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.'' So said a neighborhood druggist one century ago in the United States of America when the average life expectancy was only 47 years and when the leading killer of Americans was pneumonia and influenza. Mr. Speaker, we are blessed indeed with the passage of time and the progress in medical science that we stand here in the year 2002 and we see the life expectancy close to doubling. It is commonplace to see men and women in the United States live at least until their 70s, and much longer in my household. I am blessed with a grandfather who is 98 years young. He has doubled what was his life expectancy. At the dawn of the 20th century, Americans by and large are living healthier, happier, longer lives. That is not a problem, Mr. Speaker, that is a challenge. Almost 40 years ago, the United States of America introduced Medicare to help seniors, to help those over the age of 65 deal with the challenges confronted by those of advancing age in terms of health care. But health care in 1965 and, indeed, the Medicare program introduced that year, reflects a medical science that even 40 years ago was substantially different. At that point in time, medical doctors were dealing primarily with what we call acute care; with responding to symptoms and outbreak of acute disease. Indeed, at that time, Mr. Speaker, gone was that nonsense about morphine and heroin, long regulated, and relegated, I should say, if not to the dustbin of history, at least, quite properly, to the dustbin of abuse. New prescription drugs were on the market. But, Mr. Speaker, compared with the decade of the 1990s, or now in the 21st century, those pharmaceuticals were relatively few and far between. The course of action pursued by medical science in 1965 quite often involved invasive or exploratory surgery, or a medical procedure involving a long stay in a hospital. But as medical science has changed, as improvements have come to our way of life, so too has there been a change in treatment. And, indeed, nowhere is that more clearly reflected than in the actual treatment received by today's seniors, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, by all Americans in terms of health care. Because now, Mr. Speaker, as we know, the emphasis is on prevention, on taking prudent preventive steps to delay or perhaps eliminate the need for acute care; the establishment of long-term conditions, changes in diet, improvement in exercise and, oh, yes, as the first line of defense in medical science, an exponential increase in the reliance on prescription drugs, or prescription medications. The reason? Well, it flows out of the whole notion of preventive medicine and the admonition and observation that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The changes we have seen brought about by research, the miracle drugs that now exist to deal with so many different conditions, have risen exponentially. And, indeed, through the decade of the 1990s and now into the 21st century, it is safe to say, Mr. Speaker, that prescription drug coverage, that medications prescribed by physicians, have, in fact, conjoined with preventive steps to be our first line of defense and our first line of treatment in modern medical science. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, even as we confront the challenge of a new type of war, of the very real challenges to our society externally by the threat of foreign enemies, we also face a challenge within our borders borne by our very prosperity and the change in the type of health care treatment we now receive. For, Mr. Speaker, we must strengthen and reform Medicare to bring it into the 21st century to reflect the changes and the advances in medical science. And nowhere is that more prevalent, for my parents, who are now in their 70s, for my granddad, who is now 98 years young, than in the realm of prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be the first Arizonan to serve on the House Committee on Ways and Means. It is the committee with jurisdiction quite literally over those matters that become the crossroads of American life here in the early 21st century, the tax code. Because it has been written, Mr. Speaker, the power to tax is the power to destroy. I believe, conversely, that the power to reduce taxation is the power to employ. And in stark contrast to those who preceded me in the well of the House tonight, I believe that we can fire the economic engines of America, that we can lead to growth by reducing taxation, and by so doing we can grow and build and prosper, but also we deal with topics of trade and human resources, and especially the issue of health, along with the issue of Social Security and fulfilling America's commitment to its seniors. And so the House Committee on Ways and Means is working now to fashion changes in Medicare to offer a prescription medication benefit as a part of Medicare, to usher Medicare into the 21st century and to reflect the changes we have seen in the realm of medical science and recognizing the reality of prescription drugs and their necessity. Mr. Speaker, there are 4 principles which guide us. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, in addition to innumerable conversations with my parents, I was pleased yesterday at noontime to visit the senior center in Mesa, Arizona, to sit down for a town hall meeting, a dialogue, if you will, Mr. Speaker, on the whole notion of prescription medication coverage through the eyes of those who today rely and depend on the Medicare system. I was pleased to see so many seniors, indeed hundreds of seniors, a living embodiment of what some have referred to as our greatest generation, those who experienced the Great Depression, those who led us through a world war, those who built a powerful postwar economy and ushered in an era of freedom and prosperity unlike any the world has seen. Mr. Speaker, I know you find this to be true when you visit your district. You understand what deTouqueville pointed out early in our history, that America is great because America is good. And the quality of our citizens continues to show through regardless of their age, but with a lifetime of experience. Our honored seniors have a perspective and a common sense philosophy that those of us who are honored to represent them should keep in mind always in fashioning decisions for the future. Mr. Speaker, those of us on the Committee on Ways and Means, moving forward with a common-sense plan to strengthen Medicare with prescription drug coverage, have come to rely on 4 bedrock principles that will be embodied in the plan that we will introduce. Number 1, and I heard this yesterday loudly and clearly from the senior citizens in the Sixth Congressional District from Arizona, Mr. Speaker, when they said to me unequivocally, lower the cost of prescription drugs now. You see, in this land of prosperity, it just will not do. As the seniors told me yesterday, as we asked for a show of hands, they knew of some, indeed some of them gathered in that lunchroom in Mesa, Arizona, knew of friends who would cut their medication in two, actually reducing the dosage their doctors had prescribed to make the medicines go further. Others would make a choice between paying a utility bill or paying for their prescription drug coverage. Mr. Speaker, as hard as it may be for some to perceive, there are those yesterday who even told me they had friends who were forced to make a stark choice to determine whether to purchase the prescription medications they need or to purchase their groceries. A choice between food and medicine for our most vulnerable is something that no one in this country can or should countenance. And so the message came through loudly and clearly, principle number 1, lower the cost of prescription drugs now. Principle number 2, to update Medicare for the 21st century to reflect the changes we have seen. Mr. Speaker, there is a call and there is a recognition of our second principle and, that is, that we should guarantee all senior citizens prescription drug coverage. A fair and responsible Medicare plan for the 21st century must guarantee a prescription drug benefit under Medicare for all seniors and provide additional assistance for low-income seniors and those facing runaway drug costs because of long-term severe illness. It only makes sense, Mr. Speaker. It is the key to retirement security and peace of mind. But understand, many seniors with whom I met yesterday are pleased with the current insurance plan they enjoy under their current Medicare coverage. And while there should be a guarantee for all seniors who want it to seek out this new form of coverage, there should not be the heavy hand of government or a specific mandate requiring all seniors to take it if they choose another course of action or want to keep what they have right now. Mr. Speaker, the Medicare+Choice plans so prevalent in Arizona and in other parts of our Nation, as I mentioned earlier, many with whom I met yesterday have embraced those plans, they appreciate those plans, they want to maintain them, which leads me to principle number 3. We can improve Medicare, Mr. Speaker, with more choices and more savings. The right to choose the prescription drug plan that is best for you, Mr. or Mrs. Senior, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are dealing with, not to invite confusion or a plethora of paperwork or being snowed under by regulations but simply to give seniors the peace of mind and the freedom of choice to select what is best for them. I mentioned earlier the Medicare+Choice programs which so many seniors in Arizona have come to embrace and depend on. They should be allowed to keep that. But something else that we should note as part and parcel of these principles. We need to understand this. Seniors understand true compassion. They believe those below the poverty line, those who have to make that stark choice between food or medicine or paying other bills or cutting their dosage in half to make the medicine go further, they believe those people should be cared for first, that should be the priority, but there should be a program open to all and all should have the right and the option to choose it. Our fourth principle really undergirds all which I have spoken of earlier, and that is the realization that in updating Medicare for the 21st century, that in making the recognition that prescription medication coverage is a key, that we can strengthen Medicare for the future by offering this benefit as part of Medicare by utilizing this new front line assault on disease and on sickness and in so doing lower the long-term costs, eliminate in many cases the need for major surgery, see an improvement in lifestyle, and overall not only improve public health but be good stewards of the public purse because in the long term we actually hold down costs, and in so doing, that undergirding fourth principle, strengthening Medicare for the future, will be accomplished because we will ensure that the program can deliver necessary health care services, including this all-important addition of an affordable and voluntary prescription drug benefit under Medicare. Mr. Speaker, one of the great honors of serving in this Congress and especially in the House Committee on Ways and Means is to work with talented men and women across the width and breadth of America. I am honored tonight to welcome to the floor for this discussion of the prescription drug benefit a lady who has toiled long and hard on this issue and other issues involving public health and the common good, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). I welcome her to the floor, Mr. Speaker. I yield to my friend from Connecticut.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) for the recognition. Listening with interest to the debate; and indeed those who may join us, either in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, or electronically across the country, and indeed, around the world, may view with curiosity the debate thus far. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Those who listen to our debate, and I thank the gentleman. It was not intentional to violate House rules. I thank the Speaker for his attention to discourse, and I will return to it right now. Perhaps as the Speaker listens to the debate and as our colleagues in the Chamber listen to the debate, they might be mystified that what we have done is transform a debate on expanding opportunities for welfare to work and to lift the burden of the marriage tax penalty on those who need that help and thereby help bolster the institution of marriage to be caught up in the debate on other bills and other issues that we indeed will address in the days ahead. It is an interesting concept to focus on process in the House rather than content of the legislation. The legislation before us today helps us simplify the Tax Code. It increases the standard deduction for married couples, 300,000 married couples, would allow them to claim the standard deduction on their tax return rather than itemize. That, in itself, is a major simplification. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should work to emphasize policies that are family friendly, policies that would support marriage when we offer this economic incentive. It allows us to accelerate the lifting of the burdensome marriage tax penalty. It accelerates relief for 21 million married couples, and that is vitally important to offer them access to the American dream. My friend from New York was here just moments ago in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, addressing the entire concept of welfare to work, indeed to complement the legislation passed last week, to build upon a major success over the last half decade. We need to offer opportunities for people to get to work. My colleague from Illinois said it best. The best social program, the best opportunity to lift the burden of poverty is to offer people jobs, to get them into the workforce, and enhancing the welfare-to-work tax credit increases an employer's incentive to hire long-term recipients of the temporary assistance to needy families. This allows us to put people back to work. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not address something that has been repeated here time and again. It is important to clear up any misconception that may have been offered on the floor by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I appreciate their newfound adherence to what they believe to be sound fiscal policy, but the fact is this reasonable, rational, bipartisan reduction in taxes is allowed for in our House-passed budget resolution. Indeed, the budget resolution allows for a $28 billion reduction in taxation. We are not taking a penny, nor a dollar, nor a quarter nor a nickel, we are not going into Social Security and Medicare revenues to pay for this. Indeed, as disturbing as it is, if that indeed is the charge, would our friends on the other side vote ``no'' to expand this tax relief, an opportunity for those who look to seize it? I hope that would not be the case. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of the day, they will rise and join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and heartfelt conviction of my friend from California. I do not doubt her intentions. The important thing in terms of public policy is to step back and see what can bring the greatest good. I appreciate that my friend from California is a living embodiment of an exception in a previous policy that just was not working. What we have done over the last decade, or the last half of a decade, is to change this program, to incentivize and require work. That is why I rise in opposition, not to score political points but to take a look at what we have been able to do in the last 6 years. If we enact the substitute offered by my friends on the other side, we will weaken work requirements. This would provide partial credit toward work rates for adults who work as few as 10 hours a week while collecting full welfare benefits. Their substitute would add a new employed leaver credit. According to estimates from the Health and Human Services, it would effectively eliminate the work requirements in the year 2003, reducing from 50 percent to 2 percent the share of the welfare caseload expected to work. What I think is important here is that we not reduce work requirements, because, after all, it is incentive to work that brings about true reform, and in the final analysis the best social program is a job. With all due respect, the substitute offered by my friends, though it is not the intent of the other side, in essence it would promote welfare dependence. It would allow recipients working 2 days a week to stay on welfare forever. And my chairman mentioned the bottom line, the cost of this substitute. Not only $70 billion over the next 10 years but my friends who on so many different projects say ``Let's watch deficit spending,'' for this program they offer no budgetary offsets. Sound public policy requires under our budget rules offsets to bring this forward. It is not there. For those reasons, I have to rise in opposition to the Democratic substitute.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, our President speaks often about changing the tone in Washington. To help him do that, we, with commonsense control of the Congress, were able to change some policies in Washington. For the better part of a half century, the Federal Government evaluated success by the number of people who were added to the welfare rolls. We said, that has fundamentally got to change, that true compassion is making sure people find jobs, that at the end of the day when all is said and done, the best social program for any American is a job. Welfare reform, enacted over a half decade ago, has put us on the road to that commonsense measure, where the real measure of compassion is the number of people who leave the welfare rolls and find work, where honest compassion is providing educational opportunity and child care opportunities to enable people to leave welfare and go to work. And despite some of the mean-spirited catcalls of over a half decade ago about children being thrown into the streets and all sorts of other things that I will not repeat because they are so beneath the dignity of this House, we have restored the basic dignity to millions of Americans who now derive satisfaction from a day's work and a day's pay. We need to continue this battle and continue welfare reform. I ask my colleagues to join with me on a bipartisan basis with that type of vote today in this House in favor of continuing commonsense welfare reform.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Missouri for yielding time to me. I listened with great interest to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett). Mr. Speaker, it is something to see a change in political parties. It is something when we stop and realize that the standardbearer of the once proud Democratic Party said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself, and now, sadly, from the modern Democratic Party, the only thing they have to offer is fear itself. Courage and commitment should be bipartisan, or really should be nonpartisan. Indeed, if we take a look at history over the last 40 years, it was first a Democratic President, John F. Kennedy, who said we should reduce marginal tax rates because a rising tide lifts all the boats. Ronald Reagan followed with a similar philosophy in 1980, as did George W. Bush last year. And guess what? Revenues to the government long-term actually increased because people have more of their money to save, spend, and invest. My friends on the left have been here really captive to a debate of process. What we should talk about, Mr. Speaker, is a debate based on principles and priorities involving real people. This is the real consequence if Members vote no today on permanency for tax cuts: A single mother, hear me, not the caviar crew, not the Cadillac set, a single mother will end up paying an additional $963 of her hard-earned money in higher taxes if they say no to making the tax cut permanent. Now, I know we have been talking about millions and trillions and billions, but a thousand dollars is important in the family budget. Do Members really, Mr. Speaker, want to see taxes raised on working Americans? And yet, that is the net effect if Members do not join with us in a bipartisan, nay, in a nonpartisan fashion, and vote to enact permanent tax cuts. Vote yes.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, one fact which we should remember and which should give every Member of this House pause, if we fail to make these tax cuts permanent, then a decade hence, we will see the largest tax increase in American history eclipsing what we saw in 1993 under former President Clinton.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Illinois, Mr. Speaker; and I thank my other colleagues the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Missouri and the gentleman from Wisconsin, for joining us this evening. In listening to my friend from Missouri speak about the different opportunities, I was struck by really two themes running through his discourse. One is the notion of flexibility and freedom, and the other a basic philosophy that we really need to change, and we have played a great role in changing it, and that is the notion that people should not be punished for succeeding; that they should have the possibilities economically to deal with whatever challenges confront them in life. My friend from Missouri talked about educational tax credits, and certainly our heart goes out not only to those who are planning for college, but children with special needs, the opportunity to help parents of a Down's Syndrome child, provide educational opportunities through the Tax Code to enhance their options and flexibility, not to wait upon the largesse of government, but to utilize their own money for their own legitimate interests and their own timetable. That is really what it comes down to, to transfer money, power and influence out of the hands of a bureaucracy, an impersonal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. and understand that the money utilized does not belong to the Federal Government. I look and I see my friend from Arizona serving tonight as Speaker pro tem. Last night we were at the State Capital in Phoenix discussing the realization that the money people gave voluntarily April 15 is their money. They give to the Federal Government ``voluntarily.'' When we allow people to have more of their own money to save, spend, and invest as they see fit, things work better for them, and government actually works better. The other thing that my colleagues have talked about tonight is the bipartisan nature of this historically. Think back to recent history. Four decades ago it was Jack Kennedy who said, let us reduce the marginal tax rates; in his words, ``a rising tide lifts all boats.'' Two decades ago it was President Ronald Reagan who suggested the same thing, and then just last year, working with our current President, George W. Bush, we were able to again enact marginal rate reductions. Now, here is something, and this is one of the things I lament in the way Washington works. Given the arcana of the budget and the way we predict things here, it is very Washington-centric. We take a look at what is called a static model. We fail to take into account growth in revenues to the Federal Government. It is a historical fact that under Jack Kennedy and under Ronald Reagan, when we reduced the tax rates, revenues actually increased to the Federal Government. The gentleman from Arizona in the Chair tonight made the point last night at the State capital. And, we recall this as members of the Committee on Ways and Means in 1997 when we, through cheerful persistence, persuaded a reluctant President to join us in a reduction in the top rate of capital gains taxation, especially for primary residences that cost less than $600,000, and what that meant to housing starts and new home sales and just a change in the real estate market. But it was very interesting; the gentleman from Arizona, the Speaker pro tempore tonight, made the point that the forecasters, the estimators said that that capital gains rate reduction was going to cost the Federal Government. Yet, the reality is in terms of revenue accrued, it has been a triple-digit winner. Revenue has been produced. Why? Because it is a simple notion, regardless of party affiliation. The simple fact that the budgeteers do not want to recognize is this: reduction in tax rates leads to economic activity, leads to job creation, especially when we reduce the capital gains rate, leads to capital formation and the use of capital, putting it to work. When we do that in an economy, a people prosper. Indeed, one magazine in town asked our friends on the left if they were really concerned about revenues to the government, perhaps they should join us in asking for tax reductions because overall revenues increase, based on economic activity. So it is simple self-interest, not selfishness, but a chance just as President Kennedy said in the 1960s, that a rising tide lifts all the boats, and as President Reagan said in the 1980s, that people can save, spend, and invest their money as they see fit, rather than keeping Washington in charge, or as President Bush said in Iowa yesterday: expand the recovery, take the lesson that we learned in the economic downturn, and even in the wake of the dark days, in the aftermath of 9- 11 and the uncertainty we confronted then, and move to make the marginal tax relief and the other provisions that my colleagues have discussed tonight, Mr. Speaker, move to make that permanent so that we can continue to grow this economy and people will have the freedom and the flexibility to choose what is right for them, and they will not wait upon government programs for improvement, with educational opportunities, especially for those children with special needs, with the purchase of a home, with the starting of a business, with the raising of a family; indeed, every facet of American life, give people the freedom to recognize the money belongs to them. Mr. Speaker, we made substantive changes in the Tax Code and it is a start, but we need to follow the call of our Commander in Chief who asks now that we finish the job, that we make these rate reductions permanent, so that the economic renaissance and the rebuilding and the restoration of our economic conditions toward greatness can continue. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ohio for yielding me the time, and I appreciate the comments from my good friend from Maryland. If you listened closely, while there were some disagreements as to what is transpiring in the bill that my friend from Ohio addressed, there seems to be more of a concern about process, and we have joint jurisdiction with the Committee on Education and the Workforce and some of these questions of process can be worked out in the course of the legislation. But what we do in this bill is address a definite need. This is an example where the House of Representatives responds to a challenge that confronts the American people. It is precisely because of the diversification rights that I would recommend this legislation. Plans would be required to offer at least three investment options other than company stock and to allow employees to change investment options at least quarterly. Employees must have the option of investing their own contributions in any investment option offered by the plan. Employers would be allowed to match in the form of company stock. However, employees would be allowed to sell this stock and diversify into other assets according to a couple of different options, a 3-year service option or a 3-year rolling option. Another concern addressed by this legislation is that it strikes a balance. Mr. Speaker, many folks in Arizona have come to me about ESOPs and what goes on there, and it is important to note that the new diversification rules would apply only to plans that hold publicly traded employer securities and to plans that are not pure ESOPs. A pure ESOP does not hold any employee contributions, employer matching contributions, or employer contributions used to meet nondiscrimination tests. As you take a look at this legislation, it actually enlarges and improves access to retirement security. It would make it easier for small businesses to start and maintain pension plans. It will simplify reporting requirements for pension plans with fewer than 25 participants. If the question is access to pension security, it only makes sense to enlarge the possibilities for small business, and we should really redefine that as essential business since more Americans are employed by small businesses than all the corporations of the United States, we are able to set up a mechanism so that they can actually come up with their own plans, with their own pension programs, and it will provide for discounted insurance premiums that small businesses pay to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. On balance, this legislation strikes a balance. It is an appropriate first step. I urge passage of the legislation.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, for yielding time to me. I appreciate the words of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, who preceded me in the well. Would that this substitute from the other side, would that it in fact concentrated on workers. I do not dispute a thing that my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, said about the desirability of pension plans. Indeed, the bill we offer has an opportunity to expand pension plans on into small businesses, opportunities for businesses with as few as 25 employees. The problem with the substitute is that instead of being pension protection, it is a trial lawyer's bonanza. The language in this substitute would authorize suits to recover unlimited damages alleging economic and non-economic losses, and welcome to the litigation bonanza. Should pensions be protected? Absolutely. But if we want to help working people, we want to expand the pension pool. We want to set up new opportunities for small business to go into these pension plans to do the very things my friend, the gentleman from Michigan, talked about. We do not want an economic bonanza, or, sadly, and I am sure it is not the intention of my friends, but one can almost see a situation where we would have an economic bonanza and the equivalent of whiplash, whiplash. Look, we are talking about people's lives. It is precisely because of the dignity of work and the opportunity that retirement brings, and their hopes and dreams, that we do not want to see funds jeopardized by unlimited liability and damages that enrich only the trial lawyers' lobby and does nothing to help working people. That is the choice we have to make today. Mr. Speaker, we have a bipartisan piece of legislation with many commonsense remedies that people on both sides of the aisle have championed. Do not sacrifice that for a substitute that enriches the trial lawyers' lobby. Reject the substitute and go with our bipartisan plan.

Mr. HAYWORTH

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, I salute my Committee on Ways and Means colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), for introducing the reauthorization of welfare reform; and as my friend from South Carolina just mentioned, this is an opportunity to build on a genuine success story. My friend from Kansas came to the well earlier and he spoke of our great former President Ronald Reagan who had the right instincts when President Reagan said, Success in terms of helping people needs to be defined not by the numbers of people added to the welfare rolls, but by the numbers of people who depart those rolls and who go out and get jobs. What we started in 1996, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth of some, was something truly remarkable and truly constructive. When we reaffirm the dignity of work and the reality instead of just the rhetoric that the best program in the United States is not a social program, it is a job, to reaffirm individual self-worth, to reaffirm the dignity of work and the pride and personhood. That is the challenge that confronts us as we reauthorize landmark welfare reform.