Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, today is the first installment of our Media Watch. Media Watch is an effort to cover the stories the networks will not cover, the stories which are distorted by liberals, and the stories which are buried in the back pages for political reasons. As always, there is a lot to choose from, but I think most people would agree that the way the major networks covered Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's comments on the Republican tax proposal deserves a second look. Anybody watching ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN would come away thinking that the Federal Reserve Chairman opposed the Republican tax cuts and felt them unwise. Well, Alan Greenspan's comments were not exactly as they were portrayed. In fact, the Chairman warned against more spending. Those comments were ignored. In fact, the Chairman said that if the choice were between more spending and tax cuts, he thought tax cuts made sense, and that more spending would be the worst of all outcomes. Surprise, surprise. We get spin from the networks.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have never once heard a Democrat talk about who pays the taxes. I have never heard even a single Democrat cite this remarkable statistic: The top 50 percent of income earners pay 96 percent of the taxes, while the bottom 50 percent pay only 4 percent of the taxes. Now, let me repeat that, and let me be a little more precise. The top 50 percent of income earners, according to the latest IRS data, pay exactly 95.7 percent of the total Federal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent, those with incomes below $23,160, the bottom 50 percent pay only 4.34 percent of the total Federal income tax in the country. In other words, low income earners pay almost no Federal taxes at all. That is why any tax cut is immediately labeled tax cut for the wealthy. Even the $500 per child tax credit that passed 2 years ago, which was available to all families except the wealthy, was called tax cuts for the wealthy by the other side. If one is a taxpayer, Democrats think one is wealthy, and one should not have one's tax reduced under any circumstances.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, to prevent potential catastrophic nationwide computer meltdown, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, is fighting brokers and firms to ensure that their computers actually read ``00'' as of January 1 of 2000. Recently an 87-year-old broker who has spent 50 years in the investment business was fined $5,000 for not being Y2K compliant. There is only one problem. This particular gentleman does not own a computer. His operation is so small, he does not actually sell them mutual funds; he just gives advice. He never touches any money at all. Mr. Speaker, that has not stopped the SEC from demanding a yearly audit of his firm which costs him another $5,000. He went ahead, and he paid the original Y2K fine because he could not afford the money to fight the bureaucracy. He will not be without a computer for long, however. New SEC regulations insist that all brokers have a computer so they can receive e-mail notices from the agencies. Here we have a legitimate businessman being harassed and intimidated by his own government agency paid for by his own tax dollars. Outrageous. It is inexcusable and a waste of taxpayers' time and money. The Securities and Exchange Commission gets my porker of the week award and my disgust.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. We have been working on this also through the Defense Department and the defense bill. It is my understanding that the language under TEA is consistent with language currently being considered as part of the fiscal year 2000 defense authorization bill. I would ask the gentleman, is that correct?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, as Members know, I have been very interested in the Troops to Teachers program. I appreciate the chairman including that in the bill. I would like to carry on a colloquy with my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon). It is my understanding that language has been included as part of the Teacher Empowerment Act which will provide for the continuation of the Troops to Teachers program. As Members know, I have been a supporter of this program, which was originally established to provide certain military personnel affected by the military drawdown with the opportunity to pursue a new career in public education. Evaluations of this program have highlighted the quality of teachers provided through the program, the satisfaction of schools hiring these teachers, and the above average retention rates of these new teachers. Mr. Chairman, I stand today to offer my support for H.R. 1995, the Teacher Empowerment Act. In particular, I am very pleased that the bill calls for the reauthorization of the Troops to Teachers program. My thanks for allowing the Troops to Teachers program to be included in this bill. The Troops to Teachers program was created in 1994 to assist military personnel who were affected by military downsizing find second careers in which they could utilize their knowledge, professional skills and expertise in our nation's schools. The program offers counseling and assistance to help participants identify teacher certification programs and employment opportunities. As we all know, our schools and students are in desperate need of more high-quality teachers. The Troops to Teachers program helps provide those teachers. Since its authorization, Troops to Teachers has helped over 3,000 active duty soldiers enter our nation's classrooms and make significant contributions to the lives of our students. These military personnel- turned-teachers have established a solid reputation as educators who bring unique real-world experiences to the classroom. They are dedicated, mature, and experienced individuals who have proven to be effective teachers, as well as excellent role models. They are also helping fill a void felt in many public school districts. Over three-quarters of the Troops to Teachers participants are male, compared with about 25 percent in the overall public school system, and over 30 percent of these teachers belong to a minority racial ethnic group. In addition, a large portion of these teachers are trained in math, science, and engineering, and about half elect to teach in inner city or rural schools. Overall, the retention of these teachers is much higher than the national average. Not surprisingly, Troops to Teachers is winning glowing reviews from educational administrators, teachers and legislators. Education Secretary Richard Riley praised the program as a new model for recruiting high quality teachers. School principals and superintendents who have employed Troops to Teachers participants are overwhelmingly supportive of the program. The authorization of this successful program is set to expire at the end of this year. However, the passage of the Teacher Empowerment Act will ensure that this successful program continues. I hope my House colleagues will join me in preserving this education success story by supporting the Teacher Empowerment Act.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, why is it so difficult for liberals to accurately describe our tax cut proposals? In fact, to date I have yet to hear a single Democrat describe our budget surplus proposal by what is actually in our proposal. As this chart illustrates, Republicans have indicated their priorities by putting $2 for retirement security to every $1 for tax relief from projected surpluses over the next 10 years. Let me repeat that. From the budget surpluses, we allocate $2 for retirement security for every $1 for tax relief. That means that Social Security and Medicare will be preserved. It also means that our preference is for tax relief over new Washington spending. Make no mistake about it, whenever the Democrats talk about their opposition to tax cuts and their preference for debt reduction, we can be sure that this will mean new Washington spending. If the 40 years of Democrat control in the House are any indication, that money will be spent. A balanced reproach is $2 for $1: $2 for retirement security, $1 for tax relief.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding constituent of Colorado's 5th Congressional District. Ms. Linda R. Williams, the outgoing national president of the American Association of Nurse Anesthetists (AANA). In my opinion it is appropriate at this time to recognize the distinguished career of this individual. Founded in 1931, the AANA represents over 27,000 certified registered nurse anesthetists, or CRNAs, across the country. They work in every setting in which anesthesia is delivered, and for all types of surgical cases including hospital surgical suites, obstetrical delivery rooms, ambulatory surgical centers, and the offices of dentists, podiatrists, and plastic surgeons. As president, Ms. Williams was responsible for charting the policy and direction of the association from 1998-1999. Throughout her involvement with the AANA, Ms. Williams has held a variety of leadership positions prior to being elected President, including Treasurer and a Director of Region 5 on the AANA Board of Directors. Ms. Williams began here studies at Stephens College receiving here Bachelor of Arts degree in Health Science. She then received her Bachelor of Science in Nurse Anesthesiology from Ohio State University and her diploma from St. Mary's School of Nursing. Lastly, she received her juris doctorate in law from the University of Denver, Colorado College of Law. Ms. Williams is currently in private practice in Englewood Colorado. She has been widely published and speaks often before professional groups and societies, which has earned her the esteem and respect of her peers and others in all professions. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join with me in recognizing Ms. Williams for here notable career and outstanding achievements. Congratulations Ms. Williams for a job well done.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are in a quandary. We face some difficult choices. As the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) works on his tax cut package, Republicans in Congress are engaged in a fierce debate. What taxes should we cut? CBO, or the Congressional Budget Office, projects budget surpluses totalling $824 billion over the next 10 years. That is real surplus, not counting Social Security surplus. Some Republicans want to cut taxes on capital gains. That is the best way to keep the economy growing. Other Republicans want to cut or eliminate death taxes as a simple question of fairness. Some Republicans want to eliminate the senior tax. It is unfair to tax seniors who want to continue working at age 65. And some Republicans want to cut the marriage tax penalty, an obvious candidate for elimination because penalizing people because they are married is just plain stupid. Democrats are arguing about which taxes to raise, but Republicans are considering tax cuts, tax cuts for all Americans.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes people come up to me and say, the politicians are always talking about reforming the Tax Code, getting rid of the Tax Code, making it easier to file our taxes, but nothing ever changes. How come that is? The short answer is that the special interests benefit from the Tax Code, and the complexity of the Tax Code is a source of enormous government power. Thus, it would not be in the interests of anyone who wants to expand government power to change the Tax Code in a more sane direction. Another reason is equally valid. It is called Tax Code progressivity. Any attempt to change the Tax Code into something that made sense, that actually looked like it was designed on purpose, would be met with howls of protests from the liberals. They would say it was unfair because it would undermine progressivity. A flat tax, one rate, meaning that the more you make the more taxes you pay, is already a system that is fair and that makes high earners pay their fair share. A sales tax would also be fair. In my view, if Members are against the flat tax or the sales tax, all the talk about reforming the Tax Code is simply empty rhetoric.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, April 20 of this year a terrible tragedy occurred at Columbine High School in Colorado, and I do not represent Columbine High School. Now I do not represent Columbine High School. I represent some Littleton addresses, and I am close to Columbine, but I do not exactly represent it, but I took this tragedy very, very personally. It is something that I think all of us have a difficult time getting over. On Wednesday, April 21, 1 day, 1 day after the tragedy, as I understand it, the chairman of the Democrat Congressional Committee was whipping his troops into line saying that this is a great time for gun control legislation to be presented to the House because it will be good for politics in the next election. I think that is shameful. We should not take advantage of this kind of a tragedy for political purposes. I did not engage in the debate last week when we were dealing with this because I did not feel we were doing anything that was really very meaningful. Demagoguery flowed from both sides like water, and nothing much was really accomplished, and as the various amendments came up, I kept asking myself would this have done anything in the Columbine case if this amendment had been law, and most cases, sadly I have to say absolutely not. Recently I heard a Paul Harvey broadcast which I think maybe opens up the perspective on the Columbine High School situation, and I would like to share that with my colleagues this morning: If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy. Yeah, it must have been the guns. It couldn't have been because of half of our children being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time. It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children. It couldn't have been because we place our children in the day care centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees, who have no vested interest in the children, look on and make sure that no blood is spilled. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch an average of 7 hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption. It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into the virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible. It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or inconveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time. It couldn't have been because our Nation is the world leader in developing a culture of death in which 20 million to 30 million babies have been killed by abortion. It couldn't have been because we give 2-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns. It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution is fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy. It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions do not have consequences. What the heck, the President gets away with it. No, it must have been the guns. I think Paul Harvey's statement illustrates the corruption that has permeated our society that leads to things like Columbine. No amount of gun legislation will solve the problems in our society. The answers are complex, and they are multi-faceted. There is no quick fix. It is time that we looked at the roots of our problems and not just at the surface symptoms.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, one reason why taxes are such an important issue is because a Nation's tax policy reflects its values. A system of low taxes rewards hard work, rewards educational achievement, rewards prudence, rewards long-term planning, rewards risk-taking, rewards entrepreneurship, rewards diligence, and most of all, is an endorsement of freedom, the idea that a person is truly entitled to the fruits of his labor. A system of high taxation punishes these very same virtues. It discourages work, discourages job creation, and reduces freedom. It buys into the idea that the more productive a person is, the more he should be punished, and the less entitled he is to those fruits. It is based on the belief that government knows best. This in my view is a bizarre value system. I find the liberal value system to be contrary to freedom, contrary to common sense, and the exact opposite of the values that made America great.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, if you think it is fun to watch a liberal become hysterical, then here is a fun trick that you might want to try. Next time you are in the company of liberals, especially the kind who make a big deal about how compassionate they are with other people's money, mention that you heard that the Republicans in Congress are going to do away with the income tax withholding. In other words, mention that you heard a rumor, and it is apparently true, that conservative Republicans are going to get rid of income tax withholding and make everyone send in one big check to Uncle Sam at the end of each year for their income tax. The reaction you will get cannot be expressed in words. First, there is silence, dead silence, and then we will see an expression of sheer panic and terror on their face. The liberal knows that if we are forced to see in one lump sum just how much money is forked over to the Federal Government every year we would revolt, and the liberals would never win another election. Try that sometime on liberal friends, and enjoy the show.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am acutely aware of the problem which the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) have raised today. The Department of Defense has also made a proposal to expedite the reuse process. I am very sympathetic to the desire of the local communities to see effective economic reuse of former military installations and see it happen at the earliest possible time. As both gentlemen know, this is a complicated area of law. I regret the administration did not forward the formal proposal in this area to our committee in time for us to really take action on it. We have not had the opportunity to have adequate hearings, but we fully intend to have those hearings, to have them in a timely fashion, and to have them prior to the time that we go to conference on this. I would like for both of my colleagues, and others that are interested, to participate in these hearings with us. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, because this is an important issue and we do intend to address it. I appreciate both of my colleagues bringing it to my attention.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the House minority leader, was apparently caught off guard recently and said out loud what he really thinks about defense spending and about taxes. He said, and I quote, and I have it on this chart, ``You have got to have a combination of taking it out of the defense budget and raising revenue. We can argue about how to do that, closing loopholes or even raising taxes to do it.'' That is right. He proposed to raise taxes and cut defense. And then, even more amazing is that he was given a chance to clarify his remarks in a letter to the editor of the Washington Times. Did he say that he would oppose tax increases? Did he say he would retract his words? Did he repudiate the notion that what this country needs is to weaken our military and raise taxes? No. He wrote, ``I have no intention of proposing or supporting any tax increases.'' No intention? The last time we heard that was 1992, only 1 year before President Clinton gave us the greatest tax increase in our Nation's history.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of 1401. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to draw the attention of the House to the important provisions in this legislation concerning the military construction and family housing programs for the coming fiscal year. On a bipartisan basis, we have found the budget request inadequate to address the scope of the need identified by the military services. This has been a problem with the President's budget request for some time. The administration compounded the deficiencies in its budget proposal while building its fiscal year 2000 MILCON program on a risky fiscal foundation. The incremental funding of the military construction program on an outlay rate basis would surely lead to an increase in costs and delays in the delivery of facilities. H.R. 1401 would reject this proposal on most projects. The leadership of the full committee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence) and our ranking Democrat member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton) worked closely with the subcommittee to try to find a solution that would address the needs of the military services. H.R. 1401 would restore $3.1 billion in budget authority for military construction. That seems like a lot of money even in this town, and certainly there are a lot of competing demands for these funds. However, we felt very strongly that endorsing the incremental funding concept across-the-board would be shirking our responsibility to the taxpayer. No Member of the committee, Republican or Democrat, was willing to do that. With these funds, we set out first to fix the broken program left to us by the Department. Nowhere was the need to do this more apparent than in the area of military housing. The administration proposed to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing and begin the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories, and BEQs for the single enlisted. That requirement will cost nearly $1.4 billion for the coming fiscal year. However, the administration asked for only $313 million, 22 cents on the dollar, to meet the fiscal year 2000 requirement. The legislation reported by the Committee on Armed Services would add nearly $1.1 billion to the budget to ensure that this housing is built and occupied as soon as possible. In addition, our recommendations would fund an additional $75 million in military housing projects. Similarly, we have funded the training, readiness, and other requirements of the active and reserve components at the level required to get the job done, for the most part. As just one example, the administration funded a $251 million MILCON requirement for the Guard and Reserve at $78 million. This legislation would provide the additional $173 million in funding necessary to move forward on these requirements, and would also provide an additional $187 million in support of the reserve components. Regrettably, H.R. 1401 will not fix all of the problems in the President's budget request nor could the committee address adequately, in my judgment, the unfunded requirements that continue to pile up due to the broad inattention of the Department to critical infrastructure upgrades. I believe, however, we have done the prudent thing. With this legislation, we will minimize risk to the most essential military construction projects and programs of the military services. We will dedicate limited, additional resources to meeting the unfunded needs of the military services. We will also continue to urge the Department of Defense to exercise appropriate stewardship on behalf of the taxpayer in the military infrastructure and facilities that serve as the platform for the defense of the Nation. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve every day deserve no less than that. In closing, I want to express again my appreciation to the members of the subcommittee I chair, especially the ranking Democratic member, Gene Taylor, for their contributions to this bill as well as their patience, understanding, and cooperation as we worked through a difficult budget request. The subcommittee's recommendations were adopted by voice vote in the full committee. This is truly bipartisan legislation and I urge all members to support H.R. 1401. Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this bill overwhelmingly.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, military readiness is the kind of thing that requires long-term planning and long-term commitment. Decisions made today about our military forces do not show up until years down the road. That is why it is easy for shortsighted or politically motivated leaders to shortchange our military for a few years because future generations will have to pay the price. Similarly, the defense buildup that President Reagan made his top priority paid huge dividends only after he left office. The Soviet Union fell shortly after he left, and President George Bush reaped the benefits of our extraordinary military prowess in the Gulf War in 1991. In my judgment, and in the opinion of many military experts, this administration has shortchanged our military systematically over the past 6 years. Our commitments grow, but the resources are just not there to meet them. This House will soon have the opportunity to take action to change this course. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the DOD authorization bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the person in charge of counterintelligence at the Department of Energy discovered some devastating information. It appeared that the Communist Chinese had obtained our most important nuclear secrets. The most advanced nuclear weapon in our arsenal, the W-88, had somehow been given to the Communist Chinese. It was so horrific he could hardly believe his ears; the worst possible case, the ultimate national security disaster. Communist China was the same country that was selling weapons of mass destruction technology to Iran and other rogue regimes, the same country that imprisoned citizens for their political beliefs, the same country that massacred a thousand in Tiananmen Square for believing in freedom. That Energy Department official then sounded the alarm, but no one listened. The Justice Department unbelievably turned down the FBI's request twice to wiretap the scientist suspected of giving away the most important secret the United States owned, and political appointees at the White House downplayed the disaster. This administration has utterly failed us.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague who just spoke is emphasizing Small Business Week. This is Small Business Week. It is a time to celebrate the entrepreneurs that make the Nation's engine run. I want to take this opportunity to recognize a group of people that serve as that engine's mechanics, the Service Corps of Retired Executives, known as SCORE, which is celebrating their 35th anniversary this year. SCORE is made up of a group of retired business executives. They volunteer their time and business expertise to counsel and advise our Nation's small business and entrepreneurs-to-be. With well over 50 percent of all new businesses failing within the first 6 years, counseling early on can make a difference between success and failure of a new business. SCORE's free counseling service does that job and it does it well. In particular, I want to recognize the 166 SCORE volunteers in Colorado. Colorado SCORE counselors worked nearly 15,000 hours last year in support of the Colorado business community. Their support for Colorado's businesses are appreciated, and I encourage them to keep up the good work.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today the Bring Them Home Alive Act of 1999. This legislation provides a powerful incentive to persuade foreign nationals to identify and return to the United States any living American POW/MIA who served in the Vietnam or Korean War. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by 28 bipartisan co-sponsors. The on-going war in Yugoslavia has brought the plight of American POW/MIAs to the forefront of the nation's psyche. We all watched in horror several weeks ago as three captured American servicemen were displayed with visible cuts and bruises on Serbian television. We feared for their lives, their safety and their well-being. It was with great relief that we watched as Staff Sergeants Christopher Stone and Andrew Ramirez and Specialist Steven Gonzales were released, relatively unharmed, from a Serbian prison. The story of the capture of these three servicemen ended with family reunions and a safe return home to America. However, too many POW/MIAs were not so fortunate. There is the possibility that soldiers from the Vietnam and Korean Wars are still living as prisoners of war. It is our duty to do all that we can to bring them home. The Bring Them Home Alive Act would grant asylum in the U.S. to foreign nationals who help return a living American POW/MIA from either the Vietnam War or the Korean War. The bill specifically allows citizens of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, China, North Korea, or any of the states of the former Soviet Union who assist in the rescue of an American POW/MIA to be granted asylum. The legislation would also grant asylum to the rescuer's family, including their spouse and children, since their safety would most likely be threatened by such a rescue. While there is some doubt as to whether any American POW/MIAs from these two wars remain alive, the official U.S. policy distinctly recognizes the possibility that American POW/MIAs from the Vietnam War could still be alive and held captive in Indochina. The official position of the Defense Department states, ``Although we have thus far been unable to prove that Americans are still being held against their will, the information available to us precludes ruling out that possibility. Actions to investigate live-sighting reports receive and will continue to receive necessary priority and resources based on the assumption that at least some Americans are still help captive. Should any report prove true, we will take appropriate action to ensure the return of those involved.'' The Bring Them Home Alive Act supports this official position and provides for the possibility of bringing any surviving U.S. servicemen home alive. In order to inform foreign nationals of this offer, the bill calls on the International Broadcasting Bureau to draw upon its resources, such as WORLDNET Television and its Internet sites, to broadcast information that promotes the Bring Them Home Alive asylum program. Similarly, the bill calls on Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia to broadcast information. Mr. Speaker, we are less than two weeks away from celebrating Memorial Day. This holiday is an opportunity for us, as a nation, to honor the soldiers and veterans who so valiantly served and protected our nation and our freedoms. American servicemen and women deserve this recognition, as well as our respect and appreciation. I believe it would be a fitting tribute to American soldiers to pass the Bring Them Home Alive Act. As long as there remains even the remotest possibility that there may be American survivors, we owe it to our servicemen and their families to bring them home alive.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, whom should Americans trust more to protect the Medicare program for seniors? Let us look at the facts. Democrats sat idly by while Medicare was on the verge of bankruptcy during the period of time that they controlled both the White House and the Congress. Then Republicans won the majority of the Congress, and almost immediately reformed and strengthened Medicare for the first time ever. Democrats then attacked Republicans for reforming a program that should have been reformed a long time ago. That is fact number one. Now consider this. We find out that this administration is spending $20 billion less on Medicare than the law allows. Let me repeat that. This administration is spending $20 billion less on Medicare than Congress intended and as authorized by law. Hospitals are feeling the pinch. Seniors are not getting the care they need as quickly as they need it. Why is this administration playing politics once again with Medicare? Again, I ask the question, whom should seniors trust more to protect Medicare?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, in line with what the previous speaker had to say, the chart here is labeled ``Tax Freedom Day 1980-1999.'' But maybe a better title for this chart would be ``President Clinton's Road to the 21st Century.'' He was elected in 1992. In 1993, Tax Freedom Day was April 30. Tax Freedom Day is the day when the average taxpayer has finished off paying what he owes to Uncle Sam and begins to work for himself. In 1994, Tax Freedom Day was May 2. In 1995, it was May 3. In 1996, it was May 5. In 1997, it was May 7. Last year, it was May 10. This year, yesterday, May 11 was the day when taxpayers begin working for themselves. This is the road to the 21st century under a Democrat administration. Ronald Reagan was able to push back Tax Freedom Day from May 4 to April 27. But since then we have lost ground. It is considered progress to the tax and spenders in this body; but for middle-class taxpayers, it just means less freedom and more power in Washington.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, on May 15, peace officers from around the country will travel to Washington for a day of commemoration and honor for fellow officers slain in the line of duty. The National Peace Officers Memorial Day serves as a solemn reminder of the sacrifice and commitment to safety that these men and women make on our behalf. I am joined by over 130 of my colleagues as I introduce today a resolution that expresses the gratitude of the House of Representatives for the work these officers perform. There are currently more than 700,000 men and women who place their lives at risk every day as they serve as the guardians of law and order. Every year approximately 1 in 9 officers is assaulted, 1 in 25 officers is injured, and 1 in 4,400 officers is killed in the line of duty. Last year 158 officers were killed in the line of duty, and about 60,000 were injured. While the crime of murder has been reduced on the national level, the murder rate of peace officers has tragically risen. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in expressing our appreciation to all peace officers in paying tribute to those slain in line of duty and to their surviving families.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce today a resolution to honor the sacrifice and commitment of the men and women who have lost their lives while serving as law enforcement officers. This resolution, which is cosponsored by over 130 of my colleagues, expresses the gratitude of the House of Representatives for the work peace officers perform and honors peace officers who have been killed in the line of duty. We have all been affected by the tragic and senseless deaths of peace officers around the country. Unfortunately, there are few communities in the United States that have not been impacted by the meaningless death of a peace officer. Our own Capitol community was shocked and saddened last year by the tragic shooting of Capitol Police Officer Jacob Chestnut and Special Agent John Gibson. Each of these officers provided unparalleled protection to citizens throughout the United States. As Members of Congress, we recognize and honor the protection, safety and public service these officers provided on a daily basis. These officers will be further honored this Saturday when peace officers from around the country travel to Washington for a day of commemoration and honor for fellow officers slain in the line of duty. The National Peace Officers Memorial Day serves as a solemn reminder of the sacrifice and commitment to safety that these men and women make on our behalf. Law-enforcement officers face unprecedented risks while bravely protecting our communities and our freedoms. I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing our appreciation to all peace officers and paying tribute to those slain in the line of duty and to their surviving families.