John Lewis

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, one out of every five children lives in poverty. Over 40 million Americans have no health insurance. One out of every three public schools is falling apart. Spending billions of dollars on missile defense does nothing to solve these problems. In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower, every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. President Eisenhower, a Republican, had the experience and the wisdom to appreciate the cost of the military to our society. It is the price we paid during the Cold War because we had to. Mr. Speaker, that threat is no more. There is no need for a missile defense, for spending billions of dollars on some pie in the sky boondoggle. This May, the sequel to the film Star Wars will be released. It is called The Phantom Menace. Mr. Speaker, today we are debating whether to build a sequel to Ronald Reagan's Star Wars system. It too should be called The Phantom Menace. This Phantom Menace defense system will cost at least $20 billion and protect us against a threat that simply does not exist. It is time to recognize the peace dividend, to redirect our priorities and invest in our people, not in weapons. Make no mistake, a dollar more for missile defense is a dollar less for health care, for education and for food. This Phantom Menace missile defense system will not educate the unlearned. It will not provide hope for the hopeless, food for the hungry or medicine for the sick. I urge my colleagues, do not choose bullets over babies, bombs over books, missiles over medicine. Let it be the policy of our great Nation to beat our swords into plowshares, to invest not in the instruments of war but in the dividends of peace, in education and health care, in hope and opportunity, in our children, our families and our future. Vote no on the remains of a bygone age. Vote no on this resolution.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we are a rich and powerful Nation in the midst of strong economic growth. As we approach the 21st century, we must ask ourselves, what is our next greatest challenge? How will we target our investments to become stronger as a Nation and as a people? I have always said, and I will continue to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no greater challenge and nothing that is more important than the education of our next generation. We do not have a person to waste. Every student in this Nation who wants to go to college, no matter how rich or poor, should have the opportunity to go. Education is a great equalizer. A good education can shine the light of hope and opportunity in every corner of our Nation, no matter how poor, how hopeless, or how downtrodden. For nearly 30 years Pell Grants have been the key that have unlocked the American dream. For millions of American students who had the talent, had the desire, but lacked the funds, the Pell Grant made the difference between college and a dead end job. In the last decade, the cost for college has increased at rates of 5 to 8 percent, outpacing inflation and putting a college education further out of reach for those who can least afford it. Until recently, the size of the maximum Pell Grant stayed the same. Two years ago, many of my colleagues and I, along with the President, fought for and won the largest increase in the Pell Grant in 20 years. That brought the maximum Pell Grant up from $2,700 to $3,000. Mr. Speaker, we can even do better. Today's Pell Grant provides only 35 percent of the average cost of a 4-year State college. Too few families today can afford to write a check for $10,000 to cover tuition for State schools, and for so many families, private education is out of the question. Mr. Speaker, I remember growing up in rural Alabama in the forties and fifties. My family could never have afforded the college tuition at Harvard, Yale, or even the University of Georgia. For so many of us, college was a distant dream, a pipe dream. Without the help of financial aid or work study, we could never have afforded to go to college. We have come a long way in opening the doors of college for all Americans, but we can do better. We can do more. For this reason, I am joining my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) in sponsoring legislation that will raise the maximum authorized Pell Grant to a level that reflects the rising cost of college. I ask all of my colleagues to join me and my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), in making education a priority, and to ensure that in the days of economic prosperity, no one but no one is left out or left behind.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to establish an African-American Museum on the mall, in Washington, D.C., as part of the Smithsonian Institution. The story of black people in America has yet to be told in its entirety. African-American history is an integral part of our country, yet the richness and variety of that history is little-known and little-understood. As tourists from all over the world come to visit our Nation's Capital, they will not be able to learn the full history of black people in America. This museum represents a great opportunity--to showcase our history in its diversity and breadth, and to make the understanding of American history more complete. Did you know that Dr. Daniel Hale Williams was a pioneering heart surgeon that played a vital role in the discovery of open-heart surgery? And that Ernest Everett Just, Percy Julian and George Washington Carver were all outstanding scientists? Educators such as W.E.B. DuBois and Benjamin E. Mays left an indelible mark on this country. The Harlem Renaissance produced poets, writers and musicians like Countee Cullen, Langston Hughes and Duke Ellington. The civil rights movement changed the face of this country and inspired movements toward democracy and justice all over the world--producing great leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., and Whitney Young. Too few people know that Benjamin Banneker, an outstanding mathematician, along with Pierre L'Enfant, designed the District of Columbia. There are many more and their stories must be told. Until we understand the African-American story in its fullness and complexity, we cannot understand ourselves and our nation. We must know who we are and where we have come from so that we may move forward together. And we recognize the importance of all our people and all of our history. The establishment of the museum would be one important step toward achieving greater understanding as a nation and as a people. It is my hope and prayer that as we preserve these important moments in history, we will inspire future generations to dream, to write, to march and to teach. As they are able to look back at all that has been accomplished, they will be able to look forward and believe in the future of our great country. I am pleased and delighted that many of my colleagues have joined me in cosponsoring this bill. I urge all my colleagues of the 106th Congress to support this worthwhile and important legislation.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning, as the dean of the Georgia delegation, to welcome our newest Member to the House of Representatives. Johnny Isakson won an impressive victory in Tuesday's special election in Georgia's 6th Congressional District. He received 65 percent of the vote in a crowded field of contenders. Mr. Isakson brings with him a wealth of experience, having served in both the Georgia House and Senate. Back home, Johnny has developed a reputation as a bridge builder, a man who has strong beliefs but is also willing to work with others to get things done. I believe that trait will serve him very well here in Congress. Johnny, on behalf of all the members of the Georgia delegation, Democrats and Republicans, we welcome you to this great institution, the people's House. We look forward to working with you to improve the lives of the people of the 6th Congressional District, of Georgia, and the people of the Nation. Welcome. Welcome here. Work hard and enjoy yourself and have some fun as you work.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, this past Sunday in the Super Bowl, the Denver Broncos defeated the Atlanta Falcons 34 to 19. It was a hard-fought game, and the Atlanta Dirty Birds came up a little short. Today I rise to say congratulations to the Denver Broncos and to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette). Denver won the Super Bowl and our colleague won our friendly little bet. So this morning I presented to my colleague and her staff a month's supply of Georgia peanuts and Atlanta's own Coca-Cola. Enjoy the Coke and peanuts and the victory, while you can. Next year the Dirty Birds will be back.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for printing in the Record: [From the World, Jan.-Feb. 1999] (By David Reich) When President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 more commonly known as the welfare reform bill, US Rep. Fortney Pete Stark didn't make a secret of his displeasure. ``The president sold out children to get reelected. He's no better than the Republicans,'' fumed Stark, a longtime unitarian Universalist whose voting record in Congress regularly wins him 100 percent ratings from groups like the AFL-CIO and Americans for Democratic Action. One of the Congress's resident experts on health and welfare policy, the northern California Democrat has earned a reputation for outspokenness, often showing a talent for colorful invective, not to say name-calling. First elected to the House as an anti-Vietnam War ``bomb-thrower`` (his term) in 1972, Stark has called Clinton healthcare guru Ira Magaziner ``a latter-day Rasputin'' and House Speaker Newt Gingrich ``a messianic megalomaniac.'' When the American Medical Association lobbied Congress to raise Medicare payments to physicians, Stark, who chaired the Health Subcommittee of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, called them ``greedy troglodytes,'' unleashing a $600,000 AMA donation to Stark's next Republican opponent. ``I've gotten in a lot of trouble speaking my mind,'' the congressman admits with a rueful smile. For all his outspokenness on politics, Stark appears to have a droll sense of himself, and he tends to talk softly, his voice often trailing off at the ends of phrases or sentences. Back in the 1960s, as a 30-something banker and nominal member of the Berkeley, California, Unitarian Universalist congregation, Stark upped his commitment to the UU movement after his minister asked him to give financial advice to Berkeley's Starr King School for the Ministry. ``I think I was sandbagged,'' he theorizes. After a day of poring over Starr King's books (``The place was going broke,'' he says), he was invited by their board chair to serve as the seminary's treasurer. ``I said, `Okay,' '' Stark recalls. He said, `Then you have to join the board,' I said, `I don't know. I guess I could.' '' The UUing of Pete Stark culminated at his first board meeting, when the long-serving board chair announced his resignation and Stark, to his astonishment, found himself elected to take the old chair's place. ``There I was,'' he reminisces, his long, slim body curled up in a wing chair in a corner of his Capitol Hill office. ``And I presided over a change in leadership and then spent a lot of time raising a lot of money for it and actually in the process had a lot of fun and met a lot of terrific people.'' The World spoke with Stark in early October, as rumors of the possible impeachment of a president swirled around the capital. But aside from a few pro forma remarks about the presidential woes (``His behavior is despicable, but nothing in it rises to the level of impeachment''), our conversation mainly stuck to healthcare and welfare, the areas where Stark has made his mark in government. World: You have strong feelings about the welfare reform bill. Do the specifics of the bill imply a particular theory of poverty? PS: They imply that if you're poor, it's your fault, and if I'm not poor, it's because I belong to the right religion or have the right genes. That the poor are poor by choice, and we ought not to have to worry about them. It's akin to how people felt about lepers early in this century. World: Does the welfare reform law also imply any thinking about women and their role in the world? PS: Ronald Reagan for years defined welfare cheat as a black woman in a white ermine cape driving a white El Dorado convertible and commonly seen in food checkout lines using food stamps to buy caviar and filet mignon and champagne and then getting in her car and driving on to the next supermarket to load up again. And I want to tell you she was sighted by no less than 150 of my constituents in various supermarkets back in my district. They were all nuts. They were hallucinating. But they believed this garbage. And then you've got the myth that, as one of my Republican neighbors put it, ``these welfare women are nothing but breeders''--a different class of humanity. World: You raised the idea of belonging to ``the right religion.'' Do these views of poor people, and poor women in particular, come out of people's religious training? PS: No, my sense of what makes a reactionary is that it's a person younger than me, a 40- or 50-year-old man who comes to realize he isn't going to become vice president of his firm. His kids aren't going to get into Stanford or Harvard or make the crew team. His wife is not very attractive-looking. His sex life is gone, and he's run to flab and alcohol. World: So it's disappointment. PS: Yes. And when the expectations you've been brought up with are not within your grasp, you look around for a scapegoat. ``It's these big-spending congressmen'' or ``It's these women who have children just to get my tax dollar. The reason I'm not rich is that I pay so much in taxes; the reason my children don't respect me is that the moral fabric has been torn apart by schools that fail to teach religion.'' And then there's a group that I've learned to call the modern-day Pharisees, people from the right wing of the Republican party who have decided the laws of the temple are the laws of the land. World: Then religion figures into it, after all. PS: Oh, yeah, but to me that's a religion of convenience. In my book those are people with little intellect who listen to the Bible on the radio when they're driving the tractor or whatever. But I do credit them with being seven-day-a-week activists unlike so many other Christians. World: Going back to the welfare reform bill itself, how does it comport with the values implied by the UU Principles, especially the principle about equity and compassion in social relations? PS: If you assume we have some obligation to help those who can't help themselves, if that's a role of society, then supporters of the welfare reform bill trample on those values. ``I'm not sure that's the government's job,'' they would say. ``It's the church's job or it's your job. Just don't take my money. I give my cleaning lady food scraps for her family and my castaway clothes to dress her children. I put money in the poor box. What more do you want?'' The bill we reported out, the president's bill, was motivated by the belief that paying money to people on public assistance was, one, squandering public funds and, two, preventing us from lowering the taxes on the overtaxed rich. I used to try and hammer at some of my colleagues, and occasionally, when I could show them they were harming children, they would relent a little, or at least they would blush. World: Did you shame anyone into changing his or her vote or making some concessions on the language of the bill? PS: We got a few concessions but not many. Allowing a young woman to complete high school before she had to look for a job, because she'd be more productive with a high school education--you could maybe shame them into technicalities like that. But beyond that they were convinced that if you just got off the dole and went to work, you would grow into-- a Republican, I suppose. World: It's been pointed out often that many people who supported the bill believe, as a matter of religious conviction, that women should be at home raising kids, yet the bill doesn't apply this standard to poor women. Can the bill's supporters resolve that apparent contradiction? PS: Yes, I hate to lay out for you what you're obviously missing. The bill's supporters would say that if a woman had been married and the family had stayed together as God intended, with a father around to bring home the bacon, then the mother could stay home and do the household chores and raise the children. They miss the fact that they haven't divided the economic pie in such a manner that the father can make enough money to support mother and child. Now, I do think young children benefit grandly, beyond belief, by having a mother in full-time attendance for at least the first four years of life. But given the reality that a single mother has to work, you have to move to the idea of reasonable care for that mother's child. And by reasonable care I do not mean a day care worker on minimum wage who's had four hours of instruction and doesn't know enough to wash his or her hands after changing diapers and before feeding the kid. Or who's been hired without a criminal check to screen out pedophiles. Because it's that bad. World: Did the welfare system as it existed before the 1996 bill need reform? PS: Sure. The Stark theory--which I used to peddle a thousand years ago, when I chaired the House Public Assistance Committee--is that people have to be allowed to fail and try again and again--and again. We can't let people starve, but they've got to learn to budget money and not spend it all on frivolous things. So I'd have cashed out many of the benefits. For instance, instead of giving you food stamps worth 50 bucks, why don't I give you the 50 bucks? The theory behind food stamps was that you'd be so irresponsible you'd buy caviar and wine and beer and cigarettes and not have any money left for tuna fish and rice. And that kind of voucher doesn't give you the chance to learn. We did a study, good Lord, in the 1960s in Contra Costa County, California. Our church was involved, along with the United Crusade charity, and some federal money went into it, too. We identified in the community some people who had never held a regular job--either women who had done day work or men who were nominally, say, real estate brokers but hadn't sold a house in years. And in this study we took maybe 20 of them and made them community organizers--without much to do but with an office and a job title. All this was to study what happened to those people when they had regular hours and a regular paycheck, having come from a neighborhood where people didn't necessarily leave for the office at every morning at 7:30. And we found that these people suddenly became leaders, that people in the neighborhood came to them for advice. They even talked about going into politics, just because of the fact that they fit into the structure and what that did for their self-image and their neighbors' image of them. Another part of that program: in the poorest parts of our community people were given loans to start new stores--wig shops and fingernail parlors and liquor stores and sub shops and soul food places and barbecue pits. The stores had little economic value but lots of social value. They were places where children of the families who owned them went after school, and people didn't sleep or piss in the doorways or leave their bottles there because the street with these shops became a community that had some cohesion--though when the funds were cut back, it reverted to boarded-up shops. World: Are you suggesting that this kind of program might work for current welfare recipients? PS: Absolutely. I don't believe for a minute that 99 percent of people, given the opportunity, wouldn't work. They see you and me and whoever--the cop on the beat, the school teacher, the factory worker, the sales clerk--going to work. People want to be part of that. It's just like kids won't stay home from school for very long. That's where the other kids are, that's where they talk about their social lives. That's where the athletics are. And so it is with adults: they want to be part of the fun, of the action. Inefficient as some people's labor may be, as a last resort, bring them to work in the government. It would be so much more efficient than having to pay caseworkers and making sure they're spending their welfare checks the right way. Give them a living wage, damn it. They'll learn. And given time, their efficiency as economic engines will improve. World: Do you have a clear sense of how the changes in the system are affecting welfare clients so far? PS: No, and I'm having a major fight with our own administration over it. Olivia Golden, who until recently headed up the family, youth, and children office in the Health and Human Services Department, sat there blithely and told me ``Welfare reform is working!'' I said. ``Olivia, what do you mean it's working?'' ``Well, people all over the country have told me--'' ``How many?'' ``Maybe 12.'' I said, ``Are you kidding? You've talked to maybe 12 people?'' They won't give us the statistics. They say, ``The states don't want to give them to us.'' All we know--the only figures we have--is how many people are being ticked off the rolls. What's happened to the people who leave the rolls? What's happened to the kids? The number of children in poverty is starting to go up--substantially, even when their family has gotten off welfare and is working. World: One of the arguments in favor of the welfare bill involved ``devolution.'' Do you accept the general proposition that states can provide welfare better than the federal government? PS: Well, the states were always doing it, under federal guidelines. Now we've taken away the guidelines and given the states money with some broad limitations. I have no problem with local communities running public assistance programs. They're much closer to the people and much more concerned, and somebody from Brooklyn doesn't know squat about what's needed in Monroe County, Wyoming, where an Indian reservation may be the sole source of your poverty population. But I want some standards--minimum standards for day care, minimum standards for job training. I'm talking about support standards, not punishment standards. World: And the current bill has only punishment standards? PS: Basically. It's a threat, it's a time limit, it's a plank to walk. World: What about the idea that welfare reform would save the government money? How much money has been saved? PS: I can get the budget figures for you, but I suspect we haven't saved one cent. I mean, do homeless people cost us? What is the cost in increased crime? We're building jails like they're going out of style. Does the welfare bill have anything to do with that? I don't know, but I wouldn't make the case that they're unrelated. So if you take the societal costs--are we saving? And it's such a minuscule part of the budget anyway. It's like foreign aid. I could get standing applause in my district by saying, ``I don't like foreign aid.'' And if I ask people what we're spending on it, they say, ``Billions, billions!'' We spend diddly on foreign aid. The same is true for welfare. Any one of the Defense Department's bomber programs far exceeds the total cost of welfare. World: Is there any hope of improving the country's welfare system in the short of medium term, given that the 1996 bill did have bipartisan support? PS: It had precious little bipartisan support, but it had the president. No, I don't think we're apt to make changes. And what's fascinating is that with the turn in global events our economy may have peaked out. We may be heading down. And while this welfare reform may have worked in a booming economy, when the economy turns down, those grants to the states won't begin to cover what we'll need. World: If Congress isn't likely to do anything, what can people in religious communities do to make sure the system is humane? PS: They can get active at the state and local level. Various states may do better things or have better programs or more humane programs. And the lower the level of jurisdiction, the easier it is to make the change, whether it's in local schools or local social service delivery programs. The other thing is to take the lead in going to court. It's the courts that have saved us time after time--in education, women's rights, abortion rights. We need to look for those occasions where a welfare agency does something illegal--and there will be some--and take up the cause of children whose civil rights are being violated. World: Let's shift over to healthcare. In the 1992 presidential campaign, the idea of a universal healthcare plan was seen as very popular with the voters. Why did the Clinton health plan fail? PS: I'd like to blame it on Ira Magaziner and all the monkey business that went on at the White House--the secret meetings and this hundred-person panel that ignored the legislative process. Their proposal became discredited before it ever got to Congress. We paid no attention to it. My subcommittee wrote our own bill which accomplished what the president said he wanted. It provided universal coverage, it was budget-neutral, and it was paid for on a progressive basis. World: And it did that by expanding Medicare? PS: Basically it required every employer to pay, in effect, an increase in the minimum wage, to provide either a payment of so much an hour or add insurance. And if they couldn't buy private-insurance at a price equivalent to the minimum wage increase, they could buy into Medicare--at no cost to the government, on a budget-neutral basis. But the bill allowed private insurance to continue, with the government as insurer of last resort. We got it out of committee by a vote or two, but then on the House floor, we couldn't get any Republican votes. They unified against it, so we never had the votes to bring it up. The Harry and Louise ads beat us badly. People were convinced that government regulation was bad, per se. It was just the beginning of the free market in medical care, which we're seeing the culmination of now in the for- profit HMOs and the Medicare choice plans that are collapsing like houses of cards all over the country. But back in 1993 the idea was ``Let the free market decide. HMOs will be created. They'll make a profit, they'll give people what they want. People will vote with their feet and the free market will apply its wonderful choice.'' World: Did that bill's defeat doom universal healthcare for a long time to come? PS: It certainly doomed it for this decade and things are only getting worse. We now have a couple of million more people uninsured. We're up to about 43.5 million uninsured, and we were talking about 41 million back in 1993. And people on employer-paid health plans are either paying higher copays or getting more and more restricted benefits. Plus early retirement benefits are disappearing so that if people retire before 65, they often can't get affordable insurance. It will have to get just a little worse before we'll have a popular rebellion. We're seeing in the managed care bill of rights issue where people are today. To me, that's the most potent force out there in the public. World: In both areas we've been discussing assistance to the poor and health insurance, the US government is taking less responsibility than virtually all the other industrial democracies. PS: Why take just democracies? Even in the fascist countries, everybody's got healthcare. We are the only nation extant that doesn't offer healthcare to everybody. Take our neighbor Canada. There is no more conservative government on this continent, north or south. I've heard the wealthiest right-wing Canadian government minister say: ``I went to private prep schools, but it never would occur to us Canadians to jump the queue, go to the head of the line in healthcare. We believe healthcare is universal. Now, we fight about spending levels, we fight about the bureaucracy, and we fight about how we're working the payment system.'' But they don't question it. World: In the US we do question it--the right to healthcare, that is, Why? PS: It's connected with this idea of independence. Where do we get the militias from, and those yahoos who run around in soldier suits and shoot paint guns at each other? World: The frontier ethos? PS: Maybe, maybe. And the American Medical Association is not exactly exempt from blame. The physicians are the most antigovernment group of all. They're the highest paid profession in America by far, and so they are protecting their economic interests. Though the government now looks a little better to them than the insurance industry because they have more control over government than over the insurance companies. Look, the country was barely ready for Medicare when that went through. It just made it through Congress by a few votes. There are some of us who would have liked to see it include nursing home or long-term convalescent care. That can only be done through social insurance, but people won't admit it. They say, ``There's got to be a better way.'' It's a mantra. On healthcare: ``There's got to be a better way.'' Education: ``There's got to be a better way.'' They've yet to say it for defense though. I'm waiting for them to privatize the Defense Department and turn it over to Pinkerton. Although in a way they have. There's a bunch of retired generals right outside the Beltway making millions of dollars of government money training the armed forces in Bosnia. I was there and what a bunch of crackpots! They've got these former drill sergeants over there, including people out to try to start wars on our ticket. World: A few more short questions. Have the culture and atmosphere of the House changed in the years since you arrived here? PS: Yes, though I spent 22 years in the majority and now four in the minority, so I may just be remembering good old days that weren't so good. Back when I was trying to end the Vietnam War. I was in just as much of a minority as I am now, and I didn't have a subcommittee chair to give me any power or leverage. On the other hand, look at the country now. Look at TV talk shows--they argue and shout and scream, and then they call it journalism. Maybe we're just following in their footsteps. World: Is it a spiritual challenge for you to have to work with, or at least alongside, people with whom you disagree, sometimes violently? PS: Yes, and I don't a very good job. My wife says, ``When you retire, why don't you become an ambassador?'' And I say, ``Diplomacy doesn't run deep in these genes.'' But it's tough if you internalize your politics and believe in them. Still, I like legislating--to make it all work, to take all the pieces that are pushing on you, to make the legislation fit, to accommodate and accomplish a goal. It really makes the job kind of fascinating. I once reformed the part of the income tax bill that applies to life insurance, and that's one of the most arcane and complex parts of the tax bill. It was fun--bringing people together and getting something like that. And actually writing that health bill was fun. But not now. We don't have any committee hearings or meetings anymore. It's all done in back rooms. Under the Democratic leadership we used to go into the back room, but there were a lot of us in the room. Now they write bills in the speaker's office and avoid the committee system. I mean, it's done deals. We're not doing any legislating, or not very much. World: Do you think about quitting? PS: No, I don't think about quitting. I'd consider doing something else, but I don't know what that is. Secretary of health and human services? Sure, but don't hold your breath until I'm offered the job. Even in the minority, being in the Congress is fascinating, and as long as my health and faculties hold out. * * * I mean, I'm not much interested in shuffleboard or model airplanes.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today is a very sad day for this House. This morning when I got up, I wanted to cry, but the tears would not come. Before we cast this one little vote, we all should ask the question: Is this good for America? Is this good for the American people? Is this good for this institution? When I was growing up in rural Alabama during the 40s and the 50s as a young child, near a shotgun house where my aunt lived one afternoon an unbelievable storm occurred. The wind started blowing. The rain fell on the tin top roof of this house. Lightning started flashing. The thunder started rolling. My aunt asked us all to come into this house and to hold hands, and we held hands. As the wind continued to blow, we walked to that corner of the house, and as the wind blew stronger, we walked to another corner; as it tried to lift another corner, we would walk there. We never left the house. The wind may blow, the thunder may roll, the lightning may flash, but we must never leave the American house. We must stay together as a family: one house, one family; the American House, the American family.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I come before you to speak for the principle of democracy, the doctrine of fairness, and the spirit of forgiveness. America is sick. Her heart is heavy. Her soul is aching. And her spirit is low. Today our Nation stands at a crossroads, at the intersection of participatory democracy and the politics of personal destruction. Today, my colleagues, we must choose, as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote, between community and chaos. We must choose the course of partisan destruction or national reconciliation. We will, in our lifetime, never cast a more important vote. The spirit of history is upon us and the future of the republic before us. Our obligation as citizens of the state are as old as human history and as fresh as the morning dew, to right wrong, do justice and love mercy. Our Constitution, that sacred document, is a covenant, a contract between the Government and those who are governed. We must not, we cannot ignore the will of the people. Almost 50 million people elected Bill Clinton as our President in spite of his problems, his shortcomings and his failings. They, the people, elected Bill Clinton President of the United States and they want him to remain the President of the United States. And yet some, some even in this Chamber, have never accepted the verdict of the people. They have never accepted Bill Clinton as their President. Instead they embarked on a crusade of personal destruction. Our Constitution was never intended to be used as a hammer to destroy our political enemies. Some of our colleagues have been too quick to pick up the hammer of impeachment and swing it with reckless abandon. So bent are they on the destruction of this President that they would knock down the very pillars which support our constitutional system. What President Clinton did was wrong. About that there can be no mistake. There is no disagreement, no debate. But how, how, my colleagues, should we respond? How we respond, how we act says as much about us and our character as it does about his. Let he that has no sin cast the first stone. Who among us has not sinned? What the President did was wrong, but it simply does not rise to the height or sink to the depths of an impeachment offense. I know it, my colleagues know it and, most importantly, the American people know it. Will we write a chapter or be consigned to a footnote. The spirit of history is upon us. Let us do what is right, let us do what is just and love mercy.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the good- hearted gentleman from Massachusetts. I have had the great privilege to serve in the United States Congress with Joe Kennedy since we were both elected in 1986. Over the years, Joe Kennedy has become more than just my colleague, he has become my friend and my brother. He will be missed in this great institution. He will also be remembered for his indefatigable capacity to help those and to stand up for those who have been left out and left behind. It is no great secret that Joe Kennedy is the oldest son of my friend and hero, Robert F. Kennedy. There goes a saying that the apple never falls very far from the tree. Since I first met Joe, I knew he possessed the same passion for justice and equality that characterized the extraordinary political career of his father. For some, to follow in the footsteps--let alone be the eldest son--of an American hero would be a curse. But for Joe, he honors his father and his mother, Ethel Kennedy, by being a passionate fighter for what is right. Our nation has been well served by his advocacy for better public and affordable housing for every American, by his tireless efforts for low income energy assistance, by his tenacious efforts to stop the practice of redlining by banks and other institutions and by his leading opposition to the School of the Americas, better known as the ``school of assassins.'' I will miss Joe Kennedy, but the poor, the elderly, the dispossessed and the lovers of democracy will miss him even more. When you consider all the accomplishments of Joe Kennedy, both as a private citizen and as a member of the House, he has stood tall for the ``dignity of mankind.'' He has never faltered in the long walk toward justice. He has never feared the good fight. He knows how to build a coalition and bring together disparate voices under one tent. We need more Joe Kennedys in the U.S. House of Representatives. We need men and women who are willing to stand up for the enduring principles of democracy. Joe Kennedy is, above all else, an American patriot--he cares deeply for justice, equal opportunity and peace. As we lose one of the finest members of this Congress, Massachusetts gains a concerned and tireless citizen. I know he will not give up in fighting for those who will need heated homes for the long New England winters. He will continue to speak up and speak out for what is right and for what is just and for what is fair. It was Joe's father--Robert Kennedy--who used to say: ``Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream of things that never were and say why not.'' Joe Kennedy has lived up to his father's words. He has always said ``why not?'' I am convinced that the spirit of history will continue to guide Joe Kennedy. I pray that the spirit of history guides him to even greater challenges. Thank you, Joe, for your great service to our nation. You have made a profound difference in the lives of millions of Americans. I will miss you, your colleagues will miss you and the American people will miss you. Keep your eyes on the Prize!

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in bringing to the floor today a resolution that addresses a common but often unrecognized problem, suicide. This resolution recognizes suicide as a national problem and declares suicide prevention to be a national priority. While no single prevention program would be appropriate for all populations and communities, the point of this resolution is to create a climate for suicide prevention, to recognize as a Nation that we must become aware of the problem, that we are to address it and eventually solve it. We must not remain quiet or silent on problems that cause us pain. Instead, we must bring the problems out from under the rug into the light where we can deal with them. If we begin to do that as a Nation, it is my hope that we will encourage individuals and communities nationwide to do the same. I am pleased that more than 92 of my colleagues are joining me in this effort by becoming original cosponsors of this resolution. I want to thank my good friend from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) for managing the bill on the other side. Suicide touches hundreds of American families every year. An estimated 750,000 people attempt suicide each year. Suicide claims the lives of more than 31,000 people annually, more than homicide. Suicide is the ninth leading cause of all deaths in the United States, and the third for young people age 15 to 24. It is on the rise for young people in general and for African-American young men in particular. Only by talking about mental illness and encouraging treatment can we begin to address the painful issue that leads to suicide. We must tell our friends and our loved ones that it is okay to talk about feelings of despair, depression and hopelessness and suicide. For those who have the courage to get help, to seek treatment, we must support them, and we must talk about suicide so that we can try to understand it and prevent it. Too much shame surrounds feelings of depression and suicide. We can change that and we must, by reaching out to others in our communities. The Senate has already passed a similar resolution on suicide recognition and prevention. I urge all of my colleagues in the House to join me and many others, Republicans and Democrats, from all parts of the Nation in our pledge to work together towards suicide prevention, awareness and treatment. Please join us in supporting House Resolution 212, a resolution recognizing suicide as a national problem. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we should be standing here debating the future of Social Security. We should be standing here debating health care. We should be standing here debating education for our children and how we can protect the environment. Instead, we are participating in a political charade. Republicans want to do what they could not do in an election, defeat Bill Clinton. I have news for my colleagues, the American people are watching. Beware the wrath of the American people, Mr. Speaker, beware.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and my colleague from New York for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, this debate reminds me of an old gospel song, ``Ninety- nine and a Half Won't Do.'' The song tells us that when you believe in a cause, when you truly believe, you have to give 100 percent; ninety- nine and a half won't do. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Social Security, when it comes to our workers and the elderly, ninety-nine and a half won't do. And if ninety-nine and a half won't do, then 90 percent just won't do. My Republican colleagues want a tax cut, but they do not want to pay for it. So what do they do? They raid the Social Security trust fund; they steal from our workers and our seniors. They take 10 percent, and then they brag this they let the elderly keep 90 percent of their own money. They brag that they left 90 percent of the money in the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do. How can you do this to the old? How can you do this to our workers, hard working American families that have paid into the Social Security trust fund for 30 and 40 years? Now Republicans want to give them 90 cents on the dollar. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do. Democrats, my side of the aisle, will accept no compromise when it comes to the savings and the retirement of American working families. Every penny paid in the Social Security trust fund must be used to save Social Security first. So I urge all of my colleagues to reject this bill; to reject any effort to sell Social Security short; to sell Social Security down the river; to give anything less than 100 percent. Mr. Speaker, 90 percent just won't do.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, during the Civil Rights movement, thousands upon thousands of Americans joined together for a single cause: To fight discrimination and have all Americans treated equally under the law. Discrimination was not right then and it is not right now. Excluding someone from the workplace because of their sexual orientation is discrimination, plain and simple. It is wrong. It is dead wrong. The President's executive orders strengthens our Nation's commitment to equality. It bans discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is a simple thing to do. It is the right thing to do. Why? Why must we come to this floor again and again to demand equality for all Americans? What could be more American? It is unbelievable to me that 33 years after Selma and the signing of the Voting Rights Act we must still battle the forces of bigotry, discrimination and intolerance. I have fought too long and too hard against discrimination all of my life to go back now. We cannot go back. We will not go back. We must never go back. I urge all of my colleagues to stand for fairness, stand for justice, stand up for what is right. Oppose discrimination and vote against this misguided amendment.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two American heroes, Officer Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut, and Special Agent John Gibson. Mr. Speaker, this is a very sad day, for these two men, members of the Capitol Hill Police Force, gave their lives last Friday in defense of this, the people's House. They are heroes. They are patriots. They put their bodies on the line. They are the victims of a senseless act of violence. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these two brave officers, and to all of the members of the Capitol Hill police family. These young men and women who provide security for the Capitol, for the people's House, are like members of our own family. They are part of the Capitol Hill family. When we are here in session, we see them every day, sometimes many times a day. We mourn with the members of the Capitol Hill Police Force. The men and women of the Capitol Hill Police Force put their lives on the line every day just as police officers in so many other cities and communities all across America. Today, Mr. Speaker, we pay tribute, we pay honor, to Officers Chestnut and Gibson, but we also say a prayer and give thanks for the safety of people serving in uniform everywhere. Mr. Speaker, God bless John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut. We are forever in their debt. They will never, ever be forgotten.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we need a real Patients' Bill of Rights. I know because I have heard from the people in my district. A mother told me her daughter had a mastectomy. The mother begged, pleaded to keep her daughter in the hospital for just one night. She needed to be there, but the insurance company sent her home. I have heard from a doctor, a doctor who had to fight the insurance company to get coverage to treat his cancer. Mr. Speaker, too many patients are paying more and are getting less. Under the present system, too many patients are getting a raw deal. They need a fair deal. They need a good deal. They need a better deal. The differences are clear. Democrats are concerned about protecting patients. Republicans are concerned with protecting big business and insurance companies. The system is broken. It needs help. It needs a doctor. The Republicans are only offering a Band-Aid. We need a bill to let doctors make medical decisions. The Democratic bill makes sense. If we can choose who fixes our car when it is broken, then we should be able to choose who would care for us when we are sick. If insurance companies want to tell us that we cannot see a doctor, that we cannot get treatment, then they must be held accountable. The doctors and nurses on Main Street should make the decisions about our health care, not the insurance company and wheelers and dealers on Wall Street. The Democratic bill protects patients. The Republican bill does not. Mr. Speaker, we need a real patient's protection act and we need it now. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, but now. Mr. Speaker, we should vote for a real patient protection bill and we need it now. Vote for the Ganske-Dingell bill.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1891.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we need a Patient Protection Act. I know because I have heard from the people in my district. I have heard from a mother with a sick baby who had to travel 30 miles to a hospital when there was a hospital nearby. I heard from a doctor who had to fight to get coverage to treat his cancer. Mr. Speaker, too many patients are paying more and getting less. Under the present system, too many patients are getting a raw deal. They need a fair deal, a good deal, a better deal. If insurance companies want to make decisions about medical care for our children and our families, then they must be held accountable. The Democratic bill will give us those rights. The Republican bill will deny them. Mr. Speaker, we need a real Patient Protection Act and we need it now; not tomorrow, not next week, not next year, but now.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in honoring one of the great heroes and leaders of this century, Nelson Mandela. President Mandela should be an inspiration to us all--despite unbelievable pain, defeat and suffering, he did not become bitter. Despite almost 30 years in prison, Nelson Mandela did not give up hope. He did not get lost in a sea of despair. Instead, he turned his suffering into something meaningful. He believed in the power of possibility and of hope. He came out of jail willing to work with his jailers, willing to being the healing of his country. Because of his leadership and his example, the future of South Africa holds promise. The country must meet many difficult challenges, but they meet them led by a man who has shown tremendous courage and compassion. Nelson Mandela takes us closer to what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. used to call the Beloved Community, a community based on justice, hope and compassion--a community at peace with itself. President Mandela, I honor you and I hope that we in this country and all over the world can learn from you and your example.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for rollcall vote 210, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, 30 years ago this week, Bobby Kennedy was taken from us by an assassin's bullet. I remember that night all too clearly, and I still feel the sadness of the loss. Today I want to take a moment to honor this public servant who was so committed to the cause of social justice and fairness. It was my great pleasure, my great honor, to have worked with Bobby Kennedy, to have known him. As I worked with this man, I grew to respect, admire and love him. He cared so much and he cared so deeply. He was a man so full of life, so driven by a vision for a better world. He had a fierce determination to enforce the civil rights laws of this Nation. And later he became a one-man crusade across the country, speaking out against hunger and poverty. To paraphrase his brother, Senator Ted Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy ``saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.'' This man, this great man that we lost when he was so young, he spoke from his heart and from his gut. He had the ability and the capacity to look beyond the accepted way. This was a man who took off his jacket, his coat. He had the ability to loosen his tie and to travel outside of the usual circles. He went to visit poor blacks in the heart of the Mississippi delta and gave them hope. He visited low-income whites in Appalachia to bring them encouragement. He went to the barrios in the Southwest and he brought them inspiration. He went to the reservations and brought care and compassion. He knew that some in this great Nation of ours were in trouble, and he wanted to help. He was a wonderful, loving, compassionate person and leader. Bobby Kennedy used to say that we did not need a revolution in the streets, but in our hearts and in our minds. He wanted people to engage in meaningful dialogue, on poverty, on race, on the pressing issues of the day. Today, 30 years after his death, his voice, his commitment and his leadership are deeply missed and remembered. I for one will never forget Robert F. Kennedy, his wisdom, his wit, his moral courage, and his vision.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, so-called private savings accounts do nothing to improve our public schools. They are a way of using the Federal Tax Code to undermine public education. Private saving accounts drain resources from our public schools and hurt the vast majority of our students. Our public schools need help. One out of every 3 schools need major repair and reconstruction; 90 percent of our students attend public schools; private savings accounts do nothing to help these students. Instead they deny the many and reward the privileged few. Instead of draining our public schools of resources, we should be devoting our resources to improve public schools for every student. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, education is the foundation of our democracy. Education is the great equalizer. I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). Vote for school construction and modernization. Repair our crumbling school buildings. Support an education system in America that all of our Nation's children can use.

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?