Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report here, on Flag Day, that the oil industry forces of George II are in retreat. A few weeks ago, the Duke of Halliburton, Mr. Cheney, met with the Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Idaho delegations and said there is no problem, we are not doing anything. Then a few days ago he met with the California delegation and stiffed them in the same way. Now it turns out in today's newspaper, which I will enter into the Record, an article from the Washington Post, they are in retreat. They are going to go down to FERC and finally ask FERC to do what the law says it must do, that is, cap unreasonable prices in electricity. The United States west of the Rockies has been ignored by this administration, but they are now en route. They are running for the hills. They have dropped their guns. They have torn off their uniforms, and they are running to hide down at FERC. They are not going to get away with putting in something down at FERC that just does a little something. We want real caps on those gougers. Vote for the Anti-Gouging Act of 2001. [From the Washington Post, June 14, 2001] FERC Likely To Put New Limits on California Energy Prices (By Mike Allen and Juliet Eilperin) A federal agency plans to impose new limits on California energy prices next week, according to senior government officials, a move that would offer President Bush and Republican lawmakers relief from an increasingly thorny political problem in the nation's largest state. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plans to hold a special meeting Monday to take up possible solutions to California's power crunch. And officials said yesterday the leading proposal would control the wholesale price of electricity throughout the West around the clock. Such a measure would expand a rule that applies only to California and only during the most severe power shortages. Gov. Gray Davis (D) has said the current program is shot full of loopholes and does not benefit consumers. Under the new proposal, the government would set a target price--generous enough to permit a profit for efficient producers--and companies would have to justify higher prices in writing, officials said. The move comes as concern is growing among congressional Republicans that the Bush administration and its GOP allies were losing the political battle over California's energy crisis--and that it could affect the party's fortunes in next year's elections. House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has assigned a team of Republicans to help deflect legislative attacks on Bush's energy policies, and has instructed members to deliver daily floor speeches defending the administration's plans. House Republicans took up Bush's broader energy bill--which focuses on stepping up production--in earnest yesterday in an effort to pass it by mid-summer. Congressional Democrats have been increasing pressure on the administration to address quickly the skyrocketing electricity prices and power shortages in Western states. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn), the new chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, plans to hold a hearing Wednesday--two days after the commission meeting--to examine federal regulation of energy, and his main witness will be Davis. House negotiations on a bipartisan emergency energy bill for California broke down last week just as Democrats were taking control of the Senate. In response, Rep. W. J. ``Billy'' Tauzin (R-La.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and 14 other GOP lawmakers seized on a proposal by Rep. Doug Ose (R-Calif.) to make FERC's rules apply around the clock. Tauzin wrote FERC Chairman Curt Hebert Jr. to urge its adoption. Hebert scheduled the unusual FERC meeting shortly thereafter. ``Nobody would disagree with the urgency of the situation and the need for the commission to act promptly. We're working feverishly to do that,'' said Walter Ferguson, Hebert's chief of staff. The commission, composed of three Republicans and two Democrats, is independent. Members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Bush and key members of the commission have said repeatedly that they have ideological and practical objections to an absolute cap on the wholesale price of electricity, which Davis has argued is the best way to prevent electricity from becoming unaffordable this summer. Federal officials said the commission's less-stringent measure--``face-saving,'' Democrats called it--would help stabilize power prices while overcoming White House and commission members' objections to a cap. ``We aren't overly concerned that this will discourage generation like real price controls would,'' a White House official said. ``A hard cap would be disaster. It would cause electricity generators to shut down.'' Another White House official said that the administration would not take a formal position until the commission has voted and the details are clear, but added that the measure sounded acceptable ``in theory.'' ``The president has been calling on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be vigilant in making sure that illegal price gouging does not occur in California or elsewhere,'' the official said. A California Democratic official said, ``They realized they have been taking a beating on this issue, both in California and nationally. This is the equivalent of Bush saying, `Uncle.' '' However, Davis said at a news conference in Sacramento that he remains ``a doubting Thomas'' about the prospects for dramatic action from the commission. ``I've been fighting FERC for over a year,'' he said. ``The federal government has not been doing its job. If they finally do, I'll say, `It's about time, but thank you.' '' Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said the measure being considered ``would be a flexible price cap, set at the price of least-efficient megawatt of the least-efficient plant.'' ``Price mitigation appears to be a way to avoid using the words `price cap' or `cost-based rate,' which some members of FERC and the Bush administration find objectionable,'' Feinstein said. ``I don't care what they call it, as long as they get the job done.'' In April, FERC issued a price restraint plan that established cost-based price ceilings for generators selling wholesale power in the state, but limited the measure to power emergencies when California's available power reserves drop below 7.5 percent of demand. The order is credited with helping bring down California's electricity prices, which dropped below $100 a megawatt hour statewide last week for the first time since the crisis began last autumn. Fuel conservation, milder weather and increased generating capacity also have played a part. House Republicans, after the first hearing on Bush's energy package yesterday, held a closed-door meeting with administration officials and outlined an ambitious schedule for enacting it. According to participants, House panels would pass legislation over the next several weeks so the entire chamber could vote before the August recess. The meeting in DeLay's office included more than a dozen House members as well as Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Interior Secretary Gail A. Norton and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. Much of the meeting focused on how the GOP could fight Democratic attacks more effectively. Abraham suggested Republicans could rebut the Democrats' arguments because they were based on ``flimsy evidence,'' while DeLay argued his colleagues could not afford to be passive, sources said. ``We want a proactive message,'' DeLay told the group. ``We want solutions, not rationing.'' Democrats are convinced the GOP is politically vulnerable on the question of energy, and they are determined to hammer away at the theme to boost their chances in next year's election. ``The environment is an issue that could decide many swing congressional districts in 2002,'' said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who questioned Abraham sharply yesterday during an energy and air quality subcommittee hearing. The party has already run a series of radio ads on the energy crisis in the districts of several vulnerable members, and House Democrats now regularly hold news conference accusing the GOP as being beholden to special interests. Staff writer Peter Behr contributed to this report.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the cochair of the India Caucus to support this initiative. Today we all wear the yellow in emulation of the Danish king who said we are all Danes. There are not Jews and Catholics and Protestants, we are all Danes. But what this means is not that we are Hindus, but that we are all human beings. When we fail to keep that clearly in mind, when we mix religion and government and get it all mixed up, we wind up with some very terrible situations. We cannot just look out at the Taliban. We have to look at ourselves, because Martin Niemoller, who was a Lutheran minister who died in the camps in the 1940s said, When they came for the Communist, I was not a Communist, so I did not stand up. When they came for the homosexuals, I was not a homosexual, so I did not stand up. When they came for the socialists, I was not a socialist, so I did not stand up. When they came for the trade unionists and the Catholics, I did not stand up and when they came for the Jews, I did not stand up. Then they came for me, and there was no one to stand up. What this is about is all of us standing up for the right of people to have their own religion and to live in peace in a country where they can raise their children as they want to and not force anybody to do anything. We must look at that separation of church and state in our own country. We will consider out here soon the issue of faith-based initiatives and what that does to the separation of church and state. All we have to do is look at Afghanistan to see what happens when we meld the two together. That is a frightening possibility, and it starts one at a time. As it did in Germany. They did not go out and get the Jews first and grab them all. They started with a lot of other people that they did not like, and that is why this is so important that everyone wear this, not just today, but in their mind every day.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the list of Joe Moakley's achievements is long and impressive. He was a champion of obtaining funding for projects to improve Boston. Courthouses, Libraries, dredging the Boston Harbor were among them. And he was a committed Member of the Massachusetts delegation. But above all he was a generous, kind and compassionate man. He never had a mean word for anyone and he had a real compassion for everyone in the world. In the course of his duties as a congressman he met with several El Salvadoran refugees who feared returning to El Salvador where they might be killed. Accordingly, he made it his business to see that this did not happen and that other refugees in the same situation be allowed to remain in the United States. My first personal memory of him was because of the massacre of six Jesuit priests in El Salvador and his appointment by the Speaker in 1989 to investigate this slaughter. I was also appointed to this special committee and got to know him well as we interviewed everyone who had anything to do with this terrible incident. Conscientiously, he reported back the failures of the Salvadoran Judicial and military systems. His report and the attention to the overall situation was helpful in ending that terrible tragedy. One of my own passions, closing the School of Americas, was his too and although we never closed the school in fact we worked very hard together to do so. We also worked very hard to open up Cuba. This kind, loving man, should be commended for the universal view he took of life. He knew that one is sent to serve one's constituents but there is a larger duty too, to root out injustices all over the world. To help everywhere that you can. We will miss you Joe--the world and me.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a remarkable individual is planning to retire next month after 34 years of dedicated serve to the hungry and the homeless in my District. Ruth Velozo, executive director of Northwest Harvest, a statewide food program, is stepping down at the age of 72. Ms. Velozo began working for Northwest Harvest in 1967 and became executive director in 1980. As a result of her guidance and hard work, the agency grew from an ecumenical ministry with a debt of $35,000 to a $20 million dollar a year charity. Last year, Northwest Harvest collected and distributed 16.5 million pounds of food to the poor and the hungry. Northwest Harvest has four distribution centers in the state through which food is donated to 283 hunger programs. Mr. Speaker, Ruth Velozo grew up during the Great Depression. She learned the devastation of poverty and hunger. Through America's prosperous upswings and economic downturns, she never abandoned her determination to help those who are left out. She has dedicated her life not only to feeding people, but to furthering her core values: maintaining the dignity of the poor, and an unwavering belief in the basic generosity of people. Ms. Velozo has said that in a perfect world, she would step down because there is no longer a need for Northwest Harvest's services. But sadly, more than 30,000 people ask for food at the main branch in Seattle each month, and Washington State ranks eighth amongst the states in those who suffer from hunger. The need would be much larger, however, had it not been for Ruth Velozo and her work. I hope you will join me, Mr. Speaker, in thanking her for her energy, for her leadership, and for her commitment.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 149, final passage of H.R. 1836, adoption of the conference report, I was unable to be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we go again--rushing to get this outright deception of a tax cut through--signed, sealed and delivered by Memorial Day. There is absolutely nothing in here for Social Security and Medicare and even the President's plan to partially privatize Social Security, but rather, it raids the money that is so desperately needed for these programs. This bill slashes spending on health care. There is nothing left for emergencies. Of course not, we have an emergency right now with the energy crisis, and there is not a single cent devoted to it. How many hundreds of heat-related deaths this summer will it take for the Administration to realize that the high energy prices is the true emergency, not tax relief? By pursuing this tax cut, the Administration and my Republican colleagues are consciously choosing to deny the existence of a very serious energy crisis. In light of a potential 250% Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) rate increase next year, the estimated Northwest regional job loss is 224,484. Seattle City Light, serving an area of half a million, has raised rates 30 percent. Today, the Bush administration would say that we must rush to meet the Memorial Day deadline for this tax bill in order to help hard- working Americans confront the energy crisis. So much for their earlier explanation that the economy was on the brink of a recession and could only be saved by this massive tax cut. I see--all the tax cut dollars will go towards paying energy bills and stimulating the profits of the big oil companies--oil companies such as Houston-based Enron and Dynegy that have reportedly seen revenues climb by 400 percent in the past two years while the Californian utilities spiraled into debt. As for the working American families who owe no federal taxes and get zero to nominal benefits from this blatant deception of a taxcut, how will we help them pay their energy bills? Roughly twenty percent of families with children will get absolutely nothing under this bill. We will just send them into debt with utility bills. But that seems all right with the administration. According to them, knowing you will get $100 child credit in 18 months will have a psychological effect and cause the parent to go shopping and stimulate the economy. The Administration simply is closing their eyes and ears to the facts, and hiding behind the fraudulent pretext that this tax cut is the one and only solution for all of our country's challenges. Next, this tax cut will decrease teen pregnancies. It's a nutshell game. Is the money under the shell for the big oil companies or is it for the wealthiest one percent to go on a shopping spree? This whole package is really about sending hard-working Americans and our country into debt--all for the benefit of the extraordinarily rich and major oil companies, many of whom are in Texas. A vote for this fraud is a vote to gamble away our Nation's prosperity.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, today is a very important day. The one- party government in the United States is done. We had a vote of confidence in the other body today or yesterday and we are now back to two party government, and maybe, just maybe, we can get back to the issues the people really care about. We are hanging around here today because we cannot seem to get the President's tax bill through. They cannot figure out how to give it all to the rich. At the same time, we are failing to deal with energy. Now, the energy prices in my district, in Seattle, are facing a potential 250 percent increase from the Bonneville Power Administration. The estimates are that 102,000 jobs are at risk and that a whole quarter of a million jobs in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana are at risk because of the runaway gouging costs of energy in the northwest. Seattle City Light has already raised it 30 percent and it is coming up another 30 percent. When will we get down to the issues that matters?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, President Bush has said that this bill, which is the tax bill, should be rushed through the Congress to, first, stimulate the economy; and then, more recently, has been offered as a means by which we can deal with the energy crisis in this country. Now, unfortunately, this bill does not meet the President's request, because it gives no tax relief whatsoever to the people in the bottom part of the Tax Code, those people who do not pay income tax; those people who will be paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, and who are paying enormous rates for electricity in California, Washington, and Oregon. Now, in the Committee on Ways and Means, we tried to offer amendments on a windfall profits tax, because in the fall and in the winter, people are not going to be able to pay their utility bills. It is my view that there ought to be conservation rebates in this bill. There ought to be a whole series of energy-related issues taken up in this bill since this is going to be the tax bill of the session. There is no more money left. This is it. We have been told $1.3 trillion. It is out the door, and there is no chance to come back on energy. There is no chance to come back on any of the problems related to the economy because of the energy crisis in this country. It is my belief that we ought to be dealing with that now. It is a crisis. The California Assembly is suing FERC, the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, because they will not impose price caps. You have a situation where you have price gouging all over the West. Energy companies in Texas have gotten 400 percent profit in the last 6 months. I mean, we all believe in the free enterprise system, but 10 percent, 15 percent, that is enough, I should think, 400 percent being put on the backs of people who are not going to get a penny out of this tax bill. This bill deals with people like us and above. It does not deal with people who are making $25,000 a year for a family of four. They get absolutely nothing out of this bill. I think that the President is being done a disservice by this House by us not dealing with energy in this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I, for that reason, have raised the objection that I think we ought to stop the process, go back to committee and work it out. We do not need to go rushing to the conference committee. It will be rushed back tomorrow. There will not be a soul in this House who knows what is in the bill. We can get on those planes tomorrow at 5 p.m., everybody is going to say we passed a tax cut; and they are not going to know what they did. It is my view that the crisis in energy in this country that is beginning in California, it is going to cover the entire country. Anybody who does not believe that, they should go to Los Angeles, walk around for a week, and you will see what is going to happen in the rest of the United States. Some of my colleagues are already facing places where gasoline prices are up over $2, $2.50 in some parts of this country this last weekend. Think of those people who have to commute 30 miles, 40 miles, 50 miles, 60 miles a day in an SUV that gets 10 miles, 12 miles, 15 miles to the gallon. It is going to be expensive, and my colleagues are going to hear about it. My colleagues will have passed the only tax bill of this session without ever dealing with energy.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are today, I think, at about the 120th day of the Republican energy follies play in this House. When the President became President in January, everybody knew there was a crisis in California and on the West Coast generally. We met with the Vice President, who has been appointed as the Energy Czar, and explained the problems. Republicans and Democrats sat with him. The Vice President looked us in the eye and said, this is not a national problem, this is a State problem. We are not going to do anything. Now, they have come out with a sort of weak, namby-pamby plan for energy that is going to go on 10 years from now, but does not deal with the crisis now. The Senate has now entered the stage, stage left or stage right, if you will. They have come on the stage and they have said, we are going to pass tax cuts. The President says we need those tax cuts because we have the energy crisis. What they mean is, we are going to reduce the taxes so that people can pay more to energy companies. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong. We should stop them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We are through with the shell game of the budget and now we have come to the tax cut. First we are told we need a tax cut because the country's economy is strong and we need to encourage it and keep it going. Then we are told that we need a tax cut because the economy is going bad, so now we need a tax cut for that. Most recently, we have been told we need a tax cut for the issue of the energy prices all over the country. Mr. Speaker, the Bush tax cut is an outright deception. It is not for hard-working Americans and will do nothing to prevent a recession. Not a single component of the President's proposal is honest. It is really no wonder we have to take this thing through here one piece at a time. The Republicans and the administration want to move it on a fast- moving train that nobody ever gets a chance to look at. Instead of focusing on what we actually have right now, this tax debate has been framed in terms of an unreliable 10-year frame of reference. If the Congressional Budget Office were to figure out the surplus now, under the present circumstances in our economy, with California in trouble and the stock market and all the rest, then we would have much different things. Basically, the game today is a crapshoot. We would have better odds rolling these dice than banking on the money being around for education, for defense, for privatizing Social Security, all the things the President says, that we would counting on a 10-year projection. Just roll the dice, Mr. Speaker, and see what comes up. The administration seriously underestimates the size of the surplus we ought to be running in order to meet our needs for Social Security and Medicare. It is no wonder that the bill is so backloaded, just like everything else. They are trying to squeeze five pounds of potatoes in a three-pound sack, and the President will not be around to take care of it when the mess occurs. President Bush's record of cutting taxes in Texas was the centerpiece of his Presidential campaign. Now, many State Texas legislators attribute those tax cuts to the reason they have a budget deficit in Texas. In fact, then Governor Bush the other day said he could see there was a disaster. He said, I hope I am not here to deal with it. This is deja vu all over again. Take a look at the record in Texas and figure out what it is going to be like in this country in two or three years if he gets what he wants. This is deja vu all over again. We can learn from history. I would offer anybody the opportunity today to vote no on a fraud, because if Members want to gamble away the country's future on 15-year projections, today is the day. Members should bring their dice and say, here we go, come back to me, baby. That is what this is all about. It is not going to happen.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are here for the charade budget number two. The question is, why? Because it has been run through the House so rapidly that they lost two pages, and they are trying to get it past the American people as quickly as possible. The view is this was constructed because they believe that all of the American people are yokels that can be fooled by an old game they play in the county fairs. Now, this shell that we have here represents the defense budget, the tax cut, and the rest of the budget. And we have under this pea, we have the surplus from Social Security and Medicare. And what they are doing is moving it around so fast that they lost two pages. Now, they have gone back, and they are going to start moving these shells around. We heard the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) talk about the shell game. That is the shell game we are talking about. They think the American people do not understand that we cannot have an enormous tax cut, protect Social Security and Medicare, and have a big defense budget, and everything else they want in the budget. They cannot do it, unless they move these shells so quickly that people do not recognize this. Now, how do they do that? First they come out here and say, we put all of the money for Social Security in a lock box, so that is protected. Right? And then they come out and say, and now we have passed a big tax cut. I ask my colleagues, how many Americans will actually know if they got a tax cut? They have been told it here in the well 10,000, 100,000 times, or I do not know how many times, by people who say, every American is going to get a tax cut. But if they move that shell around quick enough, no one will ever know if they got one or not. Then, when it comes to their schools and there is no money, and there is no money for the environment, and they have made no provision whatsoever for energy prices going on, in this budget, there is no recognition of $3-a-gallon gas. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members to vote against this rule, go back and do an orderly process on a budget resolution that has hearings and actually has a vote in the House and in the Senate on a real bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the news magazines of this country often give us warning what is going to happen. If one wants to know what is going to happen in the United States, always look at California. No matter what is happening, if California has got something going on, it is going to be everywhere in the United States in the next 3 years. Now, if one picks up this week's Newsweek magazine, there is an article by Allan Sloan called ``Profiting From the Darkness.'' It really lays out the rape and pillage of the California electrical consumers over the course of the last few years, last few months actually. Now, who saves us from this kind of assault on the consumers? Well, the government does. But in January, we put into this country a new dynasty or brought back an old dynasty. George, II of the oil dynasty took the White House; and he brought with him some of his counts and his dukes and so forth. The Duke of Wyoming became the Vice President. He has worked for an oil company, as did the President. The Secretary of Commerce, he came from an oil company. Go right down the line and one can see that the oil dynasty is fully in charge in this country. Now, the question that has to be raised here is how are we going to deal with the energy problems in this country. Now, there are only three things one can do. Well, there are three major things one can do. One is increase the supply, the second is conserve, and the third is develop alternative energy sources. Now, the Vice President of the United States met with all the legislators from California, Washington, and Oregon, and Idaho and Montana and told us this is not a Federal problem. It is not a Federal problem. This is a State problem. Whatever happens to California, that is their problem. Whatever happens to Washington, it is their problem. When the issue of conservation was raised, he said conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for sound comprehensive energy policy. Now, his answer to our problems in this country is to drill, drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drill under the Great Lakes, even go down to the President's brother's State, Florida, and drill in the shelf off the coast of Florida. The Governor of Florida told his brother to go on back home and stay out of his local waters. But that is the solution being offered, drill wherever you can, and maybe we can fix it. Now, the fact is that the American Council on Energy Efficiency Economy estimates that gradually raising the fuel efficiency on automobiles and small trucks to 35 miles per gallon would save a million and a half barrels a day in 2010 and four and a half million barrels a day by 2020. That is seven times what could be attained if we drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is no reason to be drilling. We ought to be raising the conservation standards in this country. The energy czar the President appointed also says that we ought to have 1,300 new generating plants in the next 20 years. This comes from an arm of the Energy Department that has always pushed coal and gas and oil. But at the same time they are using that study to say we have got to build 1,300 new plants, they conveniently overlook another Energy Department study, called ``Scenarios For a Clean Energy Future,'' which is put out by the Energy Department's national laboratories. This study concludes that efficiency measures alone could obviate the need for building 610 of those 1,300 plants. Conservation alone would cut it in half. In fact, constructing buildings that were more efficient would eliminate the need for 100 plants. Air-conditioning, clothes dryers, water heater changes could save another 180 plants. But our government is designed to help the oil industry, make it possible for them to drill everywhere. And this spring and summer, as they are now talking about $3-a-gallon gasoline, when our constituents are riding around in a car and they stop and pay three bucks for a gallon of gasoline, who is the person they should thank? The President of the United States. He wants us to use that. We do not hear anything out of this administration about conservation or about alternative energy sources. Now, here is a simple little fact: every day in California, seven times the energy that is used in California falls out of the sky in the form of solar energy. Seven times. There is no energy crisis in California, and we ought to be talking about a lot of other things besides drilling for oil.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 100, I was absent because of mechanical problems with the aircraft I was on. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 10 H. Res. 134 I was absent because of mechanical problems with the aircraft I was on. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, having sat on the Medicare Commission for a year and looked at the future of Medicare, and having realized that beginning in 2010, we are going to double the number of people on Medicare as the baby boomers move into that stage of their life, we cannot realistically argue against putting money in advance of that big deficit that is coming. Even more important, it is taken out of people's paychecks under the HI, the health insurance. If that money is not used for Medicare, it is breaking the trust with the workers who put it in.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) says he does not know why we could possibly have ever seen anything good about the other body. The fact is that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. The question is: Do you know when it is? In this instance, their budget makes more sense. I went back to my district for 2 weeks, and I had four community meetings with an average of 150 people in each meeting; 600 people. Seventy-five percent of them, after you go through the budget and explain what the tax cut does to all of it, said we do not want the tax cut. We would rather have you pay down the debt. We would rather you protect Social Security and protect Medicare. They understand. Now, my colleagues say, well, you are from Seattle. You are from that liberal district out on the Left Coast. The district of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) right on the border between Texas and Louisiana was reported in the New York Times as having exactly the same result. The people understand that education is the future of this country, that also the future is the security that comes with Medicare and Social Security. Now, for us to say that we cannot support the Senate, they in fact are much more in tune with the people than are the House of Representatives who rammed this budget through with very little discussion about what it actually does in the long-term. This resolution supports what the people support. They are not asking for tax relief. They are not begging. When one explains in the meetings who gets the tax cut and where it goes and what it means when we do not pay down the debt and we have to pay an extra $500 billion in interest, they say: Why do not you just keep the money, pay the debt down and save the interest. You can use that on education. People, they do not need to be rocket scientists. If one can add and subtract, one can see what the Senate did. If my colleagues allowed us to have the kind of amendments over here that they had in the other body, we would have a much different resolution on the floor, because they would have found there is much more support in this body for education. But they would not allow it. So that is why they have to have this resolution passed.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are here for act III of the tax follies of the year 2001. It is interesting. We have heard everyone say, and I do not need to repeat the fact, that there is no tax relief for 10 years. It is simply that they want the headline--they want the commercial with the line in it that says, ``I voted to repeal the estate tax.'' What they will not put in there is, ``I voted to repeal the estate tax in 2011.'' We are setting up commercials here today. No one seriously believes on either side of the aisle that the Senate is as crazy as to adopt this particular law. The reasons are very obvious. If we take a serious look at what laughingly is called the President's budget or the House's budget, there is no money in there to stabilize Social Security. There is no money in there to deal with what everybody admits is going to be the problem in 2010, when the baby boomers come into the Medicare system. Everybody out there listening to this who is 55 years old now and in 10 years will be 65, and is counting on that Social Security, and is counting on Medicare for the security it gives one economically ought to be listening to this debate and wondering, where are these people going to get $660 billion in 2010 to deal with those issues? I think the people on the other side must think the Americans are asleep or stupid or something. I do not know how one could think that the American people cannot see that in 10 years, when they count on Medicare, that they are suddenly going to be shovelling out the door $660 billion having done nothing in the intervening 10 years to prepare for what is undoubtedly going to be a catastrophe. We all know that. Everybody approaches it. Everybody waves their arms and talks about it, but we do not do anything about. What we are being subjected to here today is what I call a perfect example of the big lie. If people say a lie enough times, people start to believe it. People actually believe there is a death tax. I have people call me up on the phone who have not got two nickels to rub together telling me that I have to repeal this death tax, like when one dies they come and tax one right in the funeral parlor. My father died 2 years ago. Nobody came to collect any death tax, and it is not going to happen. It is a lie.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues here on the floor who have put this resolution forward. However, I seriously question the decision to bring this bill to the House for debate today. I know the decision was made last week. It was made before the events of the weekend have occurred, and it seems to me that in choosing to bring such a resolution to the floor at a time when the Chinese Government is holding 24 American servicemen in Hainan incommunicado even after repeated requests by our embassy to visit with them is an unnecessary step for us to be taking. Madam Speaker, I called the White House today and asked them what position they had on this resolution; they do not have one. I do not know what that says about the 24 people from the State of Washington who are being held in Hainan Island. It is not that I am unsympathetic with this bill. I have traveled to Dharmasala. I talked to the Dalai Lama in his own place. I have discussed with him at length the Tibetan problems. I visited Nepal and talked with refugees from Chinese rule there. I have many of them living in my own city. And I do not come frivolously to this floor to discuss this issue, but I do believe that we could easily postpone it until we have resolved whatever is happening on Hainan. I think we have American diplomats even at this moment negotiating for the release of the crew of the EP-3 and trying to get negotiations started for the freedom of those servicemen; and either we believe this resolution means something and therefore will have an impact, and I think most of us who have traveled abroad have seen the impact of resolutions on the floor of the House in the newspapers and on television of other countries, or you do not believe this resolution has any impact at all, and I think we must consider very carefully what the impact of this kind of a resolution is when we are going to be back here in a couple of weeks and we could deal with it. Madam Speaker, I understand the conference is on now, but I really think that we have to think long and hard about timing. The timing was not one we made, and I am not blaming anybody here for choosing to put it up today. I would be supporting it wholeheartedly if I did not know what had gone on this weekend. I think for that reason we ought to consider seriously whether or not we want to go forward with this.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we are here on day three of George the Second's runaway railway train. Last week we cut taxes, and yesterday we passed a budget out of here in a big hurry, and now here is day three. There are some attractive pieces to this bill. As somebody mentioned, I proposed it five years ago, and the Republicans in the Ways and Means turned it down because they had other things that were more important. But what is amazing about what is going on here is that last week we passed out of here $1.35 trillion tax cut packages. Therefore, out of the $1.6 trillion, we only have $300 billion left, and we have the estate tax, we have the charitable deduction, and we have the AMT fix. This train is running backwards because they are loading up the gift things in the front and not telling people what is coming in the back. I sit on the Committee on the Budget as well as the Committee on Ways and Means, and there is no reasonable budget out there. This is a reckless train that we are on. Now, I have been to several hearings, and the Governor from Wisconsin, who is now the head of HHS, came to testify at both those committees. He did not have one single answer to what he was going to do about Medicare. He says they are $654 billion in the hole over the next 10 years, but did not offer a single answer as to how he was going to deal with that. The last thing we ought to be doing is running a big tax train out of here. Then we had deja vu. In comes the Secretary of the Treasury. We asked him about Medicare solvency, and he did not have any single answer. But then we had a guy from the Treasury who really made sense. His name was Weinberger. He came in last week and he told us with a straight face that families know they will get $100 in April of 2002. That will have a positive psychological effect in terms of spending and, therefore, a positive impact on the economy. Now, if we think about that, what he is saying is this--it is acceptable to encourage people to spend what they do not have. I mean, we are saying, it is coming, they will be getting their $100, so please run out and spend it right now to gin up this economy and increase their personal debt. That at least is consistent with this administration's philosophy on this railroad; let us run it out of here and never look at what we are going to have to pay down the road. This is based on estimates. We have talked about this and talked about this. If anyone would get CBO to reestimate where we are going to be in 10 years on the basis of what has gone on in the last 6 months, we would have a totally different figure that we would be dealing with today. But, boy, the engineer is in the cab, and he is pulling back on the throttle, and here we go, choo-choo-choo right down the road, no matter what is on the road. I say vote for the Democratic alternative. Mr. Speaker, I support marriage penalty relief and child credits targeted to help the working poor. I cosponsored marriage penalty relief legislation in the 105th Congress when the Republican majority unanimously voted it down. I introduced it again in the 106th Congress, and now again in the current session. While there are some attractive components to this bill, I have serious concerns with the size of President Bush's tax cut. Our Republican colleagues are trying to rush all the components of President Bush's tax plan through the House, and I will not support each individual component as we watch its price tag soar. The cost of this bill and the one passed earlier on marginal rate reductions is already up to $1.35 billion, and ballooning. This amount does not include the repeal of the estate tax, charitable deduction, the AMT fix, and the list goes on. At this rate, the Republicans will continue to push up the price tag to $3 trillion. This must end. It is simply irresponsible. I sit on the Budget Committee, and I promise you, there simply is not a responsible budget. Any tax cut must be designed within the framework of balanced priorities. There is none. The Republican Budget Resolution invades the Medicare surplus to fund the huge tax cut. They do not set aside adequate levels of funding for a meaningful drug benefit. There is no additional money left to shore up Social Security or education. The list is endless. This is completely reckless! I have been to several hearings, and it is the same theme over and over again: Where is the money? I have heard testimony from Secretary Thompson at two committees--at neither could he answer a single question about how we are going to meet our financial obligations for the Medicare program. The last thing we should be doing is a $1.6 trillion tax cut when alarms are sounding on Medicare's long-term situation. The program needs an infusion of money, but the Administration does not seem to know how to achieve that. Of course not--the administration is trying to ram another tax cut down our throats before considering the budget. It was deja vu all over again with testimony from Secretary O'Neill regarding the Medicare's solvency. All we heard about is the ``crisis'' the program faces and the need to address it. When asked how, there are no answers. Today, we are being asked to vote on a second, backloaded tax bill. Last week, Mr. Weinberger from Treasury told us with a straight face that families who know that they will get $100 next April, in 2002, will have a positive psychological effect in terms of spending, and therefore a positive impact on the economy. I suppose Mr. Weinberger is saying that it is acceptable to encourage people to spend what they don't have, and increase their personal debt. At least that is consistent with the Administration's apparent philosophy that paying down our national debt is not a priority--not if they are trying to pass a huge tax cut without the context of a responsible framework. Let us not forget, these tax cuts are based on projections, not guarantees. Current projections are exactly that--projections. If the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) were to recalculate their estimates in today's economy, they would slash their projections of budget surpluses. Based on their own track record, CBO concludes that estimated surpluses could be off in one direction or the other, on average by $412 billion in 2006. Any responsible fiscal plan must anticipate inevitable errors in these projections. But the Bush proposal simply ignores these concerns. The budget must maintain a reserve for inevitable errors in these projections. It must pay down the debt, shore up resources for Medicare and Social Security, and allow for other initiatives, such as education, prescription drugs and the uninsured.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. We will have another night to talk about this issue.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for asking. I sat on the Medicare Commission for a year listening to this whole debate. People want to talk about it, and they use the word ``modernization,'' and use all these fancy words, but what they are talking about is trying to move senior citizens from a program where they have guaranteed benefits, hospitalization, seeing the doctor, laboratory work, X-rays, and adding the pharmaceutical benefit, that is a guaranteed benefit package; what the Republicans are trying to do when they say ``modernization,'' what they mean is we are moving to a guaranteed contribution. That is, they give a voucher. They give a voucher to my mother and to the gentleman's mother. Everybody gets the same amount in the whole country. Every senior citizen would get about $5,500. Mr. Speaker, with that $5,500, they would have to go out and buy their own plan. My mother is 91. I do not know how old other people's mothers are, but there are not very many insurance companies who want to insure somebody who is 91. Here, instead of guaranteeing my mother gets these benefits, they say to her, here, Mrs. McDermott, here is your $5,500, you can go out and shop and find the deal you can. That is what is in their presentation. We are not scaring anybody. That is what they said in the Medicare commission.