Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today is Republican fig leaf bill on the cost of medications. The agriculture bill allows the reimportation of medications that have been shipped abroad to be brought back into the country, presumably to be sold at lower prices. What the Republicans want the American people to believe is that the pharmaceutical companies will send medications out of the country that they charge $1 in this country for but only 30 cents in Canada, and they will allow them to come back in and be sold for 30 cents. Mr. Speaker, this provision is a fraud. It allows the pharmaceutical companies to relabel the drugs so people will be confused about whether it is the same medication. It also allows them a 5-year sunset, and it also restricts the contracts when they sell them abroad. They will write a contract that says to the Canadians, ``We are selling this to you, and you agree that you will not reimport.'' This bill is filled with fraudulent information, but it is going to be the basis of 100 to 218 press releases today: ``The Republicans have dealt with the problem of the cost of medications.''

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 2438, the Senate pipeline bill in its current form. Pipeline safety is an issue of great importance, and one that hits very close to home for those of us in the Pacific Northwest, a pipeline explosion in Bellingham, Washington on June 10, 1999 killed three children. This and other recent tragedies have highlighted the need for strengthening federal pipeline safety laws; that is why I cosponsored H.R. 5361. Unfortunately, the bill that provides the greatest protection for workers and their families did not make it to the floor of the House. Since the House Leadership has scheduled a vote on S. 2438 under suspension of the rules, and no amendments may be offered for its improvement, I must vote against it. S. 2438 fails to adequately protect our communities because the federal Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) would not be required to take action on such critical matters as pipeline inspection, leak detection, worker protection and training, and fines. This is in stark contrast to the mandatory requirements that are included in H.R. 5361. The pipeline industry has succeeded in circumventing meaningful regulation for decades because of weak legislation. Passing S. 2438 would send yet another message to OPS that the industry can continue to do so. Critics of the stronger House legislation say it has no chance of passing during this Congress, therefore, we must support the weaker Senate version--something is better than nothing. I disagree, once pipeline safety legislation is passed, the urgency to revisit the issue will diminish. At least until another deadly explosion. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following Seattle Times op-ed into the Record. It is written by the parents of the three children killed in the Bellingham, Washington pipeline explosion and calls for Congress to pass the stronger House legislation. [From the Seattle Times, Editorials & Opinion, Fri., Oct. 06, 2000] Pipeline Safety: Don't sacrifice The Good For The Status Quo (By Marlene Robinson and Bruce Brabec, Frank and Mary King, Katherine Dalen and Edwin Williams Special to The Times) We are the parents who lost children when the Olympic pipeline exploded on June 10, 1999. As we struggled with our own loss, we also have struggled to give meaning to that loss by trying to make pipelines safer in this country. To our sadness and despair, before we were able to see meaningful pipeline reform occur, tragedy struck again with a pipeline explosion that killed 12 family members in New Mexico. The Washington state delegation to Congress, led by Reps. Jay Inslee and Jack Metcalf, and Sens. Slade Gorton and Patty Murray, have done a wonderful job of pushing pipeline safety into the consciousness of Washington, D.C. Without their efforts, there would not now be a debate regarding whether to pass the weak bill that the Senate approved, or to wait for a real, meaningful bill from the House. For their efforts, we thank them. In her recent guest commentary, Sen. Murray said that our push for a meaningful pipeline safety bill from the House means that we are willing ``to sacrifice the good for the perfect.'' We wish our choice was between good and perfect but, unfortunately, the bill that passed the Senate was so watered down by those who pay homage to the powerful oil and gas lobbyists, that in reality it would change very little. The Senate pipeline bill leaves almost all decisions on critical matters, such as pipeline testing, pipeline leak detection, employee training, public involvement and fines, up to the discretion of the federal Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS). According to the General Accounting Office, OPS has failed to implement 22 legislative mandates Congress has passed since 1988. If you tell an agency to do something 22 times and they ignore you, by what logic do you think they will pay attention the 23rd time? After a terrible pipeline explosion killed a mother and her daughter in Mounds View, Minn., in 1986, the industry and the OPS said they would develop new standards to ensure safety. They did not. After a huge pipeline explosion destroyed part of Edison, N.J., in 1994, the industry and OPS said they would develop new standards to ensure safety. They did not! After three dead here in Bellingham, and now 12 more dead in New Mexico, guess what the industry and OPS are saying. Why should we trust them this time? Ask yourself why pipeline-safety organizations across the country are opposed to the Senate pipeline bill, while the pipeline industry is now trying to push for its passage. For a pipeline bill to have real meaning, it has to take the discretion away from the industry-controlled Office of Pipeline Safety. It has to spell out clearly how often pipelines need to be tested, and how that testing is to be accomplished. It has to set strict penalties for companies that do not pay enough attention to their pipelines. It has to include strong local oversight of pipeline safety so those who have the most to lose it something goes wrong have a say in making sure that pipelines are safe. And it needs to ensure that the public can review a wide range of information regarding the pipeline that runs through their communities. These requirements all made common sense, practical sense, and represent what a good pipeline safety bill would do. The Senate bill does not accomplish any of these, and we call on the members of the House to do what it takes to pass a stronger ball that secures the public true safety improvements. Those who are advocating our acceptance of the inadequate Senate bill urge us not to ``sacrifice the good for the perfect.'' But the reality is that the Senate bill is a long way from ``good'' and will result in business as usual in an industry that enjoyed a net profit of 40 percent in 1999, while communities across the nation will continue to experience horrific failures of aging pipelines. How many more sons and daughters will be lost before meaningful pipeline-safety reform is passed? We do not want to wait until next year, but we will if we must. Fortunately, good pipeline-safety bills have already been drafted and introduced in the House. The House needs to pass one promptly, and the Senate needs to follow the House's lead and not sacrifice the good for the status quo. The authors are parents of the three young people killed in the Bellingham pipeline disaster.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce legislation to name the United States Courthouse in Seattle, Washington, as the ``William Kenzo Nakamura United States Courthouse'' in honor of Congressional Medal of Honor recipient Pfc. William K. Nakamura. William K. Nakamura was born and raised in an area of Seattle that used to be known as ``Japantown.'' In 1942, while attending the University of Washington, William K. Nakamura, his family, and 110,000 other Japanese Americans were forcibly relocated to federal internment camps. While living at the Minidoka Relocation Center in Idaho, Nakamura and his brothers chose to prove their patriotism by enlisting in the United States Army. William K. Nakamura was assigned to the serve with the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. The courageous service of this unit during World War II made it one of the most decorated in the history of our nation's military. William K. Nakamura distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism in action on July 4, 1944, near Castellina, Italy. As Pfc. Nakamura's platoon approached Castellina, it came under heavy enemy fire. Acting on his own initiative, Pfc. Nakamura crawled within 15 yards of the enemy's machine gun nest and used four hand grenades to neutralize the enemy fire which allowed his platoon to continue its advance. Pfc. Nakamura's company was later ordered to withdraw from the crest of a hill. Rather than retreat with his platoon, Pfc. Nakamura took a position to cover the platoon's withdrawal. As his platoon moved toward safety they suddenly became pinned down by machine gun fire. Pfc. Nakamura crawled toward the enemy's position and accurately fired upon the machine gunners, allowing his platoon time to withdraw to safety. It was during this heroic stand that Pfc. Nakamura lost his life to enemy sniper fire. Pfc. Nakamura's commanding officer nominated him for the Medal of Honor but the racial climate of the time prevented him, as well as other soldiers of color, from receiving the nation's highest honor. In the spring of this year, 56 years after he made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, William Kenzo Nakamura was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor. Designating the United States Courthouse in Seattle in Pfc. Nakamura's name is a fitting way to acknowledge the memory of a true American hero, who for so many years was denied the honor he so justly deserved. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I introduce today is broadly supported by veterans' service organizations and elected officials in the Pacific Northwest. I urge speedy passage of this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this week we have had some interesting events. We were treated to a video coverage of Mr. Bush, Governor Bush, who is running for the Presidency, who was saying what a wonderful set of cuts were made in 1997 on Medicare, the Gingrich proposal to produce $270 billion that could be used for $270 billion worth of tax cuts. Now we have the majority leader talking here about the marriage tax penalty. Why did they not do it in 1997? Well, they had some other rich folks they wanted to take care of before they got to the middle class folks in this country. Tomorrow in the Committee on Ways and Means, for the third time, we are going to go back and shovel money back into the Medicare plan that was taken out in 1997. They are going to throw $40 billion in there tomorrow to fill the hole they dug for themselves in 1997. If you think that is silly, where is something on prescription drugs? Who is driving this bus, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today to talk for 1 minute about today being United Nations Day. It is also the beginning of the decade of peace in the world. They are trying to begin to emphasize how to bring peace in a variety of different places across the globe. It is important for us in this body to recognize the important part we play, not only by our contributions to the U.N. in which we have lagged seriously behind, but in our support for what goes on. The United States has, from time to time, supported the U.N. when it has been in our interests and at other times we walk away from them. But as we look across the globe with all of the places, Sierra Leone or Liberia or Somalia, when we look, we see always that the U.N. sometimes has our support and sometimes does not. Now, if we are going to be the leader of the world, we certainly are economically, but if we are politically going to be leaders of the world, we must participate in the United Nations in a very strong way. That means paying our dues.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, coming over here today, having been over here yesterday when half of this bill passed the last time, I could not help thinking of what, I think it was Groucho Marx said, that if you are going to go into politics, the first thing you have to learn to do is to act sincere. Because if we are going to come out here with this kind of legislation, we really have to work pretty hard to keep a straight face. Yesterday we passed the bill on this lockbox on debt repayment, which is a totally useless piece of legislation. It is not necessary; the debt is being paid down without any such process now. But it was a pretty good press release yesterday. So they thought, well, let us do it again tomorrow. Since we are not doing anything worthwhile anyway, we might as well have something to put into our press release machine to fire out at the newspapers all over the country, and that is a good one, and oh, yeah, there is that pension thing, we can pass that too. Why do we not staple those bills together, because it will be different. They cannot say we are bringing out the same bill as we brought out yesterday; we are bringing out the same bill yesterday, plus the same bill from July 19. Now, you say, why do we pick July 19? Well, we think about it and we say to ourselves, they must be bringing out the July 19 bill because they did it in the middle of the summer and people have forgotten about it, and today we are 49 days from election and we have to be sure and remind the people of the good legislation we passed that the majority in the other body killed, so we do not get blamed for it. Mr. Speaker, the real irony of this thing is we have the majority party in the House who cannot seem to get the majority party in the other body to pay attention to them. We fire this nonsense over there and they put it in a desk drawer and it never sees the light of day again. This is an intra-party fight inside the majority party. That is why we will probably be out here tomorrow with the debt reduction bill and, let us see, we could marry it up to the estate tax removal. That would be a good one to put out here. Then, on Thursday we can bring out the debt reduction bill and the marriage tax penalty bill. Now, let me think. I will sit down over here and come up with the list for next week. Because we have not passed the appropriation acts, we have not had any conference committees on the budget, so we have to come out here and do these little shows. Now, I think the American people are smarter than some people in this place give them credit for. They will see this; they are not going to forget that yesterday they read about the debt reduction bill and they are going to think they got the same paper 2 days in a row. Right there on the front pages, Republicans plan to spend 90 percent of the money in the surplus on paying down the debt. They cannot do it, because they already passed enough tax breaks to use up 22 percent; they cannot use 90 percent and 22 percent. If we add 90 and 22, that makes 112 percent of the surplus. Now, I am not quite sure who teaches math over in the other caucus, but they need a new calculator, because it does not work. But, with a very straight face and acting very sincere, people stand down here and tell us that we can do it. I suppose if one believes that, one could believe in buying the Brooklyn Bridge or a whole lot of other things. The only things we have passed here in the last few days has been naming new bridges and new courthouses and new highways and this kind of stuff, part of which is legislative nonsense, and the other part is a decent bill. But the people are not going to be fooled by this press release.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful thing to be a Member of the House of Representatives in an election year. It is really quite amazing to watch the Republican Party switch positions. During the last 2 weeks the big issue each week has been we are going to override the President's veto on a tax cut that we have given to the people. They have come out here, and they always put out the press release that goes back to their home newspapers, and it says we tried to save you from the awful taxes of death and all these other things, and the press releases go home; but on the very day that we were trying the last failed override, the Republicans switched position in midair on the same day over in the Committee on Ways and Means and said we want to pay down the debt. We do not want to give away all that tax money; we want to pay down the debt. So they have had the benefit of the press releases on the fact that they want to cut people's taxes, and everybody wants to cut people's taxes, we have said that all along. But the fact is that they have been reading the polls, and they figured out that the American people do not want tax breaks for the wealthy few. What they want is to pay down the national debt. So now 7 weeks from tomorrow is election day, and the Republicans say, Oh, my God, the people are not with us. We better go where the people are. It reminds me of that story about the French parliament, where the member came out of the parliament and said, Where is the mob? I am their leader. They are now running out to get in front of where the American people are. Madam Speaker, this kind of battlefield conversion about 7 weeks before the election is really kind of a sham. We will all vote for it. Do not let anybody think we are going to have a bad vote on this. It is a PR thing. We are going to send out the PR releases too. But the American people should not be fooled by this, because no separation legislation is needed to reduce the debt. If, at the end of the fiscal year, when we get to September 30, if there is money left in the Treasury, the Treasury takes it and buys back debt. They reduce the debt. They do not need any rule, they do not need any law, they do not need this kind of nonsense; and that may explain why the Senate has already not even bothered to take up two previous bills just like this. These lockboxes are good for press releases, but they do not do anything about what is required, which is discipline and not spending money. There has already been $300 billion in debt bought back from the public since 1997 by this mechanism. We did not have any lockbox or anything else; the Treasury just bought back the debt at the end of each year. But the real danger here is the kind of three-card monte that the Republicans like to play here. It was in June that they voted to put out a supplemental appropriations act and reach in and break their own lockbox. They said they had established this lockbox; but, when it came time and they wanted to do something, they just said, hey, pass an emergency appropriation and we will do it. They broke their own lockbox. So today we are here, and we are going to pass on suspension calendar by 414 to 0, with a press release. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would only say to the distinguished majority leader that it is good to come out here and give a 90 percent debt reduction figure and say we will spend only 10 percent. But one really has to know how to add and subtract when one starts that kind of discussion, because the 10-year surplus is $4 trillion, $4.5 trillion, and the tax cuts proposed by the Republicans are over $943 billion. That is 21 percent spent on tax cuts alone. You cannot get 21 percent out of 10 percent. I do not care how you squeeze it or twist it or what kind of press release you put out, you cannot make the cuts you wanted to make last week and come back in here today and say, we want to pay down the debt to 90 percent. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I am sure that the President of the United States is very pleased to see this conversion of the Republican Party about 2 weeks before the final negotiations begin. He has said from the beginning that we are going to strengthen Social Security, we are going to strengthen Medicare, and we are going to pay off the debt and then we are going to get to the issues like the inheritance tax and the marriage tax penalty and so forth. He has made proposals. He has said, Let's put it all in one package. It is going to happen. But this is the first time, the first time, in fact this started the other day in the Oval Office or in the conference room up at the White House where suddenly the Republicans after all this tax cutting suddenly had for the first time a new proposal laid on the table by the Speaker saying we want 90 percent to go to debt reduction. Now, it really is better late than never. I think if somebody comes into the church and accepts the gospel of debt reduction, it is better to do it now than never. And so we welcome you. We really do. We are going to be able to end this session and do what the American people need and what they have wanted all along. They have been telling us that. All the polls have been telling us from the beginning that they recognize that simply giving money back but leaving this debt resting on their kids was not fair. They knew. We have had a good life. But they said, Let's pay down our credit card so that our kids don't have to pay it down in the future. The President has said it. He said it in the State of the Union right here in the well. And now the Republicans are with him. That is wonderful.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that there is not anybody on this floor who does not want to help middle class families. When the Contract with America was brought out here with all the fanfare in 1995, the marriage tax penalty was in it. When the first tax bill came to the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered an amendment to remove the marriage tax penalty in the Committee on Ways and Means. Every single Republican on the committee voted against it. The only reason we could say they did it, I suppose, was kind of ``NIH,'' not invented here. They did not have their name on it. So they came back the next year after they had done the polling and realized they had made a mistake, and they have been trying ever since, but they always wrap it in a humongous tax cut. Now, none of us believe that we will leave this session without a cut in the marriage tax penalty. I will be willing to bet anybody on this floor that when we sign off and leave here about October 1, we will have agreed with the President on a middle-class tax cut on the marriage penalty. What is amazing is what the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) just talked about, the meeting that happened in the White House yesterday. The Speaker of the House came and said, ``We have a plan: 90 percent goes for debt relief, and 10 percent goes for investment.'' If we take all the taxes that have been pushed by the Republicans and are pushed by Mr. Bush of $1.7 trillion, and we only have $5.5 trillion, if we have a calculator in our pockets, which the Speaker ought to have, we realize that that is 31 percent of the projected surplus that is going for tax cuts. We cannot do it in 10 percent. It is 3 times as much as we left on the table. So either the Republicans on the floor are walking away from Mr. Bush and his tax cut, which I think most of them are, or they simply are trying to put a fraud out on the people that they can do 90 percent for bringing down the debt and 10 percent, and there is no money left for investment, no money for social security, no money for Medicare, no money for education, none of the issues that we ought to be doing with the surplus. The American people are faced in this election with a choice: Will we have a big tax cut, or will we invest in the future? Most Americans are interested in protecting their retirement, their social security, their Medicare, which is really security in health areas. They are interested in educating their kids to deal with this economy so we do not have to bring in, under the H-1B visa, hundreds of thousands of people from around the world because we say our own kids are not qualified to take the jobs in this economy, we have to give the high-paying jobs to people outside the economy. When we get down to this tax cut, it is part of an overall package. We are going to cut it and make a negotiation at the end.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote on rollcall No. 459. I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4844.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Point of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by stating there is no Member of this body who wants to tax seniors. We are all against that. We would all like to give all the taxes back that we could. But having said that, we also want to give them benefits, Social Security and Medicare. Now, whatever comes out of this debate, the main point is that this money is coming out of a trust fund for Medicare. The Republicans are operating under a theory that a tax cut a day keeps election defeat away, and we have seen one after another after another. The fact is that they are willing to sacrifice what we did in 1993 to bolster the Medicare trust fund. Now that things are going pretty well, they say, well, we do not need to; we can just take the money out of the trust fund and we will put some general fund in. We will kind of write an IOU on the general fund. The gentleman from Florida, who is leading this debate on the other side, said, ``If you write yourself an IOU, it is not real.'' Now, here we have written an IOU to the general fund; we owe this over here to the Medicare trust fund, and my colleague says it is not real. That is what we are talking about here. When my colleagues get in this election, they will be screaming all over the place when people get ads that say, ``You have taken $100 billion out of the Medicare Trust Fund,'' they will be squealing and hollering and saying, ``Yeah, but.'' Nobody believes the majority and they do not even believe it themselves or they would not have made this statement about the fact that an IOU that we write, we owe it to the people, is not worth anything in the next session if this money does not come in. My colleague from California (Mr. Matsui) says these issues are not for sure; we are projecting 10 years out into the future. There is not a soul on this floor who believes that those are absolutely real. But if we give away the trust fund, we have given it away. Vote ``no.''

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, is it proper to refer to a Member of the other body by name?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) is out of order.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker I was unavoidably detained by official business and unable to vote on H. Res. 563. I would have voted against H. Res. 563 (rollcall No. 442).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. I am explaining to the Speaker, because he may not understand either, from the way these bills come.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is Howdy Doody time again. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record my remarks of June 20 when we passed the last iteration of this foolishness. Mr. Speaker, I started by saying that Groucho Marx said the main requirement to be a good politician is to appear to be serious. The Washington Post recently commented on the performance of the majority in this Congress by calling this the ``pretend Congress.'' Now my colleagues get the second act from what I said in June. Because after we passed the bill, immediately the Congress went to work and started passing a supplemental appropriation. They reached into this lockbox that they say they are creating, and they took out of it all of the money and spent it. Then they started on the budget for 2001, and they started moving around pay days and when contractors get paid. It is all a flimflam. Now, for the folks back home who are listening, let me explain something to them. When the Federal Government gets tax money in, it sits in the treasury, and when the bonds come due, those government bonds, people say---- Point of Order

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want you to understand how the budget money is dealt with, because I know you may not have been on the Committee on the Budget. When the money is in the Treasury and the bonds come due, if there is money laying there, they buy back those bonds. They do not have to borrow money to roll over the debt. It happens automatically. It happens automatically. It has done it for years. We do not need bills like this, which come out here 2 weeks before the convention to say that we are reducing the debt. We have been reducing the debt. It has been going on on a regular basis. Now, if my colleagues on the other side were serious about reducing the debt, and we get a new announcement from the Congressional Budget Office that says that we have $90 billion more in surplus, why do they come out here and only buy back $25 billion? Why do they not buy it all back? We know why. Because the Republicans want to give tax breaks. We are going to move on one of them here very shortly. The fact is that we have already given $611 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years. Now, if my colleagues were serious about paying back the deficit and they wanted to reduce the debt, what they would do is stop spending money, let it accumulate in the treasury, and when the bonds come due, the treasury pays them off. We do not do it by spending every chance we get. We have to save some money here also for what happens in September. I will say it now so I can get out my remarks in September and say that we are going to spend a bunch of money in September to buy our way out of this Congress. The majority cannot stop themselves. It is an election year. And that makes this a sham. Now, we are all part of the PR, and we are going to vote for it, like everybody else; but do not, anybody who is watching, pay any attention. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the record hereafter the remarks I referred to earlier: Debt Reduction Reconciliation Act of 2000 Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Groucho Marx said that the main requirement to be a good politician is to appear to be serious. The Washington Post recently commented on the performance of the majority in this Congress by calling this `the pretend Congress.' This is one of the new acts. This debt reduction bill here pretends to do something. We are all called here together, we are going to be serious, we are going to give pompous speeches about how we are going to reduce the debt, and we are saving America, and all those Girl Scout cookies and all that stuff will just be fixed by this bill. Now, the chairman at least was honest, and I really acknowledge the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) honesty. This bill is effective from now until September 30, 2000. It does not quite make it all the way through the election. So it is not really a very good pretend item. It would be better if it went at least until November 8. But this is a bill for 4 months. Now, you ask yourself, why would anybody be doing such a thing? Well, if you come up to a new reestimate of the revenue estimates here very shortly, the CBO and the OMB are going to come out with a whole bunch more money. Clearly the majority is afraid that they are going to spend it. They cannot save themselves. They have all the votes. This is your problem. We have the votes, as the majority over there, and they are going to put more money on the table and if you do not pass this bill, you will not be able to stop yourself from spending it. That is what this is about, I guess. Or maybe it is not about that. The fact is that we have a situation where the Treasury does not need this bill to pay off more debt. If we get to the end of the fiscal year and there is some money there, they reduce the debt. They do not have to borrow. It is real simple. They do not need us to pass H.R. 4601 to tell them what they have been doing for 200 years. If they have a surplus, they buy down some of the debt. But this is a symbolic act, as my colleague from California says. I thought this would be on Friday, because this is usually the news cycle on Friday, they want to have something that says the Republicans today have passed a bill to encourage reduction of the debt. Now, if you think about it, if you want to reduce the debt, you do not give big tax breaks, because taxes bring in money. And if you cut the taxes, there will not be any money to pay off the debt. So when you come out here and vote for tax cut after tax cut after tax cut and then say, And we want to reduce the debt, you simply are not making sense. There are only two ways to have money to pay off the debt, either take the taxes and pay it off or reduce the spending and pay it off, one or the other. I do not see any evidence so far in this appropriations process that we are actually reducing spending. In fact, we are going up a little bit, and probably we are going to need some of this money along about September 15 to solve the problem to buy off this program or that program so we can get out of here. All we have to do under this bill, we do not have to repeal the act, we do not have to do anything, just pass the supplemental appropriation. This can be violated by the most simplistic legislative act of all, just bring out another bill, spend some more money, in spite of the fact that we have passed H.R. 4601, the debt reduction bill. This bill will die in the Senate from laughter. There will not be anybody over there that takes this seriously.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on official business and was unable to vote. I would have voted in favor of the motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 4810 (rollcall No. 408). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 4866 (rollcall No. 409).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that we come out here on this Burton amendment again. It is going to lose. But I implore my colleagues to look seriously and objectively at India. The proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently intimidates its religious minorities. To use a Hindi word, that is bakwaas; that is absolute nonsense. The Indians know they have a problem, but they are the most secular country in the world. They appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, only the second time in their history, to look at the death of an American missionary. They also have a separate Human Rights Commission that operates in this country. In contrast, consider our own treatment of Arab Americans in this country. When they are portrayed as terrorists, we turn a blind eye. India recognizes their problem and deals with them. I believe that India has problems, but it is a nation that is dealing with them. Rather than debate these kinds of amendments, we ought to find ways to work cooperatively with India to support their development. Vote against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, here we are discussing the Burton amendment yet again. It never passes, and as far as I can tell, is brought up just to be inflammatory. I implore my colleagues to look at the nation of India objectively. Since Independence, India has been a thriving democracy where suffrage is universal and voting rates are higher than the United States. Unlike most former colonial nations, India has never suffered under a military dictator. The United States Military has more influence and participation in our government than the Indian Military has in theirs. India is a stable democracy, arguably the strongest and most stable in all of Asia. Proponents of this amendment say that India suppresses and violently intimidates its religious minorities. That is bakwaas--pure nonsense. India is one of the most secular states in the world. India recognizes and guarantees religious freedoms and has the commitment to the rule of law to enforce those guarantees. There have been isolated incidents--anomalies really--that have made the worldwide news, however, India has publicly, officially, and resoundingly responded. India appointed a Supreme Court inquiry, for only the second time in this country's history, to investigate an instance of a Christian missionary's death. Also, India has a separate Human Rights Commission that is active and highly independent. What is our response in this country when American-Muslims are depicted vilely as terrorists? We blindly turn away. India admits these problems and addresses them in the courts as well as and in the open and totally free press. India has its problems, but it is a nation dealing with those problems. Rather than debate amendments that divide the US and India, we ought to work with India help come to grips with their problems and be a partner in the development of technology, trade and culture. The US and India have much in common and the potential to be great partners, we must not cut India off.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), referenced an editorial in the Washington Post, and I include for the Record the editorial from July 11 entitled: ``A Phony Issue.'' [From the Washington Post, July 11, 2000] A Phony Issue Congressional Republicans have scheduled votes this week on a sizable tax cut mainly for the better off, which they misleadingly describe as relief from a ``marriage penalty.'' The president has rightly indicated that he will veto the bill as it is likely to be presented to him. That suits the sponsors perfectly, in that the vote is mainly intended as a frame for the national nominating conventions that will be held during next month's congressional recess. The Republicans seek to score political points as the tax- cut party. But on this one, the merits are on the president's side, and our sense is that the politics may be as well. The marriage penalty is a phony issue; the cost of the bill is high; the bulk of the benefit would go to people already quite well off, and there are better uses for the money--to shore up Medicare, for example. The president can be expected to make good use of all those points; he has set his own stage for that in advance. The tax code does not penalize married couples. To the contrary, as a matter of long-standing policy it is tilted in their favor. A married couple at a given income level owes less income tax than a single taxpayer at the same level. The so-called penalty arises when two single people, each with income, marry. Their combined income is likely to move them into a higher tax bracket. That's what the fight is about; the issue is not the treatment of marriage but the progressive nature of the income tax. The marriage issue is a veil. If the sponsors succeed, you can bet their next target will be the ``singles penalty'' that they themselves will have helped to accentuate by lowering the taxes of married couples relative to single payers. The widow's penalty, they'll call it. The proposed cuts are not even confined to people paying a ``penalty'' as the sponsors define it. About half of married couples--those in which one spouse earns the bulk of the income--receive a marriage ``bonus'' in that their taxes are less than if both were single. But they too would benefit; the sponsors hardly want to be accused of slighting the ``traditional'' family in which the mom stays home. About half the savings in the bill would go to such families. The cost of the legislation would be a quarter-trillion dollars over 10 years. The president has said he would trade the Republicans. This bill for his Medicare prescription drug benefit, which carries a similar price tag. It's the wrong trade; a drug benefit does not redeem the defects of this bill. The politicians, including the president, say there's plenty of money for both, but the budget surpluses to which they point are projections only, and in some ways highly artificial. Among much else, they assume that future politicians will exercise precisely the kind of discipline that these are prepared to abandon. An easing of fiscal discipline would likely also cause the Federal Reserve to tighten monetary discipline; this is a vote for higher interest rates at one remove. The marriage penalty is little more than a slogan, a bumper sticker masquerading as serious tax policy. The vote this week is a political stunt that would mainly solve a non- problem while weakening the government's ability to fulfill its long-term obligations. The right vote is emphatically no. Mr. Speaker, this editorial lays it out very clearly. And that is why we are here. We are all here about politics. This is not about any kind of policy. The editorial says that they know that they are going to send this bill to the President, he is going to veto it, and that ``that suits the sponsors perfectly, in that the vote is mainly intended as a frame for the national nominating conventions that will be held during next month's congressional recess.'' Now, this bill was written for me. I came to Congress, I was divorced, and I married somebody who has a job. This bill gives me a great tax benefit because our combined income is up around $100,000 because that is as high as it goes. If they have a combined income of $60,000, that is their wife makes 30 and they make 30, they will get $218. But my wife and I, because we make considerably more than that, we are all the way up to the maximum, we will get a benefit of $1,150. Oh, and we do not have any kids. That is important. If they have kids, they are going to lose this on the AMT. The Treasury says that by 2008, half the people in this country who are getting the benefit will lose it because if they have kids they lose it under the AMT. Now, the reason I am going to vote against this bill, which would be in my particular financial interest, in my pocket, is this: I have a mother. I have a mother who is one of the 9 million widows in this country who lives on $8,000 a year. She is not getting anything from this. And this majority has consistently refused to deal with Social Security, which my mother lives on. That is her only income. They have refused to do anything about shoring up Medicare, which is the only health care system she has. And they will not give her a financial benefit for her prescription drugs. Now, the President has made a deal, I think a bad deal, but it is not a bad deal for my mother. He says, we will take the Republican plan if you will give my mother a real pharmaceutical benefit. The Republicans say, ``Nope, we ain't doing that.'' We are going to give your mother a little voucher and send her out there and let her look around for some insurance company like all the HMOs that have been pulling out of the State of Washington, and we are going to say, find one that will stand still long enough to give you a pharmaceutical benefit. That is not a real benefit. I want my mother to have the benefit the President has promised. So I am going to vote for the Democratic alternative and hope the Republicans come to their senses.