Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I watched the distinguished Member from Colorado and I saw he was lathered up here, and I was really beginning to be fearful for his mental health, watching him go on. He did not seem to understand what political contributions have to do with the Tax Code. Now, I want to explain something to him. Most Members who get elected have to raise a lot of money. A lot of money has to be raised, and they get it from all these corporations who want something to happen in these hallowed halls. They do not give that money for no reason at all. If they cannot get it from the Member, then they cannot get their message across. So they form up these 527 organizations. They have unlimited amounts of money. They can take money from anywhere in the world, and nobody will ever know where it came from. So if the gentleman is worried about the taxpayers of this country and he is not worried about what it is that changes the tax structure and who gets the breaks around here, the gentleman ought to go down to K Street and take a little look around. Those offices down there are paid for by the same people who have the 527 organizations who want the tax structure to work for them. And if the gentleman is worried about taxpayers, he ought to worry about what happens when these organizations can pour unlimited money into the airwaves to assault the Congress with these ads, and the public, about the way things are going. Now, everybody says there is this terrible problem with all this money in politics. And, as a matter of fact, I read here what Fred Werthheimer, who used to be the head of Common Cause said. ``We have an elected official with power and influence and the ability to do favors for undisclosed donors.'' Undisclosed donors. Everybody says they want an open book. Then they ought to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I am sitting back here wondering why this bill was out here just now, and I think I broke the code. In the House we try and pick an important day to bring something up. I remember we came out here on Valentine's Day and we passed the marriage tax penalty. I do not know where it is. It went off somewhere but everybody thought they got a valentine from the House of Representatives. Now today we have the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. We get that out here and everybody says, Oh, well, now, I've finally got some rights, right? Now we go over to the Committee on Ways and Means, and it must be tax time. I cannot explain it any other way except over in the Committee on Ways and Means we are having a hearing about tearing up the Tax Code by the roots and imposing a 30 percent sales tax on everything. Just imagine you are going to buy a house and you are going to pay a 30 percent tax on it, or you are going to buy a car and you are going to pay a 30 percent tax on it. Or you are going to buy a shirt, and you are going to pay a 30 percent tax. That is what they are talking about over in the Committee on Ways and Means now. If the taxpayers had any sense at all, they would be over in the Committee on Ways and Means instead of hearing these silly bills about a Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. This bill, the one we are on right now, is even more interesting. As the gentleman from New York has pointed out, you pass taxes to pay for something. The President put the ``something'' out there and said I am going to give you a prescription benefit for senior citizens, I am going to take care of the schools, I am going to take care of a whole lot of things and it will cost something. That is how you do it. No, no, not my distinguished colleagues from the Committee on Ways and Means. They bring the money out here and say, Just vote for the money, just vote for the money, and then trust us, we'll spend it for you. I brought Mr. Bush's tax bill to the Committee on Ways and Means and said to them, this man is running nationwide saying if you elect me, I will give you $500 billion worth of tax cuts. And everybody on the committee has endorsed Mr. Bush. But none of them would vote for Mr. Bush's tax proposal when it was put before them. You have to wonder if this is not just some kind of electioneering rather than any substantive policy. Bringing the President's bill out here, I consider it the highest form of flattery to be imitated. I put that bill in over in the Committee on Ways and Means a couple of weeks ago and everybody was all exercised when the headlines said, GOP in House Rejects Bush Tax Plan. They just were upset by that so they thought, Oh, I know what we'll do, we'll run out here with the President's taxes and throw it on the table. But it makes no sense. The President said what he would spend it for. We have not done anything about Medicare. We have not done anything about Medicaid. We have not done anything about Social Security. I think everybody is going to vote no on this.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the reason this is such an important set of budget instructions is that this House is balanced on a very interesting policy point: Should we provide a tax-supported prescription benefit package for all senior citizens, or should we do what the Republicans are talking about, and that is, find the poorest ones and say, here is a little welfare program. Go on and down and register at the welfare office, and you can get the drug benefit? The President has proposed that we put a package that covers all senior citizens. Some of us are not very satisfied with the President's plan because it is not very generous, but at least, at least it covers everyone. For us to come out and pass a budget and say that, in the last resort, if we have a little money left after we have passed all these tax cuts we are going to give a little drug benefit, that is simply not good public policy. The Senate has picked the number of $140 billion in tax cuts. I personally think that is too much. I do not think we need that. I would rather pay down the debt. However, if they are going to do it, let us take the conservative number in the Senate, the conservative number in the Senate, instead of this liberal wild spending on the Republican side in the House, and use that money to give a benefit for all senior citizens. Now, when we go out and realize what the average senior citizen spends out-of-pocket, my mother is a perfect example. She lives on the minimum social security benefit, along with 9 million other widows in this country, $888 a month. She spends $400 for where she lives and where she gets her food, okay? Now she has $400 and she on average across this country is spending $200 a month, $2,500 out of pocket, for pharmaceutical costs in this country. That is simply inexcusable. We can fix it, but it should be for all senior citizens because even those who have the benefit now, because of the fact that they work for some company or they have the insurance policy or whatever at the moment, may lose it and then where are they? My view is that we should not drive seniors into poverty before we help them with their pharmaceutical costs. Any sensible person looking at the Medicare program today would say the single biggest problem that we have not dealt with has been the issue of pharmaceutical costs. I think that it makes sense to take the Senate number. The Senate is not overly generous, but at least we would have the $40 million for a universal benefit.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall No. 94, I was unavoidably detained at a meeting. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Stated against:

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote from March 21, 2000 to March 24, 2000 because I accompanied the President of the United States on his historic visit to India and Pakistan. On March 21, 2000: I would have voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 288 (Roll Call number 56). I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 182 (Roll Call number 57). On March 22, 2000: I would have voted in favor of approving the journal (Roll Call number 58). I would have voted against on ordering the Previous Question H. Res. 444 (Roll Call number 59). I would have voted against on agreeing to the Resolution H. Res. 444 (Roll Call number 60). I would have voted against considering S. 1287 (Roll Call number 61). I would have voted in favor of recommitting S. 1287 with Instructions (Roll Call number 62). I would have voted against S. 1287 (Roll Call number 63). I would have voted against ordering the Previous Question on H. Res. 445 (Roll Call number 64). I would have voted for passage of H.R. 3822 (Roll Call number 65). March 23, 2000: I would have voted in favor of approving the Journal (Roll Call number 66). I would have voted against the previous question on H. Res. 446 (Roll Call number 67). I would have voted against the amended H. Res. 446 (Roll Call number 68). I would have voted against the motion to rise on H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 69). I would have voted in favor of the Owens substitute to H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 70). I would have voted in favor of the DeFazio substitute to H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 71). I would have voted in favor of the Stenhomm substitute to H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 72). I would have voted against Sununu amendment to H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 73). I would have voted in favor of the Spratt substitute to H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 74). March 24, 2000: I would have voted against H. Con. Res. 290 (Roll Call number 75).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, we can all be justifiably proud of the fact that our nation is continuing its unparalleled record of economic growth. We can also be proud of the fact that our growth, which has benefited so many American citizens, rests in large measure on our hi- tech industries. But how many of us recognize that our prosperity also rests in part on the intelligence, entrepreneurship and skills of many thousands of Indians, and Indo-Americans? Let me provide my colleagues with some facts about how Indian trained software engineers, computer programmers and designers contribute to America's prosperity. Indians own or run over 750 Silicon Valley firms that collectively employ over 16,000 people and have achieved over $3.5 billion in sales. Of the 115,000 visas given by the United States for skilled workers in 1999, 35,000 went to Indians. The vast majority of India's $4 billion in software sales last year went to American companies. American firms like Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle increasingly are looking to invest in India or purchase hi-tech products from India. President Clinton recognizes the contributions India has made to America's economic growth. When he visits India later this month, he is expected to stop in the city of Hyderabad, one of the centers for India's growing hi-tech industry. His stop will dramatize India's rapid development as a cutting edge hi-tech nation and it is a confirmation that India and the United States have both greatly benefited from the business acumen of Indian entrepreneurs. It is also a recognition that our ties to India are far broader and far deeper than most observers believe. Mr. Speaker, India is important to the United States. Our policies in that region should reflect this. That is why I am pleased to have had this opportunity to share the reason for being optimistic about the future of U.S.-Indian relations.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have taken the floor this afternoon to bring attention to the situation in the State of Pakistan. President Clinton has decided to include a stop in Pakistan during his upcoming tour to India and other parts of South Asia. I do not agree with that decision to go to Pakistan. I do not believe it is right to reward this military government, which forcefully seized power from a democratically-elected government, with such a high level visit. Pakistan has undergone political upheaval during most of its 52-year history. The military has overthrown the democratically-elected government four times, the latest being in November of last year. General Pervez Musharraf joined a long list of Pakistani generals who have usurped power in the unstable history of Pakistan. But unlike his three predecessors, General Musharraf has not laid out a plan to return to democracy. He has said he will not allow a democratically-elected government to come to power unless there are major and deep-seated institutional reforms in place. However, he has not acted to institute any of the changes that would help Pakistan's government meet these rather vague requirements. As far as I am aware, he has only instituted minor revenue reforms. Minor revenue reform is not what Pakistan needs. The Pakistani economy has all but collapsed. The judiciary is operating under loyalty oaths. A small upper class has a stranglehold on land and water, and the military and intelligence services have carte blanche to fly in the face of international law. Pakistan needs major overhauls of its institutions, not minor tax reforms. Pakistan spends 50 percent of its budget on debt service and 40 percent of its budget on the military. That ratio is stunning. It is particularly alarming when we consider that Pakistan now has nuclear weapons. Economic growth is less than 2 percent, and foreign investment is almost nonexistent. If the President or the general has not demonstrated his desire to invoke real reforms, it is hard for me to understand why we should go there. If he did, he would tax, for the first time ever, the agricultural sector. This sector contributes 25 percent of the Pakistani GDP, and employs 60 percent of the population, but the general is unwilling to take any steps that would anger the feudal landlords who run Pakistan. The Constitution and the rule of law have been suspended in Pakistan. The judiciary is in turmoil. Defense attorneys are being gunned down, and judges are being forced to acquiesce to oaths of personal fealty to the strongman general. The total lack of justice as evidenced by the fate of Nawaz Sharif, the man who was elected by the people of Pakistan and overthrown by Musharraf. In a recent interview by the Washington Post and Newsweek, Musharraf was asked why Sharif was on trial for attempted murder and hijacking, not just corruption. Musharraf answered, ``Because he did do that.'' His guilt was not decided in a court of law, it was an edict from a military leader. Nawaz Sharif will be found guilty and executed in accordance with the general's law. The degradation of the rule of law in Pakistan defies the sensibilities of the world, and contradicts the definition of a modern Nation State. If Pakistan is to take its rightful place in the community of nations, Pakistan must reestablish the judicial process. With the rule of law suspended, Pakistan's military and intelligence service, the ISI, has conducted illegal operations that are inciting violence and tension in South Asia. Musharraf said in the interview that he has total control over the intelligence service, and that they are not involved in terrorist activities. This contradicts what is commonly reported in the world media and Musharraf's previous statements about the ISI activities in Kashmir. I ask Members again, how can Pakistan take its place in the world community if it constantly allows its services to defy international law by conducting military and terrorist activities? That is why I am concerned about the President's visit. Many experts have said that the Pakistani general hopes to use Mr. Clinton's trip to persuade the United States of what Musharraf calls ``the righteousness of Pakistan's position on Kashmir.'' I call upon President Clinton to refrain from any involvement in the Kashmir dispute until both sides ask for our help. Instead, Mr. Clinton should put aside the gentle language of diplomacy and use this opportunity to demand that Pakistan move without pause towards full and fair elections. Pakistan is a sick state. Democratic elections will not cure what ails Pakistan. However, the healing process cannot begin without them.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, Yogi Berra says, it is deja vu all over again, and here we are again. It is another month. We saw the February tax bill, and now we have the March tax bill. This one cuts $120 billion out of the tax base with no budget, no concern for Medicare, no concern for social security. We are simply giving it away again. This one has an interesting twist to it, because it says, you small business guys, we are going to do something for you. We are going to raise the minimum wage for your workers, and that is going to be a cost to you. Now we have to give something to the small business people. But let me tell the Members, it is premised on the idea that small business people must be stupid, that they cannot read tax law, because this bill is not designed for small business people. Two-thirds of the $120 billion in tax breaks goes for the estate tax. That affects the 2 percent richest people at the top of the society. That is why this graph is so illustrative. The Republican tax bill is all loaded on the end of the rich people. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has put a bill forward that says, yes, we believe there ought to be some estate tax changes, but like this blue line, it ought to start way back with small people's estates and sort of be equal all the way. Not the Republicans, give it all to the rich. That is why we have a spike down here in accounts of $25 million and more. That is not for small business people. We talk about what we are going to do for pension changes. Eighty- seven percent of the pension changes go to the 5 percent of the people at the top. It is, again, a bill skewed to the people at the top. That is in the face of not doing anything about Medicare, not doing anything about social security. Let us just shovel the money out the door. Now, between the February bill and this bill, we have served up to the American people the belief that they are going to get $375 billion in taxes, a reduction. Now wait for the April bill and the May bill and the June bill. They will be right back where they were last year with a tax cut of over $792 billion, which the President vetoed. If Members think that the President is not paying attention, and that if they send it to him one piece at a time he will not understand what they are doing, they are really kind of underestimating the intellect of the President. He can add. He can add the February bill to the March bill to the April bill to the May bill, and he is going to veto them all. This is a poison pill for a raise in the minimum wage. That is all it is designed to do.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I could not believe it, but that is what happened. I saw it with my own eyes. It was my amendment. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka) and I put the bill in last year.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I imagine my colleagues sitting in their offices listening to this, and perhaps the world watching it on C-SPAN, by now, their eyes have got to be glazed over about what is really happening here. The real issue of the Democratic alternative is this: we say that, first, one deals with protecting Social Security, and then one deals with protecting Medicare, and then one deals with paying down the debt of this country. When that is done, when one has a budget that does these things, the next thing one does is look at a tax bill that relieves the burden of the American taxpayer. Now, my colleagues have seen here that we on the Democratic side are giving $95 billion worth of tax relief under the so-called marriage tax penalty. The chart put up on the other side with a big zero is simply not the truth. But the big issue here is whether we are going to run and give tax relief before we deal with Social Security and Medicare and paying down the debt. Now, 60 percent of married couples are subject to this tax. Some of them are getting a benefit already because of the way the structure is. My colleagues heard $100 billion of what they are spending out of $190 billion tax bill is for people who already are getting a benefit. No sense in that. We take the $95 billion and direct it to the people at the bottom who need it, those people like this couple here whose income has gone up $11,000 since we were in the committee. They make $60,000. Most of ours is directed to people below that number. We increase the earned income tax credit for the working poor. We passed a bill here pushing people out on to work. We do not want them on welfare. We all agree it is better to work than be on welfare. But the earned income tax credit is the way we try and help them when they are out there making $25,000, $30,000 and a couple of kids. Now, the other thing that is interesting about this Republican bill is those of you who get that valentine in the mail, ``You have received your marriage tax benefit from us, the Republican Party,'' go in your living room immediately and count your children. If you have more than two children, you are not getting it. You are not getting it. So just be real careful about spending this benefit you think you are going to get because it is fraudulent. It sounds like it is for everybody, and in fact it is not for everybody. But what is so awful about it is that my colleagues would do this and not take care of their own parents, our own parents and our own Social Security first and then deal with taxes. Vote for the Democratic alternative.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I guess better late than never. But it ought to be in the context of what kind of budget we are putting together. What are they doing with Social Security? What are they doing with Medicare? Why do they have to send valentines before they get down to the serious work here? The American people expect us to be serious about protecting Medicare and about protecting Social Security and talking about a prescription drug program. Now, my colleagues and I, we have the FEHBP; and if we have to get the prescription filled, it costs $12, and we get a 90-day supply. My mother and a lot of other 90-year-olds in this country have to go out and pay retail. What my colleagues want to do is send this valentine totally unrelated to what is going on in the budget.

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

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I want to support and will support the Democratic substitute which provides an honest marriage tax penalty relief for 53,000 of my people, but it also protects the 81,000 who get Medicare and Social Security in my district. Rather than do that out here, we have come to Alice in Wonderland. I saw the Speaker of the House come out here and tear up the budget process. He said, let us pass a tax package before we even have a hearing on the Committee on the Budget, on which I sit. What is even more curious is that the marriage tax penalty was in the Contract on America. For 5 years, the other side has not dealt with it, and suddenly it comes here. In 1997, in the Committee on Ways and Means, I offered the amendment which is the Democratic substitute. All the Democrats voted for it and all the Republicans voted against, because they were going to give a tax break to the businesses. Now we come out here, and we want to do this at top speed. It has to be done today in the House so it can be done in the Senate on, what, Tuesday, Wednesday, so that the ad campaign, including the Valentines that are going to be sent to all the married people in this country, will get there with it, with a ``we sent it to them.'' Now I can see a PR campaign when I see it. It has nothing to do with legislation, the President is right to veto it, until we have a budget and we decide what we are going to do with Social Security and what we are going to do with Medicare. To be making tax cuts without having one single discussion in here about what we are going to do to protect Social Security or protect Medicare or pay down the debt, they come out here the first thing and say let us send a valentine to everybody because it is an election year.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor my constituent, Hazel Wolf. Having achieved her goal to have a foot in three centuries, Hazel passed away on January 19, 2000 at the young age of 101. Tomorrow I hope to join hundreds of her friends gathering in my district to celebrate her life of tenacious dedication to the environment and human rights. Hazel was born in Victoria, British Columbia on March 10, 1898. She immigrated to the United States in 1923 as a single mother seeking work to support her young daughter. After a successful career as a legal secretary, Hazel officially became a citizen in 1976. Through all her years Hazel championed issues of importance for women, working people, human rights, and the environment. A true citizen of the world, her efforts were recognized with awards by numerous international, national, state, and local organizations. Her work continues in the hearts of all who were privileged to share her goals and projects. Mr. Speaker, please join me in tribute to Hazel for demonstrating to us the value of a life of simplicity adorned with the riches of gracious service to humanity and nature. We will miss her wit and wisdom, and we will cherish her memory by pursuing her lessons of love and understanding for all living creatures.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there will not be half a dozen votes against this pathetic piece of legislation. I sat on the Medicare Commission for a year and in the committee for 10 months, and we never had a proposal for a bipartisan overhaul, which everybody knows we should do. We did not even consider the President's proposal to extend from 65 down to 55, at no cost to the government, health insurance for people in the workforce. Now, if one wants to have access, that is the best way to get it. We had nothing in here to talk about whether or not we were going to extend the life of Medicare. The President offered 15 percent of the surplus and said let us extend the life. We never had a discussion about that in the committee. Finally, and worst of all, there is not one single thing done for senior citizens on their prescription drugs. Now, everybody sitting on this floor is going to go home to their district and they are going to explain to their constituents why it is they have a drug benefit. We all have one through our health plan, that if we have a prescription we pay $12. I pay $12. Everybody pays $12 in this body. But my mother and my aunts and my uncles and all my constituents and the constituents of all of us pay retail. Now that is a disgrace. This piece of legislation is worthless, but we have no choice. They gave us no choice.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today we see the full budget from the Republicans. We can see the USS Mississippi, that the Navy does not want, sailing into the harbor, and we say we want to cut government waste. The Navy does not want that ship. What we really have, and the gentleman from Michigan raised it, are gimmicks in this budget that are going to hurt every single American. This does nothing for Medicare, it does nothing for Social Security. What it says to the National Institutes of Health is, we are going to give you more, but we are not going to give you one single penny of that money until next year on the 28th of September. Now, for the average American, imagine if your boss said I am going to give you a big increase in your pay, but you do not get any of it until next year on the 28th of September. How would you live while you waited for that to happen? Anybody who is worried about a member of their family who has diabetes, HIV, cancer, Alzheimer's disease, if you are waiting for the National Institutes of Health to come up with a way to help those people, these guys have said, wait for a year. Hold your breath. This is a bad bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I think that we are passing the ultimate in Murphy's law today. Because a few weeks ago we got out here and talked about we wanted to have the doctor-patient relationship; and now we, the great medical board of medicine in the sky, are going to decide what goes on between patients and doctors. What happened in Oregon is really an attempt to deal with a very thorny public issue, and they tried to make explicit and say that that which all physicians know goes on ought to be done within the scope of the law so that there is no question about it. A patient has to ask, two physicians have to examine for competency. A patient can withdraw. The doctor has to register that he or she is going to administer medication for this purpose. We are not just talking about narcotics here. We are talking about a whole range of psychotropic drugs, everything covered by the DEA. And so now you are going to hand to the bureaucrats, and if I have heard one bureaucrat reviled on this floor, I have heard a thousand of them, so they are going to hand this to the Department of Justice and somebody in the Department of Justice is going to write the rules and regulations for this. Now, that is where Murphy's law comes, because somebody over there is going to sit and say, well, if a doctor gives this number of pills within this period of time, that is assisting suicide and therefore we are going to swoop in and grab him. They will have to have some standard by which they grab them and take them to court and say you, doctor, were assisting in suicide. The doctor merely has to take the law out here and say, no, no, no, on page 5 it says here, the purpose of my care was to alleviate pain and other distressing symptoms and to enhance the quality of life, and they are wrong, right? But they are going to have to go through court to prove that that is what they were doing. They would have no defense. If they have 25 pills within 30 days, they will certainly wind up being dragged into court by somebody, maybe a family member, it may be somebody else saying, you were assisting my mother in suicide by giving her those pills. I am a psychiatrist. I have prescribed many, many, many times amounts of medication that people can use to kill themselves, if they took them all at once. You could say, well, doctor, what you have to do is let the patient have five pills, that is all they get. When they need five more, come in and get five more. I testified in a malpractice suit on which a physician had prescribed 100 Nembutal to somebody which were used for suicide. You are opening a box that you know nothing about, because it occurs in a room between a patient and a physician. And if you think you are smart enough to write a law that will control that situation, you simply do not know what physicians face and what patients face when they are faced with an overwhelming illness. For us to say that we know what should go on in the United States with all 600,000 physicians and the 240 million patients in this country is absolute nonsense. The locals have worked on an issue here. I think they ought to be allowed to do that because they made it very explicit and made the doctors honest. You are going to make doctors dishonest with this law.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I come out here today, I have never seen such a weighty piece of legislation in my entire 29 years in Government. In the State legislature, they do not even come up with things as stupid as this. But here we are. And there is a pattern. There is a pattern. One week ago, the leadership sent a bunch of freshmen out here with a silly bill with the President's tax increases in it and nothing that it was going to be spent on; and, lo and behold, we slapped it down. And then they went down that afternoon to the White House, having insulted the President with that, and said, see, the House does not want to raise taxes. So today they are going down again to balance the budget this afternoon, and we come out and we find this kind of nonsense in front of us. Now, I do not know who the brain trust is over there, but I know that the one that was put in House Concurrent Resolution 197 had a provision in it that had to do with the tobacco tax. And they were against that tobacco tax, by God. Boy, they were really against it. Now in the one that is before us now, House Resolution 208, they have taken it out. And I think, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), what they are doing is setting the stage to raise the tobacco tax. Because if they were against it yesterday when they filed it, what has changed? Why have they come up here without it? I think they are going to use it. Yes, sir, they are getting ready to fix this budget. Does that make sense to my colleagues? One of the fascinating things about this, you have always got to be careful when you put numbers in here. In paragraph 2, it says, ``Whereas Federal taxes are at their highest peacetime level in history, taking 20.5 percent of the gross domestic product.'' Do my colleagues know what the percentage was when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives? 18.6. Under their tutelage, under their great management, under all this great stuff they have done, including that tax break last year, people are now paying almost 2 percent more taxes than they paid when they started. Now, what they have done, of course, is they have shifted all the income to the people on the top and they are paying more taxes. So their proposals actually worked. They have shifted all the money in the country up, under their tax bills, and we are paying more taxes in this country because of Republican policies. It is a wonderful thing to sit here and contemplate what the thinking must have been in the room. They said, well, we do not want to raise taxes to pay for programs. What other reason would there be to raise taxes? I mean, why else would a Congress come out here and raise taxes? Because they did not have anything else to do? No, that would not be it. Well, maybe, I know what it was. The only other reason would be to punish the rich, right, people who have got money. That is the only reason they would raise taxes, to take it away from them. Now, this is the kind of thinking that has led us to this impasse. They came out here earlier in the session and had a $792 billion tax break. Thank God that died, because they cannot balance the budget. They were going to give away $729 billion, and they cannot balance the budget. They cannot get us out of here. We are here on our second continuing resolution, and by God I will bet my colleagues we will have a third continuing resolution because they cannot figure out how to bring this thing to a close. Yet 3 or 4 months ago, they were willing to give away $800 billion. It makes no sense. It makes about as much sense, I guess, as this one.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).