Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman as to how many speakers remain.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, I think there is an old principle in public relations that if one is going to tell a lie, keep telling it. Just keep saying it, keep saying it, never admit. And certainly this business that we have not used any Social Security money is simply that. Now, unless we do not believe CBO. I mean the majority hired the director of CBO, and in a letter on the 14th said that they have spent $14 billion of Social Security money. Now, I do not know how one can get up here and talk about this wonderful lockbox we put out here. We told our colleagues it had no bottom in it, that they were going to let the money fall through and into the budget and that is exactly what they did. But they still continue to stand up here every, every speaker has said, and we have done all of this without touching the Social Security money. That is absolutely nonsense. The fact is that this is a cynical way of obscuring what the problem is. The President was honest when he stood up there. He put a budget up here, he paid for it, and the principle around here used to be that the President proposes and the Congress disposes. Now, the President came up and made a proposal, but my Republican colleagues cannot get themselves together to dispose. My colleagues cannot get themselves together to put a whole package together that makes sense. So, they go around here grabbing light bulbs: They see one is out up there, they grab that, they run and put it over there; they create a thirteenth month; you do all kinds of gimmicks. I was in the State legislature for 15 years, and I have seen all of these gimmicks. None of them are new. They have all been used in State houses all over this country. My colleagues are using gimmicks to balance this budget, they say, and they use the money from Social Security besides. And then, when they are 3 weeks late, they run out here with this nonsense.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not hold the freshmen Members who are sponsors of this legislation responsible for this. This is clearly the brilliant thinking of the leadership of the side that thought, if we turn down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, everybody will think we are for America; and now they think if they can embarrass the President that somehow, when they go up to negotiate an hour or two from now, because they slapped him in the face, he will be a lot more amenable to a discussion. Now, there is an old saying where I come from that ``you get a lot more with honey than do you with vinegar.'' And from people who have turned down Medicare reform, October 14 in The Washington Post it says, ``House leadership shelves attempt to do Medicare reform,'' for people who are doing that and then to come out here and put a bill on the floor that says to the Democrats, why do they not vote for a hundred billion dollars and give it to us to spend, I do not know who is that dumb to come up with that idea, but they ought to get them out of the leadership. Because we are not going to vote for any taxes if we do not know what it is going to be spent for. As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) says, when the President brought the package out here, he said, here is what I think we should spend it on and here is where we get it from. But I thank them for the opportunity to vote ``no'' on taxes. We do not often get that chance. So I thank them for their help today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) who is the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the leader of the Democratic side. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). (Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I get up to acknowledge the man who broke the heart of a Chicago Cub fan over and over and over again. But, more importantly, was his stature and the way he carried himself in this country. I think he would really be happy today if, instead of all these speeches, the United States Senate had not turned down an African American judge that they brought out and humiliated on the floor of the Senate. That would mean we had moved somewhere. Mr. Robinson, Mr. Aaron showed us what it ought to be, but we still have a long way to go. We need people like Henry Aaron to show this country that we have to respect all the people in this society, even if they beat the Chicago Cubs over and over and over again.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for this country. Santayana said, ``Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'' Yesterday, we saw what was, in my view, a very important event. The United States Senate said, we do not care who tests or how much testing there is done in the world. It is the same group that sanctimoniously came out here and said, we will put sanctions on anybody who blows off a bomb. So when India and Pakistan got into that last year, we said, oh, this is awful, this is terrible. But when the time comes to say, let us stop it, they say no. Now, it is a sad day, in my view, when the United States steps back from leadership in the world. The last time we voted down a treaty was the Treaty of Versailles. We did not join the League of Nations. And what happened? We had the Second World War. When we in this country refuse to take our leadership role and say, we will not test and no one else should test, we abrogate our leadership in the world. It is a very bad day for America.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I first want to say that last year, we passed a bill out of this House that was a terrible bill, absolutely terrible bill, and it rightly died over in the Senate. They never did a thing. But the persistence of two Members of this House, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) needs to be acknowledged. They knew what was wrong with that bill, and they came back and persisted and put a bill on the floor which makes great sense to anybody involved in the medical profession. That is why hundreds of organizations, of physicians and other health care providers are deeply supportive of this bill. It is because it meets the needs of people who deal on a day-to-day basis in this field. There are two issues here that I think are really central. We can get into exigencies and all these fancy words, but there are two things that really this bill is about. One is about the question of ERISA. If we allow that Federal law to protect from this bill a whole series of 100 million people in this country, we will not have done a good job. The reason we need to preempt ERISA is that we have to give everybody, whether they are under a State plan, in Maryland or Washington State or Nevada or working for a major corporation shielded by ERISA, they all ought to have the same protection. There should be no difference. And that, in my view, is what the number of all these other bills are about, is to keep that ERISA protection some way or other that they will be treated differently. Now, the second issue, and I think this one is more personal. Having recently been a patient and having had open heart surgery, I have been in a hospital and I had my chest opened and they did all this stuff, and within 5 days the doctor came in and patted me on the back and said, ``Jim, you can go home.'' Now, the essence of why we are here on this patient protection act is that everybody, when they are vulnerable, as I felt then, wants to know that that decision was made by my doctor, who knows me and cares about me. I do not want some insurance company person saying, ``Well, let me see. Open heart surgery: 5 days. Home you go.'' I want it to be my doctor that looks at me and listens to my chest and makes the decision. Now, the gentleman from California says, oh, this is no problem, doctors making the decisions, blah, blah, blah. Is that the reason we had to come in here and pass a bill prohibiting drive-by baby deliveries, as we did 2 years ago? And the next year we came in and we stuck an amendment into a military appropriations bill or something or other, an authorization, saying that we were not going to have drive-by mastectomies. A woman comes to the hospital in the morning; and in the afternoon, she goes home. Who decided that? Did the doctor decide it? No. Insurance companies were throwing people out in the afternoon. And we said, wait a minute, the doctor ought to have something to say about that. And this whole issue is about whether or not we give the assurance to all the American public that when they are in a vulnerable state after surgery, after cancer treatment, after whatever, that they have the assurance that it is their provider that made the decision about what happened to them. They do not want to sue. I did not want to sue. I simply wanted the assurance that my doctor made the decision.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on the way in here I met a reporter from one of the major newspapers that said what is going on up on the floor? Why are they adding that access stuff to the perfectly good bill that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) put together? I said, well, they are just trying to avoid for one more time addressing the issue of the uninsured in this country. This bill will do absolutely nothing. Less than 1 percent are affected at all. If my colleagues were serious about the tax break, they would make it a refundable tax break. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and I put in a bill that said give a 30 percent refundable tax break, but they did not do that because they did not want to help the people on the bottom. In the census data they talk about, they talk about people who make less than $25,000 in this country. One out of four is uninsured, and this bill does nothing for those people. So they simply are not serious about access. Now I believe that the reason this is out here is because the polling must be real bad. They took all that credit for beating the President who wanted to give affordable health care that could never be taken away. They said we killed it; we are going to let the private sector take care of it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the private sector has now put them in the position where it is not 35 million who do not have insurance; it is 44 million who do not have insurance. That is why we have Medicare, my colleagues. Forty-nine percent of seniors had health insurance in 1963. Today 99 percent of the people have it. They got it because we had a government program run through the private sector, private doctors, private hospitals, and what this bill will do; and I kind of hope it passes because I know it will fail because what they are doing is cutting up the insurance pool, and it is ultimately going to fail, and we are going to have more people uninsured. The gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) talks about it helping her State. There is no individual insurance available in the State of Washington. So if someone tries to buy it, they cannot buy it. We can have all the tax deductions in the world, and we will not get a single dime. Vote no on this.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I object to this whole process, first of all on the basis of the public process by which we arrive at it. This is a parliament. This is no longer a Congress. It is a parliament where one party rams things through without having hearings on the implications of what they are passing. If they have got the votes, they get it. The only thing missing from this being a parliament is that we do not have a vote of confidence or they would be gone. Because they cannot bring a budget out here and pass it and get out of here, so they bring out these wedge issues. Now, I am a physician, and it is very clear to me from reading this that they did not think about what the implications of this are. What about a spontaneous abortion? All the time, women get pregnant; and then for reasons we do not understand, their body rejects this child. Oh, now, if somebody has pushed them on that day when that happens, this puts them in jail for the rest of their life. How is one going to prove that it was caused by the action? The second issue is the whole question of intent. For my colleagues to just brush over this business of intent, acts of violence against women are not very well thought through in about 99.9 percent of the cases. They occur when people are angry. They occur when people are drunk. They occur in all kinds of circumstances. For my colleagues not to deal with that issue simply means they want to establish a basis to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, I worked in New York before we had Roe v. Wade in the Buffalo General Hospital, and I stood by the bedside of people who died getting illegal abortions. What my colleagues want is a wedge to go back in the Federal court. They will not leave the State legislatures to decide this issue. They want to put it up in the Federal courts where the Senate, the other body, does not even provide enough judges so they can deal with these cases. My colleagues want to make it up here because they want to be able to go to the Supreme Court for an overturning of Roe v. Wade. My view is that it is nothing, as the New York Times says, but a direct assault on Roe v. Wade. My colleagues can clothe it and act like anybody who is against it is against any protection for women who have had violence committed against them. That is totally untrue. If my colleagues are serious, put the money for the Violence Against Women Act in and pass it.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the question was asked by the last speaker what harm does this do? Well, this harm that is being done here is throwing sand into people's eyes again. Now, I know the Republicans are getting to the end of the fiscal year. They all know that so they must be getting ready to do something real bad because they come dragging this old horse out here again, and said we are going to pass a lockbox. I do not know if this is the fourth time or the fifth time we have seen the lockbox on the floor, but the gentleman from California ought to get the equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor for being picked to drag this mother out here. We have already spent all the non-Social Security budget surplus. We received a letter from the CBO, appointed by the Republicans so it has to be right, there cannot be any question about it, and we received estimates that are way understated, again from a letter from the CBO to us. Now what I watched a couple of weeks ago was something that I have not seen since I have been in the State legislature. I thought I was back in a State legislative body when I saw people coming out here and saying, well, we are going to snatch this money from next year and move it over into this money, that is like taking one of those lights up there and moving it over there and thinking that we have saved the light in this place. Light bulb snatching is going on at this point, and that has to be what is happening here because I can see these bills just being lined up to run at us for the next 3 days and everybody is going to say, but we are protecting Social Security, we have this lockbox right here. There is no bottom in that box.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, there are some times when we pick up the paper and we cannot believe what we are reading. I am looking at the Washington Post. The article is called: GOP Seeks to Ease Crunch With a 13-month Fiscal Year. I came over to this floor because I want to put my name on record right here and now against this. I will tell the Members why. This is deja vu, for me. I was in the Washington State legislature in 1972 when they did what we call the light bulb snatch. We took the first month of the next year and pulled it into this year and said, now we have 13 months of money to spend in 12 months. That is exactly what some brilliant theorist over in the other body has conceived of as a way of avoiding being honest about this budget. What happened in the State of Washington was that ultimately we lost our bond rating, and when I became chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means in 1983, I had to raise taxes to pay off this 13-month so we could get our bond rating back. When I read that they are going to do it in the United States Senate, that Republicans, the party of fiscal responsibility, those people who are really close with our money, they want to give it all back to us, are now going to create a fictitious, that is the word they use, ``By creating this fictitious 13th month, the lawmakers would be able to spend $12 to $16 billion more.'' This is Alice in wonder land run by the Republican party. When the Committee on Ways and Means in the year 2001 is in Democratic hand and I am sitting there, I do not want to have to clean up a mess created by people who will not be honest about the budget process. I just was in my district, like the gentleman from Washington before me. I went to a liberal church talking about violence, and we talked about a variety of things in a forum. I asked them, how many of you want a tax break? Not a single person raised their hand, out of 150 people. They began to talk about it, and what 90 percent of them wanted to do was to pay down the debt. But no, what we see in the Senate is we do not want to be honest about doing what the President said, pay what we need in social security first, then strengthen Medicare, and then deal with whatever else we have to deal with. I personally think the American people are ready to pay down the debt. They all understand that when they get additional money and their credit card is at $5,000, they do not go out and buy more, they pay down that credit card debt. We have an enormous debt, and yet what we are doing here is like the county fair. There is a guy there with three walnut shells and a pea, under it and we move it around real fast and you are supposed to guess where the pea is. What this is is a shell game so that the American people will never understand what is happening here, except for the truth is right here, by creating this fictitious 13th month. The people who thought it up ought to be ashamed of themselves. I do not know how they can go around and say that they are fiscally conservative and throw rocks at people like me who they call liberals. I paid one of these off. I did what I had to do to be fiscally responsible. It makes me angry to see people starting down this road and if they lose control in here or lose control in the Senate, then suddenly it will be the Democrats' problem, we will have to fix it. And I object to that, and I object very strongly. I think every Member ought to read this article and ask themselves do they want to be put in that kind of a box. Because at some point they have to pay it off. That debt is out there, and it has got to be paid; and by increasing it by 12 to $16 billion, we do not fix anything; we just make it worse. So I urge everyone, Mr. Speaker, to read that article. And I will put this article in the Record so that we can have it there and everybody can see it and remember when we decided to start down this stupid path. There is no excuse for this. There can be an honest budget discussion in here, but it is going to require that the majority party talk to the minority party, have conferences, talk about what the issues are. It can be done, but it is going to have to take both sides working together. And if it does not happen that way and we start down this path, they are on their own. I am against it from the very first day I see it in the paper. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article to which I referred. [From the Washington Post, Sept. 14, 1999] GOP Considers 13-Month Fiscal Year (By Eric Pianin) As they struggle to live within tough restrictions on how much they may spend, Senate Republicans have found another creative way to shoehorn popular domestic programs into next year's budget: declaring the coming fiscal year 13 months long instead of the usual 12. By creating this fictitious 13th month, lawmakers would be able to spend $12 billion to $16 billion more for labor, health, education and social programs than they otherwise would be permitted under budget rules. Because the additional funds would not be technically released until immediately after the fiscal year ends, they would not count against the overall limits on federal spending next year. ``We all know we engage in a lot of smoke and mirrors,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the programs. ``But we have to fund education, NIH, worker safety and other programs. It's a question of how we do it.'' The proposal--which has been embraced by Senate leaders-- highlights how difficult it is for congressional Republicans to cut spending and live within tight budgets without resorting to what many experts describe as fiscal gimmickry. With the government awash in surpluses, there is certainly the money to pay for extra programs next year. But to do so would require breaking existing spending limits and, more than likely, dipping into extra money generated by the popular Social Security program--something both parties have pledged not to touch. As a result, GOP lawmakers have struggled to find ways of spending money without technically breaking those limits. For instance, lawmakers already have classified spending on farms and the 2000 census as ``emergency'' spending not subject to existing rules. All told, lawmakers already have exempted nearly $28 billion in proposed spending next year from the existing budget limits. The 13th-month gambit promoted by Specter has been used before on a smaller scale, but fiscal experts expressed concern that Congress would simply be putting off its day of reckoning by employing it on so large a scale. ``It avoids the problem, it doesn't solve the problem,'' said Robert Reischauer, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. ``We will have spending caps in 2001 and 2002 as well, so all you've done is postponed and magnified the problem.'' ``They're degrading themselves and degrading the budget process by resorting to these budget gimmicks,'' added Robert L. Bixby, policy director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group. While it is far from clear whether House Republicans or the White House will go along with the plan, the Senate's so- called ``advance funding'' proposal underscores lawmakers' desperation in trying to pass the largest and traditionally most contentious spending bill without breaking the budget deal that President Clinton and Congress agreed to in 1997. Spending in the Labor-Health-Education bill includes funding for health and human services programs, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), job training, Head Start for disadvantaged youth and Pell grants for college students. Last year Congress could not come up with a bill that was acceptable to the administration until the last minute, when GOP leaders and the president negotiated a giant package that included nearly $20 billion of additional spending for domestic programs. GOP leaders felt burned by the arrangement and have vowed to avoid such a deal this year. Not counting mandatory entitlement programs, spending for Labor-Health-Education programs totals roughly $92 billion this fiscal year. For next year, House leaders have essentially used the Labor-HHS bill as a piggy bank to finance other spending bills and have set aside only $73 billion for the bill itself, a cut of roughly $19 billion. Senate leaders have set aside a little more, $80.4 billion, for those programs. If such reductions were sustained, House Democrats have warned that across-the-board spending cuts of as much as 32 percent would be required on education programs, Head Start, NIH grants, Job Corps, AIDS research and scores of other programs. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that the bill will have to be beefed up substantially--probably to this year's levels--to win passage and the president's signature. ``The bill as it is set up right now falls impossibly short of funding levels that are necessary to ensure even basic services in education, health and labor,'' said Linda Ricci, a spokeswoman for the Office of Management and Budget. In the House, Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) is leading an effort to try to identify $16 billion or so of offsetting reductions in mandatory programs and other areas to finance the additional Labor-Health-Education programs, but so far he has reported little progress. Rep. John Edward Porter (R-Ill.), Specter's counterpart on the House Appropriations Committee, has grown frustrated with the process and contends that Congress and the administration must face the reality that the 1997 budget agreement is no longer practical. ``I still believe in the end the caps are going to have to be raised, and the question is whether you do it honestly or whether you put into place all kinds of gimmicks, including emergencies and forward funding and the like,'' Porter said. But Specter, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and other Senate leaders see virtue in a budgetary maneuver that would ensure adequate funding for education and other programs next year and that meets the letter--if not the spirit--of the budget law. Because the non-Social Security budget surplus is supposed to be even larger in the following year, such a move could also make it easier to finance ongoing government programs without dipping into Social Security reserves. ``If the money can be pushed off to expenditures in 2001, that would give us the latitude of using that year's surplus without breaking the caps,'' Specter said.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote due to my recovery from heart surgery on August 5, 1999. August 5, 1999: I would have voted in favor of the Hall amendment to H.R. 2670 (rollcall No. 380). I would have voted against the Bass amendment to H.R. 2670 (rollcall No. 381). I would have voted in favor of the G. Miller amendment to H.R. 2760 (rollcall No. 382). I would have voted against the Hayworth amendment to H.R. 2760 (rollcall No. 383). I would have voted in favor of the Tauzin amendment to H.R. 2760 (rollcall No. 384). I would have voted against the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2670 (rollcall No. 385). I would have voted in favor of the motion to recommit H.R. 2670 with instructions (rollcall No. 386). I would have voted against passage of H.R. 2670 (rollcall No. 387). I would have voted against ordering the previous question for consideration of H.R. 2684 (rollcall No. 388). I would have voted in favor of agreeing to the Conference Report on Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (rollcall No. 389).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the issue regarding the Federal estate tax, and the role it should play in our Federal tax structure, is one of the most important that Congress will face when it considers tax legislation this fall. Those who have attached the estate tax as unfair to small business and as being very expensive to administer, have, to a very great extent, distorted the record. The important characteristic to recall about the estate tax is that it impacts less than 3 percent of U.S. taxpayers and to repeal this tax, as many have urged, would be tantamount to granting a tax cut to those in that economic strata. I would hope that my colleagues would see such a result as not justifiable considering our more important national priorities. Professor Meade Emory of the University of Washington in Seattle has been active and articulate in meeting the criticisms of the estate tax and in pointing out that it is an equitable source of revenue which has a proper place in our Nation's necessary tax structure. Mr. Speaker, I submit his op-ed piece, which appeared in the Seattle Times on July 28, 1999, to be inserted and made a part of the Record. [From the Seattle Times, July 28, 1999] Correcting the Record on the Estate Tax (By Meade Emory) Pause to reflect as to what the reaction would be if the wealthiest 3 percent of the taxpayers clamored that they were desperately in need of a tax cut. Quite naturally, one would not expect this privileged group to get very far, but their narrow cause has been furthered by a slick strategy of mobilizing a vast cross- section of the American public which is not even subject to the tax the tax-cutters seek to eliminate. How can this be done, you ask? By instilling fear, by sleight-of-hand and by concealing the real facts, those seeking the cut have been able to enlist a huge portion of the taxpaying public in their selfish objective. This, dear friends, is the scenario that has brought us to where we are in the vigorous debate over the future of the federal estate tax. By relabeling the estate tax the ``death tax'' (thereby maximizing all that term conjures up) and sweeping under the rug the crucial fact that the tax is only imposed on a small number of the wealthiest Americans (slightly over 1 percent of those who die each year), and then only to the extent the deceased person's assets exceed $1 million ($2 million for a married couple), a far larger-than-deserved army of supporters has been duped into lining up for the elimination of a tax that doesn't even affect them. In doing this, those opposing the estate tax have trotted out numerous fallacies to stir many to emotional highs. This misinformation must be scrutinized. The estate tax can go since it raises such a small amount of revenue. This may be true if approaching 2 percent of total federal tax revenue is small. The fact is, though, just this month, due to the huge jump in wealth in this country, Treasury estimators had to increase the estate tax annual revenue estimate for next year from $27 billion to $31.4 billion. This puts the spot-light on the ever-widening and societally damaging economic gap between rich and poor, and the tax's larger share of revenue is going to make it politically and fiscally harder to obtain outright repeal. Wealth has already been taxed. Since most of the wealth subject to the estate tax represents appreciation in value of assets like stock, securities, real estate and collectibles, which has not been, nor will it ever be, subject to income tax, this claim simply is not so. Because property owned by a decedent receives a new tax basis for income-tax purposes, the estate tax represents the last and only chance to tax that otherwise untaxed gain. Why should gain, generated by the huge stock market and real-estate boom and enjoyed by the wealthiest among us, escape any kind of taxation whatsoever? Rates are unreasonably high. True, the top statutory estate-tax rate is 55 percent (reached on property in the estate in excess of $3 million), but through sharp planning (primarily by using illusory minority and fractional interest discounts) the effective rate paid by the most well-to-do can be cut to less than half that. However, as income-tax rates are relatively flat (compared to what they were), more than one-third of the tax system's progressivity is attributable to the estate tax. Since those subject to the estate tax are those who benefit the most from the stable society that helped them prosper, there should be a place for a tax that measures the amount of taxation by the taxpayer's ability to pay and the estate tax, impacting only the very wealthiest, is designed to do that. Cost of administration. The foes of the estate tax fallaciously trumpet that the cost to administer the estate tax exceeds the revenue it raises. A broad reading of the term ``administration costs,'' would seem to include (1) IRS administration costs, (2) taxpayer planning costs, and (3) taxpayer compliance costs. At most, only 2 percent of the total IRS budget of about $8 billion, or about $150 million, is spent by it on all aspects of the estate tax. Regarding planning for the tax, using what taxpayers actually pay to plan estates (e.g., from $2,500 for estates less than $2 million to $50,000 for estates over $40 million) the total of taxpayer planning costs, even assuming they may go through the process twice due to changes in the law, is less than $1 billion. As to compliance, much of estate administration (e.g., listing of assets, accomplishing their transfer to heirs, etc.) would still be done even in an estate-tax- free world. Even if a generous number is used per estate in this regard, the total cost of all administration (public and private) does not exceed 7 percent of the $30 billion revenue brought in by the estate tax. Assets have to be sold to pay the tax. A great deal of the rhetoric on this issue revolves around the lack of liquidity to pay the estate tax and the related threat that businesses may have to be sold to pay the tax. Certainly, in large estates, sales will be necessary to pay the estate tax (note, at no income tax cost!). Most often, however, the assets sold are non-business financial assets (e.g., widely held stock or liquid real estate). In reality, the major need for liquidity arises not because the estate holds business property but, rather, because of the need to compensate, with a fair share, those heirs not wishing to stay in the business. Further, the business in the estate is frequently sold simply because the heirs, having developed their own careers, have no desire to slave in their parents' vineyard. Most estate planners say they never see a forced sale of a business to pay the estate tax. However, since this point is really the only legitimate point opponents to the tax have raised, current scrutiny of the tax should include possible changes in the law designed to eliminate ``fire-sale'' business dispositions compelled to pay the IRS. Obviously, few have a deep yearning to pay taxes. Equally obvious, all parts of our tax system can be improved. We cannot deny, however, Justice Holmes' statement that ``Taxes are the price we pay for civilized society.'' The burden of those taxes should, though, be allocated rationally among our citizens, with those having the largest ability to pay assuming the greater responsibility. The estate-tax exemptions (presently on schedule to soon reach $1 million, $2 million for a married couple) are designed to exempt small and even mid-sized estates from the tax altogether, thus focusing the estate tax's impact on those with the most wealth available to pass to their heirs at death. Increasing those exemption levels to exempt even more middle-range estates may, indeed, be appropriate as more wealth is accumulated by the ``near'' rich. However, not only would gutting the entire estate tax knock a huge hole in federal revenues (hereby preventing the enactment of other tax cuts, such as fixing the marriage-tax penalty, designed for the far less affluent) it would be an unconscionable and unjustified boon to the very, very rich, something neither they nor this country needs.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote due to my recovery from heart surgery, August 2, 1999--August 6, 1999. On August 2, 1999: I would have voted in favor of the Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 2488 (Rollcall number 356). I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 747 (Rollcall number 357). I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1219 (Rollcall number 358). I would have voted against the Andrews amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall number 359). On August 3, 1999: I would have voted against the Paul amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall number 360). I would have voted against the Paul amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall number 361). I would have voted in favor of the H.R. 2606 (Rollcall number 362). I would have voted in favor of the engrossment and third reading of H.R. 2031 (Rollcall number 363). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2031 (Rollcall number 364). I would have voted against H.J. Res. 58 (Rollcall number 365). I would have voted against H.R. 987 (Rollcall number 366). On August 4, 1999: I would have voted in favor of approving the journal (Rollcall number 367). I would have voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1907 (Rollcall number 368). I would have voted against the H. Res. 273 (Rollcall number 369). I would have voted in favor of the Serrano amendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcall number 370). I would have voted in favor of the motion that the Committee Rise (Rollcall number 371). I would have voted in favor of the Scott amendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcall number 372). I would have voted in favor of the DeGette amendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcall number 373). I would have voted in favor of the Coburn amendment to H.R. 2670 (Rollcall number 374). I would have voted in favor of agreeing to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1664 (Rollcall number 375). On August 5, 1999: I would have voted in favor on approving the journal (Rollcall number 376). I would have voted against H. Res. 274 (Rollcall number 377). I would have voted in favor of the motion to recommit H.R. 2488 (Rollcall number 378). I would have voted against agreeing to the conference report to H.R. 2488 (Rollcall number 379)

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote due to my recovery from heart surgery, July 26, 1999-July 30, 1999. On July 26, 1999: I would have voted in favor of the Hoeffel amendment to H.R. 1074 (Rollcall No. 335). I would have voted against H.R. 1074 (Rollcall No. 336). On July 27, 1999: I would have voted in favor of approving the journal (Rollcall No. 337). I would have voted against H.J. Res. 57 (Rollcall No. 338). I would have voted against H.J. Res. 260 (Rollcall No. 339). I would have voted in favor of the Boehlert amendment to H.R. 2605 (Rollcall No. 340). I would have voted in favor of the Visclosky amendment to H.R. 2605 (Rollcall No. 341). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2605 (Rollcall No. 342). On July 29, 1999: I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2465 (Rollcall No. 343). I would have voted against the Tiahrt amendment to H.R. 2587 (Rollcall No. 344). I would have voted in favor of the Norton amendment to H.R. 2587 (Rollcall No. 345). I would have voted against the Largent amendment to H.R. 2587 (Rollcall No. 346). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2587 (Rollcall No. 347). I would have voted against H. Res. 263 (Rollcall No. 348). I would have voted against the Smith amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall No. 349). I would have voted in favor of the Greenwood amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall No. 350). I would have voted against the Campbell amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall No. 351). On July 30, 1999: I would have voted in favor of the Moakley amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall No. 352). I would have voted against the Pitts amendment to H.R. 2606 (Rollcall No. 353). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1501 (Rollcall No. 354). I would have voted in favor of S. 900 (Rollcall No. 355).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote due to my recovery from heart surgery, July 19, 1999--July 22, 1999. On July 16, 1999: I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1033 (Roll Call number 308). I would have voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 121 (Roll Call number 309). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 1477 (Roll Call number 310). On July 20, 1999: I would have voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 158 (Roll Call number 311). I would have voted in favor of the Campbell amendment to the Smith amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 312). I would have voted against the Sanford Amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 313). I would have voted against the Paul Amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 314). I would have voted against H. Res. 253 (Roll Call vote 315). I would have voted in favor of the Goodling amendment to H.R. 1995 (Roll Call number 316). I would have voted in favor of the Mink amendment to H.R. 1995 (Roll Call number 317). I would have voted in favor of the Crowley amendment to H.R. 1995 (Roll Call 318). I would have voted in favor of the Martinez amendment to H.R. 1995 (Roll Call 319). I would have voted against H.R. 1995 (Roll Call number 320). On July 21, 1999. I would have voted against the Gilman amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 321). I would have voted against the Sanders amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 322). I would have voted in favor of the Gibbons amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 323). I would have voted against the Goodling amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 324). I would have voted against the Stearns amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 325). I would have voted in favor of the Waters amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 326). I would have voted in favor of the Bilbray amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 327). I would have voted in favor of the Doggett amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 328). I would have voted in favor of the Engel amendment to H.R. 2415 (Roll Call number 329). On July 22, 1999: I would have voted against H. Res. 256 (Roll Call number 330). I would have voted in favor of the Rangel amendment to H.R. 2488 (Roll Call vote 331). I would have voted in favor of the motion to recommit H.R. 2488 (Roll Call vote 332). I would have voted against H.R. 2488 (Roll Call number 333). I would have voted against H.R. 2561 (Roll Call number 334).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I was absent and unable to vote due to my recovery from heart surgery, July 12, 1999-July 16, 1999. On July 12, 1999: I would have voted against approving the journal (rollcall No. 277). I would have voted present on H. Con. Res. 107 (rollcall No. 278). I would have voted present on H. Con. Res. 117 (rollcall No. 279). On July 13, 1999: I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2465 (rollcall No. 280). I would have voted in favor of H.R. 2465 (rollcall No. 280). I would have voted in favor of the McGovern amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 281). I would have voted in favor of the Sanders amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 282). I would have voted against the Coburn amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 283). On July 14, 1999: I would have voted in favor of the Sanders amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 284). I would have voted in favor of the Sanders amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 285). I would have voted in favor of the Slaughter amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 286). I would have voted against the Stearns amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 287). I would have voted in favor of the Inslee amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 288). I would have voted against the Weldon amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 289). I would have voted in favor of the Klink amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 290). I would have voted in favor of the Farr amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 291). I would have voted against the Tancredo amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 292). I would have voted in favor of the Wu amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 293). I would have voted in favor of the Klink amendment to H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 294). On July 15, 1999; I would have voted in favor of the motion to recommit H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 295). I would have voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 2466 (rollcall No. 296). I would have voted in favor of approving the journal (rollcall No. 297). I would have voted in favor of the Nadler amendment to H.R. 1691 (rollcall No. 298). I would have voted against final passage of H.R. 1691 (rollcall No. 299). I would have voted in favor of ordering the previous question (rollcall No. 300). I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 246 (rollcall No. 301). I would have voted against the Sessions amendment to H.R. 2490 (rollcall No. 302). I would have voted in favor of the Lowey amendment to H.R. 2490 (rollcall No. 303). I would have voted against the Sanders amendment to H.R. 2490 (rollcall No. 304). I would have voted against H.R. 2490 (rollcall No. 305). On July 16, 1999: I would have voted in favor of H. Res. 250 (rollcall No. 306). I would have voted in favor of final passage of H.R. 434 (rollcall No. 307).

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to use accuracy as one way to address the geographic inequity of Medicare's adjusted average per capita cost (AAPCC) rate by ensuring that Medicare-eligible veterans are calculated in AAPCC updates. Until BBA 97, AAPCC rates were determined based on five year's worth of historical per-capita Medicare fee-for-service spending. Medicare AAPCC rates also included provisions for medical education payments and Medicare disproportionate share payments. BBA 97 de-linked AAPCC updates from local FFS spending and set a minimum 1998 AAPCC ``floor'' rate of $367. It also made a number of changes to guarantee minimum annual rate increases of 2%. BAA 97 also carved out the medical education component from the AAPCC over 5 years. Unfortunately, these changes do not address the fundamental inequity in the AAPCC calculations that Washington faces. The trouble with the AAPCC methodology is that it punishes cost- efficient communities with low AAPCC increases while higher-priced inefficient markets receive increases well above average. In 1997, WA state health plans had an average payment rate increase of 3.8% while the national per capita cost rate increase was 5.9% Counties in other state across the nation had increases as high as 8.9%. Currently every Washington State County AAPCC is below the national average. Use accuracy as a partial fix A simplified explanation of the new AAPCC calculation is that all fee-for-service costs in a given county are divided by all Medicare beneficiaries in that county to derive the payment rate. Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for both Medicare and military Medicare coverage sometimes receive care at military (VA & DoD) facilities. With the creation Medicare Subvention Demonstration sights, this will occur more often. The computation of the AAPCC includes all Medicare beneficiaries in the denominator. However, since the facilities providing care to military eligible beneficiaries do not report Medicare costs to HCFA, the numerator of the AAPCC excludes any costs Medicare beneficiaries received in these facilities. This results in an understatement of the AAPCC wherever there are military health care facilities. States or counties with a significant military medical presence receive disproportionately low rates due to this methodology lapse. While the national average military AAPCC understatement is 3%, in King County it is 4.3% and Pierce County it's 22.6%. My legislation will revise the methodology to include both the Medicare beneficiaries and the costs for all their Medicare services-- including those received in fee-for-service and at military facilities--in the AAPCC calculations. Using accuracy as a means to boost AAPCC rates is both a policy- justified and a politically defensible way to begin addressing the geographic inequity in the Medicare system.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, while participating in the recent Memorial Day observance at Veterans Memorial Cemetery in my District, I was privileged to hear an inspired essay about what it means to be an American. This essay was composed and presented by Elizabeth [Liz] Bokan, a student at Washington Middle School in Seattle. Many of us in the audience were deeply moved by Ms. Bokan's eloquence. Her words lend us confidence that our future as a nation is in the good hands of enthusiastic and creative younger generations. Mr. Speaker, many of us will celebrate Independence Day by participating in naturalization ceremonies, helping to welcome new citizens to our ranks. I proudly offer Ms. Bokan's essay to all my colleagues as we return to our districts to renew the bonds that hold us together as a nation this July 4th. Are You an American? Are you an American? Ask yourself this, and you come upon the easy answer, well yes, I am an American, as I am a citizen of America. But I ask you, is there not more to being an American? And how does a true patriot respond to pressure on one's beliefs, while maintaining the presence of mind that is characteristic of being an American? In my school, I have been taking a class on American History. The truth will always hurt, no less in the sense of what this country great. I have learned of battles fought, and unnecessary blood spilled, and to what cause? Yet reading these texts, and seeing these illustrations of great American heroes, one thing seems to shine through. The pride individuals appear to hold in their home, in their title, and in their love for themselves and their people. Does that not signify that these people were very much Americans? But does each and every person have to measure up to the incredible genius of Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin simply to be called an American? We are by name the country that accepts the unwanted of other societies; the Statue of Liberty asks for the sick and poor of the rest of the dismal world to travel to America, the land of the free. It is said that we have lost our charity, and our openness to the rest of the world's outcasts, and yet do we not open our lives and hearts to the immigrants that come to us searching for a better life, for the ``American Dream''? One of the magics that is America is the diversity of culture, accepting any and all customs, and yet still adopting them as valid Americans. We have known what it is like to be the underdog, we have felt the ridicule of the rest of the world, and the pressures of an often losing struggle to overcome all odds, against us, and we continue to offer our support to those who feel the stress we felt, and more. And each and every one of those people we bring in as our own call themselves Americans, yet are they believed by the majority? In our society today, there is great conflict on every issue that could possibly be argued over, and people speak of the destruction of the American spirit. Yet the fact being overlooked is that the basis of the American way of life is within discord; we have the American right to disagree. But that discord brings about a people of accord, does it not? Through the wars fought and the policies enacted, we have always agreed to disagree in one way or another, and that leads to a harmony of the people. But does an American necessarily have to be a hero, or a recently discovered patriot? Think of the thousands of soldiers whose names you've never heard, of the ones who have died for this country in the last 200 or so years, and of those who survived, who make sure these heroes can live on in American hearts. Think of the average working citizens, those who hold strict morals for themselves and those around them, who live their lives maybe raising a farm and a family. These people proudly call themselves Americans, and we believe them. Why? The truth is, Americans are people who will die for their country, who will stand up for their rights and those of the oppressed. Sure, it may be done with fear in their hearts, but is fear not also an American standard? We thrive on it, and have never felt the need to deny ourselves of it. The people we embrace and those who do the embracing are Americans. It is a state of mind to be an American, it is a love and joy in our freedom. I am an American, and if I could, I would tell the world, but it is enough to know that I can, I have the right to, and that absolutely no one can stop my love of the American spirit which I call my own.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a watershed day. I never thought I would pick up the Washington Post and have it read: AMA Votes to Unionize Doctors. Now I graduated from medical school in 1963, and the thought of being in a union or being an employee of an insurance company never ever crossed our minds. But this world has changed, and doctors are frustrated. This was not the leadership of the AMA that came forward with this. This came from the grass roots, and the reason it came is that as HMOs have taken over the control of the health care industry in this country, they and the patients have lost control. Now the Republican party gets total control, and they get total everything for making this happen because they would not have a debate on a Patients' Bill of Rights. The longer they push and prevent us discussing this issue, the more they drive the doctors into the arms of the Democratic party and the labor unions, and they destroy the health care system we know. Bring up health care debate.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take a moment to address an issue of great importance: fair and equal access to capital and credit. The American dream of providing for one's family and achieving happiness and security is bolstered when one is able to own one's own home or business. Unfortunately, the American dream fades away when a financial institution discriminates and unfairly denies a loan to a hardworking, creditworthy American who happens to be a minority or live in a minority or working class neighborhood. Fortunately, blatant discrimination in lending is declining, and homeownership and small business lending is on the rise. We can attribute much of this progress against so called ``redlining'' to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Under CRA, federal banking agencies grade lending institutions on how well they meet the credit and capital needs of all the communities in which they are chartered and from which they take deposits. Community organizations, Mayors, religious leaders, and ordinary citizens have a right to offer their opinions regarding the CRA performance of lenders during CRA exams or when banks ask federal regulatory agencies for permission to merge with other lenders. In my hometown of Seattle, Washington, CRA has helped to make the dream of homeownership a reality for hundreds of low-income families. CRA negotiations between banks and community groups have resulted in housing programs like Self Help, which allows families to use sweat- equity to help them purchase their homes. The Self Help program empowers traditionally underserved families to participate in the homebuying process. The program is also a unique tool for fostering community relations, as the families who eventually will become neighbors, begin to develop relationships with each other as they build their homes. Over the years, Self Help has worked with families to build over 500 homes, and CRA has been integral in financing this process. CRA also helps to create new jobs for the community. In the state of Washington, CRA has been a wonderful instrument by which entrepreneurs work with banks to finance loans for small businesses. As a result, The Evergreen Community Development Association--Washington state's top Small Business Administration lender--reports that CRA has leveraged over $360 million in the past five years for small business loans, and has created more than 5,000 jobs. Furthermore, CRA provides economic opportunities for individuals without spending a penny of taxpayer money. Thus, CRA works to put valuable money and resources back into the communities in which they are located. As the House of Representatives considers legislation to reform financial institutions, I must emphasize that I oppose any attempts to weaken CRA and thus deny communities access to much-needed mortgages, consumer and/or small business loans, and basic financial assistance. I urge my colleagues to stand firm and not undo the significant progress that we have made in expanding economic opportunities for all segments of our society. As we consider H.R. 10, let's continue to make the American dream a reality for millions more Americans by strengthening and preserving the CRA and data disclosure laws.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the McCarthy amendment that might have saved the lives of Officers Gibson and Chestnut.