Frank Pallone

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. If I could point out another thing that is very unclear, it seems to me, and maybe the gentleman would respond to that right now, because he mentioned sale of a home, which is included in this proposal for the sales tax. We have people, homeowners that rely very heavily on mortgage interest deductions and also in my State, and I think many States, you can also deduct your local property taxes from your income tax. It is not at all clear to me that this would continue.

Mr. PALLONE. Is it not also true, the way I understand this sales tax, this national sales tax, that the 30 percent sales tax will also be attached to goods and services that local and State governments purchase? So is it not likely that my local property taxes or even my local--you know, my State taxes are also going to go up another 30 percent because of the fact that this national sales tax is added.

Mr. PALLONE. You know, I have to say another thing too. It is very difficult for me to trust the fact that these other taxes are going to go away and this new sales tax is going to take their place. I mean we do not have a national sales tax, we never had a national sales tax, and I would be very reluctant to suggest that somehow now all of a sudden we are going to allow this door to open where this whole new Federal tax is going to come into play, but we are going to assume that the Federal income tax and all these other taxes somehow are going to disappear. So it bothers me to think that a precedent is even being set of establishing a new type of national tax that we have not had before, because it opens up a Pandora's box essentially, and I would be fearful of that in itself, just based on historical precedence.

Mr. PALLONE. You know the amazing thing to me, because you started to talk about implementing this, is that we have--you know, I understand we do a fairly good job compared to what would happen with the sales tax in terms of collecting taxes now, but it seems to me you are talking about a 30 percent sales tax. You are going to get a lot of cheating, it is going to be difficult to enforce. And you know here the Republicans and Democrats alike have been talking about trying to reform the IRS, and we have actually made some significant changes because we do not want them becoming like a police force cracking down. Would you not have to do a tremendous amount of enforcement? Would not the IRS become even more, have to have more money and a larger budget in order to enforce this kind of a sales tax?

Mr. PALLONE. Maybe we could talk a little bit, because I know the gentlewoman from Connecticut mentioned about how Democrats have fought for tax relief, in the time that we have left this evening. We have been basically fighting for families that really need the relief, those with children who are trying to save for their kids' education and their own retirement. As the gentlewoman from Michigan mentioned, thanks in large part to Democratic efforts, the Federal tax burden on families in the middle-income distribution and below has fallen since 1984. There is an analysis by the Treasury Department that found that the average Federal income tax rate for a median family of four in 1988 will only be 7.8 percent, down from 10.3 percent in 1984. This is the lowest income tax burden for a median family since 1966. These historically low income tax rates are as a result of Democratic policies. If I can mention a few, some of them have already been alluded to, and that is the expansion of the earned income credit in 1993 that cut taxes for millions of families with children; the $500- per-child credit the Democrats ensured would be available to moderate- income families. In addition, Democrats proposed the HOPE education scholarship tax credit to help families afford postsecondary education for the children. And in 1988, Democrats had proposed expansion of the child care tax credit to increase the amount of the credit from 30 percent to 50 percent of expenses and make it available to more families. So Democrats also support efforts to reduce the marriage penalty. We are trying to reduce and we have been successful in reducing the tax burden for families in middle-income families with children who have to pay for education expenses, who have to pay for child care expenses. These are the kinds of tax reforms and tax cuts that we need to continue with. I am very proud of the fact that we, as Democrats, have emphasized those targeted tax credits rather than the kind of crazy schemes that we are hearing from the other side. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. PALLONE. Reclaiming my time, I just wanted to mention, I appreciate the comments that the gentlewoman from Michigan and the gentlewoman from Connecticut made, because I think the bottom line is that you are talking about targeted tax cuts that help the average working family. I wanted to say, though, you know, that just for those who think that perhaps the Democrats do not have an alternative, we really have the only new tax system, if you will, new proposal out there that sweeps away the old Tax Code, but at the same time provides fairness. This is the one that was introduced by our Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). It is the only major tax reform proposal that retains the progressive rate structure and ensures that this new system is fair. It is a 10 percent tax plan that has been offered by our House Democratic leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), recognizing that the Tax Code is too complex and filled with special interest tax breaks that result in higher tax rates for middle-income families. So what the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) has proposed is basically ratifying and simplifying the system and cutting taxes for 70 percent of families with children, with income between $20,000 and $75,000. Under his plan, more than 70 percent of all taxpayers would have a tax rate of 10 percent or less. This proposal by the gentleman from Missouri also eliminates the marriage penalty by making the standard deduction in tax brackets for couples double those for single people. It eliminates special interest tax breaks. Very important. You keep reading on a regular basis, particularly around April 15, about all these special interest tax rates. It eliminates them. It eliminates the role of the army of lobbyists who now dominate tax policy discussions. We see them around here. Every one of us has seen these people. This is the time of year when we see them the most. It calls for a commission to identify and recommend elimination of wasteful and unwarranted corporate tax and spending subsidies. I think this is something we should look at. This is a Democratic proposal by our leader. It stands for a tax system that is fair and simple, in the event you want to look at an alternative.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. The gentleman has already said it, but to repeat it again, clearly what happened here politically is that Senator McCain, who is a Republican, put forth a real effort to try to move something that he felt could be adopted in the Senate and ultimately in the House, too, I think, on a bipartisan basis. That happened, of course, just before our recess. The Speaker, Speaker Gingrich, obviously was very scared by that, because it showed that there was support within his own party for moving legislation that the tobacco industry did not want. So I think what we saw last weekend was his effort to say, look, tobacco, I am not going to let this happen. I am going to put a stop to it. You keep having that money flow to us, and this Republican Party is not going to allow this type of legislation to move forward. That is what we face now, and I think that is what we are going to face for the rest of the year from this Republican leadership, unless we force their hand.

Mr. PALLONE. One of the biggest concerns I have, and, again, I started tonight as you did saying at least Senator McCain is moving in the right direction, but the liability issue is a great concern. If you look at the original proposal that the tobacco companies put forward, they had basically eliminated most of their liability. The McCain bill doesn't go far enough, I think, and is still basically excluding them from a lot of liability. I am very concerned about a settlement that goes too far in that direction.

Mr. PALLONE. There is also a direct relationship between the amount of advertising that the company does and the percentage of the youth market that they end up with. Again, from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 86 percent of kids who smoke prefer Marlboro, Camel and Newport, which are the three most heavily advertised brands, and Marlboro, the most heavily advertised, constitutes almost 60 percent of the youth market, but about 25 percent of the adult market. So there is no question that this advertising is causing kids to smoke, and that there is a direct benefit from the advertising.

Mr. PALLONE. I absolutely agree. Not that we like to throw around statistics, but there were some very good statistics that were put out by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids about tobacco use among youth. If I could just mention them to give us an idea, right now, this is a very detailed survey they did that showed that 4.1 million kids age 12 to 17 are current smokers, and that smoking among high school seniors is at a 19-year high, 36.9 percent. Since 1991, past-month smoking has increased by 35 percent among eighth graders and 43 percent among tenth graders. Basically, more than 5 million children under the age of 18 alive today will die from smoking-related disease unless current rates are reversed. This is an epidemic getting bigger. I think a lot of people think youth smoking has gone down. It hasn't. It has actually increased. Not too much more here, but 45 percent of white high school boys report past-month use of tobacco; 20 percent of boys in grades 9 through 12 report past-month smokeless tobacco. Smoking by African- American high school boys increased from 14.1 percent in 1991 to 27.8 percent in 1995. Of course, we know that almost 90 percent of adult smokers begin at or before age 18. So if they start before they are 18, then they are basically the smokers who become the adult smokers of tomorrow. So this is something that has to be addressed.

Mr. PALLONE. No question, if we look at it. And I am very afraid that now that they have dropped the Joe Camel ads, that the new ads, I am sure the gentleman has seen some of these new Camel ads with the very bright colors and the psychedelic images. There is no question in my mind that those new ads are targeted to children as well, so this is a very difficult thing. We are challenging an industry that has the resources to do multi-million dollar campaigns to find out what works with kids, and maybe not even make it obvious to adults about what works with kids. I know that even those new Camel ads, with all the different colors, and I cannot even describe them exactly, but there is no question that those appeal to children as well.

Mr. PALLONE. I agree. I think we are about to run out of time. I just want to thank both of you for participating in this special order tonight, and the main thing we are sending a message: The recess is over. We are back. We have gotten the message from Speaker Gingrich that he does not want to move on this tobacco settlement. We are sending the message back to the Republican leadership that that is not acceptable to us as Democrats, and that we are going to keep fighting and keep bringing this up until they agree to move meaningful tobacco legislation.

Mr. PALLONE. I want to commend the gentleman again for his efforts in that regard, because I know the gentleman was really the first person out there in the House, and probably in the whole Congress, to pay attention to the issue. The amazing thing about it is that it is very easy for these tobacco companies to expand now into areas of the world that were not previously open to them because of the changes that are taking place: the demise of the Soviet Union and the countries, the former Soviet Republics, the eastern European countries that were under Russian Communist domination. That is where the industry has targeted, because previously those governments controlled what happened more. It was a totalitarian society, and it was not possible for American companies to market tobacco. Now those countries have opened up, and they have not been prepared for the onslaught, if you will, of the tobacco industry. It is particularly in those countries that we see this, and in others as well; India, for example. India was a very controlled economy until about 5 years ago. Now with a move towards market reforms, privatization, again, they have moved in there, because it was a previously controlled economy that is now open. So there are tremendous opportunities, and a lot of these countries just are not able. They have meager resources; they have fragile democracies, in some of the cases of the former Soviet Republics. I was very shocked, because a couple of years ago I went to Armenia, which is a former Soviet Republic. I went into some of the poorest housing that was actually set up for refugees from the war in Karabakh, and the people had absolutely nothing. And what I would see on the walls were Marlborough posters, and the kids smoking. They had nothing, and they were smoking. This is the insidious aspect of it, to go to these places that do not have the ability, really, to prevent or control or regulate any of this. That is what I think we are seeing. It is very tragic.

Mr. PALLONE. No question about it. I would point out, and I do not always like to use polls, because I do not think we should be driven here necessarily by polls, but once again, as with so many issues that have been part of our Democratic agenda over this Congress, this is an issue that the American people strongly support. They want us to try to curtail youth smoking. They think it is a very important issue. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids just did a recent telephone survey, and I am not going to get into all the details, but almost all the respondents, and they had a thousand adults who were randomly surveyed, almost all of the respondents expressed concern about tobacco used by kids. A large majority believed Congress should address this issue in the next few months, in the next 6 months. Also, there was tremendous support for the specifics with regard to cutting back on youth smoking that the President put forward in his tobacco proposal. He of course has not specifically said that we have to have a particular bill, but he has laid out guidelines for what we should have. That is overwhelmingly supported by the main public. I do not even need a poll to tell me, because I know when I have my town meetings and when I meet people, as we did during this last recess, this is a very important issue for them. There is no question about it. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who, again, has been out there, Ms. DeLauro has been out there from the beginning. She has introduced legislation to address this issue that I have cosponsored. She has been really leading the message on this issue about addressing the problems of youth smoking. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. PALLONE. I do not think there was any question about that. I do not know the details about what the gentleman is discussing, but there is no question in my mind about that.

Mr. PALLONE. There is no question. And I suppose another concern that I have, too, we have our work cut out for us, because we have the Republican leadership now saying that they are not going to go along with anything meaningful here, and we are going to have to do a lot of work to counteract the advertising campaign that the tobacco industry is going to begin soon. But it is also important that we not let Speaker Gingrich and the Republican leadership get away with some sort of cosmetic legislation here that really has no impact on youth smoking. We have to be very careful with that.

Mr. PALLONE. I was looking again at what the President has proposed, and of course it is not a bill but he has really come out in a pretty comprehensive way in trying to address the issue of youth smoking. I do not know if we want to review that a little, but it is very important that we provide legislation that really is going to have an impact. I think a lot of people think that: How is the Congress going to legislate cutting back on youth smoking? But the President has put forward some very specific ways to accomplish that. Of course, one has been mentioned by my colleague from Connecticut, about increasing the price of cigarettes, which is certainly a big aspect of this and will help a great deal. But if I could just mention a few things, it will only take a minute or two. One of the things that he would like is that the legislation should actually set targets to cut teen smoking by 30 percent in five years and 50 percent in seven years and 60 percent in 10 years, and severe financial penalties would be imposed that hold the tobacco companies accountable to meet these targets. So as we move along there is a certain amount of flexibility that we maybe could increase the price of cigarettes or do other things, this whole idea of public education and counter-advertising campaign, that the legislation would provide for a nationwide effort to essentially deglamorize tobacco. If I could just give an example from my own family, maybe I should not use it, but I do not think they will mind. But I have very young children, 4\1/2\, 3, and one that is only 6 months old. The only person that smokes in my household is my mother-in-law who comes to visit from time to time, and she is wonderful. She is always trying to cut back on her smoking and I think in the last 3 our 4 months she has not smoked at all. But when the kids first started to be aware of it they started to emulate her. They love her. She is a wonderful woman. And we would see my youngest daughter like this, going around with the cigarette. So my wife decided this is not good. We have to deglamorize this. What my mother-in-law decided to do was that whenever she smoked, she would go down in the basement. And the kids associated smoking with being in the basement and it was not a nice place to be. In a while it was deglamorized. After a while they would start saying, ``cigarettes are bad'' and ``smoking is bad.'' They started to associate it with a bad habit, so to speak. There are ways to get this across. We cannot take a defeatist attitude. And if we think about the President's proposals where he wants a public education program, also the restricted access of tobacco products, the kids would have a harder time buying them in terms of access behind the counter and that type of thing, all of these things can really make a difference. Sometimes people ask me, ``What are you going to do?'' These things make a difference, raising the price, making it more difficult to have access, and basically conducting a public education program to make tobacco look bad. Of course, you need to do it overseas as well because you know it is going to expand overseas.

Mr. PALLONE. If that is all we accomplish this year, it will be a lot.

Mr. PALLONE. Well, the scary thing, of course, is not only what has been mentioned, but also we can be sure, I think they may have already announced it but even if they have not, we can be sure that in the next few weeks we are going to see a massive amount of money spent by the tobacco industry on trying to persuade the American people that movement on the tobacco bill is not the right thing here in this Congress. So now that they have decided to withdraw from any further negotiations to come to an agreement on a tobacco settlement, they are simply going to go out and spend millions and millions of dollars, I do not know how much, trying to persuade the public that we should not move the bill. And I worry about the impact of that. I still believe that the public is so disgusted because of what has happened and what they have seen the industry do and the documents that have come out over the last 6 months that they will not be swayed by this multimillion dollar advertising campaign, because they are going to certainly make their best of it. And I would hope that that ultimately does not sway a lot of Members of this body. I know that the Republican leadership is probably glad to see that kind of campaign begin, because this way they probably figure it is some way to support their position and not to have move legislation.

Mr. PALLONE. It is.

Mr. PALLONE. And every survey has shown that if we significantly increase the price of a pack of cigarettes, it is going to decrease youth smoking. What I have seen is like a 10 percent increase in cigarette prices leads to like a 7 percent drop in youth smoking, so it is almost in direct relationship, the price percentage increase versus the decrease in the percent of youth smoking. But, my colleague from Connecticut, I mean, only the very reason why the Speaker made these statements over the weekend is because there was bipartisan legislation that was moving. And it was very easy for him while nothing was happening to say that he wanted to move legislation and it was not the Republicans' fault that it was not moving. But now that it is moving with a Republican sponsor, he has to kill it, because otherwise there will be a bipartisan consensus to pass something and that is the last thing that Speaker Gingrich wants. It was the movement of the McCain bill, in my opinion, that is causing the Speaker to say, whoa, we do not want anything to happen here, and he started attacking Senator McCain's bill.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to switch to another topic tonight, which is totally unrelated to the one that we discussed so far, but I think is very important for my constituents and a million and a half Armenian Americans around the country who I know are very pleased with the election that took place just this past Monday in Armenia for the new President. The voters in Armenia have elected Robert Kocharian as the new President of Armenia. With 99 percent of the ballots from Monday's run- off election counted, Robert Kocharian, currently the prime minister, who has served as acting President since early February, has received approximately 59 percent of the vote and his opponent Karen Demirchian, who led Armenia when it was controlled by the Soviet Union, received about 41 percent of the vote. An estimated 55 percent of eligible voters participated in the run-off election. Mr. Speaker, I think this is significant because this really was a free election in Armenia. President Kocharian, who I have met, and who has been here to the United States, is a free market advocate who has pledged to revitalize Armenia's industrial sector and to track more foreign investment. I believe he is a strong leader, a consensus builder and someone who is committed to democracy and economic development. The election has been judged as peaceful, well-organized and legitimate by the Council of Europe, the Commonwealth of Independent States and other international observers. Even the organization for security and cooperation in Europe, the OSCE, which was harsh and, in my opinion, unfairly so, in its criticism of the first round election 2 weeks ago, even the OSCE has not questioned the outcome. Mr. Speaker, allow me to read a quote from Lord Russel-Johnson, head of the Council of Europe's monitoring mission in Armenia. It says, ``The second round of the Presidential voting was well organized; the elections were passed peacefully and in accordance with law. This is a steady step along the path toward Armenian accession to the Council of Europe.'' Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report this very positive endorsement of Armenia's democratic system by a respected and objective international election observer. Unfortunately, the OSCE, of which the United States is a member Nation, has been somewhat more stingy in its praise for Armenia's tremendous progress under very difficult conditions. Mr. Speaker, I must say that the OSCE has seemed to lean more heavily on Armenia, a democracy, than Azerbaijan, which is for all intents and purposes a dictatorship. The OSCE has thus far taken an unrealistic approach to solving one of the region's most important diplomatic and political challenges. That is the resolution of the conflict over Nagorno Karabagh, the Armenia ethnic enclave that Joseph Stalin gave to Azerbaijan, but which has been Armenian territory for centuries. The people of Karabagh won their independence in a war with Azerbaijan. A cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but Azerbaijan still claims Karabagh as its own. And the international community, the OSCE, and, I am sorry to say, the United States continues to side with Azerbaijan over Karabagh. I raise this issue of Karabagh because it has been an important backdrop to the elections just concluded in Armenia. Most observers believe that the decision of former President Levon Ter-Petrosian to resign was based on the widespread criticism he received within Armenia for accepting the OSCE peace plan for Nagorno Karabagh, which was based on unilateral concessions in favor of Azerbaijan without safeguards for Karabagh's security. Now that that has become clear that the OSCE plan is a nonstarter in Armenia, I hope the OSCE, with strong Armenian leadership, will work with the parties to the conflict to develop a serious plan for resolving the conflict. Furthermore, President Kocharian is the former President of Nagorno Karabagh and he has been outspoken in his view that the OSCE Minsk Group negotiations must include the democratically elected government of Karabagh. Mr. Speaker, the important thing for us to bear in mind now is that the voters of Armenia have elected Robert Kocharian to a 5-year term as their President. The entire process of the last 2 months, former President Ter-Petrosian's resignation, acting President Kocharian's interim service until elections and Mr. Kocharian's victory in the legitimate elections just completed, was conducted in the spirit of a civil society governed by the rule of law and democracy. I want to congratulate Robert Kocharian on his election and I want to salute the people of Armenia for making amazing democratic progress despite tremendous obstacles. 25th Anniversary of the American Brain Tumor Association

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). I think it is sort of ironic, or maybe kind of scary, that the Republicans were so upset that they resorted to misquoting the gentlewoman. Anyone who was here that evening or listened to the debate, knows that one of the major points that the gentlewoman was making, and I think we all were making, is that Democrats have been out front on providing tax cuts and the targeted type of tax cuts that help families, families particularly with children, working families. We actually, that evening, recited some of the tax cuts that the Democrats have put in place over the last few years that have actually made the situation where the tax burden on working class families has actually been reduced somewhat as a result of the Democratic efforts and as a result of the President's efforts. I think what went on since that evening is that the Republicans, particularly those who have been advocating this crazy sales tax, this 30 percent sales tax, were so upset that some of us were really baring the truth and explaining how kooky it was, that they sort of overreacted I guess is the best way to say it. Mr. Speaker, I noticed that when the gentlewoman from Connecticut was speaking, that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), who is one of the authors of the 30 percent sales tax increase, was actually on the floor. So he certainly knew what the gentlewoman was saying. It was amazing to me, I guess it was the next day, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) came to the floor as well. They obviously knew what the gentlewoman really said. They knew that she was talking about the fact that Democrats have been successful in providing significant tax relief and tax cuts for the average American family. Just to give an idea, this is basically what I said that evening. And in a way, I am glad that we have another opportunity to repeat it because April, and today is the first day of April, is certainly the time when most Americans think the most about taxes because April 15 is around the corner. Just some interesting statistics that come from an analysis by the Treasury Department that says that the average Federal income tax rate for a median income family of four in 1998 will be only 7.8 percent, down from 10.3 percent in 1984. This is the lowest income tax burden for a median income family since 1966, and that is thanks in large part to Democratic efforts that this Federal tax burden has actually decreased. Just to give an example again of some of the Democratic policies that have resulted in that decrease: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which we have been championing for a number of years, beginning in 1993 that cut taxes for millions of families with children. My colleagues remember how many times Republicans came down to this floor and said that they wanted to eliminate the Earned Income Tax Credit when we were trying to expand it. The $500 per child credit that Democrats ensured would be available to moderate income families. In addition, the HOPE Educational Scholarship tax credit. These are the targeted education tax credits that we put in effect. And in 1998, this year, Democrats have proposed expansion of the child care tax credit to increase the amount of the credit from 30 percent to 50 percent of expenses and make it available to more families. Democrats also support efforts to reduce the marriage penalty. So there is no question that what went on after our last opportunity to talk about this is that the Republicans became very scared about this 30 percent sales tax that was going to hit seniors, was going to be on homes, was going to be on cars, was going to be on almost everything that we buy, and they made it their business to basically pass out a lot of misinformation about what the gentlewoman and the rest of us said, because we were making it quite clear that Democrats were providing real tax relief.

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to thank the gentlewoman again. I think you are absolutely right. The only regret I have is that we unfortunately are going home because I think that as we lead up to April 15th, if we had the opportunity over the next few weeks to get on the floor and really expose this GOP 30 percent sales tax and what it would mean for the average working person, we would really drive the point home. And the Republicans on the other side would be very nervous because the truth would come out. One of the things that this whole incident with you, I think, points to is the fact that I think that many of our colleagues on the other side, on the Republican side think that if they keep saying something that is false over and over again and keep repeating it, that somehow the American people are going to believe it. Perhaps we as Democrats have not brought up enough times here on the floor or even out in our districts that, in fact, it has been the Democrats that have taken the lead on tax cuts for the average working person. I think it is unfortunate in a way. Perhaps we should be talking more about it because maybe the word is not getting out. Maybe when some of these Republicans keep talking about the absurd 30 percent sales tax, people start thinking in their mind, oh, you know, they are for some kind of tax cut. And they do not necessarily pay attention to the specifics of it. So I think it is incumbent upon us to point out how we, as Democrats, have been the backbone of these tax cuts that have benefited the average American over the last few years and that what the Republicans are proposing, whether it is the 30 percent sales tax or the flat tax proposal, that these things are not going to help working people; that they are basically giveaways, if you will, to the rich. I just want to thank the gentlewoman again because I think you started something here, and when we come back after this break, we need to come to the floor and keep pointing out over, and over, and over again how crazy and what a lunatic proposal this sales tax is and that if there is going to be real tax relief, it has to be more of the targeted tax relief that the Democrats have provided that helps working families with kids, with education needs, with health care needs. This is, with child care needs. These are the kinds of things that we have to keep pushing for.

Mr. PALLONE

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, today is April Fool's Day; and so it seems appropriate that the Republican leadership is having a rally to celebrate the achievements of the GOP Congress before Members leave Washington for the recess. The Republican Congress has simply wasted time in 1998, producing no results to improve the lives of the average working American. Important issues like managed care reform, Medicare expansion for those 55 to 64, a minimum wage increase, school modernization and reduced class size have simply been neglected. Democrats and President Clinton have prioritized these issues because they know they are important to the American people and will improve the quality of their lives. Just yesterday, Democrats unveiled their managed care reform legislative proposal with President Clinton's strong backing. But the Republican leadership, they just want to go home. They are incapable of addressing the issues of real concern to working Americans.