Jim Ramstad

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my deep concern about the 4.3 cent per gallon aviation fuel tax which was imposed in the massive 1993 tax increase signed into law by President Clinton. While I would have preferred a full repeal of this damaging tax, I am pleased the reconciliation bill before the House today includes a provision to extend the current exemption from this tax for 2 years. But I am deeply concerned the other body has only chosen to extend the exemption for 17 months, and I strongly urge my colleagues on the reconciliation conference committee to support the full 2-year exemption. Without the certainty of a long exemption, it is impossible for the airline industry to make the long-term decisions needed to keep this critical sector of our economy healthy. The airline industry is already under an enormous tax burden. Federal taxes imposed on the airlines include a 10 percent excise tax on airline tickets, a 6.25 percent excise tax on cargo shipments, a $6 per passenger international departure tax, special taxes to support customs, immigration, and agricultural inspection services, and a $3 passenger facilitation charge at many major airports. These taxes impose costs of $6.7 billion a year on an industry with total revenues of $64 billion a year. Mr. Chairman, I urge continued commitment to the 2-year exemption during conference committee consideration of this provision.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago I delivered a statement on the occasion of National Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day dedicated to the thousands of peace officers who have given their lives to protect their communities. I listed the names of 17 Twin Cities' area police officers who were killed by a gunman's bullet since 1970. These names are inscribed on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, located just a few blocks from the Capitol. Two other brave Twin Cities officers--John J. O'Brien and John Harold Larson--are also immortalized on the memorial's walls. These two men also sacrificed their lives serving their communities. Officer John Larson died tragically on August 10, 1974, in a collision with a fire vehicle responding to the same emergency to which he had been called. On April 16, 1981, Officer John O'Brien was killed in an auto accident resulting from a high-speed chase. John's older brother Frank and younger brother Michael are still serving on the St. Paul police force. These two men epitomize the finest qualities of our brave men and women in law enforcement--dedicated to serving their communities and selfless in their sense of duty, putting their lives on the line daily for people they may never know and people who may never be able to think them. Their ultimate sacrifice will live on forever, not only on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, but also in the hearts of the people they served and the officers who served with them. On behalf of a grateful State and a grateful Nation, I salute these two brave men and the thousands like them who lay down their lives every day so our streets can be safer and our children have a secure place to grow up.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse the remarks of the preceding speaker, the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi. I believe, as he does, that the President is on the verge of making the mistake of a lifetime. Without clearly defining our mission in Bosnia, without proving a compelling national interest or without a precise plan of action, the President is about to commit 20,000 to 25,000 American combat troops to Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, U.S. troops should not be ordered to keep a peace where no peace exists. If Members believe peace has been achieved in the former Yugoslavia, then Members believe Elvis is alive. The President is clearly jumping the gun in committing troops to Bosnia. It is a dangerous move and has all the makings of a very, very deadly quagmire. Mr. Speaker, there is no plan. There is no compelling national interest to send young American men and women to die in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, there is no compelling reason to take this action. Let us lift the arms embargo against the Bosnian Moslems so they can defend themselves, but let us not place United States troops in a deadly situation. Let us not spend $2 billion of American taxpayers money.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, President Kennedy said it best back in 1961. ``Our true choice is not between tax reductions on the one hand and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is clear that an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance the budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits.'' Mr. Chairman, President Kennedy was right. The bill before us today is about two things: one, eliminating the deficit and balancing the budget for our children and grandchildren; and, two, providing jobs and opportunities for all Americans with the tax stimulus provisions of the bill. Economist after economist came to our Committee on Ways and Means testifying about job creation. One economist testified 1.4 million new jobs will be created over the next 5 years from the capital gains tax cut. As he put it, the capital gains tax reductions will stimulate economic activity, increase jobs, capital spending and capital formation, improve national savings, increase entrepreneurship and raise economic output. Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a lot from the other side about capital gains tax cuts being a tax break for the rich. Let us talk about the facts. An IRS analysis of 1993 tax returns found 77 percent of the tax returns reporting capital gains were filed by taxpayers with adjusted gross incomes of less than $75,000, 77 percent; and 60 percent had adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000, hardly the rich in America. But even more impressive than any of these statistics was a young man in my district. When I talked to a high school assembly, a 17-year-old young man from the least affluent part of my district came up to me afterward, and he said, ``Ramstad, I liked what you said about capital gains.'' I was not accustomed to such feedback from 17-year-old high school students. I asked him, ``Young man, do you have any capital gains?'' He looked back at me and his eyes got about this big and he said, ``No, not now, Ramstad, but someday I hope to.'' Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of incentive we have to restore to the Tax Code in this country. All Americans, Mr. Chairman, will benefit from this bill. Let us keep faith with the American people. Let us balance the Federal budget. Let us pass budget reconciliation because the taxpayers of America deserve nothing less.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of freedom of choice for America's seniors in their health plans. Why should not America's seniors have the same choice in health care plans as every other American? All of us know that most Americans secure their health care coverage through their employers. They have a vast variety of health plans from which to choose. How many choices do America's seniors have under Medicare? Only two: fee-for-service and traditional HMOs. Now, with all respect to my friends from Massachusetts, no Sate is more advanced in their innovative health care, quality of health care and innovative health care choices than the good State of Minnesota. Minnesotans have a vast array of health care choices, ranging from traditional indemnity plans, to points of service plans, to HMOs. It is reasonable to expect then that seniors in Minnesota would have a similar range of choices. But how many choices to Minnesota's seniors have under Medicare? Only two: fee-for-service or traditional HMOs. I have heard from countless seniors who want the opportunity to choose their own health plan. These seniors are fully capable of choosing from a variety of health plans to get the coverage that best fits their needs. Mr. Chairman, the seniors of America deserve nothing less than freedom of choice. We have heard today from opponents of saving Medicare, of this legislation here today to give seniors choices, that seniors will be forced to join HMOs. Nonsense. Under our bill, what happens to seniors is they can remain in the current fee- for-service system. Mr. Chairman, we have also heard that benefits offered to enrollees in Medicare Plus plans would not compare favorably to those in traditional fee-for-service plans. That is also nonsense. The same benefits or better benefits will be available for seniors. Vote for freedom of choice. Vote for the Medicare Preservation Act.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an outstanding public servant, Sgt. Donald Olson, who retired on September 30, 1995, after 32 years with the Minnetonka, Minnesota, Police Department. Sergeant Olson has represented the highest standards in law enforcement for more than three decades. He started his career in 1963 as a patrol officer and was later assigned to the Investigative Division. Because of his highly commendable performance and well- deserved reputation for absolute integrity, Sergeant Olson was named Acting Chief of Police in 1983. In 1989 Sergeant Olson was recognized for his many contributions to the law enforcement profession and was selected Minnetonka's Police Office of the Year by the department staff. Sergeant Olson was promoted to Sergeant in December 1990, and has been assigned to the Patrol Division for the past 5 years. His willingness to coach and guide other officers has made him an invaluable asset to the supervisory team. Currently, Sergeant Olson serves as president of the Minnesota Law Enforcement Memorial Association, as well as first vice president of the Suburban Law Enforcement Association. [[Page E 1935]] Through his strenuous efforts, a memorial has been built at our State capitol to pay tribute to all police officers who have given their lives in the line of duty. Sergeant Olson's outstanding service to the community deserves special recognition, and I wholeheartedly salute the career of a great law enforcement officer and dedicated public servant. On behalf of all the people of our community, I thank Sergeant Olson for his many contributions to making the city of Minnetonka a safer community for all. Our city is a better place to live, work, and raise families because of Sergeant Don Olson.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, today our House Committee on Ways and Means passed the Medicare Preservation Act to save Medicare, to keep the Medicare system solvent until the year 2010 and to let seniors have more choices in health care plans. Our legislation keeps Medicare solvent, as I said, and lets seniors stay in the current fee-for-service system or choose a HMO, a preferred provider network or a medical savings account. Why should seniors not have the same choices in health care that every other American has? Mr. Speaker, also it is important to point out that this legislation increases Medicare spending about 6.5 percent a year, which means the average Medicare beneficiary will receive $4,800 this year and $6,700 in the year 2002. The point I want to make tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that this legislation guarantees, guarantees that none of the Medicare savings will go for tax cuts. They will go into a lockbox to be used only to maintain the long-term solvency of Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this article, this opinion piece by the well- respected economist, Robert Samuelson, which was published in today's Washington Post, be made part of the Record. Economist Samuelson points out in this piece in today's Post, and I am quoting now, ``Democrats cast Republicans as cutting everything from Medicare to college loans to pay for a tax cut for the rich. That is untrue.'' That is Mr. Samuelson's words. To continue ``To listen to the Democrats, you would think that every spending cut is needed to provide a tax cut for the rich. They say that Medicare is being cut to help the wealthy, to provide a tax cut for the rich.'' Mr. Samuelson goes on to say, ``Perhaps this makes good rhetoric, but it flunks first-grade arithmetic.'' Let me continue reading from this column: ``In the Republican budget, spending is cut $900 billion over the next 7 years. This is in the total budget. That is nearly 4 times the size of the tax cuts.'' Mr. Samuelson goes on to say: ``The Democrats are double, triple, and quadruple counting spending cuts as an offset to the tax reduction. Even a 1-to-1 count, that is, $250 billion in spending cuts for $245 billion in tax cuts, is a stretch,'' and then Mr. Samuelson goes on to explain in an academic, analytical, truthful way what we are doing. He explains that under the congressional budget resolution, the Republicans cannot enact a tax cut until the Congressional Budget Office certifies that our plan would balance the budget by the year 2002. Once that happens, the CBO assumes that interest rates will drop and economic growth will increase. In turn, these changes improve the budget balance by $170 billion between now and the year 2002. So from the balanced budget that we are putting forth here in Congress, interest rates will drop, economic growth will increase to the tune of $170 billion, and in these extra savings will the tax cut be paid. At least 70 percent of it will be paid from growth in the economy. So I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we get to the facts and the truth in talking about what we are doing with respect to Medicare. Nobody is cutting Medicare to provide any tax breaks whatsoever. What we are doing is balancing the budget in a responsible way. We have already provided for the tax cuts in today's legislation. To preserve Medicare is a big step forward, not only for the seniors of this country, but for future generations as well. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article quoted from. [From the Washington Post, October 11, 1995] Budgetary Bombast (By Robert J. Samuelson) The tax debate is a triumph of political rhetoric over common sense. Republicans and Democrats alike portray the Republicans' proposed tax cuts--$245 billion between 1996 and 2002--as bigger and more important than they are. Each side has its reasons. Republicans say they're providing major tax relief for most ordinary Americans. Not true. Democrats cast Republicans as savagely cutting everything from Medicare to college loans to pay for ``a tax cut for the rich.'' That, too, is untrue. Just for the record, reject both the Republican tax cuts and the Democrats' critique. Lower taxes, in my view, shouldn't come until the budget is balanced. People should feel the price of government: taxes paid for services received. When the two are split, government becomes lax, because the price of more government is falsely seen as zero. But we are far beyond such a principled debate. Even Democrats advocate tax cuts, arguing that their plan is fairer. The debate gushes partisan cliches. Start with Republican myths. The $245 billion sounds like a huge tax cut. It isn't. Recall that it occurs over seven years. In this period, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that federal taxes (before the cut) will total $12.8 trillion. The $245 billion cut is about 1.9 percent of that. Of course, some people will get more. The plan's centerpiece is a $500 tax credit for every dependent child. A family with moderate income (up to say $40,000 to $50,000) and two children would receive a noticeable tax cut. But about half of families have no children, and nearly 30 percent of households are singles. Even for higher-income families with children, the effect of the child tax credit would fade. (In 1994 a two-parent family with two children and $75,000 of income paid about $15,000 to $16,000 in federal taxes.) And the rest of the tax cut--Congress is still working on details--is splintered among many, highly symbolic reductions. Consider the most controversial proposal: a capital gains tax cut. Capital gains are profits from the sale of stocks, bonds and other assets. Now, these profits are taxed at a maximum of 28 percent. The House Republicans would reduce that to 19.8 percent, arguing that a lower rate would spur investment and risk-taking. Gee, there's already an investment boom, with ample risk-taking. The present capital gains tax isn't a major obstacle. A reduction would mostly benefit wealthier Americans by increasing their profits from the sale of existing stocks and bonds. Although the Republican myths are outrageous, the Democratic myths are worse. To listen to Democrats, you'd think that every spending cut is needed to provide a ``tax cut for the rich.'' Medicare is being cut to help the wealthy: so are Medicaid, the school lunch program and welfare. The litany is endless. Perhaps this makes good rhetoric, but it flunks first-grade arithmetic. In the Republican budget, spending is cut about $900 billion between 1996 and 2002 from the levels under present law. That's about 6.2 percent of what the CBO reckons would be spent and nearly four times the size of the tax cut. The Democrats are double, triple and quadruple counting spending cuts as an offset to the tax reduction. Even a one-for-one count ($245 billion of spending cuts for $245 billion of tax cuts) is a stretch. Here's why. Under the congressional budget resolution, the Republicans can't enact a tax cut until the CBO certifies that their plan would balance the budget by 2002. Once that happens, the CBO assumes that interest rates will drop and economic growth will increase. In turn, these changes further improve the budget balance by about $170 billion between now and 2002. It is these extra savings that, in theory, mainly finance the Republican tax cut. They account for about 70 percent of the total. The point is that--without a huge tax increases, that almost no one favors--the Republican spending cuts are needed simply to balance the budget. If the Democrats don't want to balance the budget, they should say so. If they have $900 billion of other spending cuts, they should say so. But their endless carping about the ``tax cut for the rich'' merely disguises their own unwillingness to confront the budget deficits. Republicans have made some unpopular choices about government; Democrats have not. It is not that Republican choices are beyond criticism. Their plan to curb the Earned Income Tax Credit, which provides tax relief for the working poor, is mean and would shrink the net tax cut substantially. But the tax cut is not mainly a giveaway to the rich. Its effects are spread along the income distribution. Even if it were approved, the well- to-do would continue to pay most federal taxes. In 1994 the richest fifth of Americans (a group that begins at about $75,000 of family income) paid 59 percent of federal taxes. The trouble with the Republican plan is that it has warped the budget debate. Democrats have succeeded, temporarily at least, in turning it into an old-fashioned argument about class, when it ought to be about redefining the role of government. There are legitimate disagreements here, and they ought to be aired. But it is not true--as Democrats imply-- that the whole process is being driven by a crass desire to aid the wealthy. Ideally, Republicans would postpone tax cuts. Congress should discipline itself and [[Page H 9866]] see if a projected balanced budget actually occurs. The prospect of future tax cuts would also dampen the temptation to undo some spending cuts. But the Republicans aren't likely to delay the tax cut, in part because they fear that doing so would trigger a voter backlash. This could be true, despite polls showing that tax cuts rank behind deficit reduction in popularity. Americans are so cynical about politics that they'll seize almost any reason to vindicate their cynicism. But there is a next-best policy: strip the tax cut to its bare political minimum, the child tax credit. The cost would drop sharply (to about $163 billion over seven years, which is almost exactly the size of CBO's expected ``dividend'' from balancing the budget). And it would be much harder to attack as a giveaway to the rich. The result would be to refocus the budget debate where it belongs: on what government should--and shouldn't--do.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of lifting the unjust and unconscionable arms embargo on Bosnia. For too long now the world has heard of countless atrocities from the war in Bosnia: Women systematically raped and tortured, men forcibly separated from their unarmed families and gunned down without being able to defend themselves, all in the name of ethnic cleansing, all during the arms embargo. Mr. Chairman, let us call a spade a spade. Let us call ethnic cleansing by its real name: Genocide. The key question we must answer today with our vote, each and every one of us here in this body, is this: How much longer can we sit by and force the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves from genocide with one arm tied behind their backs? The people of Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, are at a breaking point. This vote today will show them that the United States will not turn its back on genocide. Let us not turn our backs on people who have the right to defend themselves, let us not turn our backs on the Bosnian Moslems. I urge a ``yes'' vote to lift the arms embargo.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug] for yielding this time to me and for his efforts at deficit reduction. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the Klug amendment. Mr. Chairman, I think, as my little niece would put it, we have to get real around here about deficit reduction, and, if we cannot cut this $103 million, we are not going to be able to balance this budget. Mr. Chairman, as one taxpayers' group put it, this is pure pork. How can we justify Federal tax dollars, Federal taxpayers' dollars, going to such functions as boat landings, campgrounds, and logger education? Mr. Chairman, most of these functions, whether it is boat landings, or campgrounds, or logger education, can and should clearly be operated by State and local governments. Of course the operation of the dams and reservoirs are properly functions of the Army Corps of Engineers. If we truly intend to balance the budget, we must examine each and every program in the budget and ask whether or not it is something we should require taxpayers across the country to pay for. In this case, Mr. Chairman, the answer is a resounding no. We must, must, have the political courage to shut down such programs as this or allow States to take them over. Mr. Chairman, the American taxpayers are sick and tired, with all due respect to my good friends from Tennessee who are here fighting hard and representing the Tennessee Valley Authority well, but with all respect to them, Mr. Chairman, this is pork-barrell politics in its pure form, and American taxpayers are sick and tired of such politics. Mr. Chairman, this is a real test of whether this Congress is serious about fiscal discipline. I urge a vote for the American taxpayer. Vote for the Klug amendment.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, today marks the twelfth annual commemoration of Missing Children's Day. Today we remember the thousands of children reported missing, pray for their safe return, and hope that 1995 will be a safer year for America's children. I believe this year will be safer for children in this country because of a bill that became law at the end of last year--the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children Registration Act. This new law requires those who prey on children, child abductors, molesters, who are convicted, to register their whereabouts with law enforcement for 10 years after their release from prison or parole. The bill was named, Mr. Speaker, after a very special young boy from Minnesota, Jacob Wetterling, who was abducted from a small community in Minnesota in 1989. Jacob Wetterling was the motivating factor behind my introduction of the Wetterling bill in 1991. Thanks to the bipartisan support here in the House and the Senate and the President's signature, this became law. Jacob Wetterling is also the reason his family, Patty and Jerry Wetterling, started the Jacob Wetterling Foundation, which is an organization dedicated to preventing abductions and finding missing children. Jacob and the thousands of children who are missing provide us with thousands of reasons to keep fighting for America's kids. Mr. Speaker, it is alarming when you think of the statistics. The average child abductor commits 177 of these heinous acts before being apprehended the first time. The children of America and the parents of America need and deserve this type of protection afforded under the Jacob Wetterling law, and I applaud the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department for getting this system, this national registration system of convicted child abductors up and running. The second element of that law, Mr. Speaker, is the community notification provision, a very, very important provision so that when these dangerous predators are released back into the community, child care centers, residents, police departments, and schools will know of their whereabouts. Because of the high level of recidivism on the part of these criminals it is essential that we have this type of community notification. After all, people in a neighborhood deserve to know when a convicted pedophile is released back into their community. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will join me in wearing a white ribbon today as I am and send this message to American missing children. Particularly I send this message to Jacob Wetterling. You are always in our thoughts and prayers, we love you and we will never, ever stop looking for you.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I attended a truly memorable event in Minnesota. It was the dedication of Mary's Place. And at that dedication, I saw love and compassion up close. Mary's Place is a transitional housing facility built through the vision and the persistence of Mary Jo Copeland, Minnesota's Mother Teresa. Mary's Place is a shining example of how we can use nongovernmental private solutions to solve the problems facing our country. This was a $7.2 million transitional shelter, 200 beds for homeless people, $7.2 million all raised through private businesses, individuals, and churches, not one penny of government money. Mr. Speaker, last month I saw firsthand why Mary Jo Copeland is Minnesota's Mother Teresa. I was touring the new facility before it was open, and I watched Mary Joe interrupt that tour to go across the street to greet a homeless family, a young mother and her three little children. And that family was forced to leave their home after her husband beat her and to watch Mary Joe hug those bewildered, broken children brought tears to my eyes. Everyone who has been to Sharing and Caring Hands, all of the volunteers, every one who goes there daily to assist other people have seen that same kind of love and compassion firsthand. Yesterday we celebrated several things, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned, we dedicated the $7.2 million facility. We also celebrated 10 years of love and compassion and concern like that I just explained. Let me tell you a little bit about Sharing and Caring Hands, because I believe we need to replicate this wonderful organization throughout our great country. This organization, Sharing and Caring Hands, was founded in 1985 as a safety net organization to assist those who are not getting help from the welfare system. Each and every month, Mr. Speaker, 12,000 people, 12,000 homeless, hurting people are assisted through a food shelf, meals, clothing, showers, dental care, medical help, eye glasses, transportation, Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and school tutoring for children. These services are all provided by hundreds of volunteers and private contributions, again, not one penny of taxpayer money. Over $150,000, therefore, each month, all of the funds raised by Sharing and Caring Hands, goes directly to the recipients. Nobody take a salary. Mary Jo works 14 or 15 hours each and every day. No salary, strictly volunteer work. As Mary Jo puts it, a labor of love. Mr. Speaker, we need to focus national attention on this model organization. Mary Jo Copeland and her volunteers at Sharing and Caring Hands have taught and are teaching America a lot about caring and about sharing, about true compassion. Mr. Speaker, I believe this project should serve as a model and a beacon of hope, a beacon for those of us who are dedicated to the principle that each of us can make a difference in the lives of other people through volunteerism and commitment. As we all know, there has been much focus here in Congress about ways to strengthen the family. Everyone agrees that the breakdown of families has provided a whole new range of social problems. What Mary Jo Copeland and everyone at Sharing and Caring Hands have done, Mr. Speaker, is to create a kind of sharing, caring, compassionate, and concerned family. Sharing and Caring Hands is truly that for so many people. It is a very special family that is taking in new brothers and sisters each and every day. Yesterday we dedicated a new family home, Mary's Place, a place where people know they can find comfort, they can find love. They can find a safe haven. They can find support that you would find that we are able to find in the majority of American families. So while the debate rages here in Congress on how best to provide the resources necessary for people to become more self- sufficient, Sharing and Caring Hands is already here showing us how, without bureaucratic strings and without taxpayer dollars, people can make a real difference in the lives of those less fortunate, in the lives of people who are hurting. Now, Mr. Speaker, we need to replicate Sharing and Caring Hands throughout the United States. Mary Jo Copeland's vision can make a difference in your communities and States just like Sharing and Caring Hands is making a real difference in the lives of real people in the twin cities of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I take my hat off to Mary Jo Copeland and all of her volunteers for what they are doing in Minnesota. We are very, very proud of them and grateful for them.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, the balanced budget resolution before us today is the single most important vote we will cast since I entered Congress. The American people have waited a generation for a balanced Federal budget. We House Republicans have delivered. Passage of this historic balanced budget will show the American people and the world markets that we will balance the Federal budget as promised. Eliminating the deficit will mean more jobs, lower interest rates, and higher real incomes. It's high time the Federal Government quits mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's bill of $187,000 for their share of interest on the national debt. Our budget redesigns the Federal Government to make it smaller, more cost-effective, and less bureaucratic. We cut Government red tape and return power from Washington to State and local governments and the private sector. Although I might not agree with each and every spending priority in the budget, we will now have the appropriations and reconciliation processes to modify certain specifics. The bottom line is that we zero out the deficit by the year 2002 without touching Social Security or raising taxes. I urge a ``Yes'' vote on the Republican budget resolution.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, today is National Peace Officers Memorial Day, a day dedicated to the 13,814 peace officers who have given their lives to protect their communities. Two years ago I stood in the well of this House to share my grief over the death of a friend of mine, Minneapolis Police Officer Jerry Haaf, who was slain in the line of duty. At the time, I was haunted by thoughts of another cop friend, J.W. Anderson of the Wayzata Police Department, who was killed in 1982. The names of these two brave cops are now inscribed on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, located just a few blocks from here. Tragically, Jerry and J.W. were just 2 of 17 Twin Cities area police officers who were slain during the line of duty since 1970. Mr. Speaker, because we must never forget their ultimate sacrifice, I want to share these names: James Sackett, St. Paul; Roger Rosengren, Ramsey County; Inno Suek, Minneapolis; Joseph Pudick, Minneapolis; Howard Johnson, Roseville; George Partridge, Jr., Minneapolis; Curtis Ramsdell, Columbia Heights; David Mack, Minneapolis; Michael Cassman, Minneapolis; Richard Miller, Minneapolis; Bruce Russell, Roseville; Richard Walton, Oakdale; James Anderson, Wayzata; John Scanlon, Robbinsdale; and Jerry Haaf, Minneapolis. Mr. Speaker, with great sadness I report that two new names will be added to the list of Twin Cities police officers on the walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. Just last year, two of St. Paul's finest police officers, Ron Ryan, Jr., and Tim Jones, were slain in the line of duty on the same day. Like all Minnesotans, that tragic day will live in my memory forever. On Friday, August 26, 1994, Minnesotans were celebrating the first week of the State fair. I was at the State fair in St. Paul early that day, fresh back from Washington. On the way to the fairgrounds that morning, reports started trickling in about what would soon become forever etched in Minnesotans' memories as one of the worst days in State history for our brave law enforcement officers. Just a few blocks away from the fair, a brave St. Paul police officer, a rookie, Ron Ryan Jr., the son of another St. Paul cop, was answering a routine call about a man sleeping in a car in the parking lot of Sacred Heart Church on Hope Street. It was the last call he would ever take in a far too brief but decorated career in law enforcement. Witnesses report that Officer Ryan walked up to the car at about 7 a.m., shined his flashlight inside, then walked away. Then the man in the car shot Officer Ryan many times in the back, got out of his car and walked over to Ryan, who lay dying on the ground. He turned him over, went through his pockets, seized Officer Ryan's gun and fled. By 8:30 a.m. 26-year-old Officer Ryan was pronounced dead. This early-morning shooting set off a massive manhunt. St. Paul Police Officer Tim Jones, a 16-year veteran of the force, had the day off. But when he heard about the slaying of his fellow officer, Jones volunteered to join the manhunt. Officer Jones and his canine partner, Laser, had become nationally renowned for their law enforcement efforts. At about 10:40 a.m., it appears that Laser tracked down the suspect, who then shot both Officer Jones and Laser to death. It is a sad irony that Officer Jones was shot by the gun that the suspect had taken from Officer Ryan. Officer Jones had dedicated his life to law enforcement, especially the St. Paul department's canine program. He spent hour after hour, virtually all his free time, working with Laser and other officers in the canine program. Officer Jones and Laser were inseparable in life as they were in their tragic death. In spite of this tragedy, we can still hope that the war against crime can be won because of the commitment of law enforcement professionals like Officers Ryan and Jones. We have newfound appreciation and respect for the skills, bravery, and dedication of officers like Officers Ryan and Jones. Every day, men and women in law enforcement serve on the frontlines and put the safety of the community ahead of their own lives. I hope every visitor to our Nation's Capital will visit the Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial at Judiciary Square. Seeing the names carved in the walls will help people realize what cops and their families risk every day they put on the badge. Mr. Speaker, we honor the dead like Officers Ron Ryan, Jr., and Tim Jones by respecting the living. Today we honor these two Minnesota officers and law enforcement officials everywhere by thanking their families for their sacrifice and sharing their grief. I also hope the members of this body will honor the memory of slain officers through our actions on this floor. Let us continue to promote policies that help the brave men and women in law enforcement prevent the tragedy of crime and violence.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 1120.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Minnetonka Power Squadron for its sponsorship of Safe Boating Week, which is May 20-27. I also want to highly applaud the Minnetonka Power Squadron's continuing efforts to make boating a safe summertime activity. Minnesota is known worldwide for our more than 10,000 lakes. Each year, millions of Minnesotans and people from all over the country flock to these lakes to fish, water ski, canoe, or just beat the heat. As we enjoy these activities, however, we must never forget the importance of boating safety. Carelessness or recklessness in boating can cause property damage and, even worse, result in serious injury or death. During Safe Boating Week, the Minnetonka Power Squadron conducts many classes and public awareness activities to promote the importance of boating safety. This yearly reminder of safe, proper boating techniques, and simple precautions--such as carrying life preservers--should be observed by all boaters throughout the boating season. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that all boaters--in Minnesota and across the country--will take the time to review safe boating precautions and exercise these practices all season long. I thank and applaud the Minnetonka Power Squadron for showing us how to enjoy boating safely.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to former State Representative Sidney Pauly of Eden Prairie, MN, in our Third Congressional District. On Thursday, Representative Pauly will be a deserving honoree at a reception citing her highly productive decades of service to her community. Sidney Pauly served the residents of Eden Prairie and Edina responsively and effectively in the Minnesota Legislature and before that on the Eden Prairie City Council. Extremely dedicated, Sidney's commitment to solid public policy and helping people in need has been exemplary. Her public service to her Nation included going overseas when her husband Roger, as a member of the Armed Forces, was stationed in Germany. Roger and Sidney had their first two children there. Despite her hectic schedule as the mother of four, Sidney plunged into her role as a community leader upon her return to the United States in the then-small community of Eden Prairie, where her family still resides. Sidney started her legendary term of public service with the local PTA as treasurer. The breadth and scope of Sidney's public leadership grew with her community, which today is a bustling community of more than 40,000. Sidney Pauly's reputation as a leader of integrity and effectiveness grew from the confines of Eden Prairie across the Twin Cities metro area and to the borders of Minnesota and beyond. As a member of the Eden Prairie City Council from 1970 until 1982, residents always knew they could find a willing and attentive listener and get their questions and concerns answered about city services and policies. Then as a member of the Minnesota Legislature, serving both Eden Prairie and neighboring Edina for a dozen more years, Sidney became a leader of statewide repute. Her careful scrutiny of State government, incisive questioning, and inspirational speaking style won her the respect of legislative leaders on both sides of the aisle. Her expertise in transportation policy, fiscal matters, innovative approaches to education, pioneering environmental laws, and ethics reform earned her plaudits in Minnesota and around the Nation. But most of all, Sidney Pauly listened to her constituents and put their priorities on the top of her agenda. She would be the first to tell you she is proudest of that accomplishment. Sidney Pauly represents the best in public service, and all our Nation's governments could use more of her kind. She established an uncompromising standard of public service, one all elected representatives of the people should do their utmost to emulate. As she seeks new frontiers of public service in the years ahead, our area, State, and Nation offer our heartfelt gratitude and sincerest appreciation.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in many American voters' memories politicians are keeping their promises. The new House majority promised tax relief, and we are keeping our promise. The new majority promised to pay for our tax cuts and lower the deficit, and we are keeping our promise. The new majority promised to create jobs. And we are keeping our promise. One leading economist told the Committee on Ways and Means that 1.74 million new jobs will be created over the next 5 years from the capital gains tax cut. Economist after economist told the Committee on Ways and Means why we should reduce the capital gains tax. As Allen Sinai put it, the capital gains tax reductions will ``stimulate economic activity, increase jobs, capital spending and capital formation, improve national savings, increase entrepreneurship and raise economic output.'' But, Mr. Chairman, even more impressive than all of these leading economists was the young 17-year-old in my district who came up to me recently after my remarks to his high school assembly. This young man, this young 17-year-old explained to me that he liked what I said about capital gains taxes. And I was a little bit more surprised, not used to this kind of a feedback from a 17-year-old high school student. I looked at this young man and I said, ``Do you mind if I ask you a question? Do you have any capital gains?'' He looked back at me and his eyes got about this big and he said, ``No, not now, Mr. Ramstad, but someday I hope to.'' Mr. Chairman, that is the kind of incentive we need to restore for all American taxpayers. Vote yes on H.R. 1327.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995. Our job-creating tax cuts enhance the progressivity of the Tax Code. Middle-income taxpayers will overwhelmingly benefit directly from the capital gains tax cut, as the vast majority of taxpayers claiming capital gains are middle income In fact, 70 percent of all taxpayers reporting capital gains, in a recent tax year, had incomes of less than $50,000. By comparison, 5 percent of tax returns with capital gains were from taxpayers with annual incomes between $100,000 and $200,000. And, fully three-quarters of the value of all capital gains went to taxpayers earning less than $100,000. Most importantly, capital gains tax cuts means more jobs for the American people. One leading economist testified in the Ways and Means Committee that 285,000 jobs a year--or about 1.4 million over the 5 year period--will be gained. The same economist showed that every $1 billion reduction in annual taxes on capital income will lead to a $25 billion increase in the Nation's output of goods and services. Capital gains relief will facilitate the growth of new business and job formation, improve long-term productivity and make the United States more competitive. Vote for job growth, lower capital costs, increased productivity and competitiveness. Vote for H.R. 1327.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also for her cosponsorship of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. As the author of the Jacob Wetterling Crimes against Children Act, I know the importance of maintaining a partnership between the Justice Department and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Last year alone, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department reported that over 114,000 children in this country were targets of attempted abduction. Fortunately, the National Center is doing an outstanding job to both recover abducted children and prevent abductions in the first place. The Center's toll-free hot line has logged over 750,000 calls since 1984. Each week the Center distributes literally millions of photographs of missing children and many of these are high-tech, age- enhanced photos. In fact right now the photo of Jacob Wetterling, the young boy from Minnesota who was kidnapped a number of years ago, Jacob would have just celebrated his 17th birthday, Mr. Chairman, and that photo of Jacob, how he does look now at 17, has been circulated around the Nation. The center has also printed 8.3 million publications and trained over 130,000 police and other professionals. Here is the main evidence that our investment in the Center is worthwhile. After working with law enforcement on over 40,000 cases, more than 26,000 children have been recovered. Again, Mr. Chairman, this amendment as the gentlewoman from California said is technical, it simply restores the authority for the Justice Department to retain the 10-year partnership with the Center rather than start anew with another agency. Let us pass this important amendment and preserve this important sponsorship. Our children and our families deserve nothing less.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in strong support of this amendment. Vicarious liability is plain and simple: liability without fault. Every month car dealers, rental companies and leasing firms are held liable under these vicarious liability laws for harm to third parties that they in no way could prevent. There is no negligence whatsoever, and I believe that this clarifying amendment is essential because of the cost to American consumers literally equaling tens of millions of dollars in higher prices for car rental leases and also we are paying a price in terms of competition in these industries. This bill has the support of the auto manufacturers, the new and used car dealers and the car rental industry. If there is any opposition, it comes from those who have used the vicarious liability laws to coerce companies into unfair and inequitable settlements. This reform is long overdue. I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this amendment to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to extend the fair-share rule to all civil actions. Mr. Chairman, other than the vote on final passage, make no mistake about it, this will be the most important vote we will have on tort reform. The bottom-line question for each of us to answer is this: Why on earth should a defendant with 1 percent or 2 percent of liability be held 100 percent responsible for payment of noneconomic damages. That is the question each of us has to answer. That is not fair, and everyone knows it. Let me stress what this amendment will not do. It will not end joint liability for medical expenses. Thus, even though a party may be only 1 or 2 percent at fault, such a defendant could still be held 100 percent liable for the plaintiff's medical expenses and other economic damages, such as lost wages. While this also may not be fair to such a defendant, it would be more unfair to deny an injured plaintiff the means to be made whole again, and that is what our tort system is all about, to make an injured plaintiff whole. Mr. Chairman, let us make it perfectly clear that this amendment simply limits noneconomic damages in proportion to each defendant's share of fault. This, Mr. Chairman, is just common sense. Let me give Members an idea of an actual case involving the problem that joint liability can cause. Those of the Members who have been there or lived there know that in Minnesota we have two seasons, winter and road construction. We see signs for most of the year ``Slow down, give them a break, under construction.'' Now, picture among these signs a drunk driver careening at an excessive speed through detours posted at 45 miles an hour. The end result is a crash. Next comes a lawsuit brought by the drunk driver. Who does the drunk driver sue? For starters, he sues the State highway department, but the State in this case imposes limits on its liabilities, so the driver's attorney sues every deep pocket imaginable: in this actual case, not only the State but the road contractor, the utility company who owned the adjoining property, the engineering firm who designed the detour through which the drunk driver plowed his car, and so forth. In the end, the defendants decided to settle out of court for $35,000 each. This was after a 15-member engineering firm spent over $200,000 in legal fees over 5 years, and 100 hours of work that should have been spent on engineering. Clearly, the drunk driver's attorney would have thought twice about suing all possible deep pockets if joint liability were not available. I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment to restore common sense to our legal system, to restore proportionate liability and the fair share rule.

Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oxley amendment as cochair of the bipartisan House Medical Technology Caucus. Why in the world, Mr. Chairman, should any manufacturer be deemed malicious if it has complied with all regulations, reported all relevant information, and received FDA approval to market a product? Mr. Chairman, let's quit stifling medical innovation. Let's quit stifling research and development, drugs and medical devices. Let's adopt the Oxley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Oxley amendment, as cochair of the bipartisan House Medical Technology Caucus. This amendment is needed because manufacturers are currently being forced to withhold life-saving drugs and medical devices rather than face unlimited liability. Why in the world should any manufacturer be deemed malicious if it has complied with all regulations, reported all relevant information, and received FDA approval to market a product? The FDA defense was originally in H.R. 917 and should be part of this important tort reform legislation. Let's quit stifling research and development in drugs and medical devices. Let's quit stifling medical innovation. Let's help those consumers and patients who need life- saving drugs and medical devices. Let's adopt the Oxley FDA amendment.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, it was certainly thought if it applied, the limitation on punitive damages applied to products cases, it should apply to all civil actions.

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

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, last Friday I introduced H.R. 1119 to improve section 457 pensions for police officers, firefighters, and other public employees. Currently, these public servants are not eligible for 401(k) pension plans, but may elect to contribute to employee-funded plans governed by section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code [IRC]. Unfortunately, these deferred compensation plans have been left out of many of the improvements that have been made over the years to the more well-known 401(k) plans. My legislation will make three important improvements to 457 pension plans. First, it will index the maximum contribution amount to account for inflation. While maximum contributions to 401(k) plans are indexed for inflation, the maximum contribution for 457 plans is set at $7,500 a year and can only be increased by Congress. Second, H.R. 1119 will allow participants to make a one-time change in the date when benefits are received. Currently, participants must make an irrevocable, one-time decision about the exact date they want to begin receiving benefits. This decision is a difficult one, especially for police and other public safety officers, because they often retire at relatively young ages and might pursue other careers. Third, my bill will allow plans to be cashed out if they contain less than $3,500 and have been inactive for at least 2 years. Currently, some enroll in 457 plans and find, for one reason or another, that they cannot make payments. Maybe they have gotten married, had children or bought a home, and simply cannot afford to make the necessary contributions. For whatever reason, these accounts can lie dormant for long periods of time. Yet, plan administrators must continue to maintain records on them. My bill will allow these accounts to be cashed out and taxed at the usual rate for income. The important changes H.R. 1119 makes to 457 plans will help public employees enrolled in these pensions contribute more to their retirement savings and better plan for their retirement years. I encourage all of my colleagues to cosponsor H.R. 1119.