Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, suddenly 37 minutes became available, and I thought I would come to this floor and address the issue that is on the minds of everyone in this country. I invite those of my colleagues who have a like mind to come down and share this 37 minutes with me. I have been joined by one of our colleagues from the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who I will yield to after I deal with the first and second points. The first point I want to make is that Vice President Gore did win the popular vote by well over 200,000 votes. Now, I know the point is often made that there are several hundred thousand votes still waiting to be counted in California. Well, I am from California as well as the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren). California was won overwhelmingly by the Gore candidacy, and we know from our experience that that means that, if anything, the late absentee ballots, those counted because they were received virtually on election day, will, if anything, bolster this 216,000 vote lead. Likewise, there are some uncounted votes in the State of Washington, mostly from the Puget Sound region, which Vice President Gore won overwhelmingly. So when the votes are cast, it will be clear what the popular vote is in America. The American voters voted for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman by a plurality of roughly a quarter million. But what is before us is the electoral college. The electoral college requires us, as a matter of law, to put aside that quarter million vote majority for Al Gore and, instead, focus on this on a State-by-State basis. Now, there has been an attempt by Governor Bush to try to use political insult, if not political intimidation, for those of us who respect the rule of law and want that rule of law to go forward, those who want the courts to act as referees just as we have referees in football. I know some would argue it would be a more exciting game of football if we took the referees off the field, but if one believes in the rules, one has got to believe in the refs. Now, Florida seems to turn first and foremost on the vote in Palm Beach County. If we are to have an accurate electoral college vote, we need to focus on the ballots in Palm Beach County. We will see that there is a very strong argument for a revote in that county. The ballot which I am about to show my colleagues is acknowledged by virtually everyone to be very confusing. It did, in fact, confuse tens of thousands of voters in Palm Beach County. There were some 19,000 voters in that county who double punched, voted for two presidential candidates. The Bush campaign has argued that is roughly analogous to a somewhat lower number, perhaps 14,000, who they say double punched in 1996. The only problem is that is a false number. It is not fuzzy math, it is false math. The figure that they use in 1996 is the sum of those who just skipped the Presidential race, did not want to vote for any of the Presidential candidates, and those in Palm Beach County in 1996 who mistakenly punched two holes. In fact, the number of who punched two holes this time was roughly double the number who punched two holes in the prior election. That is because of the famous butterfly ballot which confused voters. Not only were they confused into voting twice, but they were confused into voting for Pat Buchanan. Pat Buchanan has admitted that many of the votes he received in Palm Beach County were not voters who wanted to vote for Pat Buchanan. If Pat Buchanan can admit that, why cannot Governor Bush? But it is not enough that the ballot is confusing. The ballot is also in violation of Florida law in two important respects, both of which contributed to voters not being allowed to vote. First, Florida law requires that the names be on the left and the holes be to the right of the name. If this ballot had been done legally, prepared legally, prepared according to Florida State statutes, we would not have this problem. These folks would be listed below the other folks. There would be one hole next to each name, and people would punch. That is not what happened. It was a ballot designed in violation of Florida law. Second, the ballot laws of Florida require that the candidate be in a certain order. The party that won the governorship in Florida, the Republican Party, is entitled to go first. The party that came in second for the governorship, the Democratic Party, is entitled to go second. But if one pushes the second hole, one's vote is not counted for the Democratic Party. The second hole does not belong to the Democratic Party. The second hole belongs to the Reform Party. So one has a situation where the order of the holes is not as specified by Florida law. Those two problems, two violations of law led to the confusion. Now, Florida law on this was announced just 2 years ago. In the 1990 Supreme Court case, in the Supreme Court of California, Bextrum versus Volusia County Canvassing Board in which the court finds substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures. If the court makes a factual determination that reasonable doubt exists as to whether a certified election expressed the will of the voters, then the court is to void the contested election, even in the absence of fraud or intentional wrongdoing. The court, the Supreme Court of Florida, has spoken to this very situation. We certainly have a situation where doubt exists as to what is the right outcome; there are more people gathered in our cloakroom some of the times than the total number of votes separating the two candidates in Florida; and substantial noncompliance with statutory election procedures was operative. So clearly, under Florida law, the court, in the standards it adopted in 1998, should order a revote in Palm Beach County. I want to point out that it is premature for us to call for that here and now. No candidate for President has yet called for a revote in Palm Beach County. I think, however, the argument presented here would be a strong one to result in such a revote. I should point out that there are other elements of this confusion. The first is reported in The Washington Post of this past Saturday where they reported that confused voters were besieging the county commissioners by telephone in the morning. By the afternoon, they were calling local radio shows. Then there was a hastily written memo from a county supervisor of elections distributed at the end, when most people had already voted, trying to explain the inexplicable. And, in fact, one senior leader, the president of the Century Village Retirement Community, said people were crying. They were coming to us to ask questions; the ballot was lousy; they did not know who they voted for. I can go on and on with the discussion of the confusion and the sorrow, the anger and the frustration of the people of Palm Beach County as they were denied their right to vote by a ballot that violated the statutes of the State of Florida. But at this point, I know that I have two very patient colleagues, the first one serving on the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), who I know also wants to address these issues.

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for the tenor of his remarks, and I would join him in saying that perhaps the lowest point of the television debates and back and forths have been when there has been an attack made on the campaign chairman for the Gore campaign because of his father. I have never seen my father's integrity attacked on this floor; I have never seen the integrity of the father of the gentleman from New Jersey attacked on this floor; and I have certainly never heard of an attack on a Member's integrity for the purpose of discrediting his arguments on a bill. That behavior is certainly lower than this House has ever gone and, hopefully, the Bush campaign will not descend to those levels again. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue to talk about how people reacted to that confusing and illegal ballot in Palm Beach, Florida. One elderly voter did the right thing. That voter asked for a second ballot, having ruined his first ballot. Bernard Holtzer, a retired community inhabitant, said he had unintentionally voted for Pat Buchanan on the first ballot and the clerk refused his request for a second ballot. Holtzer said, ``I told the clerk I made a boo-boo and that I wanted a new ballot. And she told me there was nothing she could do about it.'' That is the New York Times, this Saturday, reporting that not only was the ballot confusing and illegal but that the county workers did not in any way allow for the appropriate legal remedy. In fact, that same New York Times article points out that poll workers were under strict instructions to turn away voters who came to them with questions. Quoting one poll worker named Louise Austin, Ms. Austin said, ``I had to follow the directive, `Don't help anyone. Don't talk to anyone.' '' Again, the New York Times reports that. So there were as reported in both the New York Times and the Washington Post precinct workers who received instructions very late in the day telling them how to help confused voters. Of course that begs the question, what about the well over 75 percent of the voters who voted before those instructions went out to the poll workers? So we have reason to believe that the only way that the people of Palm Beach County will be allowed to vote in this election, will have their franchise protected, is if there is a revote in Palm Beach County. Now, I know that is controversial and that is even a conclusion that I am not ready to fully embrace here tonight, because it is a premature conclusion. Because there is something that we all agree on, and, that is, the first step is a proper count of all the ballots that were cast. And a proper count is the best possible count. A manual recount is the best possible count. First, it is argued we should not have a manual recount because somehow that is the second recount. You cannot recount after a recount. Well, let us straighten that out. This manual recount is the first recount requested by the Gore campaign. Because the election was so close, there was an automatic recount by machine in every county. But that was not at the request of the Gore campaign because the Gore campaign appears to want the most accurate possible recount. And so the Gore campaign has made only one recount request, and that is for a manual recount to be conducted in four counties. The Gore campaign never asked for a machine recount. And to say that the most accurate recount should be ignored because there was a worse system employed not at the request of any candidate is absurd. Now, why is it that I say that a manual recount is the better recount? Well, we are told by James Baker that he prefers a recount using precision machines. These precision machines, 1950s technology, machines that cannot read a bent card, machines that jam up when you put a bent card in them, machines that cannot tell you what their standards are. Where there has been argument about whether a particular punch card should be counted, a swinging door chad, a partially detached chad, what are the machine's standards? We do not know. The engineers of the machines do not know. Sometimes the machine will count a bent ballot. Sometimes it will not. Sometimes if it is partially punched, the machine counts it. Sometimes it will not. The machine is not talking to anybody and nobody can look inside it while it is counting. It is not the same as having three citizens in full view, viewed by Republican and Democratic experts behind them, on cable television, counting the ballots one at a time. Those who refer to precision machines are wrong, because the invention of man is indeed imperfect, far more imperfect than the creation of God. A human being watched and consulting other human beings, in full public, can look at a bent card, can look at a partially attached chad, can apply specific standards and can reach the correct conclusion. That is why in Seminole County, Florida, last week, they did a manual count, much to the glee of the Bush campaign which got 100 extra votes as a result of the manual count done after the machine count, the machine recount. Bush husbands and enjoys that 100 votes. In fact, it is a third of the lead he claims today. And it is all because in a Republican county they completed a manual recount. To be detailed, what happened was if a card would not go through the machine, they would look at it, determine the vote of the voter, create a new ballot reflecting that intent, and run it through the Seminole County machine. That is a manual recount in Seminole County. Yet no one in the Bush campaign has asked for those 100 extra votes to be subtracted from their column. But we do not have to look just at what is happening in Florida. We know by looking at Texas. Here is the statute, signed into law by Governor Bush, scarcely 3 years ago: a manual recount shall be conducted in preference to an electronic recount. How dare James Baker insult the Governor of Texas when he says that these words are wrong. Now, Mr. Baker says they have standards in Texas. They have, of course, standards in Florida as well. In each county in Florida, the election board identifies swinging door chads, partially attached chads; and the training is going on right now and yesterday so that each poll worker follows those instructions. Machines, of course, have no standards at all; but the poll workers in Florida, county by county, do. But if James Baker and the Bush campaign think the problem is standards, why do they go to court to try to prevent an accurate recount? They should be coming to the election officials in Florida and suggesting standards. If there are wonderful standards available, proven, used in Texas, why does the Governor of Texas not share them with the people of Florida? The fact of the matter is there are not really specific standards in Texas that are any better than those in Florida. The Florida standards are just fine. The Bush campaign is not looking for a manual vote based on uniform standards. They are looking for a quick victory that ignores the will of the Florida voters. They are looking to stop the manual vote, not improve it. That is why they went to court today and they asked a Federal judge. They would be the first to insult judges and the first to seek a court injunction and the first to be turned down by the courts. And they tried to get a Federal judge to prevent what the Texas Governor in his own State and his own statutes recognized as the most accurate method of recount. They failed. But justice may still not prevail, because the Secretary of State of Florida, herself the cochair of the Bush campaign, has to come up with this idea that all the counting has to be done by 5 p.m. tomorrow. Now, is this based on Florida statute? No. It is based on a misreading of Florida statute. She cites section 102.111 which sets a 5 p.m. deadline. But a more recent Florida statute is in clear conflict with 111 and that is section 102.112, passed more recently, under our laws entitled to greater weight when there is direct conflict. It says, if the election returns are not received by the department by the time specified, such returns may be ignored. So the Secretary of State, the cochair of the Bush campaign, has merely the discretion, if she wants to, to disenfranchise entire counties in Florida because they want to do an accurate recount. No court should allow such discretion to be used arbitrarily and no campaign should want its candidate for President to win because of such arbitrary and wrongful action. Who could deny this country an accurate recount by the methods signed into law in his own State by the Governor of Texas? But it goes beyond that. Here, on a smaller chart, I have listed four Republican congressional candidates, each of whom wanted a manual recount. Each of them got a manual recount. Whether it was John Ensign running for the Senate 2 years ago or the famous Bob Dornan case, or whether it was Peter Torkildsen in 1996 or Rick McIntyre in 1984. In 1984, Rick McIntyre demanded and got a manual recount. And Dick Cheney was on this floor saying he would go to war over that request. The request was granted. I realize there were other controversies about that race. But Dick Cheney, when he was here, was here backing up Rick McIntyre's demand for a manual recount. So of course there should be a manual recount. And of course attempts to say that it has to be done by 5 p.m. tomorrow are outrageous. I will tell you how outrageous they are. Tonight, I hope, in several counties in Florida, people are going to be doing the manual recount all through the night. They are going to get tired. And James Baker is going to be on television saying, ``Oh, my God, it can't be accurate. They were tired. They must be ignored.'' Why are they tired? Why are they working through the night? Because the Bush campaign wants to impose a ridiculous 5 p.m. deadline. Now, is this 5 p.m. deadline there to assure that the election is decided more quickly? No. There can be no decision in Florida until 5 p.m. Friday when those overseas ballots have to have arrived in Florida to be counted. So why 5 p.m. Tuesday as a deadline for completing a manual recount? Only one reason, to frustrate the manual recount, to make people be tired during the manual recount, to ridicule the manual recount. A manual recount, which is the method of choice in the State of Texas, because Governor Bush signed the law that made it so because he was right. We have seen that the creation of God does a better job in this case than the invention of man and that human beings can do better. So it would be nice if the Governor was trying to get the most accurate recount instead of trying to slam the door on the most accurate recount. Let me deal with one other issue. The Bush campaign says that what is unfair is that the media at around 7:40 p.m. or 6:40 p.m., anyway, 20 minutes before the polls were going to close in the Florida panhandle, called the Florida race. What the media did was inaccurate. They gave voters in the Florida panhandle inaccurate information. But is that the only stupid and inaccurate information to appear on television in this electoral season? The voters have a right under Florida law, under the U.S. Constitution, to vote and to have their will at the polls expressed. That is very different from saying that you have a constitutional right not to get bad information in the press, because I assure you there is no such right to get only accurate information in the press. We get inaccurate information in the press all the time, and the press has called Florida four or five different times. Every time they have called it wrong. Mr. Speaker, to summarize, the popular vote will go overwhelmingly for Al Gore, the Vice President, and Joe Lieberman, the Senator from Connecticut. The ballot in Palm Beach County was responsible for twisting these results, which clearly possibly affected the results and was an illegal as well as a confusing ballot, a ballot in violation of two different Florida statutes, well-designed statutes, that were not carried out; and the Florida courts have recognized that where there is confusion because of a violation of the Florida elections code, a revote is called for. But before we get to a revote, we need to do everything possible to get an accurate count of the vote cast on election night; and that vote can best be recounted, as George Bush's signature indicates when he signed this bill, can best be recounted by a manual recount, the only recount requested by the Gore campaign, the only method that is recognized by the Governor of Texas as the most accurate way to do the recount. Now, there are criticisms of what the standards are that are being used in the manual recount. Those who criticize have an obligation to make suggestions. They do not have the right to say that because they do not find perfection in the best and preferred method, that because they do not find it perfect, that it should be ignored.

Mr. SHERMAN. Even those who say it is up to the voter to know the law, and if the voter gets it wrong, we will discard the voter's vote even if it is apparent how that voter voted, even those folks have got to admit the ballot was designed in violation of law. And if we are going to tell voters they are responsible for knowing the law, they have a right to a ballot designed in accordance with the law. The law in Florida states if someone punches the second hole that they are voting for the party that came in second in the last gubernatorial election. Only on that ballot it is not designed that way. So it is simply wrong to be tough on the voters while forcing the voter not to be able to rely on the statutes of the State in which they reside.

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentlewoman from California for her comments. I yield now to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, nothing shocked me more, left me less prepared than the sudden burst of sanity that swept this hall just an hour ago when we decided to finally leave town. Mr. Speaker, I am hardly prepared to deliver these remarks, but seeing as no one else wishes to address the House at this time, I have put together a few notes of a speech I thought I would be delivering 3 hours or 4 hours from now. What is apparent, as we leave town, is that elections are important, that whether we get a patients' bill of rights, whether we get Medicare to provide coverage for pharmaceuticals, whether we get Federal aid for education and for school construction, and I will be talking about that a little later, whether we protect our environment and protect the women's right to choose, increase the minimum wage, protect Social Security, all of these things are on the line next Tuesday. Mr. Speaker, until we left town, there was the illusion that the country could get these democratic proposals adopted in what I call ``Democrat-lite'' form, that we would pass some bill that seemed to address the issues that we Democrats have put on the agenda, like the issues I just mentioned, education, health care, that we have put these issues on the agenda, but that the majority would pass some sort of ``lite'' version of these bills, and at least make the country think that these issues had been dealt with. Mr. Speaker, now as we adjourn, the words ``do nothing Congress'' rings in our ears, for we have accomplished not even the minimum required of this Congress. In fact, a Senate and a House both controlled by the majority party have not even sent to the President for his analysis all of the 13 appropriations bills that should have reached there in September. So we have a do-nothing Congress, a Congress that has not addressed the issues that we Democrats have put on the agenda. It has not addressed them, even in some sort of mild or illusory form. We have an election coming up that will help us address those issues. Before I move off of this topic, I do think that it was wrong to criticize our colleagues who were not here yesterday, participating with us in this charade where this House pretended that we were going to reach a compromise on all of the issues, even though the Senate, including the Republican Senate leadership, had already left town. Those in the majority who would criticize, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio), our colleague, for not being here yesterday should not have issued that criticism to a Member of this House. I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) had campaigning to do in New York and chose not to join us yesterday, but we were hardly doing important work. But at this point, I want to focus on the school construction issue. The tax bill that we just passed out of this House dealt in a poor way with the crisis that is facing this country; and that crisis is the need to build new schools, to refurbish older schools, to renovate schools, to wire schools for the Internet, to do the things that are normally done by school districts by issuing school bonds. The tradition in this country has been for this Congress to help school districts issue school bonds and to do so by using the Tax Code for us to provide a subsidy to those who hold school bonds, so that investors will buy school bonds, even though they yield a rather low rate of interest. We have done this in the past by providing an exemption from taxation for all of the interest paid on school bonds and other municipal bonds. We need to do more, because even when we exempt the interest, the school bonds end up having to yield 5 percent or 6 percent and many school districts cannot afford to pay 5 percent or 6 percent. So we on the Democratic side said we need to provide for the issuance of $25 billion worth of a new kind of school bond with even greater benefits under the Federal Tax Code and even lower costs to the school district. We did not design to bond where the interest was not merely tax exempt, but instead the school district did not have to pay interest at all, but the bond holder, instead of getting even a reduced interest payment from the school district, received a tax credit for holding the bond. An outstanding way to use our Tax Code to turn to school districts that would otherwise have to pay $100,000 a year to service a particular bond, tell them they can raise that same amount of money, build that same size of a school and only make annual payments of $66,000 a year, a greater Federal subsidy for those school districts that issue school bonds to renovate and build new schools. We thought that it was necessary to provide this $25 billion of special aid to our local schools over a 2-year period, roughly $12\1/2\ billion a year. The Republicans decided instead to provide per year less than half of what was necessary, but rather to provide $5 billion a year over 3 years on a per-year basis less than half. They also, and this troubled me, weaseled the Davis-Bacon provisions so that these school bonds could be used to build substandard schools at substandard wages for those building them. We do not need slipshod workmanship. We do not need substandard schools. We do not need to weasel around the Davis-Bacon action that has assured that our public buildings built with Federal dollars are built well. Mr. Speaker, we have a very watered-down version of the Democratic proposal, which is clearly insufficient, but what is worse is that the same tax bill which came before this House, and which most of us on this side voted against, also provided for another method of helping school districts, a method that costs the Federal Government well over $2 billion, but was actually worse than nothing. What was this? How do we figure out a way to pretend to help school districts and actually hurt them? We changed the arbitrage rules, or at least the majority would have us change the arbitrage rules in the Tax Code. What are those rules? The rules say this: If a public entity, a school, a city, is going to issue tax exempt bonds for a public purpose, they need to use the money for that public purpose. This avoids the possibility that some school district would issue a lot of bonds at a real low interest rate, so they borrow money cheap. Instead of using the money for a public purpose, they would just use the money to invest on Wall Street. We have arbitrage rules for a reason. That is if the Federal Government is going to subsidize borrowing, the borrowing should be for something like building a school, not building a portfolio. But what the Republican bill would do is change those rules and identify that change as our way of helping school districts, a special encouragement from the Federal Government. Here, school districts, is how we are going to help you. How? Issue the bonds, issue tax exempt bonds. We are not going to let you issue those credit bonds because those would help you too much. The Democrats wanted to give you that much help, but the Republicans want to provide that only in very small quantity, issue regular tax exempt bonds, pay 5 percent or 6 percent interest and then take the money to Wall Street. We are sure you will earn 8 percent or 9 percent or 20 percent or 80 percent or 2000 percent on your money, and you will be allowed to keep the profit. This is the Republican way of building schools, by building portfolios. This is how Orange County, California went bankrupt a few years ago. We should be trying to build a school on Elm Street, not a skyscraper on Wall Street. We should not be turning to schools and saying we will not provide you with adequate help to issue bonds and use the money to build schools, but we will instead encourage you to issue bonds and use the money to play the market. I know that our friends on Wall Street would prefer that, a whole new customer, but I was surprised to find the real impetus for this proposal. It comes from people I used to work with, the tax lawyers who are subspecialists in tax exempt municipal bonds. Mr. Speaker, I am sympathetic with them. You see, I was a tax nerd for a lot of years. For over a dozen years, I practiced tax law, and after a day of reading the most complex regulations printed in the finest print, I had but one solace, one joy, one redemption, and that was that my job was not quite as boring as those of my colleagues who subspecialized in the tax law of municipal bonds, even among tax nerds that is regarded as a boring job. So this tax provision that is stated to try to help our schools was in essence designed to provide excitement to tax bond counsel, to say they are not just going to issue bonds and build schools and deal with, frankly, excessively complex provisions in doing it; but instead they are going to issue bonds and then, with the members of the school board, go play the market with the money. Mr. Speaker, we need schools. We need to see them built soon. We need the school districts to handle their fiscal affairs safely. That is the chief problem. The way to deal with it is to provide Federal subsidies to school districts who are issuing these school bonds by making those bonds tax credit bonds. There may, in fact, be another problem, and that is that my former colleagues, the tax bond counsel, lead excessively boring lives. But it would be cheaper to buy a Ferrari for every bond counsel than it would be to urge school districts across this country to play the market and keep the supposed profits as the federally encouraged way for the Federal Government to help them finance school construction. So when we return for our lame-duck session, if someone is concerned with the lack of excitement of tax lawyer subspecialists, let them put forward a bill to provide a free Ferrari to every bond counsel. But if we are concerned with building schools, let us not change those arbitrage provisions. Let us not pretend that we are helping schools by urging them to gamble school bond proceeds. Instead, let us instead adopt the plan that is bipartisan, that has been in this House for over a year that was put forward by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), and by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson). To put forward that bill and pass a full $25 billion of tax credit bonds to provide the maximum possible assistance to local schools. Let me now launch into a second topic, a topic about which I have addressed this House in the past; and that is the mischaracterizations of statements made by the Governor of Texas. I refer not to his comments about events long ago in Kennebunkport, but rather his own description of his tax plan. I do not know whether it is because the Governor has not read and fully understood his tax plan or whether the Governor just cannot get away from constantly mischaracterizing it to the American people. But there are several myths that are repeated, frankly, almost every day on the campaign stump. I would like to set them straight. The first is that the Bush plan would provide a tax relief to every taxpayer. This is simply false. See, Mr. Speaker, there are 30 million Americans who pay FICA tax, have it pulled out of their wages by the Federal Government every year, but who do not pay income tax. These 30 million Federal taxpayers receive not one penny of tax relief from a candidate who has promised tax relief to everyone. Now, I should caution that, of these 30 million taxpayers, a little fewer than half receive the earned income tax credit which we on this side of the aisle have fought for so hard and so long. So ultimately, one could say their total combined Federal tax liability was at zero. That may be the case. It may be that the Governor's proposal simply shortchanges 15 million Americans. But to repeat on the stump every year, every day, again and again, that one has a proposal which will provide tax relief to all American taxpayers while leaving out 15 million Americans who pay money to the Federal Government in excess of any credits they receive who are Federal taxpayers, no matter how one counts it, these 15 million should not be left out. But if the Governor wants to leave them out of his plan, he ought to have the integrity to say so and tell us that, yes, he wants to provide almost half of his tax relief package to the best-off 1 percent of Americans, but that he wants to give not one penny to those who clean up in nursing homes and in buildings, those who wash cars and those who clean up at restaurants. He wants to provide not one penny to 15 million of the most struggling, hard-working families in America who pay taxes. He ought to have the courage of his conviction. He ought to be forthright. There is a related aspect of the Governor's proposal, and that is the brouhaha over whether he is, indeed, providing over or close to half his benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. This is clearly the case, but not something the Governor is willing to acknowledge. See, in the debates, he said that his plan provided only $223 billion of tax relief over a 10-year period to the wealthiest 1 percent. Now, $223 billion even over 10 years sounds like a lot of tax relief, but it is a lot more than that. See, the Governor, in his fiscal statements in adding up his program, the Governor leaves out the repeal of the estate tax. Now, in talking vaguely about his tax plan, in firing up the troops, he says he is going to eliminate the death tax. But in talking about the fiscal effect of his program, he forgets the fiscal effect of eliminating that tax. Now that fiscal effect can be hidden by phasing in the elimination of the tax and using fuzzy phase-in figures. But the fact remains that, over a 10-year period, once it is fully effected, the repeal of the estate tax will cost $50 billion a year. That is $500 billion over 10 years. Virtually all of that saving goes to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. A little bit is shared by percentile number 2, the people who are in the second percent of the wealthiest Americans. I mean, that is, I guess, what the Governor has to consider to be really sharing the wealth with everybody. He includes, not just the wealthiest 1 percent, but a small piece goes to that second 1 percent, leaving out only 98 percent of Americans. So we are talking about a plan which not only provides $223 billion of tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent on their income tax returns, but virtually another $500 billion on the estate tax, well over $700 billion of tax relief. I wonder frankly why the Governor would state that he is only providing $223 billion. Again, he ought to have the courage of his convictions. He ought to be forthright; and he ought to have integrity. Integrity requires that he admit that it is, indeed, true that, under his plan, the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans receive more than he proposes to spend on strengthening our military and education and health care and pharmaceuticals for our seniors combined. The most important issues facing us receive less help than 1 percent of Americans and, frankly, 1 percent that perhaps need it least. Now I want to emphasize I have sympathy for all taxpayers. I wish we could abolish all taxes. They are each painful. But when we start to provide tax relief, to the extent that we can afford to provide tax relief, should we not focus on Bill Gates' maid before we focus on the as-yet-unborn Bill Gates, Jr. and his eventual estate tax return? Should we not focus on people struggling to get by rather than people struggling to hold on to multibillion dollar empires? I strongly support estate tax reform, which we can do at a rather modest cost. At a rather modest cost, we can make sure that every family in America will not pay a single penny of estate tax on its first $2 million of assets. We can provide that, when those assets are locked up in a farm or a family held business, that we can draw the line at $3 million or $4 million. That is the kind of estate tax reform that we can easily afford. But the absolute abolition of the estate tax is so expensive that, when the Governor adds up his own program, he leaves it out. It is troubling to me that the press has not picked this up. But eyes begin to glaze over, I see a few eyes glazing over now, as figures are reviewed. But we are in a great debate about figures. This is not a popularity contest, but rather is a focus on who will be running the largest economy in the history of the world. Which brings me to another issue, and that is, how has this economy run so well and who deserves the credit. I think we all agree that the lion's share of that credit goes to American working families, American scientists and executives and entrepreneurs whose hard work and ingenuity has built a new economy, the envy of the rest of the world. But wait a minute. Our people were hard working and ingenious in the mid-1980s, the late 1980s, and the early 1990s. In fact, during that period, Alan Greenspan was running the Federal Reserve Board. But Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve Board, the ingenuity of American entrepreneurs, the hard work of American people all together gave us a terrible economy in 1991. What was missing? A key ingredient was missing. That ingredient was fiscal responsibility here in Washington. Now, I realize that it is in the Governor's political interest to ignore that key ingredient, to say that we can have prosperity as long as Americans work hard. Well, Americans have always worked hard, but we have not always been prosperous. It is in his political interest to say that we can always have prosperity as long as Americans work hard because he does not want to admit that the Clinton-Gore administration provided that key element that had been previously missing in our economic life, and that was fiscal responsibility. That fiscal responsibility is the hardest thing to accomplish in Washington. I think the public understands the pressures on us and how often we buckle to those pressures. Here in Congress one can be very popular, standing behind this podium or that podium, and calling for a reduction in taxes or calling for an increase in those items of expenditures which are popular. Many of us have done that. But imagine how difficult it is for a President, for a political leader to stand before the country and suggest exactly the opposite on both fronts, how only incredible leadership fortitude can turn to a Congress and to a country and say, yes, we would be more popular if we cut taxes, but we are not going to, or at least we are not going to do so to an irresponsible degree. Yes, there are pressing priorities and pork projects that would be popular either nationally or in a particular region, and we are going to resist so many of them. Back in 1991, scholars wondered whether America was ready for self- government, because, after all, the incredible pressure to have lower taxes and higher expenditures seemed to be in control here in Washington. The Clinton-Gore administration came here and with great pain and with the political loss of some people who lost their careers in this House for the benefit of the country, we passed some very difficult bills, and that was hard. And then as the country got more prosperous and there were increased pressures from those who say, oh, the deficit is down, let us abolish the estate tax, as we had to stand up to those who would squander the surplus, the Clinton-Gore administration stood there again and again. How easy it would have been for this Federal Government to have engaged in an orgy of profligate spending and irresponsible tax cuts. But the Clinton- Gore administration prevented that from happening. It is not easy. And that is why we enjoy the combination of hard work and ingenious effort from the American private sector and fiscal responsibility to levels that would absolutely have dumbfounded anyone who was looking at the situation just 8 or 9 years ago, a level of fiscal responsibility that almost matches the hard work and ingenuity of the American people. What worries me most is that, for political reasons, the Governor has said that what goes on in Washington does not matter. Yes, he is under tremendous political pressure to say that 8 years of Clinton-Gore did nothing for the country's economy. But when he does this, he must argue that fiscal responsibility had nothing to do with the country's economy. And if that is true, then what is to prevent us from engaging in a wild frenzy of spending and tax cuts and deficit spending at that? When the Governor builds the rhetorical and philosophical foundation for the belief that what goes on in Washington has nothing to do with our prosperity, he grants a license to Washington to do whatever we want since it does not risk our prosperity. The facts are clearly otherwise. In the absence of fiscal responsibility, this economy will not work. It will not work because, under George Herbert Walker Bush, we had deficits of over $250 billion a year. What does that deficit mean? It means that those thinking of investing in bonds, those thinking of investing in stocks believe that we are going to have inflation in years to come, demand high interest rates, high rates of return and, as a result, a business cannot get the capital it needs to expand. It means that in a country that, frankly, does not save enough, the Federal Government is going into the private markets and scooping up almost a quarter, sometimes even a third, of the valuable capital not for investment, which is what capital is for, but, rather, scooping it up and using it just to deal with ongoing Federal operations. When I say scooping it up, what I mean is that there is a certain amount of money to be invested by the private sector in stocks and bonds and bank accounts, and a Federal Government that runs a deficit issues more and more bonds, receives more and more of that investment capital, and leaves less and less capital available to build homes and to bill businesses. So fiscal responsibility is important and whatever political advantages there may be for saying that what has gone on in Washington in the last 8 years has nothing to do with our prosperity over the last 8 years should be repudiated. Now, I want to deal with the argument that is made usually by Republican Members of this House. They start with one chart, which I am going to show you, a Republican chart. I have had it redone. And then they reach a particular conclusion without showing you the second chart. You will see the chart put forward by Republican speaker after Republican speaker showing that Federal receipts as a percentage of our GDP have grown. Why is that? It is not because we have changed tax provisions. We have changed rather few. It is because the country is more prosperous. People now find themselves in higher tax brackets even when those brackets are adjusted for inflation because they are doing well in the market, they are exercising stock options. This is not everybody, but it is enough to drive higher Federal receipts. But this chart is often put forward by the Republican side to argue that there must be some huge explosion in liberal spending in this town that is responsible for these increases in Federal receipts as a percentage of GDP. Let me go on to the second chart. This is the chart they will not show you, Federal Government expenditures as a percent of GDP dropping every year, every year. Well, expenditures are going down as a percent of GDP receipts are going up. Is this some liberal conspiracy to spend more money? Obviously not. Expenditures are on their way down. What we are doing is paying off the huge multi-trillion-dollar national debt. And it is about time. We are building up a surplus in the Social Security fund which we have locked up there for Social Security beneficiaries. And it is about time. It is just in the nick of time. The chart that shows that Federal receipts are up simply shows that a more prosperous Nation will pay higher capital gains taxation, higher estate taxes, simply because more prosperous people pay more taxes. The chart here shows that fiscal responsibility has reigned on the expenditure side in this Federal Government and that we have begun the long period of paying off our national debt, the vast majority of which was run up during the Reagan-Bush administrations. So we on the Democratic side get criticized for paying the debt run up during their administrations. It just shows you how absurd some of the fiscal analysis has been. Now, at this point let me address the most fiscally irresponsible proposal that has been put forward in this campaign, and that is the plan of Governor Bush to promise the same trillion dollars to two groups of people. Now, when I first got to Congress, everybody said Social Security is in deep trouble, that Social Security may not be able to survive. And after a while, we improved the economy so that more workers are paying more money into Social Security, and we are now in a position with a few very minor additions to the Social Security trust fund that have been proposed to ensure that the Social Security system is solvent for 50 or even 75 years. But no one thinks that there is just a huge pile of unneeded money in the Social Security trust fund except perhaps the Governor of Texas. He has promised to take a trillion dollars over the next decade and put it in special extra accounts for young workers. This is money that is needed to pay Social Security benefits to older workers and our retirees. He makes this promise; and he promises whole new benefits, you will be able to play the market, you will get rich, you will have a lavish retirement and even more. Social Security has always been there to provide security for those who live into their retirement years and who otherwise, without Social Security, would not have that as a source of income and might not have any other source of income. But one thing with Social Security is, when you die, you are done. There is a small death benefit. But we cannot afford to turn to the sons and daughters of a man or woman who dies at age 66 and say, well, you know, your parents did not live as long as expected. Actuarially, they should have lived to age 80. We planned to pay them until age 80. Here is a big check. We cannot afford to do that. The reason we cannot afford to do that is that next door there will be another senior who will not only live to age 80 but will live to age 1001, and if you are going to be able to afford to make Social Security benefit checks to those who live far longer than expected, you cannot write huge residual checks to the families of those who live shorter than expected. But Bush has promised huge checks inheritable by the heirs of those who participate in this new Social Security system and extra retirement bordering on luxury combined with a whole new inheritable benefit. How does he propose to provide this trillion dollars of extra benefits to buy the votes of younger Americans? At the same time, this trillion dollars is needed to pay retirement benefits to those who are presently retired. Well, the story is not quite as simple as I make it out to be. The Governor is correct when he says that Social Security is scheduled to have a $2.7 trillion surplus by the year 2010. So if you have a $2 trillion-plus surplus, what is the matter with the Governor buying some votes by giving away a trillion dollars of it or not giving away but providing additional benefits not previously there? The problem is that we need a $2.7 trillion surplus in Social Security and more to prepare for the baby boomer retirement, that demographic bulge when you raid the surplus held in Social Security to the tune of a trillion dollars on the theory that there will still be plenty of money left there in 2010, you assure the bankruptcy of Social Security in a year, approximately 2020. Because once the baby boomers retire and for as long as we are receiving Social Security benefits, there will be a need to pay out of Social Security more than it is taking in. And that is why you need a large surplus in Social Security in the year 2015 or thereabouts when the baby boomers start to retire. So we have a candidate for President who promises a trillion dollars to two different groups of people: those who are older and those who are young. He can do it by raiding the Social Security trust fund which he correctly points out has well over $2 trillion in it and could be used to provide massive benefits and special accounts to the tune of well over $2 trillion so long as we did not care what happened to the solvency of Social Security after 2010. I for one think that we should worry about the solvency of Social Security. It is not so dire that we should scare people into thinking Social Security will not be there for them when they retire. But there is not such a huge surplus that we can provide whole new benefits to new voter blocs unconceived of at the time Social Security was put together to be paid for out of supposedly huge surpluses in the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, that really concludes what I wanted to say about fiscal policy. I want to focus next on events in the Middle East. We all pray for peace in the Middle East, but it is important that we focus on the reasons for the rioting, the reasons for the conflict breaking out recently. We are told that this conflict broke out because General Sharon, the leader of the minority side of Israeli politics, chose to visit the site where Solomon's Temple once stood, the site where Jesus confronted the money changers, that he chose to visit that site and that the Palestinian Authority found that visit, just the fact that he was visiting, so offensive that they have begun weeks of violent confrontations. Let me put this into context. First, Mr. Sharon contacted the Palestinian Authority and indicated his desire to visit the site of Solomon's Temple, the site that is the holiest site in the Jewish religion, so holy that many Jews will not visit there because it is too holy to visit; but he chose to go there, and I respect that. And he was told, fine, visit that site. Simply do not go into the mosques that have been built there. He reached that agreement. It was choreographed that soon after this planned, expected, and scheduled visit by Mr. Sharon, the Palestinian Authority unleashed its malicious, disguised as disorganized, rioters in announced, planned days of rage for the purpose of causing as much violence and death as possible. But even if Mr. Sharon's visit had not been scheduled and approved, a statement by the Palestinian Authority that Mr. Sharon cannot visit the Temple Mount and to do so will cause violence, what does that mean? I know that Israel, as to every holy site under its control, has an absolute policy that everyone of every religion, and three great religions have holy sites in a relatively small area there, everyone is entitled to visit. Certainly that policy should apply to the Temple Mount in the center of Jerusalem, Israel's capital. But to say that a Jew cannot visit that site, does that mean a Christian cannot visit that site? I hope not. Because over the centuries, much blood has been spilled by the right to establish the right of pilgrims to visit the holy sites in the Holy Land. And then we are told, well, it is not because Mr. Sharon is a Jew but because his politics are controversial, that it was somehow appropriate for the Palestinian Authority to react angrily to his visit. Wait a minute. What if Israel said that Reverend Sharpton could not visit Bethlehem, or Pat Buchanan could not visit Bethlehem because they have controversial positions, positions that many Israelis and many American Jews disagree with? If we are going to say that access to the holy sites is not available to those with controversial political positions, then we have ended the time when the holy sites are available to all pilgrims of all religions. It is the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority to make the holy sites available to everyone who wishes to visit. And if they are incapable of doing so, they should turn not only legal control but physical control of those sites over to Israeli security forces so that the Israelis are in a position to assure access, and we, all of us of all faiths, are free to visit. I am troubled, also, but intrigued by the recent decision of the Palestinian Authority to send some of its wounded people to Baghdad for treatment. Now, our heart goes out to anyone injured in this conflict, whether that person be an innocent bystander or whether that person be someone engaged in physical violence. Once they are wounded, our heart goes out to them. But this does not mean we can ignore the implications of sending these people to Baghdad for treatment. What does it mean? First, it means that all the discussion of the sanctions against Iraq being bad and being harmful to the people of Iraq are exploded. Iraq not only has the medical capacity to treat its own people, it is bringing in people from two countries away to provide medical treatment. This is proof that through the export of oil under the oil for food and medical supplies program, Iraq is able to generate as much in the way of food and medicine as it needs. In fact, Iraq has been exporting both food and medicine; and now by importing patients, they in effect are exporting medicine or medical care as well. The fact is that the people of Iraq are being held hostage by Saddam Hussein. He would starve millions with full warehouses of food. He would starve millions if he thought that by their death they would create a picture on CNN that would compel the United States to eliminate the controls on his economics and allow him to export all the oil he wants, keep all the money, spend none of it for food, probably, and spend it all building his military. He would kill millions of his own people if he thought that would give him the chance to build nuclear weapons. And it does not matter what sanctions we impose, he will starve people to create the pictures he needs to pressure the United Nations to let him spend all his money, or all that he would choose to, on nuclear weapons. The second thing that is interesting about the sending of these individuals for treatment to Baghdad is that it shows the close alliance between Arafat and some of those around him on the one hand, or at least many of those around Arafat on the one hand, and the Butcher of Baghdad on the other. Those who are wounded in this Intifada have a certain celebrity status in the Arab world. The Egyptian Government, the Jordanian Government, many governments in the area with fine hospitals and a dedication to the peace process would have happily accepted for treatment all those injured as a result of these unfortunate occurrences. They would have received better treatment in Amman or Cairo than could be available in Baghdad, but they were sent to Baghdad as a sign of solidarity between the Palestinians and Saddam Hussein and an endorsement and a thank you to Saddam Hussein for resisting the peace process. Even when it comes to the treatment of those injured, there seems to be less attention paid to the individual who is hurt and more attention to building a consensus for war. I finally want to point out that the entire discussion in the Middle East is land for peace. But all too often the discussion is about land and not about peace. The discussion is about this acre or that acre and whether Israel will make this territorial concession or a further territorial concession or be driven from this or that parcel. Whether the Israelis will be driven from Joseph's Tomb which will then be destroyed in an act of religious savagery or antireligious savagery, all the discussion is about what land Israel will give up. We need to have a discussion in land for peace with the other side of that equation, peace; and peace is more than a day without a riot or a day without a bomb. Peace is the universal recognition throughout the Middle East that Israel is a natural part of that region. If Israel is to make the territorial concessions which it has offered to make, it is entitled to the kind of peace the Netherlands enjoys. Does the Netherlands have the most powerful army in Europe? I do not think so. No huge air force. What the Netherlands has is universal acceptance throughout its region that there could not be a Europe without a Holland. And that is why one could not even imagine that people would be demonstrating in Paris shouting for the eradication of the Netherlands. No one is marching through Madrid screaming death to the Dutch. But if you recast that to the Middle East, not a day goes by, certainly not a week goes by without a huge demonstration in one of Israel's neighbors in which thousands of people call for the extermination of the Israeli state and the Israeli people. That is not peace. And the end of those actions is not even being discussed. Peace is more than a day without a riot. Peace is every textbook published by every government from Tehran to Tunis to Rabat acknowledging that Israel is an inherent part of the Middle East with a right to live. And if instead what is being offered to Israel is this shallow, temporary cease-fire, then one need not wonder why Israelis are reluctant to make territorial concessions. Land for peace is not land for a temporary lull. Because once territorial concessions are made, those concessions are permanent, measurable, and irreversible. We need an establishment of peace which is permanent and irreversible. That begins by a dedication to the Palestinian Authority to insist that every governmentally paid textbook everywhere in the Middle East shows Israel as an organic part of the Middle East with every right to be there. It does not mean huge territorial concessions by the Israelis in return for a handshake that can later be reversed. Now, I recognize that even the description of peace I have provided is ephemeral and that the hope that Israel would be accepted someday in the Middle East the same way that says the Netherlands is accepted in Europe may go beyond any reasonable expectation. But clearly an Israel that is willing to give up 90, 95 percent of the territory in question is entitled to every possible effort that might lead in 50 years to the kind of peace that Israel deserves. I believe that that concludes my remarks, except to say that when this Congress returns, we may have to deal with the possibility of a unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinian Authority. Such a declaration would be a renunciation of the peace process, a renunciation not only of Camp David but also of Oslo, and such a renunciation must be met by the United States with complete repudiation. It should include all of the steps outlined in a bill passed this House just a few weeks ago, which should also include the immediate movement of the American Embassy to Jerusalem, where it should have been all along.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we should not pretend that we are working here toward a final solution. We all know we are coming back after the election. The people who know this best are the Republican Senate leadership. They have all gone home, so why are we pretending we are going to cut a deal without the Senate leadership? This country needs an election so that the people can tell us that we need more Federal investment in education, that we need a prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare, and that we need an increase in the minimum wage. I trust next Tuesday that message will be heard here in Washington loud and clear. Mr. Speaker, one thing that could prevent us from hearing that message is a misconstruction of the Governor of Texas' tax plan, because there are two false statements that have been made by the Governor about his own plan. I trust that he has not made these statements deliberately, but simply because he has not read and studied his own tax plan, and that these are innocent, though major, mistakes. The first is that the Governor of Texas tells us that under his plan, every American who pays taxes will get tax relief. He has said this over a dozen times, and it is false a dozen times. In fact, under his tax plan, 15 million American families who pay Federal taxes will get not one penny of tax relief. Of course, over $700 billion of tax relief over 10 years will go to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, but not one penny will go to 15 million American families who work every day, who pay taxes to the Federal government in the form of FICA taxes taken from their wages, and who work at the lowest-paying jobs in our society. The second false statement made by the Governor in both the second and third debates was that his plan provided only $223 billion over 10 years of tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. He was off. It is really closer to $700 billion of tax relief, because in stating the degree of tax relief that he provides to the wealthiest 1 percent, he simply forgot that his plan involves the repeal of the estate tax, which will eventually cost this country $50 billion a year, or $500 billion over the 10 years that is our traditional measure of the effect of tax proposals. That is why it is true that the Governor's tax plan will provide more to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans than he proposes to provide to strengthen our military, improve our education, improve Medicare, and provide for our health care system, or improve our health care system, combined. Mr. Speaker, I now want to address the need for school construction, which is also a tax issue, because the tradition in this country is that the Federal government provides help for those school districts that have old schools that have need for new schools because of growth, or that need schools with smaller classrooms to provide for smaller class sizes, and therefore need more classrooms. The tradition is that we do that through the Tax Code by allowing school districts to issue tax-exempt bonds. We on the Democratic side have urged that $25 billion of urgently-needed capital be provided to these school districts, not in the form of tax-exempt bonds but in the form of tax credit bonds, which will be even better for the school districts because they will not have to pay even reduced interest, they will pay no interest at all. The Federal Government will pick up the tab. In fact, though, the tax bill that left this House provided only half of the $25 billion of tax credit bonds that these school districts need. But that tax bill did address another problem. That problem appears to be that the subspecialist tax lawyers who specialize in tax- exempt bonds feel their job is too boring. I could not agree with them more. I myself am a tax nerd of long standing, but even I, after many years of reading the tax regulations, had but one solace, and that is, at least my job was not as boring as those of my brethren who subspecialized in tax-exempt school bonds. Now these bond counsel want something exciting, and they have persuaded this House to supposedly help school districts by changing the arbitrage rules so that school districts will be encouraged not to use school bond money to build schools, but to delay that for up to 4 years, and to take that money on an exciting trip to Wall Street. Mr. Speaker, school bonds should be used to build a school on Elm Street, not a skyscraper on Wall Street. But the main component of the tax bill that this House passed designed to help school districts is one that does not provide them with tax credits, does not cut their interest costs, does not provide capital to build schools, but instead, encourages those school districts to gamble with the school bond money. Mr. Speaker, that is how Orange County, California, went bankrupt. That is no help to school districts at all. We need to take back that bill and provide a full $25 billion of tax credit bonds so schools can be built around the country.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, shame on us for pursuing this bizarre charade of a session. The House is gone. We all know we are coming back for a lame duck session, and to criticize those like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) who cannot be here, how dare you attack our friend from New York in that way. We instead should adjourn this House; and we should instead reconvene the week after the election, and hopefully then we will get a prescription drug benefit in Medicare; hopefully then we will raise the minimum wage; and hopefully then the Republican leadership will stand behind its negotiators so we can actually get something done in this House.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in a few days a great fiscal debate will be decided by the people of this country. Before they make that decision, we need to focus on some of the statements of the Governor of Texas as he tells us about his fiscal plan. Mr. Speaker, we are told by the Governor of Texas that every American who pays taxes deserves tax relief and will get tax relief under his plan. The facts are clearly otherwise and the Governor of Texas knows better. He knows that under his plan some 15 million Americans who pay FICA tax and have it taken from their wages every day are going to get not a penny of tax relief while at the same time the Governor of Texas will provide nearly half his total tax relief package to those who already are in the best-off 1 percent of American families. Not one penny for those taxpayers who work in nursing homes, who clean our buildings and who wash our cars; yet hundreds of billions of dollars for the wealthiest 1 percent. We are told, also, by the Governor of Texas, and I think he does this for political reasons, that policy here in Washington is not in any way responsible for our current prosperity. Now, I can understand why his consultants, his political consultants, would tell him to try to argue to the American people that the last 8 years of the Clinton-Gore administration is just a coincidence with our 8 years of economic prosperity. But in doing so, he lays the foundation for very dangerous policies. You see, Mr. Speaker, if fiscal responsibility here in Washington did not lead to prosperity in the country, then we are free here in Washington to be as fiscally irresponsible as we like without eliminating or curtailing that prosperity. The fact is that while the lion's share of the credit goes to the hard-working American people and their ingenuity and their dedication, they were working hard and they were showing ingenuity back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and this country was not prosperous because we did not have the fiscal responsibility brought to this town by the Clinton-Gore administration. When the Governor of Texas tells us that what government does does not matter, then he lays the foundation for the fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that we cannot afford. Finally, the Governor of Texas claims that he will provide over 10 years only $223 billion of tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. He reaches this through what can only be called false fiscal facts and fuzzy figures. He does this by ignoring his promise, often repeated, to repeal the estate tax. When he repeals the estate tax, which he has promised to do, then the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans will receive over $700 billion every decade in tax relief. The effect then is to provide nearly half the tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent and to provide them with more tax relief than the total the Governor of Texas would have us spend on health care, shoring up Medicare, providing a greater level of readiness for our military forces, and improving our educational system. More for 1 percent than for those four top national priorities. Mr. Speaker, the choice before America is clear. On the one hand, we can improve our schools, strengthen our military, provide a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, safeguard Social Security, pay off the national debt, and provide for continued prosperity; or on the other hand, we can opt for nearly $700 billion, probably over $700 billion just for the wealthiest 1 percent. I know that we have got to make a responsible decision. I hope when we do so, we recognize that choosing a President is not a popularity contest. It is, rather, choosing a plan by which the economy of this country will be managed over the next 4 years.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a law enforcement officer who has fallen in the line of duty. Police officers undertake a solemn oath to protect and serve their fellow citizens and if necessary, sacrifice their lives to fulfill this duty. Los Angeles Police Officer Louie Villalobos has paid the ultimate price for the preservation of public safety and civility in the cities of my district. When honoring the memory of Officer Villalobos, I can say that he was truly a hero, some who was selfless and always giving to others. Without trepidation, he confronted the dangers inherent in his line of work and ultimately gave his life while serving our community. Moreover, he carried out his duties each day with courage and honor. His commitment and courage will serve as an inspiration for all of us. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring officer Louis Villalobos of the Los Angeles Police Department. He gave his life to protect the residents of our community, doing so with extraordinary courage, valor and honor.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to the late Steve Allen, one of the most prolific comedians, actors, and writers in our country for the past 50 years. Mr. Allen, the original host of the ``Tonight Show,'' passed away at his youngest son's home in Encino, California, on October 30, 2000. Mr. Allen started his show-business career at a radio station in Phoenix, Arizona. He was drafted by the Army during World War II, but was released shortly thereafter because of his asthma. He then moved to Hollywood for a job with a radio station. Mr. Allen transferred his radio act to television with ``The Steve Allen Show,'' which debuted on Christmas in 1950. Mr. Allen's greatest success came with the ``Tonight Show,'' which began in New York in 1953. He is credited with establishing almost all of the conventions of late-night television--the opening monologue, chatting with the bandleader, and relying on a regular lineup of characters. His successors, Jack Paar, Johnny Carson and Jay Leno on ``Tonight,'' and David Letterman on ``Late Night with David Letterman,'' followed suit. Mr. Allen's show involved madcap antics and was wholly unpredictable. For example, Mr. Allen, who was 6-feet 3-inches tall, plunged into a huge bowl of salad for a wrestling match on the show. He once peddled hot dogs on the street, dressed as a vendor. He also featured actors Bill Dana, Louie Nye, Tom Poston and Don Knotts for a scripted version of ``Man on the Street'' interviews. Mr. Allen also did these for real. Another recurring routine involved Mr. Allen reading actual angry letters to the New York Daily News with all the artificial righteous indignation they indicated. The skits were hilarious. Mr. Allen left ``Tonight'' at the end of the 1956 season. From 1956 through 1961, Mr. Allen hosted a reprise of ``The Steve Allen Show,'' which was in the time slot against ``The Ed Sullivan Show.'' Throughout his television career, Mr. Allen showcased improv actors, and on-the-edge bookings for the era, including Lenny Bruce and Bob Dylan. He also invited jazz musicians to his shows. Mr. Allen showcased soloists with the ``Tonight'' band and interviewed legendary musicians for a television program called ``Jazz Scene U.S.A.'' Mr. Allen appeared on other television shows. He created ``Meeting of Minds,'' which won an Emmy in 1981 for best informational series. The show presented imaginary debates between historical figures such as Charles Darwin, Attila the Hun and Marie Antoinette. Mr. Allen also appeared in several movies, wrote over 8,000 songs, and wrote numerous books on a variety of topics. Mr. Allen is survived by his wife, the actress Jayne Meadows, four sons, 11 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in paying tribute to Mr. Steve Allen for his contribution to the entertainment world and for helping each of us laugh.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, here we are, a week before the election. The President is keeping Congress here in Washington, and I think with good reason. One of those reasons is the tax bill which we passed last week, a tax bill which should not be signed by the President until it is made better, particularly on the issue of school construction. Now, I know it sounds odd to think in terms of a tax bill helping school construction, but in fact we have a tradition in this country of the Federal Government helping school districts build schools through the Tax Code. What we do is we provide that the interest paid on school bonds is tax exempt, and for this reason investors are willing to buy school bonds that pay only 4 or 5 percent interest at a time when they could be earning 7 or 8 percent in taxable bonds. We subsidize the interest cost to encourage school districts to issue bonds and build schools. Building on that tradition, we Democrats have suggested that a new kind of municipal bond or school bond be issued by school districts in which we, the Federal Government, would in effect pay the entire interest cost. We would provide a tax credit to those who hold the bonds in lieu of them collecting any interest from the school districts. We would go from merely subsidizing the interest cost to actually paying the interest costs on $25 billion worth of bonds over the next 2 years. The effect of this would be dramatic for school districts. A school district that would otherwise have to pay $100,000 a year in order to make payments on school bonds would instead pay $66,000 a year on those same bonds, reducing its cost by roughly one-third, allowing it to build a new school for only two-thirds of what would otherwise be the cost. We Democrats have insisted, and the President has insisted, that $25 billion of these bonds be authorized over the next 2 years. Instead, this tax bill provides only half of these very valuable incentives and facilitators for school construction. What the bill provides is $15 billion over 3 years, less than half the $12.5 billion per year that we would like to see. Moreover, the tax bill that left this House weasels on the Davis- Bacon language, so that school districts can pay substandard wages to build substandard schools in inadequate quantities. But our Republican colleagues have done something else that we would not do to supposedly help school districts. What they have done is something that will cost the Federal Government over $2 billion, but is actually worse than nothing for our school districts. They have announced to school districts that they should not use school bond proceeds to build schools for about 4 years; that, rather, they will be allowed to play the market with that money and keep the proceeds. This will be tempting to school districts who are told, look, you can borrow money at only 5 percent interest, lower than anybody else who is playing the market, and then you can play Wall Street with that advantage. Is that the way we should help school districts build schools? I think not. We should be trying to build a school on Elm Street, not a skyscraper on Wall Street. We should remember how Orange County, California, went bankrupt, when it decided to play the market with funds in the county treasury, and we should not tell school districts that our way of helping them is to encourage them to use school bond proceeds to play the stock market. We should provide more to school districts than a free ticket to Las Vegas, and a chance to take the school bond proceeds and bet them on the pass line or the do not pass line. Where does the impetus for this phenomenally bad idea come from? It comes from my friends, the Tax Bond Council. Now, I practiced tax law for a dozen or more years, and it was a kind of boring job. But when I emerged from reading the regulations in the smallest type I had but one solace; at least my job was not as boring as the subspecialist tax lawyers who worked with tax exempt school bonds. They need some excitement, but not a free trip to Wall Street with the tax exempt bond proceeds.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard discussion of the school construction provisions of the tax bill. Let me set the record straight. We Democrats want provisions where school boards are given a chance to issue bonds, where the Federal Government pays the interest costs and the bond money is used immediately to build schools. Unfortunately, this tax bill, while it provides some of those bonds, provides not enough and then provides over a $2 billion cost to the Federal Government to liberalize the arbitrage rules in which school boards will be told by the Federal Government to delay building schools, take the money, put it on Wall Street and try to make money by arbitrage provisions. That is how Orange County, California, went bankrupt. That is not a way to help our local schools. The way to help our local schools is to reject the tax bill that passed through this House and instead provide a full $25 billion worth of bonds where the Federal Government will pick up the interest cost. We need to build schools on Elm Street, not skyscrapers on Wall Street.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, our economic prosperity is fragile and the political reasons, the political rhetoric out there in the country threatens to put that prosperity at risk. The Governor of Texas has mocked the importance of fiscal responsibility. It is in his political interest to tell the country that decisions made in Washington over the last 8 years have nothing to do with the economic prosperity that we have enjoyed over the last 8 years. Not only is he wrong but his statements lay the foundation for some very, very dangerous economic policies. The Governor of Texas is correct that the lion's share of credit for our economic prosperity goes to American workers whose ingenuity, whose hard work, whose inventiveness are unparalleled; but for political gain, he denies that there is another essential element and that is fiscal responsibility here in Washington. When he denies that the Federal Government has anything to do with how our economy performs, he grants us here in Washington a license to be fiscally irresponsible, because if Government really has nothing to do with the prosperity over the last 8 years, then the Government is free to do whatever we want it to do without putting that prosperity at risk. The facts are otherwise. During the mid-1980s, during the late 1980s, during the early 1990s, Americans were hard working. They showed ingenuity, did everything possible to give us prosperity and yet the country was not prosperous, and this is because we did not have fiscal responsibility here in Washington. Now for 8 years, the Clinton-Gore administration has insisted that we have fiscally responsible budgets; and prosperity has returned to this country. If we are told that those budgets have nothing to do with our prosperity, that lays the foundation for the kinds of huge $2.6 trillion tax cuts that this country cannot afford, with the result that Government borrowing will swallow up private savings, returning us to high interest rates and recession. The second aspect of the Governor's remarks that are clearly false is when he says that under his plan every American who pays taxes will get tax relief. He forgets that 15 million Americans pay FICA tax and do not pay any income tax and for these people, the people who clean up for us in restaurants, the people who take care of our old people in senior citizens' homes and nursing homes, people struggling to get by an $15,000 and $18,000 a year, he gives not one penny of tax relief because he is providing over 43 percent of the tax relief to the richest 1 percent of Americans; nothing for the janitors, everything for the billionaires. He ought to at least be honest enough to tell the country that that is what his tax policy provides. Finally, Mr. Speaker, when the Governor of Texas tells us that his plan will provide only $223 billion of tax relief to the richest 1 percent over the next 10 years, he ignores everything he is doing with the estate tax. He tells the country he is going to repeal the estate tax but never includes the fiscal effect of that repeal in his description of his overall tax and budget policies. I can only refer to this as fuzzy fiscal figures and false fiscal facts. The fact is that the estate tax will be generating $50 billion a year. That is $500 billion over 10 years, which means under the Governor's proposal, the richest 1 percent of Americans will save over $700 billion a year under the Governor's proposal. He admits to only $223 billion. He ignores the other $500 billion. That is why it is true when it is stated that the proposals of the Governor of Texas would provide more relief to the richest 1 percent of Americans than he proposes to spend to improve our health care system, strengthen Medicare, strengthen the military, and improve education combined. Mr. Speaker, our choice is clear. On the one hand, we can have fiscal responsibility, economic expansion, reduction and eventual elimination of our national debt and moderate tax cuts for working families, all combined with investments in education, Medicare, military preparedness and health care, or we can provide $700 billion to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there is a great fiscal debate going on in this country and I felt I would use these 5 minutes to address some of the key points in that debate. The governor from Texas has come up with a novel and dangerous argument, and that is that fiscal responsibility does not matter; that what goes on in Washington has had nothing to do with the prosperity that we currently enjoy. Now I can understand why someone running against Washington would want to say that what we have done here over the last 8 years has nothing to do with the prosperity enjoyed in this country and the prosperity we hope to enjoy in the future, but that argument, however politically appealing, is a dangerous one, because once one argues that what goes on in Washington has nothing to do with the economy of the country then one grants a license to Democrats and Republicans to be fiscally irresponsible. The fact is that what we do in Washington does matter, and matters a lot. True, the lion's share of the credit belongs to hard-working men and women around this country who, through industry and innovation, have built this economy. But our people were hard-working in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, and yet we suffered with high unemployment in an unsuccessful economy, because we had huge deficits. It is the fiscal responsibility that the President has brought to our Federal Government that has added the one additional element which, with the hard work of the American people, has led to our prosperity. The second fallacy that we have heard from the Governor of Texas is his statement over and over again that his plan will provide tax relief to all Americans who pay taxes. The facts are otherwise. Mr. Speaker, some 15 million Americans pay Federal FICA tax that is pulled out of their wages every time, every paycheck; and yet they will receive no, no tax relief under Governor Bush's proposal. Those 15 million Americans who pay FICA taxes to the Federal Government, but do not owe income tax because they are earning the minimum wage, because they are not earning very much, because they are trying to support a family on incomes of $15,000 and $20,000 a year, these low-income taxpayers get nothing from the Governor of Texas. Yet, he does provide 43 percent of his tax benefit to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. This leads me to the third fallacy, and that is his statement that he will provide only $223 billion, only $223 billion to the richest 1 percent of Americans. The problem here is fuzzy fiscal figures, because that $223 billion leaves out the effect of the repeal of the estate tax. The Governor will often talk about how he wants to eliminate the estate tax, but will leave out from his budget the fiscal effect of that repeal. The estate tax will be bringing in $50 billion a year, $500 billion over 10 years, and so the governor's tax reduction for those in the wealthiest 1 percent is not $223 billion over 10 years, but over $700 billion over 10 years. That is why it is true when we point out that the governor would provide more tax relief to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans than everything he proposes to spend to improve our health care system, strengthen Medicare, strengthen our military, and improve education combined. Mr. Speaker, the choice is clear. On one hand, we can have fiscal responsibility, economic expansion, reduction and eventual elimination of the national debt, and moderate tax cuts for working families, all combined with important investments in education, Medicare, military preparedness, and our health care system. On the other hand, we could choose to provide $700 billion of tax relief over the next 10 years to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. Mr. Speaker, I believe the choice before America could never be more stark.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, we have had a number of great fiscal debates on this floor. Yesterday we confronted the issue of how to use the Tax Code to help build schools in America. The Democrats had one approach, the Republicans had another. And the bill which was passed yesterday, unfortunately, was a blend of the two. The Democrat approach makes an awful lot of sense. It builds on the tradition we have in this country that when school districts issue school bonds, the Federal Government gives them lower interest rates because the interest on those bonds is tax excluded, tax exempt, and accordingly those who buy bonds from school districts agree to lend that money with a low rate of interest. Building on that, the Democrats have suggested that school districts, in effect, get zero-interest bonds, the chance to issue bonds where the holders of those bonds get no interest at all paid for by the school district, but rather they receive a tax credit from the Federal Government. So instead of subsidizing the interest cost, the Federal Government through the Tax Code would pay the interest costs. The effect for school districts is to reduce their borrowing costs by one-third. That is to say, instead of repayment costs that might cost a school district $100,000 a year, they would be making repayment costs of $66,000 a year. That will allow school bonds to be sold throughout this country and allow us to build and revitalize schools, and that is important for our education. What the bill we dealt with yesterday does is instead of providing $25 billion of these special tax credit, no-interest, lowest possible cost bonds to the school districts, providing $25 billion over a period of 2 years, it provides only $15 billion of those bonds over a 3-year period. Roughly half of what we Democrats suggested. Now, in one way it is a little more than half. We wanted 25, they gave us 15. But if we really look at it, it is a little less than half. We wanted $12.5 billion a year; they are providing $5 billion a year. And what is also bad is that they have weaseled the Davis-Bacon language so that not only do school districts get less than half of the help they need, but we are going to get substandard schools built at substandard wages in inadequate quantity. The Republicans, though, did provide another method of helping school districts. It was a new idea and an exciting idea. A terrible idea. An idea which will cost the Federal Government over $2 billion, but is worse than nothing to the school districts. What they are going to do is relax the arbitrage rules. What that means is they are going to turn to school districts around this country and say, ``We know you are going to issue tax exempt bonds, but when you do so, do not use the money to build schools right away. We are going to let you play with the money for 4 years.'' So this is a special incentive from the Federal Government to help the school districts. We are going to give them a free ticket to Las Vegas with the bond proceeds. Take the bond proceeds and go gamble them, and that is what Congress wants school districts to do. Madam Speaker, did we forget what happened to Orange County, California, which went bankrupt just a few years ago? The idea will not help build a school on Elm Street, but it will help build skyscrapers on Wall Street. The idea that we would encourage school districts to take 4 years, when they did not build schools and instead played with the money, does nothing for education. It will cost the government over $2 billion. But I understand where the impetus for this provision comes from, because for many years I practiced tax law. I would emerge from the tax law library after 12 dreary hours of reading fine print regulations and I would say at least my job is exciting compared to those tax lawyers who are subspecialists in tax law for tax exempt bonds. That is the most boring job I can imagine, and I was a tax nerd for many years. I know boring. The Bond Council want the excitement of the investment bankers. We should not do it. We should build schools now.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, both parties agree that the tax code should help school districts issue school bonds and build schools. But this bill provides only half of the tax credits for school bonds that we need. It has weasel words on Davis-Bacon, which means we will get substandard schools built at substandard wages. Worse yet, it allegedly helps our school districts by dealing with the arbitrage provisions. It will not build a school on Elm Street. It will build skyscrapers on Wall Street. It allows and encourages school boards to take the bond proceeds to Wall Street and arbitrage them in risky investments. Is that not how Orange County, California, went bankrupt just a few years ago? We need provisions that provide tax credits so that school boards can issue school bonds and have the Federal Government, in effect, pay the interest on those bonds. What we do not need is a provision that allows school districts to take bond proceeds, encourages them to delay construction, and urges them to go play the market. I know that the bond councils out there dream that they will become investment bankers, but that is not what school bonds are all about.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great fiscal debate, a debate that is clouded by fuzzy fiscal figures. We are told by the Governor of Texas that he will provide tax relief to every American who pays taxes. This is simply not true. Fifteen million Americans pay FICA tax that is pulled out of their wages, and these 15 million Americans who pay FICA tax but do not pay income tax will not get a single penny of relief from the Governor's proposal. Second, he tells us that he will provide only $223 billion of tax relief to the richest one percent of Americans. He does this by ignoring his own estate tax repeal, which will cost $50 billion a year, $500 billion over 10 years, meaning that his plan will actually provide well over $700 billion to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. Mr. Speaker, this debate is important. We need to look through the fuzzy fiscal facts and see it clearly.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a great fiscal debate in which the Governor of Texas tells us that, under his plan, every American who pays taxes will get tax relief. He is completely wrong. He should know that there are 15 million Americans who pay Federal taxes, who pay FICA taxes out of their wages that will not get a penny out of his tax plan, because he ignores the working poor. Those who care for people in nursing homes, those who clean our buildings and wash our cars are left behind. What is worse, of course, is that he provides almost half the benefits to the richest 1 percent of Americans. Now, what concerns me most about the Governor's statements is that he mocks the importance of fiscal responsibility when he tells the country that the prosperity of the last 8 years has nothing to do with governmental decisions made in Washington. He is correct that the lion's share of the credit for our national prosperity goes to American workers whose ingenuity, hard work and inventiveness is building a new economy. But for political gain, he denies that there is another essential element, and that is fiscal responsibility here in Washington. By denying that what we do here in Washington has anything to do with how the economy performs, he grants to us a fiscal license, a statement that government has nothing to do with prosperity, hence government can do whatever it wants. The fact is otherwise. The facts are that, during the mid-1980s and the late 1980s and the early 1990s, Americans were hard working and inventive and ingenious, and yet we did not have prosperity in this country. Why? Because we had a budget deficit that was growing every year and threatened to swallow up private savings in our economy. We cannot afford the license the political rhetoric from the Governor of Texas would grant. Now, we are told by the Governor that he does not want to provide so much benefit to the upper 1 percent. He tells us that his plan will provide only $223 billion of tax relief to that richest 1 percent over the next 10 years. He does this by ignoring the second largest piece of his proposal, and that is his repeal of the estate tax. He tries to minimize the fiscal effect of that by using fuzzy phase-in figures. But the fact is the estate tax will be producing $50 billion a year, $500 billion over 10 years, which means the wealthiest 1 percent, over a 10-year period, will be getting $700 billion of tax relief, not just the $223 billion the Governor admits to. That is why when we look at the estate tax and the income tax the conclusion is clear: he provides more tax relief for the wealthiest 1 percent than everything he proposes to do to help our health care system, to strengthen Medicare, to strengthen the military and to provide for our schools combined. It is time that we focus on the fiscal details of the plans of those who are running for President. This is not a popularity contest.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to associate myself with the comments of my colleagues. I could speak a minute on this issue, but I think I would simply repeat what the rest of them have said. I have some comments about some of the fiscal issues and if the gentleman has time at the end and wants to yield time to me to discuss that point, I will. Otherwise, I thank the gentleman on the other side for agreeing to allow me to have 5 minutes at the end of his remarks.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address yesterday's debate and focus on taxation. Why such a dry topic as taxation? After all, one of the candidates seems like a much nicer, more likeable guy. Why do we not just make him President by acclamation? Well, it seems that running the Federal Government is a little bit more complicated than just being a nice and congenial individual. First, let us talk about the cause for our prosperity. We have the longest expansion in this country's history. It has lasted so long some people take it for granted, but we should not because it arises from the combination of two very important causes; one of which is the ingenuity, the hard work and the inventiveness of the American people working in the private sector. But let us remember, Americans worked hard in the early 1980s, the late 1980s, and the early 1990s; but not until the mid-1990s did our prosperity begin to bear fruit. Why is that? Because only then was it combined with the other essential element: Federal fiscal responsibility. Responsibility at the Federal level is something this administration achieved when most of us thought it was impossible, and in doing so they have given us lower interest rates, available capital for the private sector, and a lower inflation rate. The governor of Texas would have us put this all at risk for $1.5 trillion of tax cuts, nearly half of which goes to the richest 1 percent of Americans; plus another $1 trillion in unstated costs as the cost of shifting from our present Social Security system to this new Social Security system he promises with individual accounts funded by a trillion dollars that no one mentions. Let us talk about taxes. There are basically three taxes that support the Federal Government: the estate tax, which falls chiefly on the richest 1.5 percent of Americans; the income tax which is paid by everyone except the poor; and the FICA tax, the payroll tax that is borne by the poor and the middle class and has only a tiny effect on the rich. The governor said last night, I believe everyone who pays taxes ought to get relief; but what he did not mention was that there are over 15 million Americans who pay that FICA tax, that payroll tax, and do not pay an income tax and do not get a penny of relief under his program. There are, in fact, 30 million Americans who pay a FICA tax with no net income tax liability, and over half of them, 15 million Americans, pay a net FICA tax even adjusted for the earned income tax credit which they receive; 15 million Americans that the governor from Texas cannot see apparently because they are poor. They are the janitors; they are the men and women who pick up at restaurants; they are people working hard every day to support families on incomes of $10,000 or $15,000 and they do not get a penny. But 43 percent of George Bush's tax benefits go to the top 1 percent of Americans; and that is more than he spends on health, Medicare, education and the military. Last night, Governor Bush told us that only $223 billion goes to the richest 1 percent. He is right, if we only look at the income tax. But if we look at the estate tax, we see another $500 billion going to the wealthiest 1 to 1\1/2\ percent of Americans. So we look at the estate tax and the income tax combined and we see roughly $700 billion going to the wealthiest Americans. But Mr. Bush cannot see half a trillion dollars in tax reduction, cannot notice it and denies that it exists because, after all, it is estate tax relief for the very wealthiest Americans. He cannot see 15 million poor Americans. He cannot see half a trillion dollars going to the wealthy. I think we could only describe this as fuzzy fiscal facts; and we need instead, as our President, someone who will provide tax relief to working Americans and preserve our fiscal responsibility.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I join my 51 colleagues from the Great State of California to pay tribute to its 150th Statehood Anniversary and to the 24th Congressional District, which I represent. From East to West, the 24th runs from Sherman Oaks, America's best- named city, to Thousand Oaks, through the Las Virgenes area to Malibu. It includes thriving business centers in the western San Fernando Valley and one of California's and the nation's most treasured natural and recreational resources, the Santa Monica Mountains. The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is the most-often visited unit of our National Park System. Some 33 million American's visit her trails and beaches, some of the most beautiful in the world, every year. Most impressive is its location. The Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area is just a few-minutes drive from the major population centers of Los Angeles--its is our nation's largest urban park. The residents of the Malibu and Las Virgenes areas are neighbors to this extraordinary resource. It is truly a special place to live. The San Fernando Valley, part of the City of Los Angeles, is itself a large-sized city, with 1.4 million residents. If it were a city of its own, the San Fernando Valley would be the 6th largest U.S. city. It is richly diverse and a great community to live and work in. Proudly, it would be by far the safest of America's 10 largest cities. Thousand Oaks, a community of more than 100,000 people, is also a wonderful place to work and live. It is an impressive community and is also home to some of my district's most distinguished employers, including the biotechnology giant, Amgen. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, I believe my district has the best of everything, and so does my state. I am proud to serve the residents of the 24th District of California. Again, I wish California a happy 150th birthday.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Filner).