Brad Sherman

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize two individuals from my district who attended the Voices Against Violence Congressional Teen Conference. Sadly, teen violence has dominated the headlines of our newspapers around the country. Marilyn Coto, a senior at Malibu High and Lana Borkin, a sophomore at Valley Alternative Magnet School in Van Nuys, have proven themselves leaders in our community in promoting a peaceful learning environment for all students. They were instrumental in working with lawmakers, to draft legislation during the conference and offered idea on how to combat this problem of violence in our schools. I would also like to commend the alternates chosen by the Committee: Monica Crooms and Jorge Lobos. Honorable Mention was awarded to Nicole Yates and Juliana Hermano. These teens are the future of our nation and it is imperative that their ideas and voices be heard in this national debate concerning youth violence. I would also like to acknowledge the Youth Violence Advisory Committee, brought together to choose the attendees of the conference. These distinguished individuals were selected to serve on the panel based on their commitment to not only raising awareness of violence, but also their efforts with children and others toward developing solutions. They will continue to work with students in the coming months to implement the ideas discussed at the conference. The Committee includes: Committee Chair, Ralph Myers, crime victims advocate, Advisory Board member for the Nicole Parker Foundation and Justice for Homicide Victims; Larry Horn, a Professor of Sociology at Pierce and Mission Colleges; Carlos Morales, co-leader of Parents of Murdered Children, Inc. San Gabriel Valley Chapter; and LAPD Detective Joel Price from the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) Unit, and member of the Board of Directors of the Nicole Parker Foundation. We must support our teens and encourage them to express their ideas, especially on this national issue of youth violence. They are directly affected by the things we only read about in the paper. As such, they have the experience to aid our legislators in establishing a safe environment for our students. Their leadership and contributions will make a significant impact on our country and ensure safety and peace for future generations. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Ms. Coto and Ms. Borkin, all of the students who applied and participated in the Conference, and the members of the Youth Violence Advisory Committee. Their dedication to ending youth violence serves as an inspiration and model to us all.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, banks, insurance companies, and stock brokerage firms are combining today; and the old walls and distinctions between financial products that fit in one area and another are beginning to break down. The question is not whether we will have the perfect bill but whether we will have a bill at all. This bill requires that consumers are given disclosure when they go into a bank that a particular product is not FDIC insured. They have no such protection now. It prevents the combination of financial and commercial enterprises in a way that could endanger our entire financial system. It provides modest privacy protections that we do not have under current statute. We can wait for the perfect bill, turn our back, and watch the combination of financial enterprises occur with nothing to ensure that the public interest is protected, or we can instead vote for an admittedly imperfect bill. This is a major step forward in protecting the public interest.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks a delegation of educators and education officials from Bosnia and Herzegovina traveled to my district to continue their work with the Center for Civic Education in implementing a successful civic education initiative called Civitas @ Bosnia and Herzegovina which is restoring hope to that divided nation. The Civitas initiative consists of an education for democracy program for elementary and secondary students in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the goal of promoting the development of a political culture supportive of democratic values, principles, and institutions. The distinguished members of the delegation include: Rahela Dzidic, Executive Director, Civitas @ Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Mile Ilic, Professor of Pedagogy and Psychology, University of Banja Luke, Banja Luka, Sanja Kantar, Philosophy Professor, Prijedor, Dejan Krunic, Counselor for Physics and Astronomy, Pedagogical Institute of the Republika Srpska, Civitas Regional Coordinator, Banja Luka, Anton Milos, Elementary School Principal, Civitas Municipal Coordinator for Kiseljak, Brestovsko, Ismet Salihbegovic, Deputy Minister of Education, Sarajevo Canton, Sarajevo, Halil Spago, Counselor for Education, Mostar Canton, Ministry of Education, Mostar, Esad Toromanovic, Sociology Professor, Civitas Cantonal Coordinator, Una Sana Canton, Bihac, Karlo Zelenika, Psychology and Pedagogy Professor, Civitas Cantonal Coordinator, Sikoki Brijeg, Masa Miskin, Translator, student, University of Sarajevo, Philosophy Faculty, Sarajevo, Aida Skaljic, Civitas Translator/Assistant, Sarajevo. The Civitas initiative in Bosnia has produced impressive results. More than 2,500 teachers in all parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been using Project Citizen, a program translated and adapted from a successful civic education middle school program used in the United States. The teachers also are using translated and adapted versions of selected lessons on basic concepts of democracy. In all of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the program has reached more than 100,000 elementary and secondary students since its inception in 1996. The initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of the broader Civitas: An International Civic Education Exchange program administered by the Center for Civic Education. The program provides for a series of exchanges among leaders and educators in civic education in the United States and emerging and established democracies worldwide. I applaud the promising results the Civitas initiative has already achieved and look forward to the continued success of the program.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Karl Boeckmann, who will be presented with the prestigious Nelle Reagan Award for Distinguished Community Service by the Olive View-UCLA Medical Center Foundation for his tireless efforts to better his community. President Kennedy once said, ``For of those to whom much is given, much is required.'' The Nelle Reagan Award was established to honor outstanding individuals, those who have exemplified leadership, volunteerism, and service. For over twenty years, Karl has generously committed his time and resources to many philanthropic causes, such as the John Wayne Cancer Institute, Goodwill Industries, and New Directions for Youth. He has been honored with the William Shatner Partners with Youth Award, the 1996 Humanitarian Award from New Directions for Youth, and the Ellis Island Award. As a fellow Certified Public Accountant, I know how important honesty, accuracy, and integrity are to Karl. He exemplifies these characteristics, and reaches out on a daily basis to work toward the empowerment, education, and care in the development of our children. Coupled with his own efforts to better his community, Karl's wife, Thyra, shares with him active commitments to ChildHelp, USA, where Thyra has served as a Los Angeles board member and executive vice- president, as well as a member of the Coordinating Council national board. Karl credits Thyra as his source of inspiration for his many humanitarian efforts. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Karl Boeckmann, a citizen who has shown an unwavering commitment to the betterment of his community and is deserving of our recognition and praise.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Barrie and Michael Grobstein, who will be honored this year with the Circle of Life Award, given annually for service on behalf of the Jewish Home for the Aging, the largest continuing residential care facility in Southern California. Barrie and Michael are truly worthy of this distinguished award. Through their involvement with The Executives, a group of business leaders from the San Fernando Valley formed to support this critically- needed facility, the Grobsteins have been instrumental in ensuring that the Jewish Home for the Aging has the financial support it needs to continue to provide seniors with the highest level of care. With the help of Barrie and Michael, The Executives has become one of the Los Angeles area's most distinguished and successful charitable organizations. Michael has served as a founding member, executive committee member, and as president for three years of The Executives and its predecessor, The Valley Jewish Business Leaders Association. The Jewish Home for the Aging is a truly unique facility. The average age of its 750 residents is 90 years. Each of its two campuses has a full-service medical clinic with state-of-the-art equipment and is staffed by on-site physicians, nurses, and medical and rehabilitation therapists. The Home's medical department is affiliated with UCLA's Division of Geriatric Medicine, and has developed a national reputation for its research in aging, long-term care, and Alzheimer's disease. Barrie and Michael have been instrumental in making all this possible. In addition to his work on behalf of the Jewish Home for the Aging, with Barrie's support Michael has served on the board of many other charitable organizations, including the Institute for Arteriosclerosis Research, Temple Valley Beth Shalom, International College, Ryokan College, the Pacific Association of Schools and Colleges, two organizations supporting the premier cancer research charity City of Hope, the West Coast Father's Day Council for the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, Sherman Oaks Hospital, and many others. Barrie also has been active in education on the danger of cults, serving as a Speaker for the Jewish's Federation's Anti-Cult Movement. She is also a long- term member of Valley Beth Shalom's Sisterhood. The Grobstein's efforts on behalf of these charities and community groups have been paralleled by success in the business world. With Barrie's help, Michael's accounting practice grew from a one room office in 1967 to almost two floors in the same office building today and in one of the largest regional CPA firms in Los Angeles. Mr. Speaker, Michael and Barrie Grobstein, who this year celebrated their 36th wedding anniversary, are two of the San Fernando Valley's finest community leaders. I urge you and all my colleagues to join me today in honor of their achievements. They have truly served their community with distinction.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise against this bill because it is part of a two-part pincers movement aimed at the heart of impartial justice. Part one, represented by this bill, shifts to the Federal bench most important class action lawsuits. Part two, the other part of the pincer, is to make sure those Federal benches are empty or overburdened with other work. We know that additional work has been shifted to the Federal judiciary. We know most of the judicial appointments of the President have been held up. But we had a right to think that the other body would in due time act on those judicial appointments. Now I want to commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules for revealing the previously secret part of the Republican plan. It is to keep the Federal judicial benches empty until such time as there is a Republican president. So what does this bill do? It says you cannot go to a State judge, and you cannot have a Federal judge, unless appointed by a Republican president. So the only judges that can hear class action lawsuits are those that pass a Republican litmus test, and they have the gall to complain about forum shopping. This takes forum shopping to a new level, because the second part of this pincers movement is nationwide forum tampering, politicizing the Federal courts. The least we could do in this body is to suspend action on this bill until the other body acts upon the President's judicial appointments, confirming those who are qualified, rejecting those who are not qualified, not on the basis of a political litmus test but on the basis of judicial qualifications. The small in our society will be able to demand justice from the powerful only if we defeat this bill. Mr. Chairman, I get all wound up on this and then I realize it is time to calm down, because we are not really legislating here. This bill, if it passes both bodies, is going to be vetoed by the President. This is never going to become law. This is political pontificating. This is not real legislating. We are simply here wasting time in the guise of addressing a serious problem. I look forward to the day when we work out a genuine bipartisan solution that has wide support, not narrow support, wide support on both sides of the aisle, and deal with tort reform.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorothy Kirsten French and Richard K. Eamer, co-founders of The John Douglas French Alzheimer's Foundation; and to Dennis F. Holt for his philanthropic work in advancing the research of causes of Alzheimer's disease. I am happy to report that on Sunday, October 24, 1999, The Founding Associates will celebrate its 15th anniversary during a special ceremony that will honor Dennis F. Holt, Chairman and CEO of Western International Media, Inc., and an active member of the Board of Directors of The John Douglas French Alzheimer's Foundation. Mr. Holt has engaged in philanthropic work to advance research in the causes of Alzheimer's Disease. He has donated $2 million of broadcast time towards public service announcements in 24 markets. He is a distinguished leader in changing the nature of advertising and media buying practices. Mr. Holt is an inspiration in perseverance and triumph over adversity. He demonstrates an uncommon commitment to help others and exemplifies this commitment with The John Douglas French Alzheimer's Foundation. Dorothy French and Richard Eamer co-founded The John Douglass French Alzheimer Foundation to honor Dorothy's husband Dr. John Douglas, co- founder of UCLA's Brain Research Institute, and who sadly became a victim of Alzheimer's disease himself in 1989. Since 1983, the John French Alzheimer's Foundation has been dedicated to finding the cause and cure of Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. The foundation has raised more than $18 million through its fundraising efforts, and has helped to fund the work of such noted scientists as Dr. Stanley B. Pruisner, a 1997 Nobel Laureate. Alzheimer's is one of the most costly and debilitating of illnesses, afflicting more than four million Americans every year, slowly robbing them of their memory and ability to care for themselves. As our nation ages, and more and more families face this terrible disease, the need for organizations such as the John Douglas French Alzheimer Foundation will be increasingly important. I am pleased Congress has in recent years substantially increased the nation's investment in medical research. For the current budget year, fiscal 1999, Congress has approved a budget of $15.6 billion, a 14 percent increase, for the National Institute of Health, which leads the nation's biomedical research effort. This increase will fund important research into understanding and treating Alzheimer's and other diseases. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Dorothy French, Richard Eamer, and Dennis Holt, three citizens committed to the finding of a cure for Alzheimer's disease and improving the lives of their fellow Americans.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I opposed the rule considered today as House Resolution 281. The clemency for 16 members of the FALN is a serious matter and deserves serious debate. If Congress acts in such matters by passing a resolution, that resolution should be as carefully drawn as possible--and it certainly should reflect the views and input of Members of this House. However, under House Resolution 281, we are to consider the sense of Congress resolution offered by Mr. Fossella under a truncated procedure designed for non-controversial matters. Under House Resolution 281 we are to consider Mr. Fossella's proposal without the possibility of offering amendments. Clearly this is an important and controversial matter and the House should consider it under procedures that allow Members of the House to propose amendments. Second, it appears that House Resolution 281 allowed the House to bypass the committee process. A committee hearing and markup should have been held prior to the consideration of Mr. Fossella's resolution, so that the measure presented to the House would have reflected the deliberative process. Such a markup or hearing could have been held yesterday. That might have required suspending the committee rules; of course, we are being asked to suspend the rules of the House today. In sum, House Resolution 281 provided for an inadequate procedure to deal with this important issue. We should expect better of the House leadership, and the country certainly expects better of us.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an exceptional individual who has made an enormous contribution to the arts. In recognition of his valuable advancement of the arts worldwide, he has been knighted by the Queen of England, a great honor for both him and his wife Lady Marjorie Gilbert. This high distinction is rarely awarded to individuals outside Great Britain. It attests to Sir Gilbert's dignity, personal integrity, and contribution to Western culture. Arthur helped develop Los Angeles then went on to build one of the world's greatest collections of gold and silver art, as well as the world's premier collection of micro-mosaics. Receipt of this Knighthood represents a culmination of years of dedication, hard work, and a love for the arts. This gentleman epitomizes the twin values of hard work and generosity. Early in his life, he began a successful career in the clothing business. He went on to settle in California where he became an illustrious developer, helping to build a bright future for Californians. However, personal success was not enough, he became not only a generous benefactor of many charities, but started a rich collection of decorative art that combines both history and beauty. Indeed, he has long shared his priceless collections with the public and recently donated it to a museum in England so that the entire world can enjoy these exquisite, and often overlooked, forms of art. Arthur Gilbert has truly worked to turn his personal success into a lasting legacy of art for everyone and has thus brought honor on himself and us all. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to please join me in honoring this man who embodies the diligence and generosity to which we all aspire and whose dedication to the arts serves as an inspiration and a model to us all. We must support and honor individuals, like Arthur Gilbert, who cultivate artistic enthusiasm, understanding, and appreciation. Through such enterprising and charitable individuals, we are given a glimpse of how bright our future can be. A world filled with the dedication, hard work, altruism, and dignity that his well earned title of knight represent. thanks to Sir Arthur Gilbert's contribution to the arts, we know that the future will be a beautiful one that many future generations can appreciate. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this October when Buckingham Palace will see the investiture of Sir Arthur Gilbert as a Knight Bachelor. I know that he, and Lady Marjorie Gilbert, will be justly proud.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina. It is an honor to be with him and with the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) because you understand what is most important to the people in my district, which is education, but you understand how we can make it work. One thing that is obvious to me is that we are going to have smaller classes. At least in California the people have taxed themselves to provide for smaller classes, smaller class sizes. But that means you need more classrooms, and as you have explained and as the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) explained quite eloquently, we need to build new school facilities. In fact, and this is odd, both parties have agreed in concept that the Federal Government needs to help out, and while I do not match the gentleman's expertise or the gentlewoman's expertise in education, it is perhaps surprising to some people back home that the way that Congress has agreed to try to help schools is through the tax law, and here is where there is a tremendous divergence. You see, the Democrats had a relatively small tax bill, and yet we found room in that bill to provide real help to school districts. Santa Maria was not able to pass its school bonds, and I can understand that, because people would have to not only pay back the bonds, they have to pay the interest on the bonds, and what the Democratic tax bill did is it funded interest on school bonds across this country. It provided $9 billion of Federal revenue to pay the interest on $22 billion of school bonds. So when Santa Maria dealt with those school bonds, people can say: We will go that far for our kids, we will tax ourselves to pay the principle, and thank God Congress has done something to pay the interest. But then the Republican bill comes to the floor, and I know the conference report was just introduced. We do not know what is in it. We will read it late tonight, tomorrow morning, but I think what is in it is what was in the House bill that passed a couple weeks ago. And there lurking was a provision supposedly there to help schools issue school bonds under the title of arbitrage. What is arbitrage? Gambling. What the Republican bill does, instead of providing real money to pay the interest on the bonds, is it turns to every school district and says: Go ahead and issue the bonds, and you will have to pay the interest on the bonds. But in the past you had to use the school bonds to build schools pretty quickly. Do not do that. Issue the bonds, do not build schools, delay the schools. Kids do not need schools, according to the Republican bill. Take the money to Las Vegas or Wall Street and take that school bond money and invest in debentures, invest in interest futures. Invest, if you want, in pork bellies. Then you get to keep the profits. The Republican bill, desperate to spend no money helping schools but to fool the American public into thinking it helps schools, does nothing more than provide a free airplane ticket to Las Vegas for every school board member in the country so that they can take the school bond money to Vegas and see whether they can beat the odds. If they beat the odds, they can keep the profits for the kids. Oh, if they lose the money, well, that is what Orange County, California, did, the county to the south of Lois and myself. They tried to play this arbitrage game, and they went bankrupt.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of partisan talk about the tax bill, and I can understand it. A bill of $800 billion, exploding to $3 trillion in the second 10 years, does indeed put our economy at risk. A bill that says lock up the Social Security money for Social Security but then take every bit of the regular general surplus, or virtually all of it, and pay that out as tax cuts. Regardless of whether that surplus actually arises, pay it out, lock it into the law. That could be regarded as fiscally irresponsible by many of us on the Democratic side of the aisle. And of course, there are many partisans who would recognize that if we do not use the opportunity to pay off the debt now while the baby- boomers are in their peak earning years, that when the baby-boomers retire, there will not be any capacity to use general fund revenues to help make Social Security last through its most challenging demographic era and that as a result we will hear the cries at the first economic hiccup for cuts in Social Security or increases to FICA taxes. Yes, indeed, with all that fiscal irresponsibility and all that risk to the Social Security system, some Democrats decry the bill in the most partisan terms. But do my colleagues know, we should not just decry the bill. Because as a tax lawyer, I was just amazed by it as I read each provision. How is it that they could write a tax bill giving 45 percent of the benefit to only one percent of the people in the country? We should not decry the bill. We should be impressed by its draftsmanship. Let us talk about some of the amazing provisions of this bill. This is a bill that turns to 50 million Americans at the base of our economic pyramid and says they get a tax cut of 8 cents per day per family. Split it up at the breakfast table, all 8 cents a day. Of course, a tax cut of over $54,000 a year to each family in the top one percent. So how are they able to achieve such a dramatic result? One example, they take and give to American companies that shift jobs overseas 60 times the benefits that they provide to 50 million Americans. They do this by changing the interest allocation rules so that those companies that make equity investments abroad, that is to say build factories in other countries and while perhaps closing them down in the United States, benefit. They get huge tax breaks. Whereas, it is 8 cents a day for the working poor and for the lower middle class in the United States. But when we get to the details, there are some other provisions that are almost as striking. For example, there is a list of special deals for the oil companies, such as allowing a 5-year carry-back of NOLs while the rest of the business world only gets a 3-year carry-back, suspending the 65 percent taxable income limitation on the use of percentage depletion, allowing geological and geophysical cost to be deducted current, while good accounting practice calls for those costs to be capitalized; allowing delay rentals to be deducted currently, when the proper accounting for them is to be capitalized; and modifying the refining threshold in section 613(d)(4) so that integrated oil companies can get the benefits previously reserved for independent oil companies and wildcatters. And here is a special deal for oil where they get twice the benefit of all of the benefits that we give to 50 million Americans goes to just a few American oil companies and that they get a tax credit for the money they pay to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for taking the oil out of those desert sands. They get reimbursed for what they spend for the oil that they then sell to us. Mr. Speaker, as 20 years as a CPA and 2 years as a tax judge, I know tax fraud when I see it; and this Republican tax bill indeed is tax fraud. It is a giant shift of wealth to the wealthiest one percent of Americans. We should reject it.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Edward M. Wolin, recipient of the Ahavas Chesed Award, which recognizes individuals for their compassion and dedication to humanity. Dr. Wolin is a clinical oncologist, who has dedicated numerous years toward the prevention and treatment of cancer. President Kennedy once said. ``for those to whom much is given, much is required.'' Dr. Wolin has been blessed with a brilliant mind and a caring heart, and he has used these assets toward improving the quality of life for so many, not just nationally, but globally. The prevention and treatment of cancer is one of the most prominent and necessary fields of modern medicine. This year, over 1,400,000 United States citizens are expected to be diagnosed with cancer to curing the most common and lethal cancers, working diligently to curb their degenerative effects. Dr. Wolin's wonderful practices began after attending Yale University School of Medicine. He subsequently taught on the Washington University School of Medicine staff, and became the Chief of Clinical Oncology Teaching and Research at the Jewish Hospital of St. Louis. In 1981, Dr. Wolin began practicing in southern California, and he later became the associate medical director at the Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer in Los Angeles, where he is currently engineering innovative efforts toward developing new methods in the prevention and treatment of cancer. Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, please join me in honoring Dr. Edward M. Wolin. Helping to cure the world of cancer is an honorable deed that merits the utmost respect, for his selfless work is paving the way for a better tomorrow. Dr. Wolin's commitment sets an example for us all.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, I ran down to this floor when I heard my colleague, the gentleman from California, refer to the Republican tax cut as fair and balanced. I thought, how could such a huge tax cut, aimed almost exclusively at the super wealthy and the giant corporations, be called balanced? And then I understood what he must have meant. See, under this tax cut, the top 1 percent wealthiest Americans get ten times the tax relief as 100 million Americans, constituting the lower 40 percent of income earners. At the same time, this tax cut provides more tax relief to job-exporting corporations than it provides to over 50 million Americans. Madam Speaker, that is the balance. Compared to the super wealthy, working Americans get the shaft. Compared to giant corporations, working families get the shaft. That is the only sense in which the Republican tax cut is balanced.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, after 20 years as a CPA, 6 years as a tax judge, I know tax fraud when I see it. The tax bill passed by the Republican majority is truly tax fraud. It is a giant shift of our national income to the wealthiest one percent, cleverly disguised as a grand expedition to the furthest reaches of fiscal irresponsibility. Many speakers have come to this floor and explained how this country cannot now afford to lock itself into an $800-billion tax cut exploding in its second 10 years to a $3-trillion cut, that we should not take steps today which Alan Greenspan has cautioned us against, that we should not risk the greatest economic expansion of our lifetimes. But after all the conversation about this $800-billion to $3-trillion tax cut and what it means in its fiscal effect, there has been precious little discussion about what is actually in the bill. Well, I will tell my colleagues what is not in it. A repeal of the marriage penalty is not in this bill. They could not find a way to do it, limited as they were to $800 billion. In fact, there is far less marriage penalty relief in this bill than there was in the Democratic alternative that cost only $250 billion. What also is not in this bill is any real help for school construction. The Democratic alternative said we as a Federal Government would pay the interest on school bonds so that if school districts have more classrooms for smaller class sizes, the Federal Government would help. All this bill does is relax the arbitrage rules, inviting local school boards to invest their money in debentures and derivatives and other things that caused Orange County to go bankrupt. It does nothing more for schools than give the school boards a free ticket to Las Vegas with the bond money. So what is in this bill? How have they managed to allocate 45 percent of the benefits to the top one percent in our society? Well, for example, they have got the interest allocation rules, costing over $43 billion over 10 years that turn to major multinationals and say, if you close down your factories in the United States and invest abroad, we will cut your taxes. But there is more. There is the modification of treatment of worthless securities, certain financial institutions. There is a whole lot of stuff in here for the oil companies. My favorite and their favorite is the repeal for special foreign tax rules. This means that if Texaco gives a ton of money to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait in return for the oil that they remove from their desert sands, Uncle Sam reimburses them penny for penny for what they pay for the oil that they then charge you and me for. But there is more for the oil companies, like allowing a 5-year carry-back of NOL carry-forwards under a special rule; suspending the 65-percent tax limit on the percentage depletion allowance; allowing geological and geophysical costs to be deducted currently; allowing delay rental payments to be deducted currently, while modifying the section 613(d)(4) rules so that integrated oil producers can get the same benefits as independent wild-catters. Then there is the stuff for the big chain store, such as the liberalization of the tax treatment of certain construction allowances and contributions received by retail operators. What does that mean? It means the big chains can get a big payment to put a big store as the anchor tenant in a big mall, and they do not have to pay taxes on that big payment. But of course, people have to pay taxes on salaries and small business has to pay taxes on their profit. There is the repeal of the 5-year limitations relating to life insurance companies filing consolidated tax returns with the affiliated group including non-life-insurance companies. There is a host of others that I have no time to get into. But then finally there is the phase-in repeal of the estate gift and generation skipping tax. What does that mean? That means that Bill Gates saves $50 billion. But what is in it for working families? For the 50 million Americans, 8 cents a day.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burton amendment as I have in the past. We have heard India attacked for spending money on its own defense and yet it is subject to attack by the Pakistani army in an action of aggression as Kashmir. And just as importantly, China, one of the world's emerging powers, occupies a small part of India's territory. We have heard talk of the Iraqi potential loan, and yet that loan would go through only with the approval of the U.N. Sanctions Committee, which means that India will do nothing without the consent of the United States which has a veto on that committee. We are told that India should just allow Kashmir to secede, but there have already been elections in Kashmir. The chief minister is a Muslim. And we should hesitate a minute before we announce that every country should allow any province at any time to hold a referendum on secession, because when South Carolina wanted to secede, that was a rather bad idea. The Burton amendment is the wrong approach at the wrong time. In the wake of the recent Pakistani incursion across the line of control, the U.S. and India have a new opportunity to build a broad-based relationship. Instead of applauding India for the admirable restraint shown in the recent Kashmir crisis, this amendment would punish India by cutting crucial humanitarian assistance. The Burton amendment would substantially cut critical U.S. humanitarian aid to India. These programs limit the spread of HIV/AIDS, improve access to reproductive health services, and provide supplemental feeding and basic health services to mothers and children. A similar amendment was defeated in 1997 by a vote of 342-82. No similar amendment was offered in 1998. India is addressing the human rights violations cited by Mr. Burton. The last two State Department Country Reports on Human Rights praised India for making substantial progress in the area of human rights and for its independent National Human Rights Commission. The Government of India has also continued to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit prisons in Kashmir. As further evidence of progress on human rights, India has arrested and prosecuted more than 100 individuals associated with the recent string of religious attacks that occurred earlier this year. In addition, India has passed laws to take action against those officials and members of security forces that have committed human rights violations. India is under constant terrorist attacks from the followers of people like Osama bin Ladin, who have training camps set up across India's borders in Pakistan. Groups like Harkat ul-Mujahidin, an organization officially designated as terrorist, by the State Department, routinely attack Indian citizens with car bombs, sniper attacks, kidnappings and wholesale slaughter of towns in an attempt to disrupt any kind of peace in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. The greatest violations of human rights in Kashmir are being committed by the Pakistani sponsored terrorist groups which in the last several months have targeted dozens of entirely innocent civilians, from participants in wedding parties to passengers on buses. India is a strong and vibrant democracy that features an independent judiciary, free press and diverse political parties. In fact, the Indian press corp, among the most active in the world, assists in investigating human rights abuses, as do Indian non-governmental organizations. The U.S. is India's largest trading partner and largest investor. U.S. direct investment has grown from $500 million per year in 1991 to $12 billion in 1998. Despite the collapse of various economies in Southeast Asia over the last two years, the Indian economy continued to grow at a rate of 6% in 1998. In the first half of 1999, new foreign investment in India totaled $600 million. Many large American companies have invested in India and opened plants and offices there. More than 100 of the U.S. Fortune 500 have invested in India. Among those companies are General Electric, Boeing, AT&T, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Ford Motor Company, Microsoft, IBM, Coca Cola, Pepsico, Eli Lilly, Merrill Lynch, McDonnell Douglas, US West, Bell Atlantic, Sprint, Raytheon, Motorola, Amoco, Hughes, Mobil, and Enron. Later this year, India will conduct the largest exercise of democracy in the history of the world. More than 250 million people are expected to vote and more than 100 national and regional parties will be participating in the elections. The best way for us to help India continue to improve its human rights record is to engage in positive and constructive dialogue, one democracy to another. Not with punitive sanctions and cuts in assistance. The Burton amendment will run counter to the progress that has been made in bilateral relations between the U.S. and India. During the past year, U.S.-India relations have been marked by increased dialogue on nuclear non-proliferation, a better understanding of India's security concerns, and an increase in U.S.-India trade and investment. India and the United States worked very closely to repel the Pakistani regulars and Pakistani-backed terrorists from the Indian side of the Line of Control. The momentum gained in U.S.-India relations needs to be sustained and strengthened. A vote for the Burton amendment would send the wrong signal to the people of India. Proponents of the Burton Amendment will make note of reports that India has offered Iraq a $25 million line of credit. India has said that they will only do this in the context of UN guidelines on the Iraqi sanctions. That means they will need unanimous approval by the Sanctions Committee, which is essentially the Security Counsel, before they will go forward with the loan. The US can stop it and India will abide by the decision of the UN.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman is talking about a budget plan to try to keep all Federal expenditures at the same nominal levels without increasing them for inflation. I think we should note that the Speaker has said again and again that we would pass all the appropriations bills before the August break. But the Republican majority has shown that they cannot meet those limited spending objectives. That is why they are sending us home without passing the appropriations bills and that they have now had to define the census as an unforeseen emergency and fund it outside of the budget caps. Under those circumstances, does the gentleman think there is a significant risk the expenditures that will be voted over the next 10 years will exceed the no-increase-for-inflation straight line that the Republicans have used in their budget estimates?

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, our hearts go out to the people of Atlanta, especially the families of the dead and the wounded. For the next few weeks, our hearts will be troubled by the constant questions: Why? What could have been done? Frankly, I do not have any answers. For this reason, I will ask Members to indulge me, because I came to the House to speak about other subjects, even though, as much as we would like to concentrate on the fiscal subjects that I would like to address, our hearts will still be with the people of Atlanta. Madam Speaker, I have come to the House rather hurriedly. I became aware just a few minutes ago that I would be the designee of our side to speak for 1 hour, so I will go through my notes in an effort to comment on the tax bill that recently passed this House, and which I hope will be radically changed by the conference committee before it is resubmitted here. Then, time permitting, I would like to talk about our trade relationship with the People's Republic of China, because when the House returns after the August break, we may be confronted with a major decision to be made with regard to whether to grant permanent most- favored-nation status or farm trade relations to the Peoples' Republic of China. Focusing first on the tax bill, I would like to focus on two things: First, the content of the bill. So many speeches have been given on this floor talking about the size of the bill, and I do want to address that. But there are many more differences between the Democratic position and the Republican position than their bill is three and one-half times the size of ours. Because when we look at the content of the Republican tax bill and to whom it grants relief, then we will see major differences in philosophy. Madam Speaker, I spent over 20 years as a CPA, as a tax attorney, and as a tax court judge. I know tax fraud when I see it. The statements made in support of the Republican tax bill rise to the level of tax fraud. We are told that we are giving people their money back. Yet, we take money from working men and women and provide in this Republican tax bill huge tax breaks to the rich and the special interests. At least a dozen speakers have risen on this floor to claim that the Republican tax bill eliminates the marriage penalty; and, yet, it provides only minor relief. We are told that it provides tax cuts for working families, but it gives only a few crumbs to those in the bottom two-thirds of income in this country. It is a bill that we are told provides for school construction; and, yet, it provides very little. Likewise, with providing incentives for research. Madam Speaker, Winston Churchill once remarked in talking about the pilots who saved Britain from the Nazi bombers, ``never have so many owed so much to so few.'' If we enact the Republican tax bill, then it will be said of us as a people ``never have so many given so much to so few'', because we are asked, as a people of over a quarter billion in number, to give huge tax relief to the top 1 percent of our population. I see that I am joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) who would also like to talk about the tax bills that have recently passed this House. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a few more examples and facts I want to quickly get into the Record. I promised I would wrap up just a few minutes after 4. We could, obviously, continue for another hour. But let me first just make sure this Record reflects the analysis of citizens for tax justice. I mentioned it earlier that 45 percent of the benefits in the Republican package go to the top one percent of American families. These families, on average, will save $54,000. These families typically have incomes of over three-quarters of a million dollars a year already. So the decision on who should benefit from this tax bill is as severely mistaken as the analysis that led to the unreasonable and fiscally irresponsible size of the tax bill. Finally, for those who listened to the debates just before the tax bill was adopted, from time to time a Member of the majority would stand up and say, after a Democrat had spoken, do you realize the family in your State on average will save $3,000 or $3,500 under the tax bill? It sounded like a big number. Let me make sure that that is corrected. Yes, indeed, the, quote, average person in my State would save $3,500. That is over a 10-year period. So that is $350 a year. But that is the average person. Not the median but the mean. Let me just explain the difference. If you have got Al Checci, the gentleman, you may remember, who owns about half of Northwest Airlines, spent a lot of money in my State running for governor. If Al saves $10 million on his taxes and then we have got 1,000 families in another part of my district saving $10 on their taxes, well, that all averages up to a much higher number. The average simply looks at the huge amount of the tax break and divides it by the number of families. But the mean is when you look at the typical average family, what do they get. And typically under this tax bill, they get about 30 cents a day. For God's sake, let us not risk America's current and tenuous prosperity, let us not risk this economic expansion on the joy that a few will get in giving tax breaks to a very few Americans, and certainly let us not risk this economic recovery and economic expansion on 30 cents a day of tax cuts for the average American family.

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

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it will take a few more years of this economic expansion for it to be felt in those places that it has not yet been felt. My largest county, I represent a part of Los Angeles County, was lagging behind the rest of California; and only in the last couple of years has the economic expansion really has been felt in Los Angeles county. I hope very much that it is beginning to be felt in your part of North Carolina. There is nothing more important than keeping this economy growing.

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton) for coming to the floor and for joining with us here. I share her belief that we need tax cuts. But if we can keep this economic expansion going for another 5 years, first that will do far more for everybody's pocketbook than any tax cut. But second, we will then be able to talk about more tax cuts. If we screw it up, if we adopt tax cuts that force interest rates up because we are fiscally irresponsible, then, first, people will suffer far more from an economic downturn and, second, we will be back here dealing with deficits.

Mr. SHERMAN. I would echo what the gentleman has to say. If we are in a position where perhaps we will have an extra trillion dollars in general funds, not to mention the necessary buildup in Social Security, as the gentleman pointed out, this $2.9 trillion surplus, $1.9 trillion of the surplus, is just building up funds that we are going to need when people the gentleman's age and my age are going to retire, so that only $1 trillion of the estimated surplus is in the general fund, the one funded by regular taxes for regular expenditures. If we are in a situation where we do not know whether that surplus is going to come in as projected, then we have two choices: we can adopt a plan where we say we hope it will come in and if it does, we will pay down the debt; or we can say, we hope it will come in, but we are going to spend it before it comes in. But the method that is most likely to lead to higher unemployment, the method that is most likely to lead to a decline in the growth of our gross domestic product is to adopt a fiscally irresponsible plan and then watch the markets respond, watch interest rates creep up, watch investment decline, watch unemployment go up. So to act as if the surplus is certain is the best way to put it at risk. And that is another reason why the Republican plan is so fiscally irresponsible. Let me now focus on the content of the tax cut, because even if we did not believe in fiscal responsibility, even if we thought we should have an $800 billion tax cut exploding up to $3 trillion in the second 10 years, is this the right kind of cut to have? Let us look at the content. First, the Republicans promised to deal with the marriage penalty; and yet, and this is an interesting quote, the Family Research Council expressed its disappointment at the paltry marriage penalty relief found in the Republican tax bill. James Dobson, a man who has not ever offered to give me an award, I doubt he has offered to give the gentleman from Texas an award, went on radio to express his profound disappointment at the paltry marriage penalty relief in the Republican tax bill. That being the case, we should look at the Democratic bill, the bill that costs less than a third of the Republican bill's cost. But somehow, with less than one-third the tax cut, the Democrats provide more marriage penalty relief than the Republican bill. Let us look at the issue of school construction. We have seen the need to reduce class size around this country. We need our kids to get the best possible education. Well, if we are going to have smaller class sizes, then we need more classrooms. Both sides of the aisle have recognized that the Federal Government, through the tax code, should try to make it easier for local school districts to finance school construction. But in their bill, that is three times as expensive as the Democratic bill the Republicans provide only one-third of the help to local school districts. Three times as expensive but only one-third the help. And what kind of help do they provide local school districts? What they do is change the arbitrage rules. Well, what does that mean? It means that this is the only help they provide schools. This is the help. They tell every school district in the country, look, go issue tax-free bonds. Borrow the money at a low interest rate, and then for 4 years take that borrowed money, borrowed at a low interest rate, do not use it to build schools yet, but go play the market. Go invest it the way Orange County did right before Orange County went bankrupt. The only help they provide local school districts is to give them a free plane ticket to Las Vegas and to invite them to put the school bond money on the crap table. And they say they will allow school districts to do this and that is how we will help school construction. How do the Democrats help school construction? We simply provide three times more the Federal help, and we do it by saying the Federal Government will pay the interest on the school bonds. No risks, no arbitrage, no invitation to local schools to sell bonds today and to go into the stock market and the bond market and buy derivatives and hope they can make a profit. Just real help by paying the interest on the bonds. The Democratic bill, about 30 percent the size of the Republican bill, makes the R&D tax credit permanent. But the Republican bill turns its back on high-tech industry and says we will give them the R&D credit for a few more years and then we will turn it off. The Democratic bill provides for education, saying that employers can provide for education for their employees without the employees being taxed, whether it is graduate school education or whether it is undergraduate education or technical education. Yet, in a bill that costs more than three times as much, the Republicans cannot find room to allow for employee education. Well, what do they spend their money on, $800 billion in the first 10 years, $3 trillion in the next 10 years? How is it all spent? Not for married families. Not for school construction. And not for ordinary working families in this country. Because, in fact, they provide over 50 percent of the tax relief to the top one percent of Americans' income and to giant corporations. Now, in many of the speeches on this floor, the numbers stated are not quite as sharp as the ones I related. And that is because the other speakers on this floor have tended to ignore the corporate tax provisions. But if we look at how much goes to the top one percent in income, 45 percent of the benefits plus roughly 10 percent of the benefits going to giant corporations, we will see why there is so little room in the Republican tax bill to help education or to help marriage or to help working families. Let us talk a little bit about the breaks that they give giant corporations. They provide a special provision dealing with the interest allocation rules for multinational corporations. Well, what does that all mean? What it means is they provide $24.8 billion in tax relief to those corporations that take their shareholder money and invest it in factories overseas, shut down their domestic production, invest equity capital overseas, and share in a $25 billion tax reduction. That provision will not create jobs in America. It may create a few extremely poorly paid jobs overseas. But it is not just $25 billion in the first 10 years. It is one of those exploding tax cuts that grows to nearly $50 billion in the second 10 years. Furthermore, the new Democratic coalition put forward the idea that we eliminate the estate tax for all but the one percent of the richest families in America and that we do it in a way so that the families do not have to prepare long estate planning documents, none of the bypass trusts, none of the trust tax returns, none of the complication of the lives of widows and widowers that has become standard among upper middle-class seniors. Just complete relief on the first $2 million. But that is not good enough for the Republican majority. They forget the derivation of the word ``millionaire,'' someone who inherits a million dollars. So they come here and they say, well, if they inherit a million dollars, there should be no tax. I agree. Inherit $2 million there should be no tax. I agree. And then they say if they inherit a billion dollars, if they happen to be the lucky unborn son or daughter of Bill Gates and they inherit $10 billion, they want no tax. That is why their package is so expensive but they cannot provide relief to married families and they cannot help school construction. Not only is the size of the Republican tax bill fiscally irresponsible, but the content is the most extremely regressive that I have ever seen. I notice that one of my other colleagues has come to the floor and requested that I yield to her. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. SHERMAN. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) says it well. Since he has focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of the Republican tax cut, I would like to echo some of the things he had to say. The most curious thing is that the Republican majority has come before us and agreed on what the best policy would be. They have agreed with Alan Greenspan that the best thing we could do is save the lion's share of the surplus, adopt only small tax cuts, and pay off the national debt. They admit that is the best economic policy. They admit that that is what is best for America. Why will they not do it? They come before us and say that America, the best Nation in the world, cannot have the best economic policy, that we are congenitally unable to use funds to pay down the debt; that if the money is not used for tax cuts, it will be squandered and wasted. Well, I think America is the best country, and it deserves a Congress that will adopt the best economic policies. If the Republicans feel that they are congenitally unable to be fiscally responsible, then the least they could do is get out of the way, retire, and endorse the Reform party candidate or the Independent candidate or even the Democratic candidate from their district who will come here and do what both sides of the aisle have agreed is the best policy for this Congress; and that is to use the vast majority of the surplus to pay down the national debt. The gentleman from Texas illustrates it well when he talks about the importance of fiscal responsibility. He talks about a $90,000 house. Out in extremely expensive Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, we can simply double those figures. Virtually every working family in my district that owns a home would save double or triple if they could reduce their interest rate by 1 or 2 percent as compared to the crumbs of tax relief found at the edges of this Republican tax bill. Yet, we are told by a Republican majority that they cannot stop themselves, that the Republican majority must be made up of self- admitted spendaholics. Perhaps the undertow of their comment is the Republican majority will not be a majority very soon. One way or another, they are telling us that the Congress of next year and the year after somehow will not be able to pursue a fiscally responsible policy. I am confident that, with gentlemen like the gentleman from Texas and men and women on this side of the aisle exercising fiscal responsibility, that we will be able to do what is politically difficult but what we have shown ourselves capable of doing in the last 2 years; and that is to confine spending, to avoid tax cuts we cannot afford, and to run a government surplus. Think back. I know the gentleman from Texas and I came to Congress in the same year, 1997. I served on the Committee on Budget, and we came out with a plan adopted by this House. We said, by 2002, the budget will be balanced. We could hear the laughter, the loud laughter from the press galleries behind me. They were occupied at the time, with people who giggled at the prospect that the 1997 budget agreement would lead to a balanced budget by the year 2002. In fact, it lead to a balanced budget in 1999, in fact, a significant surplus in 1999. So this Congress has, in the last 2 years, shown it can be fiscally responsible. Now we need a tax plan that is based on the best economic policy, not one that assumes the people of this country cannot have a Congress that is as good as they are. They know that the best use of these funds is to pay down the debt. Now, among the reasons it is the best use of funds is that it allows us to stop paying interest on the debt. The Republican tax cut of over $800 billion over the first 10 years, $3 trillion in the second 10 years, those figures just reflect the cost of the tax cut. We have to add in the interest on the national debt that we will have to keep paying because, under the Republican plan, we cannot pay down the debt. That interest over the next 10 years will be on the order of another $150 billion. Imagine what we could do if we could pay off the debt, stop paying interest on the debt, and have interest rates that reflect the fact that Wall Street and Main Street know there is fiscally responsible government here in Washington. Instead, we are asked to adopt a tax plan which will quickly erode the tenuous faith Americans have that we have our fiscal house, in order in this House. I should point out both to those on our side of the aisle that have thought of a number of government programs they think should be funded, and to all of the little tax incentives and giveaways built into the Republican plan and those people who voted for it, that fiscal responsibility will do more for the poor than 50 great society programs, and fiscal responsibility will do more for business than 50 special tax breaks. Because if we can take the Federal Government out of the capital markets, then all of the money that is available for investment, instead of being used to buy T-bills and T-bonds to finance Federal spending, can be available for private investment. That means a continuation of the economic expansion. It means people will find that when they go to borrow money for a new car or a new home those funds are available. I can understand the desire to pass out tax breaks to wealthy interests. I can certainly understand the desire to provide special programs for those in need, but first and foremost we need to pay down the national debt. At this point, I would yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. I was in private practice as a CPA back in 1981 when this Congress passed the irresponsible ERTA tax bill. The result was high inflation, unemployment, high interest rates, and now we are about to do it all over again. This tax bill is ERTA on steroids. A few moderate Republicans could vote against this bill and stop it. Let me bring to them a few facts. One-third of the tax relief in this bill goes to the 90 percent of Americans who are middle class or of modest means. The next one-third goes to the next 9 percent toward the top. And one-third of the benefits goes to the top 1 percent of the income earners. This is not just an $800 billion tax cut for ten years. In the second 10 years, it is over $3 trillion. So as the baby boomers retire, as Social Security is at risk, this bill is at its most irresponsible. I urge the defeat of this irresponsible tax cut.

Mr. SHERMAN

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, after 15 years of practice as a tax lawyer and a CPA, I thought I knew what tax fraud was. But I have seen tax fraud here tonight. When they talk about the marriage penalty, they do not tell us that the Republican proposal does not eliminate even half of the marriage penalty. The Rangel proposal does more to eliminate or reduce the marriage penalty than does the extremely expensive Republican proposal. All the wedding pictures in the world will not hide it. And that is why the Christian right around this country, other pro-family groups, are calling the Republicans and saying, why have you done so little to reduce the marriage penalty? Why is it that the Democrats, with a much smaller bill, are able to do more? We are told that the Republican bill will provide for school construction. But what does it really contain? An arbitrage provision, an invitation to school districts around this country to go bet on interest rates the way Orange County did before they went bankrupt. The only help they give school districts is an invitation to arbitrage betting. The Rangel bill, instead, provides interest-free loans for real school construction, just as it provides for the R&D tax credit to be permanent and for employer provided education to be tax free. Now, there has been a lot of talk about numbers. The Democrats have pointed out that two-thirds of the benefits of this bill go to the top 10 percent. But it is worse than that. We did not talk about the corporate tax benefit. Eighty percent of the benefits of this bill go to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans and to giant corporations. And what kind of incentives do we give those giant corporations? Well, take a look at the interest allocation rules. Tens of billions of dollars of our money being spent to reward corporations for closing down factories here in the United States and investing equity capital and moving jobs to foreign countries. This is not a bill to create jobs in America. Perhaps it will create a few overseas. But it is worse than that. Because we take that last little 20 percent of the benefits that go to middle-class Americans, and not just middle-class, everybody in the bottom 90 percent, and we say their benefit is contingent, the interest allocation provisions for the giant corporations, they are guaranteed, the huge loopholes for the wealthy, they are guaranteed. But if the interest costs of the United States go up, even if it is just a Social Security trust fund earning more interest on its investment, then we take away the 10 percent tax cut, which is one of the few things that is available to middle-class taxpayers. Finally, in talking about the money, often when a Democratic speaker speaks the response is to stand up and say, people in your State will save $3,500 under this bill. Why are you against it? Well, let me tell my colleagues. Yes, it might be $3,000 per person in my State, but that is over 10 years. So it is less than $30 a month. But that is not $30 a month for the average family in my State. That, instead, means $20 for the richest and $10 for the average family in my State. Let us not ruin the economy.