Floor Statements

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that my colleagues vote against this rule. On the one hand, they do allow a Democrat substitute that I am pleased to offer, one that would provide very meaningful estate tax relief. In fact, it would completely take care of any estate tax problem of 99.65 percent of the people of this country. It is far more relief than offered under the majority proposal in each of the next 5 years.

So these family farms and these small businesses we are going to be hearing so much about, the alligator tears we are going to be seeing cried on the majority side, we help them and we help them now. On the other hand, the majority approach is very different. Nobody gets nothing until the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent get everything that they need. That is why we have the inferior plan on their side compared to the more generous benefit of ours.

There is another very big difference. Theirs would drive the deficit higher to the tune of $160 plus billion dollars over 10 years. Why I want to vote against this rule is that we had a proposal in the amendment that I proposed to the Committee on Rules that would have completely paid for the relief we provide. There would have been zero impact on the deficit. Yet to my surprise, the substitute allowed in order only provides for the tax relief portion and does not provide the means by which we avoid any impact on the deficit whatsoever. We wanted to close the Enron-like tax shelters.

We also had some customs fees, and yet they have shielded this, stripped it out of the rule; and so what we are allowed on the floor will have a deficit impact. I vote against the rule.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, to my friend from New York, we had within the substitute proposed to the Committee on Rules, on which the gentleman served so well, a pay-for so we were not going to impact the deficit. You took out the pay-for provisions of what we submitted to the committee. You make us impact the deficit, although it is only a fraction to which the majority proposal impacts the deficit. We know you do not care about the deficits. In fact, there has been a $9 trillion reversal in the financial fortunes of this country within the last 2 years. We think enough is enough. We do not want to drive the deficit deeper and deeper, and that is why I so wish you would have allowed for the pay-for portion proposed to the Committee on Rules to be considered.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I believe the gentleman was out of the room at the time I testified, but I would refer him to the transcript.

Does the gentleman want me to answer his question or does he not?

It is not true.

Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman going to yield to me to answer his question?

Then I will proceed to answer. If the gentleman will check the transcript of my remarks before the Committee on Rules, I asked that the proposal I offered be considered that paid for the provision for the very meaningful estate tax relief we extend by closing the Enron-type tax loopholes.

I know you probably do not want that considered on the floor of the House. So what you have made in order does not allow us to incorporate the pay-fors. I think that is unfortunate. My specific request to the chairman of the Committee on Rules was to allow the pay-fors.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as we begin consideration of the substitute, I would like us to focus on something pretty central to the fundamentals of legislating. We ought to do as a Congress that which we can do. The substitute I bring forward will take effect during the tenure of this Congress. It is effective January 1, 2004. The majority proposal before us does nothing during the sitting of this Congress, nothing during the sitting of the next Congress, the Congress after that, the Congress after that, the Congress after that, or the Congress after that. Nothing until January 1, 2011.

We have heard so much from the other side. We have heard so much about how they care about all the problems, how mean of us to oppose their addressing the problems. And yet now when it comes to the substitute, this is where the rubber meets the road because we want to do something now and something meaningful and they do nothing. Nothing about their bill.

Not one whit of their bill applies during the sitting of this Congress or until the year 2011.

Again, I referenced earlier the heart-wrenching examples we have heard from the majority about family farmers. Let us talk for a minute about family farmers. I know something about family farmers. In representing the State of North Dakota, I probably represent more production acreage than any other Members of this House. The family farmers who have estate tax problems, and I am happy to tell my colleagues most of them do not, but of those that do, let us get after it. Let us get them relief and get them relief now.

The substitute I have advanced would give family farm couples $6 million in exclusion from estate tax. Any farmer in operation up to $6 million, no estate taxes. One hundred percent repeal, effective January 1. That is very meaningful relief and it is going to go right to the heart of the farm families that they are talking about.

Now, what do they offer by way of an alternative, this Congress, for dealing with these farm families? Absolutely nothing. In 2004, under their proposal, family farm estates over $3 million will be subject to estate tax; over $3 million. Family farm estates per couple in our situation: $6 million. We provide double the relief immediately. And so really, what they are offering these people is a total sham, because under their proposal, nobody gets anything until the very wealthiest, a tiny number of estates in this country, are taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and that is especially true when we consider prospects that this year 2011 will actually offer the kind of relief that they proclaim so loudly. Five Congresses from now are going to be looking at a very different budget situation, because the cost of their proposal absolutely explodes in the very decade baby boomers retire.

Consider the chart here. Mr. Speaker, $162 billion of revenue loss in the first 10 years. It ramps up slowly, and then really clobbers you: A $500 million loss in '04; a $31 billion loss in the year 2011; $57 billion loss in 2012; $63 billion loss in 2013. You catch my drift. This thing explodes in its consequence in the budget. Mr. Speaker, $840 billion worth of revenue loss in the next decade, just as baby boomers retire and want their Medicare and want their Social Security.

Now, what do my colleagues think is likely? We are going to say, no, baby boomers, we have this estate tax we repealed some time ago, and we are going to stick with it. I do not think so. I think the prospects are overwhelming that this distant repeal will never arrive.

Finally, I think that it just makes it very, very clear what this is all about. To look at the relief we offer in each of the next 5 years being vastly superior to theirs, because they do not want, in any way, to lose some of the momentum behind total repeal. So they will leave family farmers in the lurch through the year 2011; they will leave the small businesses they talk about in

the lurch in the year 2011. Again, look at this: estates $6 million and under; no tax under our proposal in 2004; $3 million and under taxed under their proposal. In 2005, the same situation. Again, we are superior in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Now, if this Congress has before it the opportunity to give over each of the next 5 years meaningful relief to people that need it, why in the world do we not do it? That is exactly what this substitute is all about.

There is one final feature that I would discuss briefly; it is a feature that I was surprised to hear my friend, the gentlewoman from Washington, tout before the Committee on Rules yesterday, and that is, this notion of who is going to have capital gains tax on inherited property? Because under our proposal, when you inherit the property, the only capital gains tax on the appreciated value of that property you are going to have is between the time you inherited it and the time you sell it. Under their proposal, you are going to face capital gains taxes from the time it was purchased originally, whoever purchased it that ultimately bequeathed it to you in the inheritance.

And so in the family farm context, you have an awful lot of farmland coming into families in the 1930s, in the 1940s at just nominal value, which now has significant value. And when the heir goes to sell it, you are going to have capital gains on all capital appreciation over $1.3 million. We are going to have an awful lot of the family farmers that they are touting so much on this debate that right now do not have estate tax problems, and surely would not have estate tax problems under our bill, that are going to find themselves with walloping capital gains taxes, because they take this stepped up in basis and throw it out for carry-over so that they can help the wealthiest tiny few in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we have a proposal in my substitute to take care of 99.65 percent of the estates in this country. My gosh, that is pretty darn close to perfect, 99.7. But they do not want that relief to move forward, because it is the three-tenths of 1 percent of their wealthiest benefactors that they are most worried about. Well, I say let us deal with this straight up, take what we can get now, provide meaningful relief effective in 2004, pass the Pomeroy substitute, and get this on the road toward exactly what we need: estate tax relief now for America's families.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), assist in the management of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that the preceding speakers each making their eloquent speeches on behalf of their family farm constituents, their small business constituents, will oppose the amendment that I have offered that will bring them meaningful relief right now, January 1, 2004.

Mr. Speaker, let me just go through the comparison. If a couple's estate is worth $6 million or less on January 1, 2004, no estate tax under our proposal. Under their proposal, these farms and small businesses with valuations in excess of over $3 million, they are going to have tax under their proposal in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. There is more relief under our proposal than their proposal.

If they want to protect these estates, they should pass the substitute today; and next year if they want to go ahead and try to pass the repeal, they can go ahead and try. There is no harm in that, take what you can get now and come back and take some more later. That is how we function in this Congress a lot. But they have done something quite different. They say nobody gets any relief until 2011 because at that time the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent get to participate fully in the relief as well.

If that is what this is about, let us talk about the three-tenths of 1 percent. But do not put this on family farms or small businesses; or as an earlier speaker said, this estate tax repeal is really about the guy pushing the broom. I do not know too many guys pushing brooms that have estate tax problems. It goes to show really the overblown rhetoric on the other side of the aisle unmatched by any reasonable effort to help now address the estate tax problems they speak so compellingly about.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Seattle, Washington (Mr. McDermott).

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to speak for a moment on the question of where rural America is on my amendment. I believe if we ask the farmers of this country today, and I represent a whole lot of farmers in North Dakota, if they would take a proposition where they get $6 million per farm couple estate tax relief, no estate tax if their farm is $6 million or under, or no relief at all until 2011 under the majority proposal, leaving them with exposure over $3 million under their proposal as opposed to $6 million with our proposal, I would be interested in a show of hands on that one.

I have a strong feeling that most would support relief now. In addition to that, we are not used to the notion of capital gains on inherited estates, but I heard the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) talk about the new capital gains feature that is part of their proposal and that it is going to be a good thing because it means you are going to have to keep farming or running that small business because if you sell it, you are going to have capital gains exposure. I do not think that it is a good thing that we suddenly impose capital gains exposure on inherited assets. That is why the stepped-up basis feature of our bill is so important.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our leader. I am so proud of her and so proud she joins the debate on my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that our leader was able to participate in the debate, and am pleased to have the participation of the Speaker of the House in closing for the majority, because I think the issue is of that importance.

The esteemed Speaker of the House, a gentleman I admire greatly, representing the State of Illinois, I reckon is going to tell us something about how we have to do this for family farmers and the small businesses of this country. I think that it is time that family farmers and small businesses have estate tax relief and that is why I have put forward this amendment which brings them estate tax relief effective January 1 of 2004. Again, let us put the rhetoric aside and just look at the facts.

In 2004, these families that they have been talking about, 3 million and over, estate tax liability attaches. A couple, in our side, 6 million liability of taxes. Meaningful relief now, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008. We provide meaningful relief in each of those years beyond what the majority proposes.

I also expect that the Speaker of the House is going to talk a little bit about how we need to do this to get the economy moving again. Let us consider that one because something that takes effect in 2004 is much more related to getting the economy moving again than something that has no effect whatsoever until the year 2011. Consider this date, 2011, which, again, is the first time the majority proposal has any effect. That is five Congresses from now and into the third Presidential term from now. There is nothing we can do to bind action at that time, nothing in the world. We might kid ourselves about it, but what this Congress can do is attend to that in the here and now. That is why I believe it is time we move estate tax relief forward, do it in a meaningful way, do it in a way to provide couples 6 million and under complete freedom from ever having to worry about estate tax again, and if we attach at that number, we will address completely the estate tax concerns of 99.65 percent of the people in this country.

I do not know the definition of universal, but that is getting mighty darn close; and it beats by a mile, in my opinion, leaving people with the estate tax exposure they have until the year 2011.

Here is the danger that we will never get to 2011. This is the cost of the proposal the first 10 years; this is the cost in the next 10 years. I believe there is significant risk 2011 will never be allowed to occur under the majority bill. Let us get relief now. Please vote for my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such to time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say in response to the gentleman from New York, what a privilege I feel it is to serve as a ranking member on the subcommittee chaired by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). He is an example of the leading effort in the Congress to forge bipartisan consensus and address in commonsense ways problems affecting the American people. That is precisely what the bill before us did, the bill that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and I agreed to cosponsor until the week before it was to come to the Committee on Ways and Means, at which time we learned of an extraordinarily offensive provision added into the bill. This provision significantly changes and undermines essential consumer protections that exist for displaced workers as a result of trade agreements that are looking for health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) to elaborate on this feature of the bill and other points relative to the issue before us.

(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. POMEROY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's outstanding work on behalf of the displaced workers in the State of Maine and throughout the country.

Let me try to put in perspective what this is all about. Let me note back in my days as the State insurance commissioner of North Dakota, I spent a lot of time working on issues, fundamental consumer protections for people buying health insurance. We believe it is critical when we have workers displaced because of trade agreements, they ought to have some assistance with the expenses they incur while looking for other careers and other ways to earn their livelihood.

As a result, we got trade adjustment assistance in that last bill, and it provided for very meaningful assistance, support in purchasing the premium as well as very strong consumer protections in the purchase of that coverage. These protections include guaranteed issues; if you are sick or have some medical condition, it does not matter. You have the right to get that coverage, no preexisting condition exclusion. What that means is, say you want to get coverage but I have some disability maybe that occurred at work. They cannot exclude all medical conditions arising from that disability; they have to cover that, too. And then premiums have to be equitable with other premiums; benefits have to be comparable with other benefits.

What the majority bill would do is allow a period where some of the most important consumer protections do not have to be offered, those providing for guaranteed issue, absolute right to get the coverage, those protecting against

having something excluded; those are also eliminated in this provision.

We have been upset by this provision; and when I say ``we,'' I speak about a swath in the caucus that voted for the fast track trade authority and did so in part because of the protections of trade adjustment assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Dear Colleague written by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) and signed by 15 Democrats who voted for the trade bill, all referencing the fact that this trade adjustment protection for displaced workers was an important part of them coming to agree that we ought to pass this trade bill.

Pro-trade House Democrats Fight to Keep Worker Assistance in Trade Bill

Today, 15 House Democrats who voted for the Trade Promotion

Authority bill last year sent a strong letter to Ways and

Means Chairman Bill Thomas expressing their concern about his

efforts to rewrite guarantees for healthcare benefits for

displaced workers that were agreed to as part of the

comprehensive trade bill passed last year.

The effort to keep Trade Adjustment Assistance as part of

future trade agreements is being led by Reps. Ellen Tauscher

(D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Cal Dooley (D-Calif.).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I am going to close debate on my side of the aisle, and I would do so with the following comments. My friend and Ways and Means colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana, raises on the question of health coverage for displaced workers the important issue of whether or not coverage is actually available for these workers or might there be because of these preexisting conditions circumstances where no coverage is available and by insisting on these protections we are actually depriving these workers of the availability to get health coverage.

I am pleased to respond to that concern by saying that negotiations at the State level are coming along very successfully, and so far 13 States have been successful at getting insurance companies to enter into an agreement to provide the coverage to these displaced workers under the consumer protections in the bill. Thirteen States. What concerns us about raising this issue at this time is that we think it sends a very bad signal from Congress to the States and the insurance companies in negotiations with them, that they might not have to comply with these consumer protections.

As an old insurance commissioner, I know darn well you give an insurance company the chance of not offering coverage to everybody, but, rather, cherry-picking, picking only the ones they want to cover as opposed to the mandate that they cover everybody, well, they are going to want to cherry-pick. Of course they are going to want to do that. If you give insurance companies the opportunity to say, well, we'll cover you except for the disability that you have or the preexisting health condition that you have, of course insurance companies are going to want to restrict their coverage from those medical features that are so troublesome to the displaced workers. We think that passing this bill with this provision in it is going to bring negotiations at the State level potentially to a standstill because the insurance companies are going to hold out for a sweeter deal, and what a sweet deal it would be.

We are going to have a situation where the insurance companies, under the majority proposal, would be able to exclude who they want to. Of the individuals they underwrite, they will be able to exclude the medical conditions that they want to and they are still going to get the Federal Government paying 65 percent of the premium. Let us face it, it is not often you put forward Federal tax dollars to pay private insurance premiums. We have chosen to do so at this time because these are workers that lost their jobs because of trade agreements entered by this country. That is certified by the Department of Labor.

We think under those circumstances, having lost their job through no fault of their own, because of trade agreements entered and ratified here in Congress, that those workers need some help while they get their lives back on track, get a new livelihood in place, and that help certainly includes health insurance coverage to protect them and their families. We are even going to help pay for it. Under these circumstances, let us not let the insurance companies run roughshod by excluding who they want, by excluding the medical conditions that they want. We have got to hold for the whole package, give these workers the absolute right to get the coverage they need and the absolute right to get coverage for all of their medical conditions, not just those the insurance company is going to want to pick.

Work is coming along well at the State level. Again, 13 States concluding these agreements, others still in negotiation now. Now is not the time to take the pressure off. Now is not the time to give the insurance companies a pass. Now is not the time to walk away from the health care needs of our displaced workers. Hold the consumer protections, reject the majority bill, we will take this taxpayer protection right, remove the poison pill, bring it back here, as it should have been in the first place, and get on with reforming the Tax Code in the responsible ways but not in the ways that, because of the poison pill, hurt our displaced workers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bi-partisan ``Secure Annuity Income for Life Act (S.A.I.L.),'' legislation co- sponsored with Rep. Johnny Isakson (R-GA). This legislation will encourage workers to annuitize their savings to provide them with retirement income for life.

Traditionally, guaranteed monthly income sources have provided the best means of retirement income security. However, these sources are playing an ever smaller role in ensuring retirement income stability. Social Security is facing a funding challenge. The personal savings rate is at an all time low while consumer debt is at an all time high. The number of defined benefit plans, or pensions, has decreased by half since 1977--putting pressure on defined contribution plans, like the 401(k), to be the primary retirement plan.

As a result of the growth in 401(k) plans, greater amounts of retirement savings will not be annuitized. According to the Department of Labor, only 38 percent of workers in a 401(k) plan have an annuity option available to them. However, about $2.5 trillion in retirement assets are invested in individual retirement accounts (IRAs), mostly as a result of rollovers from defined contribution plans. That compares with $1.8 trillion in defined benefit plans and $2.4 trillion in defined contribution plans. The amount of IRA rollovers is expected to increase by 50% in the next ten years, mostly as a result of retirements. Workers will face a number of risks when managing these savings in retirement.

When workers take a lump sum distribution, or rolls his 401(k) savings into an IRA, they face a number of risks when managing these savings in retirement:

Unpredictable Time Horizon--Life expectancy at 65 is at least 18 years--but that is only an average and not very useful in planning. In fact, 28 percent of females that are 65 years old will live to age 90 and 17 percent of

males that are 65 will live to age 90. The probability that at least one person from a married couple that is 65 years old will live to age 90 is 40 percent.

Market Risk--Retirees have a shorter time horizon in which to recover from market downturns. Market downturns at the beginning of retirement can significantly reduce how long a retiree's nest egg will last.

Inflation--Income must double over a twenty-year period just to stay even with average rates of inflation. Since most pension plans do not have cost of living income adjustments each year (unlike Social Security), personal savings experience even greater strain.

By annuitizing retirement assets--either through an employer or private commercial entity--retirees reduce the risk of retirement income instability. Public policy should encourage individuals to manage their savings during retirement in a manner that accommodates their daily needs but also ensures that their savings will not be exhausted prematurely. Only annuities can make this guarantee. Annuities transfer the risk of outliving assets from the individual to an insurance company -just as individuals transfer risks to insurance companies for their properties, accidents, and health costs.

The S.A.I.L. Act is designed to encourage individuals to annuitize their retirement savings as an efficient solution to what otherwise could be an overwhelming asset management task. Specifically, it would allow workers who participate in employer sponsored retirement savings plans, and who save through IRAs, to receive $3,000 of annual taxfree income from annuities. Some may consider this a small incentive, but it is a progressive way to entice low to moderate income individuals to annuitize some of their retirement savings.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that retirement income security encourages workers' to annuitize their savings so that they will receive guaranteed monthly income for life. I believe this is an important policy objective and encourage my colleagues to co-sponsor the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act.

Our system of class action litigation is in dire need of reform. Most class action cases are national in scope and should be heard in federal court, where like claims may be combined and uniform decisions rendered. Under the current system, however, these interstate suits are often filed in state or country court, where the decision of a local judge and jury may affect the laws of all 50 states. As a former state insurance commissioner, I am

deeply troubled that a jury panel in a class action case in Mississippi or New Mexico could effectively overturn state regulations in my home state of North Dakota.

In addition, by allowing interstate class action claims to be filed in any of the thousands of local courts across the country, the likelihood is increased that a plaintiffs lawyer will find at least one judge who is willing to entertain a claim that most people would consider to be without merit. Once a sympathetic judge is found, the plaintiffs' attorney can leverage nationwide settlements that all too often provide little benefit to the actual plaintiffs but enormous benefit to the attorney.

I support the amendment brought forward by Representatives Sensenbrenner, Boucher, Dooley, Stenholm, and Terry, that incorporates the so-called ``Feinstein Amendment.'' Through this amendment, class action suits would be apportioned to federal or state courts depending on the domicile of the plaintiffs. I believe that the Feinstein Amendment addressed an important criticism to the bill in that it would leave lawsuits that are clearly of local concern, with state courts.

However, I was disheartened to learn that an amendment that would effectively strike the retroactivity provision in the bill was ruled out-of-order and will not be brought forward for a vote here today. This provision would unfairly apply the new law to cases already filed in state courts, but not granted class certification. It sets bad public policy because it changes the rules for injured Plaintiffs in the middle of the game. I understand that this provision was added during Committee debate of the bill and was added at the urging of a special interest. Such political favoring produces bad policy that I cannot support. Therefore, I cannot support class action reform that retroactively applies to active cases.

We have not heard the last of this issue. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue so that we can finally reform the class action system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time; and with 1 minute, I will have to be brief. This really is not about biotech. It is about whether global agriculture trade will be conducted under the rules adopted by the countries pursuant to trade agreements.

There is a procedure for evaluating the safety and soundness of agriculture products to be exported into a marketplace. Under the WTO, it requires that measures regulating imports be based on sufficient scientific evidence and that countries operate regulatory approval and procedures without undue delay. Basically, the Europeans have thrown up this effort to keep our product out, and they have not followed the WTO actions in so pursuing this course of action.

That is why the resolution before us commending our President is exactly the right thing to do. We can only participate as a full partner with other nations in trade agreements if people follow the rules. We have rules. The rules are being ignored to keep their markets closed to our exports. We need to pass this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), for organizing tonight's Special Order in honor of the memory of Al Davis.

Mr. Speaker, when I arrived in Washington as a freshman Member of Congress in January, 1993, I received an assignment to the Committee on the Budget. That was when I met Al Davis. At the time, Al was the committee's senior economist. For someone like me, brand new to the Federal budget policy, Al was nothing less than the Rosetta Stone.

Even before I knew his name, I knew him by my first impression. It was an impression that I held for the next 10 years working with him, our giant brain. The Washington Post said that Al could translate the most arcane economic data into real-world language. That is absolutely true.

But I must also admit that sometimes even Al's translations were hard to grasp. Why? Because, although he was a master of honing sharp political arguments out of obtuse provisions in the Internal Revenue Code, he would never sacrifice content or accuracy. If a Member came to Al with a winning political argument that did not quite square with the facts, Al would patiently explain how the argument could be changed politically and substantively to be sound and accurate. He loved politics, for sure, but Al cared deeply about the enterprise of government, and believed that we all have an obligation to carry on our public debate with integrity.

Al was a senior economist and then chief economist for the Committee on the Budget for all my 6 years on the Committee on the Budget. Most know that until recently, Democrat staff of the Committee on the Budget were housed in the old O'Neill Building, which was also the dormitory for House and Senate pages.

It was quite appropriate that the Committee on the Budget staff worked out of a dormitory, because when we went to see Al Davis, working along with his colleagues, Richard Kogan and the others who served with such talent the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and then the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), we truly felt like we were in the gifted and talented dorm at college. Here would be Al in his office, piled high with every budget and economic resource we could imagine, statutes, studies, charts, you name it. Of course, we would always find Al perched in the middle of it with an open collar, or in the summer a short-sleeved shirt, jacket and tie hanging on the wall, just in case of emergencies.

Al would field questions about budget and tax policy with the excitement and enthusiasm of a kid. He not only would answer the question, but also point out the humor, the irony, the inconsistency, or the sheer lunacy of the provision under discussion. When we went to see Al, we were truly talking to the smartest kid in the class.

Al was a very influential staffer, although he had no use for the trappings of authority. Al loved his work for its own sake and not because it made him powerful or sought after, which probably explains why Al treated people like he did. There would be no one in the world more surprised than Al to have an editorial written about him in the Washington Post. He was just as happy to explain the finer points of tax policy to a junior staffer as he was a senior Member. If one was interested in learning the substance, then Al Davis was interested in teaching it to you.

Because of his knowledge and intelligence, we made great demands on Al. We asked him not only to undertake economic analyses to support our policies, but also to develop the arguments and market them. On many occasions, I would decide the night before markup that our charts did not quite capture the perfect argument for the next day. I would ask my staff to call Al to find the data to create the perfect chart. Armed with such an 11th hour request, you can imagine how anyone would be exasperated, and occasionally Al was. But even those times, a few hours later, sometimes well after midnight, Al would send over the chart, just as we had asked.

I served, along with my legislative director for 10 years, Mike Smart, with Al and developed the greatest respect and admiration for him. As he loved

ideas, so he also loved life. I remember my surprise once at disembarking at the Bangor, Maine airport to find Al Davis and his loving partner Mary, Al having one of these goofy camping caps on. He was off for a canoe trip, an incongruous notion for me, thinking of our giant brain paddling that canoe in the wilds of Maine; but that is the kind of diverse and loving-life guy Al Davis was.

I have found my years in Congress to be enriched significantly by knowing Al and having the benefit of his counsel. I will miss him very much.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following items: The Washington Post editorial on Al Davis; the June 9 Tax Notes write-up by Warren Rojas on Al Davis and his contribution to the profession; a tribute in the June 9 Tax Notes from Gene Steurele entitled ``Economic Perspective''; and last but not least, a beautiful eulogy that was presented at the St. Charles Catholic Church in Arlington, Virginia, on Monday, June 9, by Dan Maffei, also a staff member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

The documents referred to are as follows.

[From The Washington Post, June 7, 2003]

(By Albert J. Davis)

Unless you're a tax and budget wonk, you probably didn't

know Al Davis. Mr. Davis, the Democrats' chief economist on

the House Ways and Means Committee, was one of those classic

Capitol Hill staffers whose effectiveness can't be measured

by the number of times they are mentioned in the newspaper.

But from his cluttered office in the Longworth House Office

Building, Mr. Davis helped mold and inform the public debate

about what he saw as the troubling direction of the nation's

economic policy, churning out fact sheets that were as

accurate as they were partisan. He could get as worked up--

maybe even more--about Democrats using distorted numbers as

about Republicans who did so.

Mr. Davis had the gift of being able to translate the most

arcane economic data into real-world language that Democratic

lawmakers--the people he called his ``customers''--could use

to make their case. For reporters scrambling to make sense of

a study or to dredge up an obscure detail, he was the

ultimate resource, with a seemingly encyclopedic

understanding of the tax code. If you wrote or advocated

about such matters, you'd quickly find your way to Al--or he

to you. He patiently educated the uninitiated, from green

legislative aides to reporters new to the economics beat.

When a bill was on the floor, Mr. Davis was always there with

his bulging accordion file, colleague Janice Mays recalled,

offering when the most obscure of points came up, ``I just

happen to have a memo here.''

Mr. Davis died last week at 56 after being struck by a cab

on his way home from work. The accident occurred as congress

was finishing work on a tax bill that Mr. Davis detested,

and, as he lingered in a coma for 11 days after the accident,

we can only imagine how frustrated he would have been not to

be immersed in the debate. Len Burman, co-director of the Tax

Policy Center, recalled visiting Mr. Davis at George

Washington University Hospital and delivering updates on the

latest outrages in the tax measure, ``I kept on thinking,

he's definitely going to wake up for this,'' Mr. Burman said,

Mr. Davis's boss, Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), said that

Mr. Davis ``promoted truth in an institution too used to

skirting around politically inconvenient facts.''

Mr. Speaker, this is quite a day in the life of Congress. We are going to pass a $350 billion tax cut, 75 percent of which goes to the wealthiest 5 percent of the households in this country. We are going to authorize the Federal Government to borrow almost an additional $1 trillion. The day of the big tax cut is the day we vote the largest extension of borrowing authority to this country, in light of the red ink we will run, ever enacted.

So, in the middle of all of this, it appeared certain that nothing would be done to address the fate of our unemployed workers. Only in the last few hours has this plan emerged; and we are glad it has, as far as it goes. Certainly something needed to be done, because the economic performance of the country has been abysmal: 2.7 million private sector jobs lost over the last 2 years, an extraordinary decrease; 3.4 unemployed workers for every single job opening.

Now, under this circumstance, people try to find work, but they cannot find work, so their unemployment benefits run out.

I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule, however, because the proposal brought before us has a fatal flaw. It only extends benefits if your benefits have not lapsed. If you were unfortunate enough to lose your job, been on the job market, pounding the shoe leather, sending out resumes, looking everywhere for employment, but have not found employment before your unemployment benefits lapsed, guess what? You will not get any extension, you will not get any relief, under the measure brought before the House.

Now, we have an amendment to offer to cure this fatal flaw of the majority proposal so that people whose benefits have lapsed also get some help. Lord knows they need it. But we are not allowed to offer that amendment.

What could be more ridiculous? We will extend benefits if you have not lapsed yet; but if you have lapsed, you get no help whatsoever. Well, you think, that must have been inadvertent somehow. Let us fix that.

They will not let us fix that with an amendment. That is why the rule is unfair. That is why the response is inadequate. Vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

My colleague recently asked, what has it all about? I suggest what it is all about is the Senate action tonight or tomorrow morning to increase the borrowing authority of this country to $984 billion. So many words, so many figures, but really the truth of the action is measured by the increase requested in the borrowing authority of this country.

If this is going to produce the kind of wonderful effects they suggest, why do they need to authorize the Treasury to borrow an additional trillion dollars? The reality is that we are going to fund this on the debt.

I do not know of a family I represent that plans for their retirement by blowing everything they have got, running up the debt on their credit cards, with the hope that their children will bail them out. That is exactly the action we take tonight as we pass this tax cut, not paid for in any way but funded on the debt.

The truth is the Senate action. An additional trillion dollars of borrowing authority. We should not put this on our kids. We should reject this package.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bill that will add more than half a trillion dollars to the national debt. Advertised as a jobs bill, 89 percent of this budget buster does not do a thing this calendar year. According to the New York Times, the benefits go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest few in this country.

We could do so much better and it is pretty darn clear they cannot even defend this monstrosity. Why else would they reduce debate to a single hour? Why else would they deny all amendments? Why else would they deprive the minority of our historic right to offer an alternative, one that stimulates the economy with tax cuts to small businesses and working families without exploding the deficit?

If the majority was so confident about this proposal, one would think they would welcome debate. One would think they would love a side-by- side vote, their proposal and our proposal. Instead, they are shamefully jamming this proposal through this House, sticking our children with hundreds of hundreds of billions of dollars of additional national debt to fund a tax cut windfall to the wealthiest few in this country.

Reject this shameful bill.

Mr. Speaker, the earned income tax credit is an important program to assist low-income families and move them from welfare to work.

The IRS is proposing a precertification program for EITC unlike that applied to any other tax benefit program, or for that matter any other program. As proposed, the IRS's precertification program will have the consequence of excluding persons who clearly qualify for EITC benefits. This is because, as proposed, many of the precertification requirements simply cannot be met. As one example, marriage certificates are required in certain instances. In several states, however, the waiting period to receive this documentation may be years. It is for this reason that I am co-sponsoring H.R. 1894, introduced by Representative Charles Rangel.

Because of my strong support for EITC, I also support both simplification of the EITC documentation process as well as fair and appropriate review of the program's eligibility and enforcement processes. This will guarantee that those persons who are eligible to receive the credit receive the benefits to which they are entitled, and that those persons who endeavor to take unfair advantage of the EITC are prevented from doing so. Fraud certainly cannot and will not be tolerated, but we also should not punish people who fairly qualify for this credit by making them provide documentation that they cannot acquire. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Internal Revenue Service in ensuring that these dual aims are accomplished.

Mr. Speaker, there are two aspects to this bill which I think have very strong merit, and I am very pleased that they have been included; and I enjoyed working with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in getting them into the now-final conference report.

The first is the Victims of Child Abuse Act now amended into the bill and now part of this final conference agreement that would reauthorize this important legislation initially authorized in 1992. The thrust of this legislation is to authorize training and technical assistance to programs to improve the prosecution of child abuse cases. This funding flows to centers and programs that provide training for law enforcement agencies, for prosecutors and local jurisdictions to help them establish comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches to the investigation and prosecution of child abuse cases.

As we move the AMBER Alert response forward, we have to also think about what happens following the joyous reunion of a recovered kidnap victim. There is a lot of healing that has

to take place, special counseling for the victims, and then a very special treatment required by prosecutors and law enforcement officials as they bring the crime to punish the perpetrator, but do not want to further punish the victim who has already been through so much.

This legislation was initially authored by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer), who continues to play a leadership role in this area; and I am glad it is included.

I am also pleased the Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act has been included in the legislation and is now part of the conference agreement. This puts back on our books legislation banning computer- generated child pornography. As Members may recall, there was a Supreme Court case that found an earlier statute to be overly broad. Well, we have looked very carefully at the ruling of the Supreme Court. We do not challenge it. We try and follow the direction that they lay out to craft a statute that they will find constitutional. We have tightened the definitions of inappropriate computer-generated child pornography, and we respond to the directions of prosecutors in trying to prosecute those who traffic in child pornography with other provisions as well. We make it illegal for an adult to use child pornography, sending child pornography over the Internet in order to lure children to inappropriate activity. We draw a per se prohibition on the depiction of explicit sex between young children.

Mr. Speaker, we think that this legislation is going to make a very important contribution to our efforts to stop those who want to traffic in child pornography. I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

After all the words that have been spoken tonight about this budget, it really comes down to one fundamental issue: Do we want to lay on our children a higher national debt carried by our country or do we want a responsible budget? This budget authorizes immediately $984 billion, nearly $1 trillion in higher borrowing authority. You have got to figure something is wrong with the plan if right out of the gate you have got to borrow $1 trillion to make it work; but that is just a start because over the next 10 years the borrowing doubles, nearly doubling the national debt, just before the baby boomers move into retirement drawing on Social Security, drawing on Medicare.

There is not a family we represent who prepares for retirement by roaring up the debt on their credit cards, blowing everything they have got, just letting the kids provide. So what in the world are we doing tonight, representing all the Nation's families to put our Nation on exactly that course? Growing the dough, borrowing the money, letting our kids straighten this out?

This is wrong. We must reject this totally fiscally irresponsible approach to our national budget.

Mr. Speaker, over the years, I have worked with Chairman Dreier to promote financial literacy skills within our schools and am proud to be an original cosponsor of this House Resolution. House Resolution 127 expresses the sense of the House that a month should be designated as ``Financial Literacy for Youth Month.''

Our youth desperately need to have higher levels of financial literacy. According to a recent Jump$tart Coalition survey, today's high school seniors fail when it comes to a basic knowledge of personal finance including credit cards, saving for retirement and insurance. When seniors were tested on basic financial literacy, they answered only 50 percent of the questions correctly.

Unfortunately, the lack of basic money management skills by young people often leads to serious financial problems for families and individuals, which, in turn, damage the Nation's economy. The results are skyrocketing consumer debt, low savings rates, home foreclosures, lost job opportunities, bankruptcy and poverty.

To help stem this tide, Chairman Dreier and I are working with our Senate colleagues, Senators Akaka and Cochran, to host a ``Financial Literacy for Youth Day,'' on Monday, April 28, 2003. This event will culminate a month of activities organized around the nation by federal agencies, states, localities, schools, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and other entities to empower our youth with the financial and economic knowledge necessary to make sound personal choices. The event will include an educational fair, coordinated by Jump$tart, where federal agencies and organizations will have information booths displaying their efforts to further economic and financial literacy.

As with other life skills, good money management skills and habits are best formed during childhood. In partnership with interested entities at the state and local levels, we can do more to give our youth the knowledge that will empower them to make sound financial decisions, now and in the future. I urge my colleagues to support and recognize the importance of increasing financial literacy among our youth.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

We are watching quite a performance on the other side this afternoon. First, we had the Budget chairman trying to explain away the vicious cuts they have made to programs as vital as veterans services. Imagine that, passing a budget that cuts veterans services, right in the middle of the Iraq war. It was unconscionable and unthinkable. Small wonder he tried to talk all around what they have done without ever really owning up to what is the issue before us.

Then the majority leader comes to the floor. He tries to totally redefine the motion that is advanced and before us. It looked a little to me like they are waving the white flag, that they do not have the votes to beat this motion because who, in the light of day, can vote for the cuts to veterans services, to Medicare, to Medicaid and to our Nation's farmers in the agricultural account.

There was no other budget advanced, not the administration's, not the Republican-controlled Senate's, that had this measure of cuts. It was a phenomenon of the House Committee on the Budget, led by the chairman and endorsed by majority leadership.

I view always as one of the darker moments of my time in the House the vote to support our troops taken at 2:30 in the morning followed by, 15 minutes later, the passage of the budget which cut the funding of veterans services. Frankly, it was a high water of hypocrisy in a Chamber that sees a good bit of hypocrisy.

We have got to reject these cuts, and this is what this motion before us does today. Reject the cuts to veterans services. Reject the cuts to agriculture. Reject the cuts to education. Reject the cuts to Medicare. That is the issue before us, and I will be very pleased if we can have a strong bipartisan vote overturning the really ill-advised direction the House budget would take us down.

Let us have a bipartisan vote on the motion to instruct.

Mr. Speaker, this is a most extraordinary debate. Where I come from they mean what they say and they say what they mean.

Let us look at this debate. In the first 10 minutes, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget talks against the resolution. He is surprised by the majority leader, who comes to the floor and says, you know, I think we can go for this, even while the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means tries to parse the language.

It is quite clear they are a little uncertain of what to do. What is this all about? It is because cuts to veterans services do not stand the light of day. And this is not 2:30 in the morning. This is in the afternoon, with America watching and our country at war. So it is time we pass this resolution and reject the cuts to veterans services contained in the majority budget.