Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this came out of the wee hours of this morning, but I want Members to realize how radical a move this is. We are going to have later today a radical effort to dismantle Medicare. What this is is a radical effort to dismantle our employer-based system in this country. So now we are going to take a step toward a kind of voucher for health insurance in the form of a tax credit. That is what we are going to do.

Those who can afford to use the tax credit will have that voucher, and they will go out into the marketplace. The consumer, each individual one, is going to try to swim as best as they can. But for those who do not have the money to put in this account, who have no benefit from the tax credit, they are going to continue not to swim as an individual consumer, but to sink. That is what is going to happen. That is why this is so radical.

Now, the other side of the aisle said we want to add money into Medicare in the prescription drug proposal. They are darn right. We did not create this deep deficit. Their answer to a deficit that is deep is to dig it deeper. In the middle of the night or early morning, you add $100 billion to the deficit; and I want to quickly read what this looks like.

We were supposed to have with the March baseline a deficit of $377 billion. We added $484 billion through what was called a technical reestimate. Then through legislation, we added what was it, 700 to $800 billion. Now the projected deficit, $1.5 trillion, four times what was projected a few months ago, and this does not include the bill that is going to be brought up later or additional military expenditures. It does not include this $100 billion. I tell the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), this is fiscally irresponsible. You Republicans have zero fiscal responsibility in your political veins. Zero. This is radical because it is going to dismantle the employer-based system.

Parliamentary Inquiry

No, Mr. Speaker, I will not yield for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, you are not only going to dismantle Medicare later as a first step, and now

try to dismantle the employer-based health care system in this country; but what you are doing is digging a deeper, deeper hole of debt in this country. This is a radical proposal on all accounts, and it should be rejected.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Speaker, the Republican bill contains a ticking time bomb, a ticking time bomb of Medicare privatization set to go off in 2010. Under this bill, starting in 2010, seniors, in essence, would receive a voucher instead of Medicare's guaranteed benefits, instead of open access to doctors and hospitals and predictable costs.

Seniors who cannot afford to pay more than they do right now would have to leave Medicare and join HMOs. This so-called benefit for prescription drugs in the Republican bill serves as a decoy, but it is not a very good one.

The Republican drug plan is insurance without assurance. No assured premium, no assured deductible, no assured size of the gap between the basic coverage and stop-loss, no assured list of drugs, no assured list of pharmacies, no assured plan from one year to the

next. It could change from year to year.

From the very beginning, Republicans have wanted to use prescription drugs as leverage to end Medicare. The President said earlier to seniors, we will give you some prescription drug help depending on whether you leave Medicare and join an HMO. And now what this Republican bill is doing is using a very inferior drug insurance plan in 2006, not until then, to make everything except HMOs unaffordable for seniors in 2010. The chairman did say just a few days ago, ``Old- fashioned Medicare isn't very good,'' and I quote his quote. What Republicans call old-fashioned Medicare is the system of guaranteed benefits, set premiums and deductibles and access to doctors and hospitals that have served seniors so well since 1965. Republicans want to end all that, but current and future Medicare beneficiaries do not. And we Democrats intend to keep fighting for those good aspects of old- fashioned Medicare. Indeed, it has been very, very, very good.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Gail L. Warden, who will receive the Lifetime of Idealism award from City Year at City Year Detroit's annual Ripples of Hope Dinner on June 19, 2003.

The Lifetime of Idealism award is the highest award City Year bestows. Previous recipients of this coveted award include former President William Jefferson Clinton and Senator John McCain. This year, Gail Warden will be honored for fulfilling City Year's mission of ``building democracy through national service'' because of his long and distinguished career in the field of health care and his involvement in his community.

Gail Warden graduated from Dartmouth College and earned a master's degree in health care management from the University of Michigan. He received an honorary doctorate in public administration from Central Michigan University. Gail Warden has recently retired from the positions of president and chief executive officer of Henry Ford Health System, which serves approximately 70,000 patients each year.

Gail Warden's dedication to healthcare is exemplary. He is an elected member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, and he has served on its Governing Council and on its Board of Health Care Services and its Committee on Quality Health Care in America.

Gail Warden chairs the National Forum on Health Care Quality Measurement and Reporting, the Healthcare Research and Development Institute, and the National Center for Healthcare Leadership. In 1995 Gail Warden chaired the American Hospital Association Board of Trustees, and in 1997 President Clinton appointed him to the Federal Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry.

It is important to note that this list, though long, represents only part of the service Gail Warden has rendered to others. Indeed all that he has achieved in the field of healthcare, including being named one of Modern Healthcare's ``100 Most Powerful People in Healthcare'' in 2002 or one of Modern Health Care Magazine's top 25 individuals in the industry over the past 25 years in 2001, show only part of his character.

True to his nature, upon learning that he might be named for the Lifetime of Idealism award, he insisted that others were far deserving. In the words of one of his colleague, Gail Warden ``seeks no recognition and argues that what we consider to be his extraordinary contributions . . . are a privilege unworthy of comment.'' It is, however, precisely this attitude which entitles him to our admiration and our thanks.

I have been privileged to witness Gail Warden's good works on many occasions, each of which has only increased my admiration for him. I ask my colleagues to join me in offering a heartfelt tribute to Gail Warden for all his work on behalf of our community and citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the health provision. It is unfortunate that the Republican majority insists on inserting this provision in this bill. The TAA provisions were carefully crafted. Many relied on them for their vote. And now the majority is taking a step away from them.

In the legislation there were protections for beneficiaries, four of them, if

they could not get COBRA, a requirement that States develop these plans with these four protections.

Now, essentially what they are saying is that provision can be changed and individuals can buy insurance individually without those protections. This is going to undermine the negotiations that are continuing now for the completion of State plans. The younger, more healthy people will buy this insurance without the protections. It will reduce the incentive of insurance companies to work this out with States.

But then it was said yesterday that State legislatures do not meet every year, that some only meet every 2 years, so that is an inhibition on working this out. It does not take State legislative action to work out these plans. As has been true in a number of States, it can be done without action by the State legislature.

This a voluntary plan, and what is going to happen if this amendment is allowed, and I do not think it could pass the Senate, is that there will be selection by the younger and more healthy, leaving the insurance availability to older workers that will be too expensive, or there will be no availability whatsoever.

So this is a change that matters. This is another example of an erosion of a safety net that was worked out carefully between the two parties.

Now, look, the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) said to people on your side, we will sit down and talk about finding a resolution to this, and a few of us suggested we would join. The answer was, well, we will only talk to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy). We will not let your staff in any meeting. I know that directly. And then there was no discussion with the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

So essentially, what you did was to go into some room and make a decision that you were going to change a TAA provision for people who were laid off. This is trade adjustment assistance for people who are unemployed because of the impact of trade.

So if you really cared enough, you would sit down and work this out. Instead, you inserted it in a bill that has IRS provisions, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) talks about how laudable they are. Well, they are laudable provisions, so why put an anchor around them, and why pull back from something that you yourselves negotiated with people on this side to provide health protection for people laid off through no fault of their own?

So this is enough of a flaw, in my judgment, for people to vote against this bill. This is turning your back on what you agreed to, without even being willing to sit down and try to work it out with the minority. This is turning your backs on thousands of people who need health coverage, and I urge that we take the steps to take this out of the bill and not wait for the Senate to do it. Support the substitute that has been offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and now being managed by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois has repeated a claim that was made earlier by the gentlewoman from Connecticut, and it simply is wrong. Under the legislation that was passed here, the States are mandated to provide this coverage. Most of the States are providing it or are negotiating agreements with insurance carriers. There are only a small number of States with a much smaller number of employees who are constituents or residents who have not done this yet. They can provide this insurance, for example, by modifying their risk pools rules. It does not take legislation. It does not take an act by the Governor and by the State legislature. They can take this action.

Now, look, we offered to sit down with the majority and work this out. For example, there could have been an alternative that if any State did not live up to the mandate, there could be insurance through the Federal plan. That was just one idea. But the majority refused to sit down with us to work this out. And what this is is backtracking. What this is is a foot in the door away from State plans, in addition to other plans that could be bought through COBRA and to allow individuals to buy individual insurance without the protections that are guaranteed in the legislation.

So what is going to happen is there will be cherrypicking and a lot of employees are going to be left with only more expensive insurance to buy. That is the basic principle here. The basic principle. There is a State mandate. The States are fully capable of carrying them out, and the majority is using the fact that a few States or some States have not yet acted to essentially create this vacuum. That is what the majority is utilizing to change the kind of insurance that is going to be purchased by a number of the more healthy people covered by TAA, leaving everybody else in a worse situation.

So, look, there is a State mandate here. The States can carry this out. And if you think not, and we offered to get a quick study of this, sit down with us and try to figure out an answer to a problem that I think does not really exist. You do not like these approaches that are based on State plans, on governmental plans. You prefer individual insurance where people can be cherrypicked by insurance companies. That is not the policy embedded in the TAA that was passed here. We should not turn our backs on what was passed here just a few months ago.

Well, so let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. The latest year for which we have exact data shows this: Of all of the taxable estates, only 1 percent would be considered family farms, not the millions that the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn) mentioned, but hundreds. That amounts to about 400 people in the entire United States.

As to family-owned businesses in that year for which we have exact data, of the 2.3 million deaths, only 776 decedents had taxable estates. So when you add up the small businesses and family farms, 1.6 of all the estates paid the estate tax.

So what is going on here? We are talking about, at the most, thousands. A few thousand. The Pomeroy substitute would increase the exclusion and, as a result, 99.65 percent of all estates would not be subject to an estate tax. So that means two-fifths of 1 percent would be subject to the estate tax.

So why, in view of that, take away $162 billion the last 3 years of this 10-year cycle and $800 billion out of Federal revenues the next 10 years? Eight hundred billion dollars. Well, the main reason is cited today in an article by David Broder based on an article, an op-ed, a week before by Grover Norquist, where he said the Republicans can't do this all at once. They are now doing it step by step. This is David Broder's analysis, and it is so correct: ``The consequence of this is a massive rollback in Federal revenue,'' ``and what he (Grover Norquist) regards as a desirable shrinkage of Federal services and benefits. In short, the goal is a system of government wiped clean, on both the revenue and spending side, of almost a century's accumulation of social programs designed to provide a safety net beneath the private economy.''

That is what is at stake here. There is class warfare against everybody except, in this case, one-quarter of 1 percent of the population. And when you take into account all the other tax cuts, it is a class warfare against all but the very, very wealthy.

Last night we tried to add to the Medicare benefit $400 billion to $500 billion and the Republicans said no. They traded $400 billion to $500 billion in Medicare benefits that we wanted to add that would make it real for the seniors of this country, for a tax cut for a few hundred, maybe a few thousand people. Not millions. Not hundreds of thousands. Not even tens of thousands. But a few hundred, or several hundreds of people. That is the Republican value system. That is their option.

So I wish they would not bring up this smoke screen of family farms and small businesses. What they are trying to do is to end this effort to provide a safety net and a step up, a hand up. Not a hand out, but a hand up the ladder for people in the middle-income and low-income groups of America.

That is where my Republican colleagues stand. Let us today show where we stand and vote for the Pomeroy amendment and against this unfortunate and not at all defensible repeal.

Mr. Speaker, the Pomeroy amendment would exclude 99.65 percent of all estates from estate tax. So what is going on here? Why would the Republicans want to abolish the estate tax on this two-fifths of 1 percent? And, by the way, almost none of the 99.65 have to file a return. I think the answer is pretty clear: It is not only that my Republican colleagues are trying to protect the very, very, very wealthiest. That they are doing. And maybe that is their instinct. But what is really happening is my colleagues are taking $50 billion a year out of the Treasury of the United States. That is the difference between the Pomeroy bill and the total repeal.

That $50 billion a year would make up about one-third of the shortfall of Social Security. It would also provide other programs, like education, that are not only a safety net but are a rung up the ladder for middle- and lower-income families, and, yes, a lot of higher-income families. So that is what the Republicans are trying to do. They say it is only 1 percent of the totals revenues of this country. But they chipping away, chip by chip, block by block at the revenue in-flow into the Treasury of the U.S. and starving the programs that are needed for the vast majority.

What the Republicans are doing is to help a teeny tiny minority, a small number, hundreds, only hundreds of farmers and small business. The rest do not pay any estate tax. What the Republicans are trying to do is to help that small, small minority, and they are hurting 99 percent of the American people.

Vote for Pomeroy and vote against the basic bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join my salute to a remarkable woman and former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Martha W. Griffiths.

As a pioneering political activist woman, her life was a string of first. In 1953 she was appointed as the first female Detroit Recorder's Court judge; the following year, she was the first Democratic woman elected to Congress from Michigan; she was the first woman to serve on the Ways and Means Committee; she was the first woman lieutenant governor of Michigan.

Martha Griffiths passed away at the age of 91, just this past April and remains a legend in Michigan and National politics. She's been called a ``legendary feminist'' and ``one of the most effective women's rights lawmakers of her time.'' Her reputation was well-earned. She was effective because she was as tough as any of her formidable opponents and she had a sharp intellect. At home she campaigned block-by-block, taking a small group of women to visit other women at home during the day to discuss political issues. She was just as methodical, strategic and persistent in Washington. Her work was richly rewarded with the inclusion of gender discrimination in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and by the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1972. These efforts were watersheds in the progress of women's rights in America. From them, a multitude of Supreme Court decisions and Federal Laws have flowed in support of women.

Martha's progressive politics encompassed much more than women's rights, however. She was concerned about the welfare of all Americans. In the 1970's, she recognized the need for reforming our health system to provide universal health coverage and became an original co-sponsor of the landmark Kennedy-Griffiths Bill; she worked on regulating pension funds, closing tax loopholes and conducted a massive study of welfare, resulting in major overhauls to the system.

Martha Griffiths was, at once, ahead of her time and just right for her time. Her contributions to the evolution of human rights and dignity in this nation will be always remembered.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the long career of Karen McCann as she retires from teaching in the Troy Public Schools District in June, after 35 years in the classroom. Beginning in 1968, Karen McCann brought dedication and innovation to teaching which continue unabated. Throughout her career, she has been a model for teachers, new and old alike, as well as a role model for her students.

After graduating from Michigan State University in 1967 with a degree in Elementary Education, Karen McCann began teaching English and Social Studies for seventh through ninth grade in the Farmington Public Schools District. She eventually taught all subjects for students in grades ranging from fifth to ninth before moving to Bemis Elementary in the Troy Public Schools District in 1985.

During the course of her career, she has been nominated for numerous awards, including the Disney American Teacher Award in 2000 and the WDIV Outstanding Teacher Award in 2001, and was selected as a Mentor Teacher/Trainer by EDS for the MI JASON Project from 1997 through the present.

That she is a good teacher is evident from what her students have said about her; that she is a great teacher is evident from the remarks of parents and colleagues. Parents frequently expressed admiration for her positive attitude, her willingness to communicate with them, and her ability to challenge each child regardless of their initial interest in learning. Her colleagues have praised her for her enthusiasm and creativity.

She brought programs to the classroom that gave her students the opportunity to learn in creative ways and offered them unique educational experiences. She integrated Hyperstudio, multimedia, Internet, and videoconferencing into her lesson plans, allowing her students to teleconference other students so that they could learn from each other. She also succeeded in making learning about science and technology fun for all of her students, through her work with the JASON Project and the First Lego League.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the important contributions Karen McCann has made to so many children and their families during her long and celebrated teaching career.

Mr. Speaker, there are two bills at the desk. They are right next to the podium there, H.R. 1307 and H.R. 1308. They are right there. The question to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and his leadership is, why not take those two bills, pass them today, and have them signed by the President? That is the question.

Well, someone comes here, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and reads a statement from the President. Oh, but just a few days ago his spokesperson said, he, the President, believes what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it. Instead, they want to do something else.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) has maybe made clear, he said, as mentioned earlier, that there are a lot of things more important to do. Then a little later he says, to me it is a little difficult to give tax relief to people who do not pay income tax, though they pay all other kinds of taxes. So what they are doing is a bill with a huge, huge addition to the deficit. Maybe they hope that they will kill this bill when it goes over to the Senate.

There is a kind of legislative machoism going on here: we are going to show the Senate, at the cost of the people of this country. They are making wimps out of some Republicans who would like to vote the right way by tying this into a rule. They are making the President issue a statement that contradicts what was said on his behalf just a few days ago. Most importantly of all, what they are saying once again is, deficits be damned. Pile them up. Pile them up. Pile them up.

What I say is take these bills, let us pass them today, and get on with our work for the children of the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the motion. It says in paragraph 3, if the chairman, the distinguished chairman would listen, ``The House conferees shall be instructed to include in the conference report all of the other provisions of the Senate amendment and shall not report back a conference report that would result in increased deficits by reason of additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions.''

We all know that motions to instruct are not technically binding, but I would like to yield to the chairman of the committee to ask him if he will commit verbally on the floor that he will not bring back a conference report that will result in increased deficits by reasons of additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions.

So is the answer, if I could then ask the gentleman, since it is my time, is the gentleman willing to say here on the floor that he will not bring back a conference report that would result in increased deficits by reason of additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions?

He is unwilling to answer, then.

Mr. Speaker, I will wait for the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to say yes or no.

No, but does the gentleman agree that he will not report back a conference report that will result in increased deficits by reason of additional tax benefits not offset by other provisions? Yes or no.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is making a mockery out of this procedure.

Mr. Speaker, the 1996 welfare reform bill expired about a year ago, and since then this Congress has passed a series of short- term extensions.

I will vote for this extension, but it is a sad reflection on this House and its majority, and on the majority in terms of the Senate, and surely on the administration that we have failed to renew and to really expand the basic principles of welfare reform that so many of us worked to enact.

The House Republican leaders rammed through a rewrite of welfare reform some months ago. It was not a continuation, but really a step backward. It was passed on a partisan vote. There was no effort in this House to create a bipartisan welfare bill. In 1996 we passed one on a bipartisan basis, but this time around there was no effort to continue that tradition. The bill that was pushed through this House also ran counter to the research that we helped to fund and the views of Governors.

In a survey that was conducted by the National Governors Association, over 40 State welfare directors said this, that the Bush administration plan would force ``fundamental changes'' in their successful welfare programs. And the researcher who did most of the research on welfare- to-work strategies said that the Bush administration plan would force ``the most successful programs to change substantially.''

So we lost, as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) has said, a chance some months ago to work on a bipartisan basis in this House. And there are key differences between the approach that was embodied in the bill that passed here and what Democrats have proposed.

The first basic difference is whether people should be, who are on welfare and remain there, should be working or whether we should help people move off

of welfare into work. And we Democrats say that should be the key objective of welfare reform, helping people move off of welfare into work; and that was in the proposal that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and others of us put together.

A second difference is whether the emphasis should be on people working in poverty or people working their way out of poverty, and the Democratic plan emphasized people working their way out of poverty.

A third difference related to the issue of work supports. In 1996, the first welfare reform bill was vetoed by President Clinton because there were inadequate day care money and inadequate health care provisions. And then the majority here came back and finally agreed to adequate health care and adequate day care. But in the bill that passed here some months ago, there were inadequacies in terms of health care provisions and also in terms of day care provisions.

So here we are again. We are suggesting a quarterly extension. We cannot allow this legislation that was passed almost 7 years ago now to simply die. We have to continue the process. We owe it to this country. We owe it to the families who are trying to work their way off of welfare into work. But we need to do better. As the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) said to the chairman of the subcommittee, and really to the chairman of the committee, and really to this whole House, let us go back and try to put together a bipartisan product. Welfare reform deserves more than a partisan approach.

So that is really the basic issue before us today. We will pass the extension. I urge everybody to vote for it. But I do not think that it should be an excuse for further inaction by the majority in this House.

Mr. Speaker, like the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) who has spoken and the gentleman from California (Mr. Matsui) who has now just spoken, and those who will speak after me about Al Davis, I relied on him every day on a wide variety of issues and on this floor and in committee I miss him every day.

When we hit a tough question, the answer was, ``Ask Al.'' We expected and received from him a straight, unvarnished answer, and if he did not know the answer and I can remember many days he would say, ``I am not quite sure,'' off he would go to find the information.

Al Davis was available with memos, with charts. His documents were so plentiful and useful during debates on taxes that the staff in my office often included in my briefing binders a tab entitled simply ``Al Davis memos.'' I cannot recall a tax debate when so many of us did not rely on some document or some analysis that Al Davis prepared. He was prolific. He analyzed tax bills and budgets upside down and backwards. My tax counsel, who assures me that Al's memos were so valuable that he never deleted a single one, counted 44 memos, charts, and other analysis from Al to the committee from March 1 through May 19 of this year. So many points from these memos were used to help shape important tax and budget debates. He was blessed with the ability to take issues that were complex and numbers even more complex and to explain them in ways that everybody could understand. He hated dishonesty and inaccuracy.

In the past 2 weeks, many, particularly those in the media, have commented on how accurate and reliable his work was. His vigilance helped ensure that all of us who relied on him and worked with him also avoided the temptation to let the digestible sound bite overwhelm the accurate and honest debate that America deserves.

The Washington Post in its editorial, rather unusual in terms of a tribute to a staffer unknown to the public, so well known, though, within this institution, this is what the Washington Post had to say. ``Unless you are a tax and budget wonk, you probably did not know Al

Davis. Mr. Davis, the Democrat's chief economist on the House Committee on Ways and Means, was one of those classic Capitol Hill staffers whose effectiveness cannot be measured by the number of times they are mentioned in a newspaper. From his cluttered office in the Longworth House Office Building,'' and we knew well of the clutter in that office, ``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 more, about Democrats using distorted numbers as about Republicans who did so.''

Like so many others, I will miss Al very much. He was not only an important asset to the country, but for so many of us, he was a friend. Our words today cannot replace the loss felt by Al's longtime companion, Mary Beilefeld. I express my deepest condolences to Mary. I hope it is somehow comforting that her loss is not only hers but is shared by all of us on the Committee on Ways and Means and by all of us in this institution who had the privilege of working with Al Davis.

[From the Washington Post]

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, I rise today to recognize the designation of Immanuel United Methodist Church in Roseville, Michigan as a Michigan Historical Site. The site will be dedicated on Sunday, June 8, 2003, when the Michigan Historical Marker is officially unveiled at the church.

The criteria for becoming a Michigan Historical Site are strict. A site must possess integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship. Additionally, a property's historical significance must reflect the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.

The Immanuel United Methodist congregation has continuously ministered to this community for over 153 years. The congregation was established in November 1849 and moved to its present location in 1933. This Neo-Gothic sandstone church was designed by Merritt and Cole of Detroit and was dedicated on November 5, 1933.

Many changes and improvement have been made to the church over the years. A thirteen room educational unit was added in 1956, and the existing rooms were refurbished to create a beautiful new church parlor. The church was also renovated in 1997 to include facilities for the physically handicapped. The new structure addition was named Peace Memorial Lobby in honor of the merger of Peace United Methodist Church with Immanuel in 1996.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating the leadership and the entire congregation at Immanuel United Methodist Church, as they celebrate this important designation as a Michigan Historical Site.

Mr. Speaker, two stories today in the papers tell it all. One, ``Delay Rebuffs Move to Restore Lost Tax Credit,'' a credit for 6.5 million low-income families. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) says, ``There are a lot of other things that are more important than that.''

The second story, the headline is, ``Middle Class Tax Share Set to Rise,'' and it says that as a result of three successive tax cuts of the Bush administration, middle-income taxpayers will be paying a greater share of all Federal taxes by the end of the decade.

When we raise these issues, the majority here likes to say it is class warfare. There is class warfare against middle- and low-income families under the Republican majority rule. We ask this question to taxpayers of America, Whose side are you on? It is clear the Republicans are on the side, as said in the paper, of Americans who earn $337,000 or more per year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Greenwood-Hoyer Substitute, the Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, and in opposition to the underlying bill.

I oppose all late term abortions with exceptions only when the mother's own life is at risk or to prevent serious adverse consequences to her health.

Federal courts have ruled unconstitutional at least 19 different State laws with similar or identical language to the underlying bill because they do not contain adequate health exceptions. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that ``a State may promote but not endanger a woman's health when it regulates the methods of abortion'' and that ``the absence of a health exception will place women at an unnecessary risk of tragic health consequences.'' Despite this clear Court opinion, the bill's sponsors refuse to allow an exception to protect against adequate health consequences to a woman's health.

We should be working together to approve legislation that bans late- term abortions in a manner which protects the mother's health and which is consistent to the decisions of the Federal courts and the Supreme Court. The Late Term Abortion Restriction Act, which I cosponsor, does just this.

Mr. Speaker, make no mistake. The hand the chairman has reached out is one of the hands that has strangled democracy in this institution. It is no longer a deliberative body. It is the rule of one, the Republican majority.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says zero taxation for low-income people. Why? Because in most cases they have no dividends or capital gains to tax. Under his original proposal, and it remains essentially the same, a millionaire gets 90,000 bucks more in tax cuts. The average taxpayer gets a couple hundred bucks.

Mr. Thomas, whom are you warring on? Middle-income and low-income families in this country.

The President came here today to declare victory. Time will declare this a defeat for the Nation because the Republican party has turned red, red ink, red ink. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) says he is opposed to structural deficits, but they have built in more and more debt into this structure. The only way it is not a structural debt is the hole is so deep the way they built it they cannot build anything on it.

Now you say you favor creative destruction? Two and a half million jobs lost. That is very creative under this President and under the leadership of the House majority here.

This is a fiscally irresponsible bill for the Nation. It is unfair to individual taxpayers. It will not stimulate economic growth, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and others have said. They are mortgaging the future of my children, of my grandchildren. We should pass this and then go on to defeat this conference report.