May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4601

from local papers in south Florida to

record the incident?

There is a real question as well in

terms of the process of determining political asylum of those 123 people while

they were on the vessel. The administration has given myself as well as

other Members of Congress who have

inquired totally conflicting reports in

terms of the status hearings of those

people.

This administration and, in fact, this

Congress is faced with a choice. We

cannot have it both ways. We all profess that our desire is to bring down

the Castro dictatorship, which we must

bring down, a relic of decades past, an

evil empire 90 miles from our shore.

And yet in order to do that, we have

the resources at our disposal to do it.

Yet we have chosen not to.

fb 1900

HAVE WE LEARNED NOTHING

FROM OKLAHOMA CITY?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

LATOURETTE). Under a previous order

of the House, the gentleman from West

Virginia [Mr. RAHALL] is recognized for

5 minutes.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in

outrage to take exception to words attributed to a constituent of a Member

of this House, as reported in the April

26, 1995 edition of The South Whidbey

Record published in 2nd District of the

State of Washington, that a revered,

senior Member of the U.S. Senate

should be killed, and that the person

killing him should be given a medal

during a Town hall meeting which I assume was called at taxpayers’ expense.

I take even greater exception to the

fact that a Member of this body did not

disavow or dissociate himself from, his

constituent for calling for the murder

of a sitting Member of the U.S. Senate,

Senator ROBERT C. BYRD of West Virginia.

I take great exception to a Member

of this House, who not only did not

censure or otherwise refute his constituent’s call for murder, but allegedly went on to state, and I quote:

‘‘He should be tarred and feathered

and run out of the country.’’

Peter Coogan, staff reporter for the

aforementioned newspaper in south

Whidbey Island, WA, who opens his article with the words: ‘‘To Kill a U.S.

Senator or merely to tar and feather

him,’’ reports that a Member of this

body, whom he claims was elected

based on a campaign that attacked the

Federal Government, allegedly made

the statement at a town meeting in response to his constituent’s call for the

‘‘killing’’ of Senator ROBERT BYRD.

Mr. Speaker, these are dangerous

times for unguarded, irresponsible

speech, and we have every reason and

every right to expect a Member of this

body to strongly disavow such speech

and to advise any constituent that

murder is not an option in this country.

Am I in a total state of stunned disbelief that a Member of the House of

Representatives let this kind of statement about killing a U.S. Senator go

unchallenged when such rhetoric may

have led to the killing of more than 160

innocent people in Oklahoma City’s

Federal building? Yes, I am.

Have we learned nothing from that

evil act that shook a nation to its

core?

Should I be surprised at such rhetoric

being used in just days after Oklahoma

City, when the GOP’s national committee planned to have as its honored

guest a convicted felon-turned-radiotalk-show-host at a gala party fundraiser only days before the last body

was brought out of that bombed out

Federal building? A talk-show host

who advised his listeners to shoot for

the head of Federal agents, as the best

way of killing them, and who bragged

about using profiles of our President

for target practice? Why be surprised?

Mr. Speaker, I request that the newspaper article to which I have reference

be printed in the RECORD immediately

following my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the newspaper article to

which I referred is as follows:

[From the South Whidbey Record, Apr. 26,

1995]

METCALF SAYS BYRD SHOULD BE TARRED,

FEATHERED

(By Peter Coogan)

To kill a U.S. Senator, or merely to tar

and feather him.

The question sparked some light-hearted

banter between U.S. Rep. Jack Metcalf and

one of his constituents at a Congressional

Town Hall Meeting in Oak Harbor Saturday.

It came up when Metcalf tried to explain

why, as a rule, he votes against large, heavily amended ‘‘omnibus’’ spending bills, even

if they contain some good ideas.

As an example of past abuse, he said a senator had hidden the cost of a Coast Guard facility for an East Coast state in the emergency relief spending for victims of the California earthquake. He asked the crowd to

guess which eastern state.

‘‘West Virginia,’’ said Angelo Kolvas of

Oak Harbor.

Yes, Metcalf said. The culprit was former

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman

Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, who ‘‘steals

money all over America.’’

Metcalf started to suggest some punishment for Byrd, saying ‘‘he should be——’’

Kolvas interrupted with ‘‘somebody should

kill him and give them a medal.’’

Metcalf said: ‘‘He should be actually tar

and feathered and run out of the country. I

mean, I’m serious. He steals money because

he’s chairman of the Senate Appropriations

Committee, or one of the committees, and

he’s always the one on the conference committee, in the middle of the night. He’s stuffing pork in there for West Virginia, brutally.’’

Kolvas suggested that other congresspeople are guilty of the same thing.

‘‘This gentleman is right,’’ Metcalf said.

‘‘It is the fault of Congress, but Senator Byrd

still should be tarred and feathered.’’

Telephoned later, Kolvas said, ‘‘I am not a

vindictive person but if that guy would die

today, that wouldn’t bother me a damn bit.’’

He added, ‘‘I really don’t think anybody

should kill Byrd. That was a little strong.’’

RETURNING FISCAL SANITY TO

OUR BUDGET PROCESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. EHRLICH] is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

Mr. EHRLICH. I rise, Mr. Speaker, to

engage my colleague from California in

the 5th installment of our series of colloquys. The gentleman from California

[Mr. RADANOVICH] and I have in the

past now 120 days, I believe approximately, talked about the Contract

With America, and the themes behind

the Contract With America, and the

regulatory reform, and legal reform,

welfare reform, and a lot of the initiatives that we campaigned on that

formed the Contract With America,

and, Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking

about that a lot these last days as now

this great House turns its attention to

Medicare, and the Federal budget, and

doing what a lot of us were sent here to

do, which is to return a sense of fiscal

sanity to this country and to the budget process of this House. And, Mr.

Speaker, as I thought about all this,

and I thought about a lot of the rhetoric being heard around this town

these days, I again thought about the

common themes that seem to occur or

recur every time we discuss an important issue in this House, and the

premise, whenever comes to an economic issue, Mr. Speaker, seems to be

all tax cuts cost the United States

Treasury in direct proportion to the

tax cuts. Tax cuts are mutually exclusive of the budget cuts. There is no

multiplier effect when tax cuts put

more money into the pockets of individuals and business.

Premise number two seems to be that

we ignore the accepted economic realities and real life experiences of tax increases on the one hand and tax decreases on the other, and, Mr. Speaker,

I thought of all this in the context of

Medicare and what this majority is

now planning to do with respect to

Medicare, because there is certainly a

lot of talk these days, a lot of heat, and

smoke and mirrors on this floor and

around this town, and Mr. Speaker, in

order to create a context for this debate I thought to myself what example

could I think of in the recent past

where good politics and bad economics

came together.

And Mr. Speaker before I get to that,

I would like just to tell the House an

example of what I am talking about.

Today’s message from the House Democrat leadership:

GOP makes its choice. Seniors cough

up $900 a year to pay for the wealthy’s

tax cut. House Republicans returned

from the party conference last week

united by a plan to cut Medicare to pay

for the $345 billion tax cut for the

wealthy. Under the pretense they will

be, quote unquote, fixing Medicare. Republicans have identified Medicare cuts

as the cash cow for their tax give away

to the wealthy.
H 4602 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

As I was thinking about this, Mr.

Speaker, I thought about the debate we

had in this House before the gentleman

from California [Mr. RADANOVICH] and I

came here. I know I was in the State

legislature. That was the great debate

concerning the luxury tax, and Mr.

RADANOVICH will talk about the luxury

tax in its place in the middle of this debate in a minute, but I see the gentleman brought some famous tax

quotes with him today, and I ask why

you brought those quotes.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I say to the gentleman, ‘‘Thank you, Mr. EHRILICH. A

couple of past quotes from two different periods, one in 1990, then one in

1995, one representing the majority

held by the other party, this 1995 representing the majority that now currently exists, the Republican majority

in the House.

It is the same old game. Republicans

are out to cut taxes, and strictly for

the rich, for their sole benefit, and I

think that nothing seems to change.

The gentleman may have a quote

here.

Mr. EHRLICH. This bill is fair, it

raises more money, again on a progressive basis, from those who can afford to

pay and who have paid least during the

decade of the 1980s. That is the quote

from a Member of this House, the context of the debate during the luxury

tax; correct?

Mr. RADANOVICH. Right, and the

same quote being is this sacrifice balanced and fair. And indeed it is. Fifty

percent of the revenue burden falls on

the wealthiest income earners in this

country, and that is the way it should

be.

Mr. EHRLICH. Now the people of this

country will remember the great luxury tax. It placed a 10-percent surcharge on a portion of a purchase price

over $100,000 on private boats and

yachts. Congress established similar

taxes on furs, jewelry, cars and airplanes.

Now, this in my view, Mr.

RADANOVICH, is the best example I can

think of where good class warfare politics meets economics 101, and you

know what? Politics always loses because combined with the recession, Mr.

Speaker, the tax nearly killed an entire industry in this country. The tax

adversely effected every segment of the

industry, manufacturers, retailers, and

blue collar workers, and is that not the

ultimate irony, Mr. RADANOVICH, that

tax warfare ends up hurting blue collar

workers because blue collar workers

have the jobs that build the items that

are now overtaxed that put them out of

business?

Mr. RADANOVICH. And history provided that example as a result of the

yacht tax in the last 2 years; is that

not right?

Mr. EHRLICH. We have seen that

every year. In fact it is very interesting for me to go back, check, have my

staff to go back and check the revenue

projections from the luxury tax, because obviously it is a static score;

right? You tax something, you get

more of it.

Wrong. The new 10 percent luxury

tax on boats, cars, furs, et cetera, was

to raise $25 million, Mr. Speaker, in its

first year, 1991, and almost $1.5 billion

over 5 years, from 1991 to 1996. And you

know what it did? Sales of boats under

$100,000 purchase price dropped 12.2 percent. Sales of boats over $100,000

dropped 52.7 percent. The sales of volume of boats under $100,000 of value

dropped 28 percent, to $129 million.

Sales of boats over $100,000 dropped 71

percent, to $73 million. According to

the National Marine Manufacturers Association at the time of repeal, big

boat sales were down 70 percent from

peak levels in 1988.

And here is the ultimate irony as we

have discussed. At the time of the repeal, Mr. Speaker, the National Marine

Manufacturers Association estimated

that the luxury tax created a net loss

of 30,000 American jobs and destroyed

dozens of companies in the process.

Other estimates were higher, up to

$45,000. And I would direct a question

to my colleague from California: What

does this teach us?

Mr. RADANOVICH. The big lesson is

that, if you want to raise revenue, you

have to got to cut taxes. You cannot

raise revenue by raising taxes, and I

think that is the big lesson we have

learned over the last 4 years, and I

think that is what this new majority is

trying to implement in their tax cuts.

Now there is two arguments when the

Democrats accuse the Republicans of

gutting Medicare to benefit the

wealthiest Americans. There is two arguments here. One is that the basic argument is that, if you cut taxes, if you

regulate people less, and you tax them

less, they are going to be more productive, and I think that is one basic question. The other basic question on Medicare is the fact that on its own Medicare will go bankrupt in 5 to 7 years.

Mr. EHRLICH. And who says that?

Who makes that statement?

Mr. RADANOVICH. All you have to

do is look at the books, and you will

know that is what is going to happen

with Medicare, so regardless of—balancing the budget is not an issue with

Medicare. It is fixing the system and

doing what is necessary in order to

make that system not only work for

the people that are currently drawing

benefits, but it also worked for people,

you and I, and those that are 18 and 20

years old, when they come into the

time of their life when they need that

service as well.

So there are two basic issues there

that are not commingled, and the fact

if we wanted to, if the Republicans

wanted to benefit the rich, what they

do is cut taxes and cut regulations.

Then that would not only benefit the

rich, but the middle class and the poor.

Because the Democratic assumption

that cutting taxes, for example, capital

gains, would be a benefit to the rich is

an insult to the poor because, not only

would it make more capital available

for venture capital and expansion to

the rich, but also the middle class and

the poor, and it is almost an insult to

the poor to say they could not take advantage of that.

Mr. EHRLICH. Does anyone doubt

that the capital gains tax cut will increase revenue flowing into the Treasury? Tax cuts work. The Reagan tax

cuts of the 80’s, the greedy 80’s we hear

about so much, increased revenue into

the Federal Treasury. The problem

during that decade was, as we know,

spending went out of control, and I see

the 1995 quote from a Member of this,

of this body, and this is my favorite I

have to say. It combines a lot of different themes that we have talked

about. The hard fact is that voodoo economics, trickle down economics too,

which this package happens to be, referring to the tax package and the Contract With America, is nothing more or

less than a raid on the poor, a slap to

the rich and a benefit to those who

have no need of tax expense, sweat it

out the hides of those who have the

least.

Mr. RADANOVICH. Not so.

Mr. EHRLICH. Why?

Mr. RADANOVICH. It just is not

true, and I think, if you pose the argument that if a person is taxed less and

regulated less, then they will be more

productive, is an argument that both

sides of this aisle will buy.

b 1915

But if you go to the next stage of the

argument and say OK, how do they

begin to regulate and tax less to the

benefit of the American people, this

side of the aisle says all right, let’s go.

Let’s work this plan out.

That side of the aisle says no. But

there is no logic behind why they are

saying no, because that side of the

aisle will also agree to the fact that if

we are taxed less and regulated less, we

will be more productive. But their

logic starts there. God knows why.

Mr. EHRLICH. Maybe the answer is

in the 1996 elections. I simply do not

know. But is it not interesting how

these quotes are so similar? A proposal

that obviously failed miserably in 1990,

they used the same rhetoric against

the tax cuts contained in the Contract

With America, and now, most disturbing to me and I think to you, is now

the offshoot of class warfare. You see

class warfare here, and the American

people recognize class warfare when

they see it. That is all they see.

I know the gentleman wants to discuss it. I know the gentleman wants to

comment on my point, which is now

that with Medicare in the budget, we

not only have class warfare, we have

the offshoot, generational warfare.

‘‘Let’s turn the generations and not

just the classes against each other.’’

That is the most unfortunate aspect of

this national debate occurring today.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I would say the

bottom line motive behind that approach from the other side of the aisle
May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE H 4603

is to retain more control in Washington, because the big debate in Washington is not necessarily balancing the

budget, although that is very important; it is who is going to have control.

Is it going to remain here in Washington, DC, or is it going to get down to

the most local level possible, via the

States down to local governments and

closest to the American people in their

own homes? That is really the threat.

That is why you see baseless arguments like this. You see people on the

other side of the aisle class warfare

baiting, only for one reason, and that

is to keep control in this House, in the

other body, in this town, in Washington, DC. It is called centralized government. It is where you have a lot of control over a lot of people.

Some people like that. Those of us

newly elected to Washington do not

want that. We want the American people to have the control, and that is

what we are trying to do here in Washington.

Mr. EHRLICH. Is it not refreshing

with our class, the new leadership, the

Speaker, we have people here who are

willing to challenge assumptions that

really have been accepted by many

Americans, many well-meaning Americans, for the last 40 years. We are willing to challenge those exceptions. And

we have one person in Washington

right now, the Speaker of the House

and the leadership, willing to go to the

American people and say, look, we

have got a problem. And the Speaker

has gone out of his way to ask the

President to help in a nonpartisan way.

We have people who are willing to

challenge assumptions and make a political gut check, cast tough votes, because we both know, we just got back

from break in our districts, if we do

not cast tough votes, if we do not follow through on our promises, honeymoons are short in American politics

today. We will not be here for long.

We are both freshman. This is not a

bad job. We kind of like it. I like representing the people of the second district of Maryland, I have to tell you.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I will say, us

being new Members, we could remain

here a long time, if it were not for two

things, and not do the business of our

district. In the past I think it used to

be elected representatives would come

to Washington. They would say one

thing in their district, they would do

the other thing here in Washington.

For a long time the tolerant American

people gave their elected representatives the benefit of the doubt that they

were doing the right thing in Washington.

Well, two things changed that. One is

C–SPAN and the other is talk radio. I

do not think anybody can afford to

come to this body anymore and say one

thing in their district and not do the

same thing here, because there will be

a lot to pay on election day. So that

motivation and that way of operating

is now unmasked.

If this gentleman and this gentleman

want to stay in this House for very

long at all and serve the needs of their

district, they better do what they say

in their district here on the floor of the

House. I think C–SPAN and talk radio

are the big changes that made that

possible.

Mr. EHRLICH. I agree. When we have

a tough vote, the phones and faxes go

off immediately. The American people

are tuned into what is happening on

this floor and they know facts.

I think the best news I brought back

from our 3-week break in my district

was the fact that this kind of stuff no

longer goes over with the American

people. They see it for what it is. It can

work at times. It certainly worked a

few years ago in the course of the Presidential race. But dividing people,

labor-management, poor-rich-middle

class-lower middle class, young and

old, is no longer the answer, not politically, and it has never been the answer

economically, at least in my district.

I would direct a question to the gentleman. In my district the people said

look, BOB, we know we are not going to

agree with you on every vote. But we

like the fact you had an agenda, you

ran on that agenda, you passed that

agenda, and now you are willing to do

the tough things that we sent you to

Washington to do.

Mr. RADANOVICH. I think that people in my district sent me to Washington to make the tough decisions. If I

listen and do what I think is right according to the philosophy that they

knew what I believed in when they

elected me, then I have their support.

If I betray any of that, I do not have

their support. That is the way this

game works. That is just the way it is.

I would like to comment on a couple

of things, one being Medicare, and the

other one also being the tax cuts. If the

Democrats, people on the other side of

the aisle, are willing to sit down and

have a debate, rather than resorting to

what we call class warfare baiting,

which it is nothing more than class

warfare baiting to keep a strong centralized government in Washington,

then let’s agree on two things. Let’s

agree that the Medicare system, number one, is going bankrupt, and let’s

work together to solve that, be it cuts,

additional money, anything else, let’s

solve that problem.

The second problem that needs to be

solved is let’s together realize if people

are taxed less and regulated less, they

are going to be more productive, and

let’s build a tax cut structure that will

allow that to happen in this country. If

you really want a cooperative effort in

this House, you will agree on those two

things and proceed from there.

We do not need this stuff. The American people do not buy it, we do not

buy it, it is not true. There is no class

warfare baiting here. The Republicans

are not here for the rich. I do not know

how many Republicans are rich anyway. I am not a rich Republican. But it

just does not work.

This was an article, editorial, in the

Washington Times today, ‘‘Not Rising

to Class Warfare Battle.’’ And that is

exactly what Republicans are doing.

They are not rising to the class warfare

battle.

Mr. EHRLICH. I am not going to embarrass the gentleman. We have a famous quiz at the bottom. I will not embarrass the gentleman by asking which

year and which bill these quotes were

directed toward. The fact is you see the

quotes. ‘‘Cheesy tax cut promises only

make Americans cynical about government.’’

Can you imagine that, putting more

money back in your pocket so you can

grow, so you can take a risk, begin a

business and hire people? That makes

you cynical about government?

I think tax fairness is an idea that all

Americans understand and endorse irrespective of income level and party affiliation.

Fairness. That is an interesting concept. Fairness and equity. My idea of

fairness and equity and who is rich and

who is not may not comport with

yours. Is not that correct?

Mr. RADANOVICH. I believe so, yes.

I think that this is a smack in the face

of every individual American in this

country that wants to do good and be

prosperous, and be personally responsible for their own actions. I think that

first quote is right there. And you

know, it does boil down to different

viewpoints of how we treat individuals

in this country and how this side of the

aisle looks at the individual and says

you have that responsibility, go for it,

and the other side of the aisle looks

and says you cannot do these things,

we need to do it for you. There is a big

difference between those two outlooks.

Mr. EHRLICH. Absolutely. I agree.

There is my final observation here. I

hope that what we saw in 1990 with respect to the luxury tax, what we saw 2

months ago with respect to welfare and

tax reform, are theories and strategies

of the past, because one of the more

frustrating parts of our job is when we

go back home and meet with groups

and they repeat rhetoric they hear on

C–SPAN and talk radio, and read in the

newspapers, and that rhetoric conflicts

with facts.

I know in the course of the welfare

debate, in the course of school lunches,

for instance, in the course of now the

Medicare and the budget debate, we all

want to debate ideas and numbers. We

have legitimate differences with the

other side. Reasonable people can disagree about our budget proposal and

Medicare. And I know I join with the

gentleman asking just one simple

thing, that when the debate begins tomorrow, or tonight actually, that the

other side uses real numbers, facts. I

am glad to debate facts. I do not like

debating rhetoric.

Mr. RADANOVICH. And do not use

class warfare baiting. It is not fair to

say someone is for the poor any more

than anyone else is. We are all here
H 4604 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—HOUSE May 9, 1995

to do good for everybody. Nor

generational warfare.

Mr. EHRLICH. I thank the gentleman from California. It is good to

see him. I am sure we will revisit this

issue, and maybe when we come back

to this floor in a week or two or three,

we will be able to report to the American people that we had a real good debate about the budget and about Medicare, and it never broke out into

generational warfare. And the President actually was relevant, became

part of the process as well. I would love

to report that to the people of the Second District, and I would look forward

to joining the gentleman again at that

time.

KEEP EDUCATION IN THE BUDGET

Mr. RADANOVICH. You bet.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.

fLATOURETTE). Under the Speaker’s announced policy of January 4, 1995, the

gentleman from New York [Mr. OWENS]

is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.

Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we are

about to move into the most important

phase of the legislative process, and

that is the budget. The Committee on

the Budget I understand will be deliberating this week and by this time next

week we will have on the floor of the

House the budget for fiscal year 1996,

the proposed budget of the House committee.

The announcement is that one of the

proposals in that budget coming to the

floor will be a recommendation, a proposal to eliminate the Department of

Education.

The attack on education is one of the

most baffling elements of the approach

by the present majority of the House of

Representatives to the Federal Government and its priorities. The attack on

education comes at a time when we are

in a global competition with other industrialized nations for the markets of

the world, and that competition is likely to get worse. Everybody has conceded that education is a vital component of whatever effort this Nation

puts forward in order to be economically competitive, now and in the future.

We have had a continuum of concern

expressed about education since President Reagan appointed a commission,

and that commission came back with a

report entitled ‘‘A Nation at Risk.’’ ‘‘A

Nation at Risk’’ was a report that

alarmed many leaders in America.

President Reagan never appropriated

any money of any kind to follow

through on the recommendations of

the report, but he did endorse the findings of the report and called to the attention of the American people the fact

that it was a very serious problem, we

had a very serious problem.

President Bush came along and began

to try to take steps to implement some

Federal policies with respect to education which would provide greater

guidance to the localities and the

States. Education is primarily a state

function. The Federal Government provides leadership and guidance that is

very vital and important, but when it

comes to expenditures for education, it

is the States and the localities that

provide most of the funds for education.

I think about 7 to 8 percent of the

total education budget may be federally financed. Out of more than $360

billion spent on education from kindergarten to postgraduate, only about 7 or

8 percent of that was Federal funding.

It went down during the Reagan administration to as low as 6 percent, and

began to come back up under the Clinton administration, moving toward 8

percent. So although we provide only a

small amount of the funding, the Federal guidance, the Federal sense of direction, has been considered very important, since the report ‘‘A Nation at

Risk’’ was released.

‘‘A Nation at Risk’’ showed the industrialized nations have some kind of

centralized guidance with respect to

their education systems. Many of the

industrialized nations, of course, go

much further than we would ever want

to go in terms of they not only guide

education, they administer it and set

the policies and dominate education.

In France, Great Britain, you have

most of Europe with centralized education policymaking. Traditionally, in

this country it has always been education is a state and local matter, and

the freedom of local school boards to

operate has always been a cherished

one. Nobody wants to change that.

b 1930

But there are extremes. I think the

European model of centralized, highly

centralized education or the Japanese

model of highly centralized ministers

of education dictating to all parts of

the country what happens in schools is

one extreme. The other extreme is for

the Federal Government to take no

meaningful role at all. At one time our

Government had no meaningful role.

There was a long, long debate as to

how much our Government should become involved in education. We became

involved in high education, universities and college education long before

the Federal Government ever became

involved in public education, elementary and secondary education. There

was a long, long debate.

It was during the Great Society years

that President Lyndon Johnson moved

us into support for elementary and secondary education, and that came in the

form of attempting to come to the aid

of the poorest school districts in America. The poorest districts needed help.

And the original elementary and secondary education legislation was targeted to the poorest districts, and to a

great degree that is still the case. Most

of our aid is theoretically targeted to

the poorest school districts and the

poorest children in America.

There was a long debate before the

Federal Government took this step.

The creation of the Department of Education took a long, long time also, a

great deal of discussion and debate.

And finally, the Department of Education was created by President Jimmy

Carter. After the Department of Education was created by Jimmy Carter, of

course, he lost the election and Ronald

Reagan became the President. And he

was ambivalent about the Department

of Education. Some days he wanted to

eliminate it; some days he was willing

to support it.

There were always these forces at

work which because they were schizophrenic did nothing to enhance the

work of the Department of Education.

The Department fell into some extremist patterns on the one hand and was

not very useful during those years

when it existed under a cloud.

It survived, however. And it existed

for the 4 years of the Bush administration and it still exists. Now we are told

that for budgetary reasons, in order to

streamline the Government, downsize

the Government, save money, meet the

requirements of this artificially created emergency, the emergency is the

need to have a balanced budget by the

year 2002, that emergency is an artificial one created primarily to have an

excuse, rationale, rationalization for

eliminating social programs.

The safety net programs are going to

be eliminated and we are going to do

that under the rubric of having to do it

in order to balance the budget. And the

Department of Education now falls

into that category. It is one of those

programs that has been labeled expendable. We have labeled the whole Department, the whole function as being

expendable. We can eliminate it.

I think this is another example of

what I have called before a barbaric

act. It is a barbaric act. It is like sacking a segment of our civilization. It is

like Attila the Hun with torches going

through a civilized city and destroying

everything that he does not understand

or does not want to exist because he

has the power to do it. Because the majority of Republicans have the power to

do it, they are going to move through

the budget to wipe out a department

which exists as a result of a long series

of discussions and debates.

In 2 years, we are going to wipe out

what took 20 years; it took 20 years to

finally get to this point. In a 2-year period, while they are in the majority,

the Republicans in the House are proposing to just wipe out this Department of Education in an era and a time

when education is recognized as being

critical to our competitiveness in the

global marketplace. No other nation in

the world would dare contemplate

eliminating its Department of Education or its governmental, Federal

Government function of education.

Japan would never contemplate that.

Germany would never contemplate

that. Great Britain, France, they

would consider us to be quite foolish

indeed, and they would consider it

quite a serious matter to watch the