Cass Ballenger

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, when the doctor cartel bill comes up this afternoon, I will give my colleagues 10 reasons to vote for it. First, they like what OPEC has done to oil prices. Second, they think that too many low-income children have health insurance. They think Americans pay too little for health insurance. They would like to increase the number of uninsured Americans to a nice round number, say, like 50 million. They would like to reduce prescription drug coverage among seniors. They would like to increase out-of-pocket health care cost. They think that the best way to spend the surplus is on doctors' fees. They think that people's wages and fringe benefits are just too high and they would like to reduce them. They think doctors should change patients' medications for political reasons and not for medication. Finally, they think that the most pressing problem in our health care system today is that doctors make too little money. I ask my colleagues to watch how they vote on this.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First, I would like to say antitrust exemption will not improve health care quality at all. Proponents of this bill say that it will level the playing field between doctors and health plans. But what happens to the consumer when the providers get together and collectively negotiate with insurers? Although such behavior violates Federal and State law, it is not at all that unusual. Federal antitrust regulators have dealt with more than 50 such cases over the past number of years, and none of these cases, not one, involved collective efforts to improve the health care quality. Every case involved efforts by the providers to raise their fees to anticompetitive levels at the expense of the consumers, employers, and taxpayers who finance programs for seniors, the disabled and the poor. Testifying before the Committee on the Judiciary last year, Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division Joel Klein stated: ``Our history of investigations, including our recent cases against two federations of competing doctors involving group boycots and price- fixing conspiracies, leads us to have concerns because the proposed bill provides no assurance that health care professionals would direct their collective negotiating efforts to improving quality of care, rather than their own financial circumstances.'' Klein went on to cite a case in which ``Twenty-nine otherwise competing surgeons who made up the vast majority of general and vascular surgeons with operating privileges at five hospitals in Tampa formed a corporation solely for the purpose of negotiating jointly with managed care plans to obtain higher fees. Their strategy was a success. Each of the 29 surgeons gained, on average, over $14,000 in annual revenues in just the few months of joint negotiations before they learned that the Antitrust Division was investigating the conduct. The participants in that scheme did not take any collective action that improved the quality of care.'' This case is typical of what happens when physicians illegally engage in collective negotiations with health care plans. In April of this year, the Federal Trade Commission announced a settlement with a group of surgeons in Austin, Texas, who used collective negotiations with health plans to win handsome increases in their fees. If we were to pass H.R. 1304, the antitrust exemption would make all of what I just read legal, it is now illegal, and with no oversight at all. At least labor unions must obey the NLRB.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I still do not understand why this bill is not under the Fair Labor Standards Act. We all know that there has been a great expansion of HMOs. Large insurance companies seem to care more about the bottom line than the patients that they are supposed to serve. These issues should be addressed. However, allowing doctors to unionize without a governing body or any enforcement mechanism is not the way to solve this problem. This bill would create many opportunities for patients to be harmed by boycotts and other union tactics but would do nothing for patients. This means that, as presently written, there is absolutely nothing in this bill for patients. Simply put, my amendment would guarantee that doctors are using their exempt status for quality care for their patients, not negotiating higher fees, which would lead to higher fees and raise health care costs, which would increase the present uninsured group in this country from 40 million to 50 million people in a very short period of time Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas). (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am a senior citizen. I actually am that proper age and have Medicare and each night I use Zocor and Cardura and Claritin D and Timoptin, but I pay for them myself. We in Congress earn over $130,000 per year. We should not receive government assistance. Let us help the poor who need it. The Democrat plan would take care of us, the Kennedys, the Houghtons and the Ballengers. We are too rich. We do not need it and nobody in Congress should get it, and yet the Democrat plan allows it.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4680, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act, as introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Bill Thomas and my good friend and colleague from North Carolina Representative Richard Burr. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this legislation which provides senior citizens with a voluntary drug benefit, giving seniors the right of choice. Seniors comprise 12 percent of the population in the U.S., but consume more than one-third of all prescription drugs. Leaving seniors without a drug benefit is not an option. The time has come to correct this shortfall in Medicare and implement a program that provides a Medicare drug benefit for seniors. H.R. 4680 is a cost effective way to provide this benefit through the efficiency of the private sector. I believe H.R. 4680 provides the best approach by giving seniors the flexibility of choice. Unlike the Democrats proposed bill, H.R. 4680 greatly diminishes the power of the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). Our bill creates a new agency to oversee the prescription drug and Medicare+Choice programs. This is a huge improvement, as the new agency's mission would be to foster innovation and competition in Medicare and ensure coverage in rural areas. Our new drug benefit would reduce prescription drug costs to seniors by giving them market-based bargaining power. A recent study by the Lewin group found that individuals enrolled in private insurance plans are getting 30 percent to 39 percent discounts on their prescription drugs through their plans' negotiations with pharmaceutical manufacturers. Yet today more than \1/3\ of seniors have no prescription coverage and pay the highest price for their medication. H.R. 4680 enables seniors to enroll in prescription drug plans (or Medicare+Choice plans) that will negotiate lower prescription drug prices on their behalf. And, last by certainly not least, the funding for this bill comes entirely from greater than anticipated savings from the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. Congressional Republicans have committed $40 billion (or about \1/3\ of those unanticipated savings) to fund a better and stronger Medicare system. This is an investment which will pay large dividends in the immediate future. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this common sense legislation that provides maximum coverage and optimum choice for seniors. Simply put, H.R. 4680 is affordable, available, and voluntary for all.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, as a veteran of World War II, I remember all those great wonderful cigarettes that Uncle Sam gave me when I was in the service. I would like to say Ms. Reno should have tons of money because of those many things that everybody requested that she investigate but she never has. Let me just say I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that to recover under secondary payer provisions, Washington must show that the sales of tobacco are in and of themselves wrongful, and since the Feds have consistently regulated, subsidized, promoted and fiscally profited from tobacco products, while fully aware of the plant's health risk, such a showing would seem difficult, unless Washington admits being complicit to the wrongdoing; and a basic common law rule, my understanding is, is that one accomplice cannot sue another. So it seems to me that money spent on this effort is an absolute waste on a cause that is going to lose, and, besides that, I think Mrs. Reno has tons of money that we begged her to use in investigating some of the White House situations, and she never has. Why should she need more money?

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has often used bus tours and the like to promote his latest proposals for new government programs. As you recall, his most notable tour advocated the First Lady's massive Federal health care plan. The President's latest road trip involves his school reform tour which will take him to four different cities in the United States. But before the President leaves for his tour, he may want to consult with a geography teacher. Apparently, the President's first official school reform tour website showed the State of Kentucky relocated to the area currently known as Tennessee. The White House, justifiably embarrassed by the incident, has corrected its website. However, it begs the question, should a White House that cannot even correctly identify which States are which be mapping out key education reforms that will affect our children? This concerns me and it should concern the American people.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first say, in the Catholic lead, when it had the thing that was called ``The Pope and the Witch,'' I would like to read from the notes here. ``Please note that the NEA is not supporting the development or the production of this play. All NEA grants are by law for a specific project, and this was not included in any of their projects.'' I would also like to say that, in my little small town of Hickory, North Carolina, we built an art museum. The National Endowment gave us $1,000. One would not think that was of any great value one way or the other. But with that $1,000 we were able to go to all the corporations and supporters in that little town, and we raised $3 million to build an art museum. The $1,000 is just like the best thing one can say when some corporation wants to know, what have you done? Who are you getting it from? I would also like to say, when we cut it $65 million in 1995, I voted for that cut because I thought the National Endowment had gotten out of hand, and we should mandate changes; and we did mandate changes because of problems that were there. They have had no increase in 8 years now. Let me just give my colleagues a couple of things. They have a cap on the amount of money that can go to any one State; whereas, previously New York got way out of their share of it. The State grants program, the State set-aside, has been increased. Every State gets more money, and my colleagues would be surprised at the number of every State that participates. State grant programs and State set-asides I say have increased. Anti-obsenity requirements for grants, this is supported by the Supreme Court. They have to live by this. No matter what anybody wants to say, they are doing what was mandated and what they deserve. There is a large number of us that think that, in spite of what they say, art does add a great deal to the quality of life.

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, today, we have the opportunity to award the National Endowment of the Arts its first increase in funding in 8 years. It should be touted that the NEA we fund today is not the NEA Republicans faced when they first came into the Majority in the 105th Congress. In fact, the NEA is different because of the changes we enacted. In January 1996, after being reduced in size by 40 percent, the agency went through major structural reorganization. After the NEA was forced to consolidate programs and re-prioritizing funding, Congress enacted a number of reforms which provided the NEA with greater accountability and a more stringent grant process. In the FY 1996 Interior Appropriations bill, we codified the elimination of the use of subgrants to third party organizations and artists. Simply, that means if an art museum in Hickory, NC, receives a grant from the NEA, the grant money can only go to the projects the museum applied for. The funding cannot in anyway go towards projects or artists not mentioned on the application. In fiscal year 1996, Congress prohibited grants to individuals except in literature. This is important as it stopped the focus of handing artists blank checks. This also enabled more funding to go to community centers and projects which deal with a greater number of people. Again, in 1996, we placed a specific prohibition on seasonal or general operating support grants. Applicants must now apply up-front for specific project funding or support. Grant terms and conditions require that any changes in a project after a grant has been approved must be proposed in writing in advance. Then in 1998, Congress placed a percentage cap on the amount of NEA grant funds that could be awarded to arts organizations in any one state. Also in 1998, the agency created ArtsREACH, a program designed to place more grant funds in under-represented geographic areas. These reforms and the NEA's commitment to arts education and community outreach programs represent the new NEA, not the NEA Republicans faced in the 105th Congress. As I have stated in my Dear Colleagues, I am one of five Members of Congress who serve on the National Council of the Arts, which is the governing board of the NEA. I've been to nearly every National Council session, and I've been impressed by the depth of change at the agency over the past two years. Grants are going to smaller organizations located in small or medium-sized communities. These are the places that are most in need and where the agency is targeting its new programs. It has been 8 long years since the NEA has seen an increase in funding. I'm not advocating a tremendous increase, but an increase that rewards the NEA for the good job they have been doing in recent years. Vote yes on this amendment, and support the new NEA.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to praise the increased funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. This bill provides over $6 billion in funding for IDEA for fiscal year 2012. This is a $500 million increase in funding from last year, $210 million more than the President requested. Congress finally comes one step closer to honoring the commitment made to the States and local school districts 24 years ago. In 1975, Congress promised to contribute 40 percent of the average per pupil cost to assist States and local schools. This chart shows the funding first by the Democrats, very slowly, and later by the Republicans, and we can see we are trying, so $500 million is a good beginning.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, I had firsthand knowledge of the blatant disrespect that OSHA has shown Congress in the regulatory process in implementing its proposed ergonomic standard. As the gentleman previously said, they took 8 years and they have not changed nothing, allowing only a 60-day comment period, but 30-day extension for an analysis of a 1,200 page regulation. It is absurd. By limiting the total number of days allowed for comment on the proposed regulation to 90 days, OSHA simply told small business that their comments do not count. In case my colleagues do not know, business decisions are made on the basis of cost, as the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) said. Injured employees cannot work. So it is up to the companies' interest, it is in their interest to protect their physical health. The law says one must have workman's compensation. It is expensive. It is not free. So employers work to protect their employees, they buy forklifts, they build conveyors, all without any government mandates. OSHA says that the ergonomic standard will only cost $4 billion. That is a wild guess. Business says it could cost $80 billion to $90 billion for a single industry. Industry has two choices: automate the jobs out of existence or move the business out of the country. We need some more accurate ideas as to what it will cost. In October of 1998, Congress appropriated almost $1 million for a nonpartisan study by the National Academy of Science, NAS, to focus on the relationship between repetitive task and repetitive stress injuries and the validity of ergonomics as a science. On August 3 of last year, the House passed the Workplace and Preservation Act to prohibit OSHA from issuing a prepared or final rule on workplace ergonomics until after the NAS study is completed in the year 2001. As we have seen, OSHA believes that it does not have to adhere to the will of Congress or the medical community in seeking to finalize the proposed rule by this fall. They have got a study going, but it is run by NIOSH, which is a division of OSHA. Nothing like examining oneself. In conclusion, as currently written, the proposed ergonomics rule jeopardizes the jobs and welfare of both employers and employees. Pushing this inaccurate, unscientific proposal in such a short time period is both arrogant and reckless. I urge my colleagues to reject the Traficant amendment and support the prohibitive language in this bill to stop OSHA from moving forward on an ergonomic standard.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, May 22, 2000, I missed rollcall votes 211 (H.R. 3852) and 212 (S. 1236). Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 17, 2000, I missed rollcall vote 193 (H.R. 4205) because I was conducting a Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere hearing in the absence of the Chairman. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, Republicans believe that no Medicare beneficiary should have to choose between putting food on the table or purchasing the prescription drugs they need to live. Yet that is just what the poorest of American seniors are forced to do. According to a 1996 study, there are 9.6 million Medicare recipients who do not have prescription drug coverage. Many of these individuals have incomes below $15,000 a year. They are struggling on fixed incomes and cannot afford pharmacy bills that can run several hundred dollars a month. Republicans and Democrats need to set aside partisan politics and do the moral thing. We must work together to help the millions of Medicare recipients who cannot pay for their medication. By providing affordable prescription drug coverage for everyone, we want to make sure that no senior citizen or disabled American falls through the cracks.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I am in opposition to the Moakley amendment. I have visited El Salvador 40 or 50 times. The School of the Americas is something we need. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Moakley amendment. As you should know, the School of the Americas has trained over 54,000 graduates, including ten presidents, 38 ministers of defense and state, 71 commanders of armed forces, and 25 service chiefs of staff in Latin America. Since the school began training national leaders of South and Central American countries, military or totalitarian regimes in that region have declined and have been replaced with democracies. Right now, Cuba remains as the sole dictatorship in the Western Hemisphere. Not so ironically, Cuba does not participate in the School of the Americas program. This amendment attempts to close the school based on 10-20-year-old assumptions about the school. Although there may have been questionable practices taught at the school in the past, these have all been corrected years ago. Without the training from the School of the Americas, there never would have been peace in El Salvador. The FMLN rebels demanded that the military leadership resign before they would negotiate for a peace settlement. Armed with the lessons taught at the school, these leaders decided to resign. This was not because they were losing, but because President Christiani had urged them to do it. And with that resignation, the peace process began. You see, yielding to civilian leadership is a principle taught at the School of the Americas, as has occurred just lately in the county of Columbia. Students from our southern neighbors are learning about democracy and becoming our friends of the future. I urge my colleagues to support the democratic education of these officers provided by the school by defeating this amendment. By the way, the former commanding general of the Salvadoran Army is now running a filling station in San Salvador.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, there are few things more important than taking care of our Nation's seniors. That means keeping the Medicare program healthy and solvent for the 39 million older Americans who depend on it. Unfortunately, our efforts to improve Medicare will not work if we do not eliminate the waste and abuse that festers in the current programs. In FY 1998, Medicare's fee-for-service program made $12.6 billion in improper payments. Part of the reason this waste, fraud, and abuse occurred was that the Clinton-Gore administration was careless in monitoring and oversight of Medicare payments. This neglect has created a troughful of Medicare money, and crooks are glad to have it, to eat to their fill. For example, a New York medical equipment company robbed Medicare of more than $6 million. A Florida home health agency fraudulently billed Medicare for $2.2 million. Let us keep our seniors healthy. Let us work to keep fraud out of the Medicare program.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I want today to support H.R. 434. The Caribbean Basin Initiative was proposed in 1982 by President Reagan as a way of promoting economic revitalization and trade expansion opportunities for countries in the Caribbean Basin after peace had arrived. Now, more so than ever, economic revitalization is needed, and this is particularly true of the many countries that were ravaged by Hurricanes Mitch and George a little more than a year ago. As many of my colleagues know, my wife and I have been involved with various humanitarian and charitable activities in Central America and the Caribbean for the better part of 30 years; and during this time it has become increasingly clear to me that what these countries need most in the way of economic stabilization is investment in free trading opportunities. Providing more open trade access to our markets would not only aid the ailing economies of these countries but would help ensure greater political stability as well. Mr. Speaker, the most controversial aspect of H.R. 434 has revolved around textiles and apparel. Being from North Carolina, these industries are particularly important to me, as are the jobs that make up these industries. My particular concern regarding this legislation has been to ensure that textiles and apparel produced in countries in Africa and the Caribbean Basin region are made of U.S. materials, if they are to receive favorable trade benefits. Without these protections, I voted against this bill last summer. According to most textile and fiber manufacturers that I have heard from, the conference report on H.R. 434 takes necessary steps to ensure that U.S. fiber, yarn, and cotton manufacturing industries are sufficiently protected. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill would greatly benefit the economies of the Caribbean Basin and Africa while protecting domestic jobs, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the IDEA Full Funding Act of 2000. In October 1997, the 105th Congress reauthorized IDEA, allowing continued funding to the States for education of children with disabilities. In 1997, funding for IDEA was only $2.6 billion. In the last 3 years, the Republican-controlled Congress has nearly doubled Federal funding on IDEA to approximately $4.3 billion. Although Congress has allocated more money to IDEA, there is still a shortfall in the obligation to States and local school districts to fund this act. This bill would free up funds that currently States and local school districts are forced to use to compensate for the Federal Government's failed commitment to fund IDEA. By steadily working to increase IDEA funding to $2 billion each year annually until 2010, Congress would increase opportunity and flexibility for local school districts to fund the programs that they feel are best for their students, whether it be school construction, Title I funding, teacher training or smaller classrooms. Mr. Speaker, it is time that Congress honors its commitment to States and local school districts, and I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 4055.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of this act, a bipartisan bill to protect the stock option programs for rank and file employees. Stock option programs can be configured in a variety of ways and are referred to by different names, but all the programs share similar objectives, to reward employees, to provide ownership in the company, and to attract and maintain a motivated workforce. In testimony before my Subcommittee on Workforce Protections earlier this month, witnesses discussed how stock ownership programs are now available to more and more employees. In the past, such programs were used to reward executives, top management and other key employees. However, there has been a dramatic increase in the past several years in the number of companies offering broad-based employee ownership plans to rank and file employees. The Department of Labor's recent interpretation saying that stock options may be part of an employee's ``regular rate,'' threatened to undermine the ability and willingness of employers to make stock options available to their own nonexempt employees. Ms. Abigail Rosa, an employee who testified at the hearing, expressed concern that the Department of Labor's interpretation of the law would force companies to do away with stock option programs for employees who are covered by the overtime law. Allowing hard-working rank and file employees to share in the growth of their companies is good for morale, good for families, and good for the country. I am pleased that we were able to work together to fashion a bill that updates the 1938 labor law. We have a bill that fosters stock option plans and has the FLSA taking a baby step into the 21st century. This bill represents the hard work and attention of many Senators and Members of the House on both sides of the aisle, as well as the Department of Labor, and I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to vote today for the final version of the congressional budget for fiscal year 2001 (H. Con. Res. 290). Again, I wish to congratulate my colleagues on the House Budget Committee and their counterparts in the other body for their hard work in crafting a fiscal year 2001 budget and pushing it to passage ahead of schedule. First, this congressional budget keeps a lid on runaway federal spending. For the second year in a row, this budget devotes the entire Social Security surplus, totaling $161 billion in fiscal year 2001, to a lock box to prevent it from being used to finance other government programs. And, it proposes the creation of a $40 billion reserve fund over five years to be used to reform Medicare and provide prescription drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries who need it. Simultaneously, it allows us to continue to pay down the public debt (a trillion dollars of it over five years), making it possible to eliminate the entire public debt by 2013. In addition, the Republican budget proposal calls for tax cuts of up to $150 billion over five years, including the elimination of the marriage penalty. It also contains tax relief for small businesses, phases out the estate or `death' tax, establishes tax incentives for educational assistance and tax relief associated with pending health care reform legislation. Finally, I am pleased to report that the Republican budget increases spending for primary and secondary education, including Pell Grants (which we have increased by about 50% since we assumed control of Congress in 1995); national defense and programs to support our military men and women; transportation; and veterans programs. In response to many of my constituents' concerns, it also decreases foreign aid expenditures. Again, I believe this budget fulfills my commitment to 10th District citizens to support budget reforms and fiscally responsible spending.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act because I feel that we should reward these brave individuals who assisted American efforts in the war against communism in Southeast Asia. The Hmong which we seek to honor today were a Laotian-based guerrilla group who fought valiantly alongside American and South Vietnamese troops in Vietnam. Many Hmong risked and lost their lives in defense of democracy at a crucial time in the history of that region. With Communism spreading across the Asian continent during the 60's, it was crucial for American troops to receive indigenous help in defense of South Vietnam. They were brave soldiers of freedom at time of great uncertainty, and their efforts have gone largely ignored for far too long. Today, the Hmong are valuable citizens and employees in many communities across the United States, including the 10th district of North Carolina which I have the privilege to serve. In fact, I employ several Hmong in my company in Hickory, NC. They are truly great citizens who offer a strong work ethic and another facet of cultural diversity to my community, and to communities across this nation. The Laotian Hmong have been the victims of persecution and genocide at the hands of the Communist government in Laos, largely due to the help they provided America during the Vietnam War. Now it is time for us to reward them for their sacrifice and service. Please vote yes today on H.R. 371; let us reward these brave people by expediting the naturalization of Hmong aliens who served with these special guerrilla units in Laos during the Vietnam War. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BALLENGER

Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Tax Limitation Amendment 2000 (H.J. Res. 94), introduced by our Republican colleague Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX). I firmly believe that we need this amendment to insure that, in virtually every circumstance, a tax increase would require a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress for final adoption. While this is not a new idea, I believe it is a proposal which deserves our attention and that of the American taxpayers again this year. Despite the best efforts of the Republican-led 106th Congress to reduce taxes and make the federal tax code fairer for America's hard- working citizens, we cannot count on future Congresses to share our enthusiasm for these reforms--reforms which are strengthening individual citizens' economic opportunities and fueling our nation's record economic growth. We proposed a tax limitation amendment in the fall of 1994 as one component of the Republican's Contract with America, a list of legislative objectives which has guided our policy agenda since the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in 1995. The enactment of H.J. Res. 94 would represent an insurance policy which this Congress should leave as a part of our legacy to our citizens. H.J. Res. 94 not only seeks to make Congress more fiscally responsible, but it would instill greater public confidence in the tax system. This result has been endorsed by the National Commission on Economic Growth, chaired by former House Member and Republican Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp. The amendment would block future major tax increases which resemble President Clinton's 1993 tax increases for example, a bill which cleared the House by only one extra vote and clearly lacked strong bipartisan support. President Clinton's tax hikes are haunting many Americans today, in particular elderly Americans in my congressional district. The bottom line is that the same super-majority requirement which is applied to major decisions like amending the Constitution and impeaching the President ought to be required for legislation which would take more money out of our constituents' monthly budgets.