John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. As the gentleman knows, the Senate has taken up the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. When the Senate completes their work it will come here, and I think those of us in the House never want to predict the speed at which the Senate may or may not move this bill.

Mr. BOEHNER. That is a bit unclear as of yet. It would be nice if we could do it that second week in March, but I think it is a little too early to predict exactly when it will be on the floor.

Mr. BOEHNER. Clearly, sometime in the coming weeks, but I think the Appropriations Committee will have their hands full looking at the request, going through all of the items in the request. I think we would like to have it through the House before the Easter recess, but, again, they have got an awful lot of work to do in the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 345) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, March 1, 2006.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, February 20, 2006, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 345, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleagues for their support and for this big job, and it is a big job. I think all of the Members who I have worked with over the years know how I operate. I am a Republican. I believe in Republican principles. But this is the people's House. It is to represent all of the people. And while I want my party to win every day, I want us to win fairly and honestly. And so I will say to all of you, I am going to do my best for the people's House. You may not agree with every decision we make every day, but I think all of you know in the marrow of my bones I believe in fairness. As I have said before, when you have 11 brothers and sisters and your dad owned a bar, you have learned a lot of lessons along the way.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, if this bill was anywhere near as difficult and as bad as my friends would have described, there would be no Member of the House who would vote for it. Now, I think all of us realize that our Nation is going broke. You would argue that we are not taxing enough. Most of my colleagues and I would argue that we are spending too much. And if you look at Federal revenues over the last 10 years, 20 years, you will see that there is never an increasing rise in Federal revenues. The problem we have is we have a spending problem. We are spending money that we do not have year in and year out, and we are passing those bills on to our kids and theirs. It is not fair. We decided we are going to take a bite at the apple, and we are going to try to do something about it. Before us we are going to have about a $41 billion deficit reduction program. It is going to reform many Federal programs to provide savings to reduce the budget deficit. In my committee we are going to take $16.2 billion of reforms to lower that deficit, about $3.6 billion of that will come in the form of strengthening the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, raising the premiums on employers who pay into that system, and making some other changes that will produce those savings. The higher education side is rather unique. We are able to increase benefits for American students while at the same time reducing and reforming those programs to save $12.6 billion. We keep the current law fixed interest rates into the foreseeable future for the loan program. The consolidation program stays at the same interest rates. We phased out origination fees for those in the Pell program from 3 percent down to 1 percent over the next 5 years. We increase loan limits for students, freshmen, up to $3,500 per year in guaranteed programs. The second year, we increase it to $4,500. We eliminate the single holder rule. We increase loan rates and loan volumes for graduate students. At the same time, we reform the programs and the fees that we pay to lenders. We eliminate the 9.5 percent loans and eliminate recycling. We eliminate floor income, we reduce the insurance rate for the lenders from 98 to 97 percent, and we give guarantors incentives for rehabilitating loans rather than to put them into the consolidation program. This is a good deal for American students. On top of all that, there is $3.7 billion in this bill to start an academic competitive grant for Pell-eligible students who are interested in math, science, and specialized languages. We all know that we have problems with enough mathematicians and scientists in America, and this program is aimed at Pell-eligible students trying to encourage them into math and science and giving them significant grants in their junior and senior year to make sure they graduate as mathematicians and scientists. All of this is being done on behalf of students, while saving, producing savings of $12.6 billion to help reduce the deficit. Now, I think all of us have a job to do when it comes to reducing this deficit. Again, my colleagues want to raise taxes. I do not think that we have a revenue problem; I think we have a spending problem. And I think reforming these Federal programs, especially in a way where we can provide additional benefits for students, is a win-win for the American people. It is a good bill. We ought to vote for it.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple bill that extends the Higher Education Act of 1965 for 3 months until March 31, 2006. While the committee has passed the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it is not completed. The Senate concluded their Higher Education Act amendments in their reconciliation bill, and we expect part of this higher education reauthorization to occur in the reconciliation process. But there will be a balance of it left that does need to be dealt with, and I am hopeful that early next year Congress will, in fact, complete the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act authorization. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4525) to temporarily extend the programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4525.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4579.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill will extend provisions under ERISA, the Public Health Services Act and the Internal Revenue Code regarding mental health parity for 1 year until December 31, 2006. Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, December 17, 2005. The Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: I write regarding our mutual understanding for the consideration of H.R. 4579, a bill amending the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to extend certain provisions on mental health benefits. The provisions of this bill amending ERISA are within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The provisions of this bill amending PHSA are within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The provisions of this bill amending IRC are within the sole jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. As you and I understand the importance of extending the provisions to each of these Acts, we have agreed to the scheduling of this bill for consideration in the House of Representatives. However, I agree that we have done so only with the understanding that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the jurisdictional interest and prerogatives of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Ways and Means, or the Committee on Energy and Commerce, respectively, on these provisions or any other similar legislation, and will not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdiction to each committee in the future. Finally, I would support your request for appointment of conferees on the provisions in your Committee's jurisdiction should a conference arise with the Senate. A copy of our exchange of letters will be inserted in the Congressional Record on this bill. Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, John A. Boehner, Chairman.

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4579) to amend title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend by one year provisions requiring parity in the application of certain limits to mental health benefits.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his moving testimony today on the issue of mental health. I would be the first to agree that the mental health parity bill that we have will now, as Mr. George Miller of California says, and has for the last 10 years been an important step in the right direction. Is it enough for most people? Probably not. And I think that all of us are aware that Congress and the American people have been in this debate for a long time. We have 45 million Americans who have no health insurance at all, and we know that every time we mandate a benefit on employers' insurance policies, we raise the cost of those policies. And what is the result of higher health insurance policies? More uninsured Americans. So there is a balance, and I realize that people want more mental health coverage. The debate will continue here in the Congress; but in the meantime, I think it is important for us to make sure that the mandate that is in the current law that does provide some coverage for mental health illness that is going to expire will do so unless we extend this provision. And that is all the bill before us does is extend the provisions already in law to make sure that at least there is a foundation of coverage in the law as people have come to expect.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the debate today on the floor is about the massive underfunding in worker pensions and the need to change the status quo. Unfortunately, what we have just been presented is what would actually make pensions less secure by preserving the status quo and putting at risk millions of American pensions. Let me make five points. First, the motion to recommit preserves the status quo by requiring employers and union leaders to fund their plans at 90 percent or in some cases only 80 percent, instead of the 100 percent funding requirements that we have in the underlying bill. It just does not pass the straight-face test. Second, they are preserving the status quo by continuing to allow employers to take up to 30 years to erase any funding shortfall in their plan. Pension experts agree that this increases the risk of plan termination, threatening the benefits of workers and retirees. Third, they are preserving the status quo on unrestricted use of credit balances which mask the massive pension plan underfunding we see today. We know that the credit balance rules that are in place today are irresponsible public policy. They must be changed if we are going to strengthen the pension system. And to allow those rules to stay in place, again, does not pass the straight-face test. Fourth, they propose preserving the status quo by failing to incorporate the full package of multi-employer reforms that were agreed to by a broad coalition of organized labor and employer groups. Last, they preserve the status quo by promoting uncertainty among employers if these pension benefits and workers who are relying on them maintain the current interest rate package for 2 years and then go back to the 30-year rate thereafter. The modified yield curve in the underlying bill presents a more accurate picture of the liabilities that these plans have and should, in fact, stay in the bill. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the underlying bill is far more balanced. It really does strengthen American pensions, and I would urge my colleagues to reject this. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. BOEHNER. Let me thank my colleague and my friend and classmate, Mr. Camp, for yielding me time, and thank all of my colleagues for what I think has been a very healthy debate today about how we strengthen America's pension system. We have heard Members argue that the bill that we are bringing before us is too difficult, that we will force companies out of pension plans and leave their employees hanging; while others have argued that the rules are not tough enough, and we are keeping the door open to irresponsible practices. I truly do believe that we have a bill that is balanced, that will not push employers who have these plans out of the system and will protect American workers who have been promised these benefits. If we do not act, we know exactly what is going to happen: Millions and millions more Americans are going to lose an opportunity for a defined benefit pension plan, and millions of Americans who already have one are going to be at risk that they will not have their plan. So Congress must act. Not only did we deal with single-employer pension plans, but we have not talked much about multiple-employer pension plans that you find traditionally in the trucking industry, the food industry and others. And while they have not been talked about much today in this debate and the administration did not propose changes, there are serious changes to the multi-employer pension system in this plan that will help strengthen that system. Those plans, by and large, are healthier than single-employer plans, and we have labor and management on both sides in the multi-employer sector come together to put rules in place so that their plans can never get into a very weakly funded position. I am glad they are in the bill. Lastly, let me point out that there are large numbers of groups supporting this bill. Every major labor organization, with the exception of several, is supporting this bill. Many in the management sector in every large business organization is supporting this bill. Why would all of the labor organizations and the business organizations all be on board in support of this bill? Because they think it is balanced. They think it is the right thing to do, and they know that Congress needs to act. Is everything perfect in the bill? No. As the gentleman pointed out, we have got airline relief that we will probably be talking about again soon. Our commitment is to deal with this in conference. My colleague from Ohio talked about the need to go further on cash balance language. I certainly agree with her. There are 7 million Americans who have cash balance plans or other types of hybrid plans. We need to provide legal certainty for those who have converted to a cash balance plan so that we do not put in jeopardy the 7 million Americans counting on benefits from those plans. We have a good bill. I would urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. As I listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I have to tell you that I am confused. Some of them say the rules that we are proposing here are too tough and are going to drive employers out of the pension business, while we have some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying the rules are not tight enough and we are going to create more deficits at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Ladies and gentlemen, I think the bill is just right. Yes, these are better rules that will require companies to better fund their plans. They certainly are better than current law. But I do not believe they go to the point of driving companies out of the defined benefit system. My good friend from California believes we are going to drive up the deficit. Now, if the rules were not strong enough, I would not have had virtually every employer in America who has a defined benefit plan beating on my office door complaining about the rules we were proposing. I would not have had every labor organization talking to me about how do we get this right. The fact is, if you look at the chart that we have here, plans must meet a 100 percent funding target. That is not the law today. If they are in the 80-90 percent range, it is good enough. But then as soon as the market turns down or the industry has a bump in the road, it is not long before they are under 60 and in deep trouble. So requiring plans to be 100 percent funded, I think, is a very good idea. Having an interest rate that is commensurate with their liabilities is something that we have not done ever. We have had one interest rate used to calculate the plan's liabilities. Under this modified yield curve proposal, they will have three different interest rates to use based on the longevity of their workforce, 0-5 years, 5-20, and those employees who will retire after 20 years. It will give us a more accurate reflection of the true cost of those plans. Third, it requires funding shortfalls to be erased over 7 years. We want to give companies time to go from the current rules to these more responsible rules; and if we do not have a sufficient transition time, what is going to happen is that we are going to create real havoc in the marketplace. Fourth, it restricts unlimited use of credit balances. We all know that the current rules about credit balances are, frankly, some of the most irresponsible public policy that I have seen. Beginning to restrict the use of those credit balances will, in fact, strengthen these plans. Fifth, it curves benefit increases for underfunded plans. We all know there are plans that were underfunded, severely underfunded, and yet increasing benefits at the same time. That is not fair to workers who are being given promises that someone has no intention of keeping. Last, it shores up the finances of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. All of these will bring more funding to company pension plans, it will bring more funding to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and put our pension system for American workers on a stronger foundation. Why else do I think we are just right? I have a long list of business organizations that are supporting this bill and a long list of labor organizations that are supporting this bill. It is a balanced bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.