John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, as has been pointed out earlier in this conversation, one of the real needs for farmers of all types in the current economic environment is better risk-management tools. One of the things we tried to do over the last couple of years and we will consider before this year is over is an expanded crop insurance package. But what we are talking about in this amendment is empowering dairy farmers by giving them risk-management tools so that they can better manage the risk and the fluctuations in price on their own farm. Now, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) who have the underlying amendment are saying, well it is okay if one sells one's milk for cheese or for powder. We are going to allow one to forward market and contract that particular product. But if one is going to sell one's milk for fluid consumption to a bottler, let us say a supermarket down the street, that is not okay. Now, it defies me to understand why it is okay to have forward marketing for cheese and powder but not for fluid milk. Now, we happen to be in a situation today where farmers last year, the dairy farmers, got probably, overall, the highest prices they ever received. This year, they are likely to get the second highest prices they have ever received. What we are saying with this amendment is, even though we have got high prices, and maybe a dairy farmer would like to go out and lock in that higher price with his local supermarket, he is unable to do that under current law and under the underlying amendment. That is why the amendment being offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) I think makes all the common sense in the world. At a time of higher prices, why do we not empower dairy farmers themselves to go out and lock in a price for a substantial length of time if they want? What we are basically saying with the underlying amendment is that dairy farmers are not capable of doing this on their own. Well, I think they are. They have done a marvelous job in surviving under a complex system for 62 years. If we begin to unleash the shackles that the Federal Government has put around them, my guess is that dairy farmers are going to have a great opportunity to succeed even more. So I rise in support of the Dooley amendment and congratulate the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley) for offering it, along with the chairman of the committee, in saying that let us empower farmers, let us make this common-sense reform that allows a dairy farmer to go out and protect himself and his family and most importantly his farm.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow along from the conversation of my colleague from California was having. Understand that under current law, dairy farmers cannot go out and sell their milk, because the Federal program, the Federal milk market order system says that one can only sell one's milk within a particular region for a particular price to a particular buyer. That is the first problem. Then, with the amendment that we have on the floor currently we are saying that if one wants to have forward contracting, one can have it if one has Class II or III milk, but if one has fluid milk, one cannot forward contract. So we are forcing dairy farmers into a position where they only have one place to sell their milk and that is through their co-ops. I am a big supporter of co-ops. I think they do an awful lot to help farmers of all different types. But we have corn producers, soybean producers, vegetable producers all over this country who do what every single day? They forward contract with buyers for their commodities. Now, if it is good enough for all of these other commodities, why is it not good enough to allow dairy farmers the freedom to go out and contract on their own?

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think everybody knows, when one lets milk sit around too long, it spoils, and it goes bad. It really is not any different for U.S. dairy policy that, after 62 years of a federally government- imposed marketing system for dairy in America, that maybe it is time to take a very serious look at it. Today we have had a very healthy debate about dairy policy, and I am sure some of our colleagues are tired of hearing about this policy. But I think we now get to the core, the real debate about what ought to happen in the future. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have an amendment that says very simply that we ought to eliminate the milk market order system for dairy farmers in America. We all know that, over the last 5 years, the last 10 years, the last 20 years, probably over the last 20, half of the dairy farms in America have gone out of business. Mr. Chairman, there is only one constant, only one constant that has been out there over those last 20 years as dairy farmers have gone out of business, and that is a federally mandated milk market order system. Yes, it is the Federal Government that has controlled prices, not allowed dairy farmers to succeed, and literally pushed small farmers right out of the market. Until we get out of the way and let the market begin to set prices, fair prices for all farmers, regardless of where they are in America, I think until we do that, we are making a big mistake. Today on the floor, we talked about the 34 marketing orders that are going to 11 marketing orders. Members probably heard about four different classes of milk depending upon how it is used. Why would the Federal Government want to decide how many different classes of milk that we have? My colleagues have heard about four separate pricing schemes that we have for milk in our country. They have heard about differentials, the fact that we price milk based on how far it is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. What a bizarre notion, in 1999, that the Federal Government in Washington, D.C. knows how to price milk for a farmer in Vermont or a farmer in Idaho. Why would we not let the market determine it? We have also heard today about the USDA bureaucracy. Think of how many thousands of employees we have sitting right down the street determining how these prices should work, how these pricing schemes should work, and how it should be ``fair'' for all dairy farmers. My colleagues have heard about pooling, pooling different prices from around the country so that we can determine what the fair price to the dairy farmer is. They have heard about forward contracting. We wanted to actually give farmers the ability to go out and contract on their own, if they wanted to. Why cannot we allow farmers to do it? But, no, the House said no and did not vote that way. We have heard about the mailbox price for milk as compared with the federal milk market order blend price. Now, when we start to look at the complexity of the milk marketing order system, I point all of my colleagues to this chart, this chart that says how we price milk in America. This is how we do it: from the laws that we pass here to the bureaucracy at the USDA to the different marketing orders and the pooling and every month that we have to determine what is the fair price for our farmers. Announcement By The Chairman Pro Tempore

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

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

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, I realize that the amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I are offering comes to the floor today with some controversy, but I do appreciate all of my colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture that have been here all day debating this issue, and I really appreciate the fact that we have had a quality debate on the future of dairy. Now, I have had all my colleagues down here though defending the status quo, do nothing, do not let the USDA changes go into effect; yet out of the other side of their mouths they are describing the plight of dairy farmers in their region. Now if the plight of dairy farmers is so great in their region, why do we not do something to help them? Why do we want to come to the floor today and preserve the status quo? That is why the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and I have this amendment because, in fact, today, the co-ops, where 76 percent of the milk in this country comes from, have taken the place of the Federal Government. The co-ops are strong entities who are well equipped to go out and negotiate on behalf of their members with processors around the country. Why do we need a dual system where we have a government system in place, a co-op system in place, where the dairy farmer himself has no ability on his own to make decisions for himself? The amendment we offer today will in fact help those dairy farmers achieve real success, because for 62 years we have never given them the chance to succeed, never given them a chance to succeed because they can only sell their milk based on the complicated price scheme that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) pointed out earlier. How can my colleagues defend this antiquated, Depression-era, Soviet- style socialism in dairy that traps our farmers in a system that is never going to work? The fact is, let us help our farmers. Let us give them a chance to succeed by passing the Boehner-Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. BOEHNER. So why do we have all of this, Mr. Chairman? We have this because, in 1937, in the midst of the Depression, we had a serious problem affecting dairy farmers. The Federal Government decided on an emergency basis we were going to set up this program to try to ensure that we kept dairy farmers on the farm and we were able to get fresh milk to the marketplace. Now, that was 1937. This is 1999. Interstate highways, refrigerated trucks. My goodness, we have come a long way. I think it is time for all of us to take a big view of what has happened today, get out of the minutia of whether it is 1-A or 1-B, because either way, it is not going to make a dime's worth of difference to any dairy farmer. Then look at what we really can do to help the family farmer in America. What we can do to help that family farmer is to get rid of this, get rid of this convoluted 62-year-old program that has failed the farmer and has failed our consumers in this country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas for yielding me this time. I would say to my colleagues that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) and I have spent 9 years almost on the Committee on Agriculture, on the Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, trying to make some sense and bring this order to the Federal milk market order system; trying, we believe, to allow farmers to have the chance to succeed by getting the Federal Government out of their way. But, for 62 years, we have had this program that sets up milk cartels, 34 of them currently, around the country, and part of the reform that is going into place in the next couple of weeks will reduce the number of marketing orders to 11. As we get into this process, there are certainly changes that will occur in the differential. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1402, which we are debating today, seeks to derail these long overdue reforms to the milk market order system. But let me be honest, these are the most modest of reforms that are being blocked today. For decades, the U.S. dairy policy has discriminated against some dairy producers based on their distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. I think it is time to say enough is enough. We looked at data, the Committee on Agriculture did, to show that some 60 percent of dairy producers in this country would benefit from the reforms the USDA is about to put in place, and there are all types of numbers around, but this is a consensus of the numbers. So why do we want to stand in the way of some 60 percent of U.S. producers who are likely to gain from this change in this order? As we, most of us, believe in free trade, asking countries around the world to tear down trade barriers, we in this country have one of the largest trade barriers within our own country, and that is this Federal milk market order system. I just cannot understand how my colleagues can continue to defend this depression-era system that says that milk is going to be priced based on its distance from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and that we are going to pay producers a different amount of money, depending upon how the milk that they sell is used. So today we will have a chance to debate this, and I am looking forward to a healthy debate.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York for yielding me the time. Obviously, we have having a little disagreement here on the floor today. It is obviously not partisan because we have got Members from both sides of the aisle on different sides of this fight. The fact is that, as much as I would rather not be here debating this bill tonight and tomorrow, the fact is a majority of the House wants to debate it, we have moved it through the committee, and we are going to debate it. And the fact is, I think the Committee on Rules did a nice job in putting the rule together, I think it is fair, it gives us an open debate, and then we can have at it with our differences fairly. But when I hear Members up here talking about the USDA making a mistake and how they went about putting this rule together, let me remind the Members that in the 1996 farm bill we tried for almost a year to bring some reform to the dairy program. We were unable to come to an agreement except that we were able to get some language into the bill agreed to by all parties that there would be a consolidation of these marketing orders and that we would allow the Secretary to implement this most modest of reforms. The Secretary went around the country and had hearings, listened to dairy farmers around the country, came up with two options, option 1(a)/option 1(b), had comments from around the country, a comment period; and then the Secretary made a decision to go with a modified option, somewhere between 1(a) and 1(b), that is supposed to go into effect next week. What is underway here is an effort to stop that. The fact of the matter is, when we look at the numbers, whether it is 1(a) or 1(b), it does not make a dime's worth of difference to almost any farmer in America. Nobody here is against the dairy farmer. The question is how do we best help the dairy farmer. Many of us believe that if we allow the market to work, that we get rid of this antiquated system in effect since 1937, we can actually help the farmers. Let us pass this rule and have the debate tomorrow.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong support of this historic tax cut, one that will protect Social Security and Medicare and still put some $800 billion back in the pockets of the American people. Mr. Speaker, while others dwell on the past, Americans look to the future. We strive, we dream, and we sacrifice so that we and our children can have a better future. Our work, our dreams, and our sacrifices have more to do with realizing that than any program that is hatched here in Washington. That is what this tax bill is really all about, letting the American people keep more of what they earn so that they can make the plans and do the work that will lead to a better future for them and their children. That is why we are lowering marginal tax rates, cutting the capital gains rate, fixing the marriage penalty, and increasing deductibility for retirement savings and health care. It is so our constituents can have the future that they deserve. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) for working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and myself to include important pension reforms introduced in the House by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). These reforms will directly improve the retirement security of American workers by expanding small business retirement plans, allowing workers to save more, making pensions more secure, and cutting the red tape that has hamstrung employers who want to establish pension plans for their employees. They are important, bipartisan proposals and they will benefit every American worker who is trying to save for retirement. But I also want to commend him for the much larger package. It returns money that our constituents have earned and that Washington hasn't. That's why we owe it to our constituents to vote for the conference report.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for yielding me this time, and I appreciate his efforts and my colleagues' efforts for bringing this bill before us. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in favor of H.R. 987, the Workplace Preservation Act. I am sure that if we went out and explained this bill to most Americans, they would wonder why we are even here tonight having to debate this. First, let us be very clear about this. We are not prohibiting OSHA from regulating ergonomics. We are simply saying that before OSHA issues a set of sweeping new regulations that impact millions of employees and employers, we ought to at least look at the science that we paid for just a year ago and what the American people paid for when Congress appropriated $980,000 to the National Academy of Sciences to take a comprehensive look at this issue. We are simply saying let us let good science precede regulation, not the other way around. If OSHA meets its current timetable, the final ergonomics regulations will be in place before the National Academy of Science's studies are even finished. Not only will the efforts of the National Academy be wasted, but the money that the taxpayers put up last year for the study will be wasted as well. Mr. Chairman, that is just not acceptable. That is why we are here to pass H.R. 987 tonight. OSHA's decision to disregard the need for sound science, not to mention the will of this Congress, is an example of the kind of bureaucratic arrogance that is making Americans cynical about their government today. Many questions remain about the nature of the relationship between workplace activities and these types of injuries. But OSHA has concluded that it does not need to wait for medical and scientific communities to answer these questions. OSHA has decided it already has the answers, and it is going ahead with its new regulation as it sees fit. I think we can all agree that this kind of bureaucratic free-wheeling is wrong. Mr. Chairman, the debate today is not about whether we need to assure the safety in the workplace for the American workers. There can be no debate about that. The debate today is about whether we expect regulatory agencies to base their rules on medical evidence and sound science. I do not think there can be any debate about that either, Mr. Chairman. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the bill of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), H.R. 987, and allow the taxpayers to get their money's worth for the science and the study that we paid for last year before proceeding down this very dangerous path.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez), not because it is not well meaning or well intentioned but because it goes in the same old direction that Washington has gone in for the last 40 years. Something has happened over the last 5 years in this Congress and it is not that Republicans have taken control. It is that we as a Congress have done a better job of listening to our local communities, our local school boards and the Nation's 50 governors of all parties. What has happened out of all of this listening and working with them is that we passed an unfunded mandate bill that said we would not mandate more requirements on States and local communities without the money. We have passed welfare reform, where we took a whole slew of categorical programs, packaged them together, sent them back to the States so that States and local communities could decide how best to meet the needs of those of little means in their communities. In other words, we trusted the States and local communities to deal with the problems back home. Earlier this year, we passed the Ed-Flex bill, taking more categorical programs mandated out of Washington, grouped them together, sent them back home because the governors of all parties said, give us the flexibility and hold us accountable for test scores in the end. So the bill we have before us today is another step in that direction, of working with all the governors, local school boards and parents, to try to give them the flexibility they need to improve the schools and to improve the test scores of our Nation's students. What they are asking for in return is very simply this: give us the flexibility and hold us accountable for the results that we get from our children. That is the direction the Congress has been going in for the last 5 years, and the fact is that this proposal, offered by our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and pioneered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon) is a giant step in giving States, teachers, local school boards the kind of flexibility they want. It has broad bipartisan support. Why not pass it? The gentleman's amendment would go back to the same old tired programs of here are all of these little categorical programs and if the school districts do what we say they should do, then we will give them the money. The fact is I think it has been a failed approach. It has been a hodgepodge. Local schools need all types of things. Some need more teachers. Some need technology. Some need help in the library. Maybe they need more books. Let us let them decide how to improve the schools and hold them accountable for improving those test scores. So the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) would gut the legislation before us today. I think it is a failed policy that we have tried for the last 50 years and we know has not worked. Let us give this an opportunity to pass.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this landmark legislation. In one great cascade, it washes over decades of obsolete law, Congressional inattention, and regulatory creep to give us a modern and prudent legislative framework for one of our most important and dynamic industries. I believe it's the most important bill we'll debate this year, and I strongly urge its passage. In a bill this complex, it's easy to miss the forest for the trees. But the broad direction is what's most important. Our nation's financial services sector is the irrigation system for our economy. By allowing for the quick and efficient flow of cash and of capital, it provides the fuel that the rest of our economy needs to grow. By calculating and allocating risk effectively, it minimizes the harm that sudden distortions can do. And by providing a variety of savings, investment, and insurance vehicles for our citizens, it allows us all to plan and work for a secure retirement. Much is made of the dynamism of the so-called high-tech sector, and its growth has been truly phenomenal. But without a vibrant, stable, and innovative financial services marketplace, many of these high-tech firms would still be languishing on someone's chalkboard. We have the most dynamic and competitive financial service sector in the world. And that's why we have to pass this bill. Because the industry has so outgrown our Depression-era regulatory framework that soon, the framework will be irrelevant. And because our competitors are catching up by passing modernized financial service laws of their own. Unless we act here today, we may find ourselves ceding our dominance in this critical market to our foreign competitors. How does the bill accomplish this? Again, the broad strokes are the important ones. First, functional regulation. Conduct should be overseen by regulators who understand it. That means that securities activities should be supervised by securities regulators, even if they're performed by a bank. It means banking activities should be regulated by banking authorities, and insurance activities by insurance authorities. Functional regulations means that proper regulators can see the warning signs of instability early enough to head it off. Writing a functional regulatory structure is far more difficult, however, than simply describing one, and the chairmen of the Banking and Commerce committees have done a superb job. Second, the bill reflects the marketplace fact that banking, securities, and insurance underwriting all have far more in common than not. All essentially reflect the same functions--calculating and allocating risk, accumulating and investing capital. Keeping them apart makes little sense economically, and so for the first time in 66 years, the bill lets them affiliate. In good times, this means more innovation, greater efficiency, and better products. In bad times, it means that their risks will be diversified, protecting our economy and our taxpayers from the failure of financial firms. Third, it mixes this new flexibility with prudence. We've learned from Japan that we need to go slow on mixing banking and commerce. Let's see how we do with affiliation first, then return to the question of commerce and banking. And fourth, it's politically viable. We all know the controversy that has always surrounded this bill. With industry groups historically fighting each other for every advantage, it's no surprise that over the last 22 years this bill has failed 11 times. But this bill, building on the work of last year's, has the support of the broadest financial services coalition yet. Madam Chairman, in closing I want to congratulate my friends the gentlemen from Iowa and Virginia, the chairmen of the Banking and Commerce Committees. This is a huge accomplishment for this Congress and for them personally. It's a testament to their leadership and, given the history of this issue, it's a testament to their character that we're here today to debate and pass this bill. I admire them both. Madam Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 10, the Financial Services Act of 1999. It is the right bill at the right time for our financial services industry, for its consumers, and for our entire economy.

Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of this landmark piece of legislation. In one great cascade, it washes over decades of obsolete law, congressional inattention and regulatory creep to give us a modern and prudent legislative framework for one of our most important and dynamic industries. I believe it is the most important bill that we will debate in this Congress this year, and I strongly urge its passage. In a bill this complex, it is easy to miss the forest for the trees, but the broad direction I think is what is most important. Our Nation's financial services sector is the irrigation system for our economy. If we remove outdated obstacles to innovation and greater efficiency in the financial services industry, we are helping our entire economy become more competitive, more vibrant and healthier. It is important to recognize additional benefits of this legislation. By putting in place a regulatory system that actually makes sense for today's financial services industry, not the industry of 1933, we are both making the industry more internationally competitive and reducing the kinds of risks that led to bank and savings and loan failures of the late 1980s. By giving consumers the chance to do one-stop shopping for all of their financial needs, we are giving them more control, better information and better choices for their financial needs. Madam Chairman, this really is a superb piece of legislation, crafted with great care, with fairness and with patience. Let me say about patience, of the four gentlemen, the two chairmen and the two ranking members who I have had the pleasure to work with over the last 3 years on this legislation, this is a great example of how the Congress can work, when we agree on what the goals are and we work together and work through all types of objections. The gentlemen that I have just pointed out deserve a great deal of credit for a job well done.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we are very glad this morning to have Father John Putka as our guest chaplain. President Andrew Jackson is famous for saying, and I will quote, ``One man with courage makes a majority.'' That description I think is particularly suited to Father Putka. As a priest of the Society of Mary, and as a professor at the University of Dayton, Father Putka has had a dramatic and positive impact on the lives of tens of thousands of students over the years. I know of few professors who take such a personal interest in the academic and spiritual growth of their students. Before going to the University of Dayton in 1989, though, Father Putka taught at my alma mater and the alma mater of our colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer), Moeller High School in Cincinnati. Although I was gone, Father Putka did teach most of my eight younger brothers, and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) as well. He is truly one of a kind, and not just because there are not many Marianist priests out there sporting a flat top haircut. He is a dear friend to many, and through his service to his church, his community, and his country, I think he is a unique leader for all of us. I might also add that as a professor at the University of Dayton, he has done a marvelous job in attracting many of us to come speak to his class, Members from both sides of the political aisle. I might also mention that Father Putka is currently a professor for the student, the daughter of our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ray LaHood), who is in the Chair. We are glad that Father Putka is with us, and hope that he will return soon.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in observance of National Hospital Week and to bring special attention to Middletown Regional Hospital in Middletown, Ohio. Middletown has been awarded the American Hospital Association's prestigious 1999 NOVA Award, which recognizes innovative programs that respond to community needs. Middletown Regional Hospital is a 310-bed facility which is sole provider of Middletown's hospital services. In 1996, an alarming trend came to light: Middletown's readmission rate had quadrupled in just two years from 1.5 percent to 6.2 percent. Rather than ignoring the rate increase and simply collecting the additional revenues which accompany higher readmission rates, the hospital administration set out to determine the root causes of the problem and determine what, if anything, the hospital and its staff could do to lower rates. After discussions with community members and health care stakeholders, as well as a thorough review of the relevant data and literature, the folks at Middletown Regional Hospital determined that many patients lacked the financial resources and the general knowledge to properly care for themselves after discharge and as a result were using the emergency room as their primary source of medical care. In an effort to stem the increasing readmissions, Middletown Regional Hospital implemented its ``Making a Case for Community Health'' program which is the focus of the NOVA award. Here's how the program works: a registered nurse, such as Deborah Tibbs, is designated as a case manager for as many as 40 chronically ill patients who have a history of high emergency room use. Patients are referred to the program by a variety of sources and enrolled regardless of whether their care is provided through Medicaid, private insurance, or even if they have no insurance at all. Deborah spends her time visiting with patients and educating them on how to ``manage'' their illness independently. She advises them on their lifestyle habits, answers their medication questions, and is only a phone call away 24 hours a day, seven days a week to provide advice when one of her patients is having troubles. Deborah's services are provided free of charge to the patient. The results have been dramatic. Hospital admissions for program participants have dropped by more than 50 percent, the average length of stay when they are admitted is down by more than one full day and, as a result, $1.5 million less was spent on the care of theses patients. The ``Making a Case for Community Health'' program is a grand success because the hospital stepped up when they saw a community need and committed significant financial resources. The result has been better quality care and lower health care costs. I applaud their efforts and hope other communities will follow their lead.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 984.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, American students I think are confused about the President's student aid priorities. On Election Day in 1996 they heard the President proclaim, and I will quote, ``I am proud that we have got the biggest increase in Pell Grants in 20 years, but we must do more. I want to open the doors of college to all Americans; and if you give me 4 more years, that is exactly what I intend to do.'' That was in Lexington, Kentucky. He said the same thing in Cleveland, Santa Barbara, Green Bay, New Orleans, St. Louis, and the Democratic Convention in Chicago. Many students also heard this ad, run by the President's campaign, and I will quote, ``As a Latino and a student, I know the value of education.'' The ad read in Spanish. ``Under President Clinton, Pell Grants and scholarships were increased. President Clinton wants us to have more opportunities to improve our quality of life. That is why, on November 5, I am going to vote for President Clinton.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, on November 5, that is exactly what a lot of students did. But now the President is singing a different tune. The President is proposing cutting Pell Grant funding by 3 percent; he proposes cutting Perkins Loans by eliminating an adjustment for inflation; and he proposes cutting student loans by $2 billion in favor of a program that makes the Department of Education the country's largest bank, a loan program that is 30 percent more expensive than the private sector program, and that is the program that most universities say that they do not want. Mr. Speaker, students are confused about the President's student aid priorities, so let us be crystal clear about ours. This resolution sends a clear message that we are serious about funding programs that have been proven to work. I went to college myself on a program that is now known as the Perkins Loan, and I can tell my colleagues firsthand that these programs do work. But if my colleagues no longer believe that these programs should be our highest priority, then vote ``no'' on this resolution. But do not blame students for being confused about where we stand on these student aid priorities.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Truth in Employment Act of 1999. This important legislation addresses the abusive union tactic commonly called ``salting.'' ``Salting'' is an economic weapon unions use to damage and even run employers out of business. ``Salting'' abuse is the placing of trained professional organizers and agents in a non-union facility to harass or disrupt company operations, apply economic pressure, increase operating and legal costs, and ultimately put the company out of business. The object of the union agents are accomplished through filing, among other charges, unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board. As brought out during the five hearings the Workforce Committee held on this issue in the 104th and 105th Congresses, ``salting'' is not merely an organizing tool, but has became an instrument of economic destruction aimed at non-union companies that has nothing to do with legitimate union organizing. As a former ``salt'' from Vermont testified last year before the Employer-Employee Relations Subcommittee: ``[Salting] has become a method to stifle competition in the marketplace, steal away employees, and to inflict financial harm on the competition. Salting has been practiced in Vermont for over six years, yet not a single group of open shop electrical workers have petitioned the local union for the right to collectively bargain with their employers. In fact, as salting techniques become more openly hostile . . . most workers view these activities as a threat to their ability to work. In a country where free enterprise and independence is so highly valued. I find these activities nothing more than legalized extortion.'' There can be no disputing what these ``salts'' are trying to do. As a former NLRB field attorney testified before the subcommittee, from his experience, ``salts have no intention of organizing a company by convincing the co-workers that unions are a good thing for them. Instead, once a salt enters the workplace, that individual engages in a pattern of conduct to disrupt the workplace; to gather information about the employer to feed to the union; to disrupt projects; and ultimately to file charges with the National Labor Relations Board.'' Another witness quoted directly from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers' organizing manual, which states that the goal of the union salt is to ``threaten or actually apply the economic pressure necessary to cause the employer to raise his prices, scale back his business activities, leave the union's jurisdiction, go out of business and so on.'' Hiding behind the shield of the National Labor Relations Act, unions ``salt'' employers by sending agents into non-union workplaces under the guise of seeking employment. These ``salts'' often try to harm their employers or deliberately increase costs through various actions, including sabotage and frivolous discrimination complaints with the NLBR. If an employer refuses to hire the ``salt,' the union files unfair labor practice charges. Alternatively, if the ``salts'' are hired by the employer, they often attempt to persuade bona fide employees of the company to sign cards supporting the union. The union agents also often look for other reasons to file unfair labor practice charges, solely to impose undue legal costs on the employer. The stark reality is that ``salting'' puts companies out of business and destroys jobs. Clearly, the drafters of the 1935 National Labor Relations Act did not intend this result. The Act was not intended as a device to circumvent the will of employees, to strangle businesses into submission to further a union's objectives, or to put non-union employers out of business.'' One construction company testified before the subcommittee that it had to spend more than $600,000 in legal fees from one salting campaign, with the average cost per charge of more than $8,500. Beyond legal fees, one employer testified, ``it would be impossible to put a dollar amount on the pain and suffering caused by the stress of the situation to a small company like ours who does not have the funds to fight these charges.'' Thus, under current law, an employer must choose between two unpleasant options: either hire a union ``salt'' who is there to disrupt the workplace and file frivolous charges resulting in costly litigation, or deny the ``salt'' employment and risk being sued for discrimination under the NLRA. The Truth in Employment Act of 1999 would protect the employer by making it clear that an employer is not required to hire any person who is not a ``bona fide'' employee applicant. The bill states that someone is not a ``bona fide'' applicant is such person ``seeks or sought employment with the employer with the primary purpose of furthering other employment or agency status.'' Simply put, if someone wants a job, but at least 50 percent of their intent is not to work for the employer, then they should not get the job and the employer has not committed an unfair labor practice if they refuse to hire the person. As drafted, this legislation is a very narrow bill simply removing from the protection of Section 8(a) of the NLRA a person who seeks a job without at least 50 percent motivation to work for the employer. At the same time, the legislation recognizes the legitimate role for organized labor, and it would not interfere with legitimate union activities. The Act contains a proviso, which, by the way, passed the House 398 to 0 last March during consideration of H.R. 3246, the Fairness for Small Business and Employees Act, making clear that the bill does not affect the rights and responsibilities available under the NLRA to anyone, provided they are a bona fide employee applicant. Employees and bona fide applicants will continue to enjoy their right to organize or engage in other concerted activities under the NLRA, and, employers will still be prohibited from discriminating against employees on the basis of union membership or union activism. It was alleged last Congress by some throughout the course of the many hearings on ``salting'' and during floor debate last March that this legislation overturns the Supreme Court's decision in NLRB v. Town & Country Electric, Inc. However, in fact, the Act reinforces the narrow holding of Town & Country. The Court held only that paid union organizers can fall within the literal statutory definition of ``employee'' contained in Section 2(3) of the NLRA. The Court did not address any other legal issues, but the effect of the decision is to uphold policies of the NLRB which subject employers to unwarranted union harassment and frivolous complaints. The Act does not change the definition of ``employee'' or ``employee applicant'' under the NLRA, it simply would change the Board's enforcement of Section 8 ``salting'' cases by declaring that employers may refuse to hire individuals who are not at least half motivated to work for the employer. So long as even a paid union organizer is at least 50 percent motivated to work for the employer, he or she cannot be refused a job pursuant to the Act. This bill establishes a test which does not seek to overrule Town & Country and does not infringe upon the legitimate rights of bona fide employees and employee applicants to organize on behalf of unions in the workplace. Indeed, the Supreme Court's holding that an individual can be the servant of two masters at the same time is similarly left untouched. In fact, it is the acknowledgment that an applicant may in fact be split in motivation between an employer and a union that gives rise to the need for examining an applicant's motivation--a ``primary purpose'' test that the NLRB general counsel and courts will apply. In closing, Mr. Speaker, forcing employers to hire union business agents or employees, who are primarily intent on disrupting or even destroying employers' businesses, does not serve the interests of bona fide employees under the NLRA and hurts the competitiveness of small businesses. This bill does not prohibit organizers from getting jobs, and it is completely consistent with the policies of the NLRA. All the legislation does is give the employer some comfort that it is hiring someone who really wants to work for the employer. The Truth in Employment Act of 1999 returns a sense of balance to the NLRA that is being undermined by the Board's current policies. I urge my colleagues to support its passage.