John Boehner

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the House Republican conference organized a public forum to hear from small business owners on the importance of passing the Taxpayer Relief Act. The forum focused on three of the pro- small business provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act--the home office deduction, capital gains rate reductions, and relief from death taxes. The compelling testimony from these small business owners from across America are included to demonstrate to my colleagues the debate on the taxpayer Relief Act is not about class warfare, rather it is about helping all Americans and small businesses prosper and succeed to achieve their dreams. Susan Thomas. My name is Susan Thomas, President of Best of Service and Sales International, Inc.--a home-based business in Annandale, Virginia. I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the National Association for the Self-Employed (NASE), the national association representing more than 325,000 small business persons and self-employed individuals. The NASE would like to thank the House Republican Conference for organizing this hearing to highlight some very important issues for millions of small business people--particularly the home office deduction. We would like to commend Rep. Jim Talent for sponsoring H.R. 1145--The Home-Based Business Fairness Act, those representatives who joined as co- sponsors, Rep. Mike Pappas for introducing his home office deduction bill, and the members of the Ways & Means Committee who included the home office deduction in their recent tax bill. My company--Best of Service and Sales International, Inc.-- employs 3 individuals to market computer equipment, peripherals, software, and computer supplies to the federal government. In addition, I have started a new venture called Best Travel Services which markets vacations, and educational and group study tours. I initially started a home-based business several years ago because I was frustrated with working for the large company/ corporate culture. I originally setup my business in my home upon leaving Wang Corporation because I had very little working capital at the time. Ironically, it was my intention when I started my business to ultimately move the business out of my home and into commercial office space at a later date. Today, I would not trade my home-based business for any commercial office location anywhere. I love my home office because of the conveniences it affords me. Unfortunately, for businesses like mine, the home office deduction has been under attack. While I operate a home-based business, I don't take the home office tax deduction on my tax return. Why? Not because the IRS requires businesses that take the deduction to see their clients in their home office or that they should generate their revenue there. I actually meet these unfair and discriminatory tests--tests that no other businesses are required to fulfill. No, the reason I don't take the deduction is the warning that I and millions of others like me got from our accountants. Taking the deduction, my accountant told me, is like waving a red flag at the IRS. . . . a flag saying, ``AUDIT ME!'' This is ridiculous. Congress passes a law to help home- based businesses. The IRS then tries to impose the narrowest interpretation as possible on the law. They lost two court cases, but took the case all the way to the Supreme Court in the Soliman case. After finally convincing the Supreme Court to narrow the deduction, the IRS then audits those who still qualify for it so aggressively that millions of people legitimately entitled to the deduction are afraid to take it. Look at the numbers. IRS statistics of income show that 1.5 million people claimed the home office deduction in 1994. Yet the number of full-time home-based businesses is variously estimated at between 7 and 14 million. why don't 80 to 90% of home-based businesses take the deduction. Don't they qualify? I believe a great many of them are just like me. They do qualify, but are forced to choose between the time and stress of an audit or the modest tax savings of the deduction. I choose to forego the deduction. The current home office deduction limitations are unfair and unwise for other reasons too. All over the country, larger businesses are laying off employees. If we want to help these people get on their feet, we should make it a little easier for them to start a business. The same goes for people who are forced off the welfare rolls under the 1996 welfare reform law. They should be given the opportunity to start up businesses, as self-employed people, with a minimum of up-front costs. Not to mention the need and desire of individuals to be closer to their families in today's day and age. Home-based businesses are an obvious way to help facilitate all of this. Give us the certainty of an expanded, modernized home office deduction and we will use it. Don't allow the IRS to administratively defeat Congress' original purpose with the deduction. Improve the fairness and clarity of the home office deduction. Not only will more home-based businesses have a better chance to succeed, but more potential home- based businesses will decide to try. And that's better for America. I would like to thank the House Republican Conference for the opportunity to appear today, and I would also urge the House Conferees to ensure the inclusion of the pro-business, pro-family home office deduction in the budget. Thank you very much.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the House is voting today on a plan to make the government smaller, less costly, and more responsible and accountable to the people that it serves. Members from both sides of the aisle have crafted it, and appropriately so. There is no single issue that should unite us more than eliminating the Federal budget deficit, because when the Government fails to balance its budget, it is not just being irresponsible, it is restricting the freedom of ordinary Americans to realize the American dream. More than perhaps any other quality, Americans cherish the notion of freedom. But Americans recognize that with freedom comes responsibility, a responsibility to live within our means, to realize that our actions today will impact the lives of our children tomorrow. They live within those rules and they expect no less from their Government. The plan we are voting on today is evidence that Washington is at last beginning to take its responsibility seriously. It reduces the growth of Government spending by nearly $1 trillion over the next 10 years, reversing the legacy of bankruptcy that we are handing off to our children. It saves Medicare from bankruptcy, ensuring that seniors of today, and tomorrow, will continue to have this vital program well into the next century. It allows tax relief for families, and individuals, at every stage of their life so they will have the freedom to save and plan for their future. Mr. Speaker, the American people are the real winners in this plan. By taking this next step toward balancing the budget for the first time in a generation, we take another giant leap toward restoring their freedom to chase the American dream. It is our responsibility to follow through on our promises that we have made to them.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to support continued normal trade relations with China. We have heard before the term most-favored-nation status, which I do not think really says the true story. Most nations of the world, almost all the nations of the world, have most-favored-nation trading status. The fact is, what we are looking for is the same status for China. Mr. Speaker, I understand my friends on both sides of the aisle are concerned about the issue of human rights, religious persecution and other abuses that go on in China. I and those who support MFN and normal trade relations with China are as concerned as they are. The issue is, how do we best address those? By delinking ourselves from China, by walking away from East Asia, or by staying engaged with them economically? I think the best two examples that I have seen are what has happened in Taiwan and what has happened in South Korea. Twenty years ago both of those countries had brutal dictatorships, lack of religious freedom, lack of any kind of democratic freedom. Today both nations have popularly elected Presidents of their countries, real democracy. Where did the democracy in those two countries come from? It came through expanded trade, expanded economic freedom that was engaged because the United States was engaged economically with those parts of the world. Second, I would point out to my colleagues that when we talk about normal trade relations, if we want to delink this and we want to say no, who are we really hurting? Those in East Asia, those in China? Or are we really hurting the people in our own country, the people in my district? Let us talk about agriculture, our country's No. 1 export, some $50 billion a year of exports going all over the world, and China being one of the main customers of our agricultural products. How about Procter & Gamble in Cincinnati? It has a huge presence in my district. Or Parker Hannifan in Eaton. French Oil Co. These are jobs in my district. Let us not hurt our people in order to raise our case about human rights in China.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, I was not present to record votes on rollcalls No. 222, 223, and 224. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall 222, the Hefley amendment, ``aye'' on rollcall 223, the Weldon amendment, and ``aye'' on rollcall 224, the Traficant amendment. personal explanation

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Well, I like to thank my colleague for yielding and certainly want to congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Parker] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] and others who have been to the floor this afternoon talking about the issue of taxes. As the gentleman from Georgia just pointed out, the American people are paying more in taxes to all levels of government than at any time in the history of our country, and when we look at the middle class and the fact that wages are not growing as fast as we like, all we have to do is to begin to look at why this crunch is occurring to American families, and it is as a result of taxes, higher taxes at the Federal level, State level, local level that are continuing to take more of their hard earned paychecks. I am proud of the fact that for the first time in 16 years this Congress is going to pass a plan that will cut taxes for middle-income Americans. We are hearing an awful lot of demagoguery and noise coming from the White House and others that this plan only helps the rich, and it is just not true. Nine-three percent of the taxes that will be reduced in this plan are for people who make under $100,000 a year. Nine-three percent of the tax package goes to those people. As a matter of fact, 72 percent of the tax package goes to families that make between $20,000 a year and $70,000 a year. So if you look at this package in terms of the focus and where the savings are going, they are going to American families who pay the bulk of our taxes. Yes, the wealthy pay their share of taxes in America. But when you look at the numbers of people in America, most people find themselves in the middle class, and they are the ones that pay the big bulk of the taxes to this Government. And I just want to come down to say I congratulate Mr. Parker and Mr. Kingston and those that have been here before for standing here on the floor today and outlining to the American people just how important this tax package is.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the average family in America in 1950 paid about four percent of their income in taxes to all levels of government. Today that tax load on the typical American family of 4 is about 24 percent; 24 percent of their gross income goes to government at some level. That is why Republicans in our Contract With America some 2\1/2\ years ago decided it was very important to provide tax relief to the American people. We tried over the last 2 years, unsuccessfully to provide this type of permanent tax relief to American families. Today the Committee on Ways and Means of this Congress will bring a bill to reduce taxes on American families. This will be the first tax decrease from Washington in 16 years. Seventy-five percent of the benefits of this tax package will go to middle income families making between $20,000 and $75,000 a year. This is Republicans continuing to keep our commitment to the American people. This was the cornerstone of the Contract With America, and I am proud of the work that we are doing in continuing to meet the commitments that we made to the American people.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, there is something strange that has been happening here in the Capitol over the last 2\1/2\ years, something that we have not seen for quite a while. It is a group of politicians who are actually keeping their word. In the fall of 1994, we laid out for the American people our set of promises in the Contract With America that we would balance the Federal budget, that we would reduce taxes, we would solve the problems in Medicare, that we would deal with illegal immigration and reform it, that we would reform welfare. Guess what? All of those things are happening. In 1995 and 1996 we had the most successful Congress in 20 years. Now, with our agreement to balance the Federal budget, to reduce taxes for American families, and to preserve and protect Medicare, we are continuing to keep the promises that we made to the American people. It is something that I am proud of in terms of my colleagues and their commitment to do what they said they would do. We are going to keep our promises.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, let me commend my colleague from Ohio, [Mr. Portman], and our other colleague, the gentleman from Michigan, [Mr. Levin], for bringing this bill to the floor today and, more importantly, for all of their hard work, and their staffs in the work that they are doing to fight teenage drug abuse in both Cincinnati and in Troy, MI. There is no doubt that drugs are a big problem in our country. A 1996 study by the National Parent's Resource Institute for Drug Education showed that 1 in 4 high school seniors use illicit drugs at least once a month, 1 in 5 use once a week, and 1 in 10 use drugs once every day. I think this is a serious study. Another study done by the National Household Survey found that illicit drug use among 12- to 17-year-olds has increased by 78 percent in the last 3 years, and LSD and hallucinogen use has increased by an amazing 166 percent. Yesterday the President talked about the new glamour drug, that being heroin, and the fact that it is glamourized by Hollywood and ought to come to an end. As with so many other problems in this country, the real gains against drug abuse are driven at the local level. All over the United States, including right in my back yard in Cincinnati, local programs to fight drug abuse are showing real signs of being successful. But as my colleagues know, and as these statistics show, more needs to be done. In Cincinnati, just down the road from where I live, the gentleman from Ohio, Rob Portman, has developed a fantastic program with all types of organizations. In a coordinated effort, the community is providing parents with drug education training, radio and TV stations are running antidrug messages, and employers are being encouraged to adopt certified drug-free workplace programs. With the whole community working together, we have seen tangible results. And that is why I am here today, to strongly support their work and their bill we have before us, H.R. 956, the Drug-Free Communities Act. This bill encourages local communities to develop their own innovative approaches to fighting drug abuse and then rewards those who are successful. The bill takes already existing Federal funds that would be spent here in Washington and redirects them to local communities that have a comprehensive self-sustaining antidrug coalition. They have done a good job and they deserve our support.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor today. I particularly want to give thanks to our colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for his hard work on this subject for many years. Mr. Speaker, this is important legislation that is long overdue. It is important for our citizens who volunteer; it is important for those groups that do so much for our communities, and to those who need the services that volunteers provide. As General Powell stated so compellingly in Philadelphia a few weeks ago, our volunteers share our Nation's most important asset: the guiding hands and caring hearts of the American people. Millions of people volunteer on a daily basis for one big reason: because they care. Their caring not only builds homes for Habitat for Humanity, not only helps children and adults reach the goal of literacy, not only does that caring result in coaches for Little League and scout leaders for Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts, this is the type of action that we want to promote on behalf of communities in America. Government can provide some level of service, but if we are going to be successful in solving our Nation's problems, we need to reach out and we need to allow these organizations to do the best that they can do, and this bill will help that.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, Richard J. Fitton retired as chairman of the board of First Financial Bancorp on April 22, 1997. Today, I rise to honor Dick Fitton, a man for whom I have a tremendous amount of admiration and respect. Dick began his banking career in 1952 as a management trainee for First National Bank and Trust Co. in Hamilton, OH. In 1965, he was elected to the bank's board of directors, and became president and chief executive officer the following year. He led management in the formation of First Financial Bancorp in April 1983 and served as the holding company's president and chief executive officer. In 1991, he retired as president of First Financial Bancorp and was elected chairman of the board. His retirement from day-to-day banking activities came in 1992 when he relinquished his duties as chief executive officer of First Financial Bancorp. During his distinguished banking career, Dick served on the board of directors of the American Bankers Association, the Ohio Bankers Association, and the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland--Cincinnati Branch. As a lifelong resident of Hamilton, OH, Dick is one of this city's most respected and admired citizens. His continual commitment to the community and its people is an inspiration to all who know him. Dick carries with him a belief that his work is not finished until his community is better off. He has been a primary supporter of Ft. Hamilton-Hughes Memorial Hospital, Junior Achievement, the United Way, and the Hamilton Community Foundation. He has worked on many community projects that have benefited the city of Hamilton greatly, including the formation of Miami University's Hamilton campus, the Hamiltonian Hotel, and the low-level dam on the Great Miami River. His work on these projects, and others, have made his name synonymous with Hamilton, OH. Mr. Speaker, Hamilton, OH, would not be the city it is today had it not been for the life-long commitment that Dick Fitton has put forth to this community's development. He is a friend and a citizen we can all be proud of.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here and share my views about this important rule. Let me congratulate the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the members of the Committee on Rules for putting together a rule that will provide for a fair and open debate from many different viewpoints on this issue of the budget. Today really is another historic day in this Congress, another milestone in the 33 months that Republicans have controlled this House. Last year, we passed historic reforms like welfare reform, trying to bring dignity back to American families and encourage those on welfare to help them become more productive members of our society. We passed illegal immigration reform, health care reform. We eliminated some 300 Federal Government programs and reduced spending by $53 billion over those 2 years. Today is another step in the direction of a smaller, less costly, less intrusive government here in Washington, when we pass a resolution to balance the Federal budget over the next 5 years. Balancing the Federal budget will bring fiscal responsibility to Washington and begin the process of saving the future for our children. As part of this agreement Members will see us provide permanent tax relief for American families. Our $500-per-child tax credit, capital gains tax cuts for all Americans, and in my district for farmers and small business people, this will be a huge benefit to them. Members also see us work in this agreement to save Medicare. Medicare, as we all know, is going broke. It is an important program for our senior citizens. We need to protect and preserve Medicare. That will be part of this agreement. It will not solve the problem long term, but it will provide 10 years of solvency to the Medicare trust fund. Is there a lot more to do? You bet. But I have to tell the Members, as one who has been here for just 6 years, this is another giant step for this Congress. The real winners in this agreement are not Republicans and not Democrats, but the American people and our children and their children who will benefit because they will have the shot at the American dream that today is in jeopardy for them.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, as the gentleman was saying, there are critics of this plan on both the left and right. Liberals believe that this cuts too much spending, ruins their vision of what the role of the Federal Government should be. Some on the right are criticizing this plan, and I am yet confused as to why. You can argue that this plan does not go far enough. You could argue that it could have been better. But I do not think that anybody can argue that this plan moves us in the direction that we have been going over the last two and a half years, that this plan does in fact balance the budget over 5 years honestly, no gimmicks, no smoke and mirrors, that it does provide permanent tax relief, and over the next 5 years will reduce the growth of spending in entitlement programs by some $200 billion, some $600 billion of entitlement reductions over the next 10 years. Without this plan, the Federal Government over the next 10 years would spend $1.1 trillion more than what will be spent once this plan is enacted into law. So I do not think there is any question that this is a good plan. Yes, I would have like to have balanced the budget sooner. I would like to have lower taxes. But the fact is that we have learned over the last 2 years that there are two ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Republicans control one here on Capitol Hill, but Bill Clinton is in the White House. If we are going to do anything on behalf of the American people, we have got to get both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to work together and talk to one another.

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there has been a lot of discussion about who wins and who loses in this. I really do not think there are any losers in this, but the real winners in this agreement are not Republicans or Democrats, it is the American people who are the big winners. We all know that we have accumulated some $5\1/2\ trillion worth of national debt. I went to the fifth grade class of Liberty Elementary School in my district on Monday and explained to each of these fifth- graders and asked them, how much do you think your share of the national debt is? How much do you think you owe Washington? Some thought it was a dollar. Some thought it was $10. One even thought it was $300. I had to explain to them that their share of the national debt was $22,000 that every man, woman and child today owes to those who have lent this money to the Federal Government. If we do not do something about stopping any additional debt from growing, we are imprisoning our children and theirs. We know that a child born today will pay almost $200,000 in taxes over the course of their lifetime just to pay the interest on the national debt. That is no money for education or the environment or roads or anything else that the Federal Government does. So the American people win with this agreement. Do we have to do more? I think we all understand we do. We have got to balance the Federal budget so we are not adding any more debt there. In the year 2002, or hopefully sooner, we ought to begin to pay off the national debt. If we want to give our children and theirs the shot at the American dream that all of us grew up having, we need to make sure that they do not have this debt on their back, or their chances of succeeding, their chances of having the American dream available to them just is not going to be there.

Mr. BOEHNER. Tax increases.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, tonight over the next hour, I and my colleagues in the Republican leadership here in the U.S. House will be discussing our agreement with the White House to balance the Federal budget over the next 5 years, the permanent tax cuts that will be part of this plan, our efforts to protect and preserve Medicare, and other important parts of this agreement. We expect that the Speaker will be here to talk about what is in the agreement and what is not. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] we expect will come and discuss why tax cuts in this agreement are so important. How this agreement saves Medicare I will deal with in a few minutes myself, and why the critics are wrong will be covered by the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. How this agreement maintains a strong defense will be covered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], the chairman of our policy committee; and how this agreement reflects Republican principles will be handled by the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn], who is the Secretary to the Republican Conference. Why balancing the budget is important for our future and our children's future will be discussed by the gentlewoman from New York, the vice chair of the Republican Conference [Ms. Molinari]; and how this agreement makes Government smaller and smarter will be covered by the chairman of our leadership, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon]. When it comes to the issue of Medicare, more than 2 years ago we sent out our warning to the American people that Medicare is going broke. It was not our warning, it was the warning from the bipartisan Medicare board of trustees. We took action 2 years ago to preserve, protect, and strengthen Medicare. The liberal special interests, more concerned with winning elections and solving a crisis, made sure that our reforms never became law. Since President Clinton vetoed our bill the trust fund has lost tens of billions of dollars, and now we know that unless we act, the fund which provides hospital coverage for nearly 40 million seniors will be broke by the year 2001, one year earlier than we thought just a year ago. This agreement preserves the trust fund for 10 years, until the year 2007. I think this should be an enormous relief for all seniors and soon-to-be-seniors that are concerned about the health of this program. This plan will not solve the problems with the baby boomers when they begin to retire in about 15 years, but we can lay the groundwork for our reforms through our actions this year, and in this agreement that we reached with the White House. What will these reforms be? The committees have a lot of work to do to fill in the details of the agreement, but we do know what the outline will be and we know what our goals, most importantly, will be as we go through this. We know that prevention saves lives and saves dollars, so our reforms will cover mammography, diabetes self- management, immunizations, and colorectal cancer screening. Medicare will now catch up to the private sector and provide coverage for these important items. We know that the vast majority of seniors have to pay hundreds of dollars a year for MediGap coverage. That is why we will fight to give seniors the same choice of coverage that people in the private sector have today. Why should seniors not have the same choices in health care delivery that their children and grandchildren have available to them? That is really what we did in 1995, and we will work toward it again, to give seniors and their doctors the freedom to choose the types of coverage that they believe are best for them. There is good reason to modernize Medicare, because it is the only way to ensure that the program will be there when baby boomers begin to retire. Perhaps most important for seniors is the assurance that we will provide in our agreement that spending will keep pace with their needs. Spending grows every year over the next 5 years in this agreement. There are no cuts. There were no cuts 2 years ago, in spite of what many people said, and there are no cuts this time. Over the 5 years Medicare spending will increase 34 percent, which is about 6 percent a year, which we believe is about twice the rate of inflation that we are seeing today. Despite all the politics and the scare tactics, the demagoguery, the difference in spending between our package today and our reforms 2 years ago is $5 billion over 5 years. The chart that I have to my left and to Members' right indicates Medicare spending over the 5 years in this agreement. Under the balanced budget act from 2 years ago, we were proposing spending over these 5 years $1 trillion, 252 billion. Of course, we all heard the ads. We all heard how Republicans were attempting to cut Medicare, and all of the scare tactics that were used. In the agreement that we reached with the White House several weeks ago, we are proposing and have an agreement to spend $1 trillion, 247 billion over the next 5 years; actually, $5 billion less than what we proposed to spend 2 years ago. Our agreement means that Medicare spending per senior citizen will increase from nearly $5,500 this year, in 1997, to more than $6,900 in the year 2002. We can increase spending and save Medicare because our structural reforms will make Medicare more efficient for seniors and their children and grandchildren who subsidize this very important program. We know what works in the private sector. Only by beginning to implement these reforms will Medicare be preserved, protected, and strengthened for today's and tomorrow's seniors. I am proud that we put the partisan politics aside to accomplish this effort in Medicare, and frankly, the entire effort that we have come to an agreement with the White House on, again, to balance the Federal budget over the next 5 years, to strengthen and preserve Medicare, and to provide tax relief, permanent tax relief, for the American people. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], the majority whip, is going to talk to us about how this agreement is good, and why the critics are wrong. Mr. Speaker, I turn over my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from New York who just spoke talked about cuts in the WIC Program, and I think it is time that we set the record straight. Funding for the WIC Program in the current fiscal year is at $3.7 billion, the highest level ever spent for this very important program. Beyond that, we have added $38 million in additional funding to try to ensure that all of those people, women, infants, and children, get the food that they need throughout the rest of this fiscal year. People in the administration who run these programs say $38 million is enough to cover this current fiscal year. I would also add that there is about $100 million left over from prior year funding for the WIC Program, and any suggestion that Congress is cutting the WIC Program simply is not true. We are increasing the amount of money in the supplemental appropriation bill that will be on this floor next week by $38 million for the WIC Program.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, this week is Teacher Appreciation Week and many of my colleagues today have been to the floor of the House to recognize teachers who have had an impact on their lives. In my case, I had such a teacher. His name was Jerry Faust who taught at Moeller High School. Beyond being a teacher there, he also was the head football coach. Myself and my eight brothers went to Moeller High School in Cincinnati. Many of us had Coach Faust not only as a coach but also as a teacher. He is someone who had tremendous impact not only on my life but on many of my colleagues in that school, teaching us to be leaders, teaching us to fight for what we believe in. I think it was Coach Faust who taught all of us in my family that there is nothing in this world that you cannot accomplish, nothing that you cannot succeed at if you are willing to work hard enough and if you are willing to make the sacrifices that are necessary. I think it is because of people like Jerry Faust, people like a lot of great teachers around America that a lot of us are here. It is really the basis of what has made America great. Congratulations to all teachers in America.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleagues who serve on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for their work in moving this bill, and in particular the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] for the work that they have done in putting this package together, particularly the manager's amendment, to help deal with those who are in need in our society. As we all know, President Clinton is in Philadelphia in an effort to promote volunteerism throughout the Nation, and I commend him for doing so. I think it is particularly appropriate today that we are considering H.R. 680. This legislation removes obstacles to volunteerism and literally puts tools in the hands of real people who want to make a difference in their own neighborhoods. While current law allows Federal agencies to use surplus property to help low-income families, it prohibits private volunteer groups such as Habitat for Humanity from doing so. I learned about this firsthand in my own community when the Voice of America found surplus property in my district. The local community, putting together a plan to use that property, wanted to include a section for a local Habitat for Humanity group and were told clearly by GSA that they could not do so and were prevented from doing so by Federal law. If our goal is to make it easier for individuals to do for themselves what Government cannot, then this simply does not make sense. Habitat for Humanity and other volunteer groups like it have proved that they often do a better job than Government in helping low income families, but in this case Washington has not let them. H.R. 680 will finally solve this problem by simply adding private volunteer groups like Habitat to the list of community organizations that qualify for land that the Federal Government no longer needs. By giving these groups access to the land and tools that they need, they will be able to make a difference in their communities. I think we take a positive first step toward helping ordinary Americans answer the President's bipartisan call to community service. I hope that the President and others will join us in this important effort.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery why we pay taxes in the spring and we vote in the fall, and it is because Washington wants to give the American people as long as possible to forget how high their taxes are before they vote. It is because Washington does not want to have to explain to people why it takes so much of their income and gives so little. It is because Washington does not want to be held accountable for its big wasteful bureaucracies, its bloated programs and never ending growth, and it is because Washington does not want people to notice that their taxes keep going up to pay for this bureaucracy and to keep paying for this waste. Mr. Speaker, we are going to do something about that today. We are going to vote on a constitutional amendment to make it harder for Washington to raise taxes on the American people. Just within the last 7 years, a Democrat-controlled Congress hit working Americans with two of the biggest tax increases in our country's history. Today we say, no more. The typical family today currently pays in taxes about as much as it cost them for clothing, food, and housing all put together. And the typical worker today gives everything they earn from New Year's to May 9 just to pay taxes. That is too much, and it has to stop. Today we ought to vote for this constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote in this House.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, last December while I was on vacation with my family, I used my wife's cell phone to talk to some of my colleagues. A few weeks later I found that the conversation was all over the newspapers, and I had found out that a couple of Democrat activists had broken the law and eavesdropped on my conversation, the equivalent of wiretapping. I saw them all over the television talking about how they had come to Washington and given this tape to Democrats in this House; yes, in this very House; and how just a day or two later transcripts of my private conversation wound up in the newspapers. Mr. Speaker, I was mad, and so were some of my colleagues, and we demanded that the Justice Department get to the bottom of this matter. Well, Mrs. Reno can move pretty quickly when she wants to. She got a grand jury together within days after a Republican committee chairman was accused by a Democrat activist of improper activities, but when it came to IRS agents snooping in our taxpayers' files or Democrats snooping in on private phone conversations or the Democrat National Committee accepting Chinese campaign checks, or the Vice President making telephone calls from the White House, she can drag her heels along with the best of them. Mr. Speaker, Tapegate is so open and shut of a case that even Barney Fife could have solved it in a day. I have written her that I want an answer by tomorrow, and so far I have not heard a peep. If we do not hear by tomorrow, we are going to have to hold the Democrats in this House accountable for what they did.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, a week ago I did not think the allegations about the Clinton administration's ethics could sink any lower. I thought the stories about top administration officials arranging hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of no-show jobs for Webster Hubbell in an effort to buy his silence about Whitewater was the worst we could ever hear about an administration, much less this one. However, with this bunch, if we want to be stung by new news of sleazy ethics, all we have to do is wait another day. Sure enough, now Bob Woodward of Watergate fame is writing in today's Washington Post about the Clinton administration's use of top secret information from the CIA for political purposes. According to this morning's Washington Post, Bob Woodward said that the White House supplied top secret information to the Democratic National Committee to block a Latvian businessman with alleged ties to organized crime from attending a $25,000-per-person fundraising dinner with President Clinton, according to Government officials and other sources. Now, let me say this about top secret information. There is a reason that it is top secret. Maybe it is the risk of blowing the cover of agents who risk their lives getting valuable information for our Government. Maybe it is to keep the bad guys, like international drug dealers and terrorists, from finding out about how we learn about them. But good people die to protect secret information, and if the Clinton administration truly disregarded all this just to avoid a bad headline in the next morning's paper, it is even worse than anything that we have heard yet. But I think the bigger question is, when will it end? Every day, every week there is something new. When will this administration level with the American people? When will the President of the United States stand before the American people and tell them the truth about what has happened in his administration over the last 4-plus years? When will the President stand before the American people and tell them the truth about the travel office firings of seven civil service employees at the White House? When will the President stand before the American people and tell them the truth about Whitewater? When will he tell them the truth about how 900 FBI files found their way into the White House, and more importantly, what was done with that information? Why will the President not stand up and tell us about Webster Hubbell and the $400,000-plus that was paid to him after he resigned his administration position with disgrace, and before he went to jail and were hired by friends of the President? Why will the President not tell us about the orchestrated effort to subvert American laws about campaign finance and bring foreign money into our campaign system? How about White House coffees that were used for fundraising purposes, phone calls by the President and others from the White House to raise money to systematically try to buy the last election? The American people have a right to know what happens in their Government. They have a right to know what happens in their White House. I think the American people want to have confidence that the person they selected as President of the United States is willing to stand before them and tell them the truth about what has happened in his administration. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I think the American people are getting impatient. They want to know the truth and they want to know it now.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, we have a very important bill on the floor today, the Working Families Flexibility Act of 1997. As the gentlewoman from Ohio, my colleague, pointed out in her opening remarks, the work force today is very different than it was in the 1930's when the law that we are amending was put in place: Mostly males in the workplace, very few mothers in the workplace. Today we find ourselves where working families have an awful lot of demands that are placed on them. With those demands, workers throughout our country are asking for more flexibility. They are working with their employers, demanding more flexibility to meet their demanding schedule at home, at school, as their children are involved in sports and other activities. When this law was written in the 1930's, the Congress saw fit to make sure that anyone who worked for a local government had this option of compensatory time off in lieu of overtime, and that is why employees who worked for local city governments, county governments, State governments and the Federal Government have had this option now for almost 60 years, and they enjoy it. They like it because it works. All we are trying to do here today is to give hourly workers who work in the private sector the same option that public sector employees have had for almost 60 years. Here is how it would work: First, the employer would have to provide this benefit. They would have to agree that they would allow their employees to do it. If the employer says no, there is no option. If the employer says yes, which I think most employers around the country, wanting to work with their employees, will say yes, it is an agreement between the employer and the employee on whether the employee wants comp time or overtime. The option is at the discretion of the employee, not the employer. Why should we not empower American workers to have more flexibility over their schedule? Why should we not empower American workers to make these decisions with their employer? This is an example of the Federal Government getting in the way of helping to empower American workers and giving the freedom and the flexibility to employers and to their employees to work this out in an ever-changing American workplace. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. It will help employers and their employees all across this country. We ought to give them the freedom and the flexibility to work out their schedule, which will benefit American workers in the truest sense.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I too spent the weekend with my family at Hershey, PA. I want to congratulate the Members on both sides of the aisle that put the event together, and really congratulate the some 200 Members of our Congress who came to Hershey with an open mind about how we can proceed in this very difficult environment where we do have disagreements, but how we can proceed in a way that continues to allow the American people to have respect for their institution. We are going to have our disagreements, but it does not mean that we need to be disagreeable to each other. Probably the most long-lasting part of the weekend was the opportunity for each of us to better get to know each other. I have been here 6 years, and over the last 6 years we virtually have a brandnew Congress. Some 70 percent of this Congress has been elected since 1990, and over the last several cycles we have had large classes with little opportunity to begin to understand each other. As we understand each other better, understand where we are coming from and why we hold the beliefs that we do, I think it allows us to have better respect and more respect for the diversity of opinion that we certainly find here in Congress. It was a great weekend, it was a good start, and there is a lot more that needs to be done, and we need to work each and every day on helping ourselves and our colleagues deal with our disagreements in a more professional way.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on Mondays and Tuesdays of each week through the second session of the 105th Congress, the House shall convene 90 minutes earlier than the time otherwise established by order of the House solely for the purpose of conducting morning hour debate and that the time for such debate shall be limited to 30 minutes allocated to each party; except that on Tuesdays of each week after the first Tuesday in May of a session the House shall convene for morning hour debate 1 hour earlier than the time otherwise established by order of the House, that the time for such debate shall be limited to 25 minutes allocated to each party, and that in no event shall morning hour debate continue beyond 10 minutes before the hour appointed for the resumption of the House session; and that all morning hour debate shall be conducted under the following conditions: First, the prayer by the Chaplain, the approval of the Journal, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag shall be postponed until resumption of the House session following morning hour debate; second, initial and subsequent recognition for debate shall alternate between parties; third, recognition shall be conferred by the Speaker only pursuant to lists submitted by the majority leader or the minority leader; fourth, no Member may address the House for more than 5 minutes except for the majority leader, the minority leader, or the minority whip; and, fifth, pursuant to clause 12 of rule I the Speaker shall declare a recess following morning hour debate until the hour appointed for the resumption of the House session.

Mr. BOEHNER

Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 32) and ask for its immediate consideration.