Mac Collins

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana, is it not true that what we are trying to do is to make sure that those taxes are deducted from payroll collection and are deposited into the Treasury and that they then, further, are invested into the trust fund and the trust fund can actually invest them into Government securities? But we want to make sure, once deposited into the Treasury, they do not stay in the Treasury, that they are then further transferred into the Social Security trust fund? The President's statement is actually factual. He will not deal with the trust fund, but he wants to deal with the Treasury while the money is in the Treasury prior to going to the trust fund.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Spaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I regret that the President has vetoed a measure that we felt like would extend the borrowing power of the Treasury for a short period of time in order for us to get through this budget reconciliation process. The reason I regret that he has vetoed it is because of the protection in the proposal [[Page H 12153]] that we sent to him pertaining to the trust funds. I do not know how many hall meetings that I have held over the last 2\1/2\ to 3 years in Georgia in the 3d District and how many people in groups that I have spoken to during that same period of time that when I open it up for questions I always have people say and ask me, Mac, is there really a Social Security trust fund or is it just a drawer filled with IOU's? I regret to tell them that really it is both. There is a Social Security trust fund. It is kind of a bookkeeping procedure where we track the amount of money that comes in through the Treasury for Social Security. But the fact of the matter is that all of those funds have been loaned to the Treasury. In fact today it is close to 2,500 billion dollars' worth of moneys that is owed by the Treasury to that trust fund. As I spoke just last week and did some research on the other funds, out of the $4.9 trillion of debt that we have created for the taxpayers, $1.250 trillion of it is actually owed to trust funds, almost $500 billion to Social Security, over $300 billion to the Civil Service, $112 billion to VA, 129 billion to the Medicare part A. It just goes on and on. It is time that we stopped that. It is time that we put those funds aside as we have told people we are going to do. They have invested into those trust funds. They are waiting to use them in the latter days of their lives, looking forward to retirement. It is just not right to continue borrowing against those funds as we are doing it. I have no problem with the Treasury actually borrowing funds, but I want it to be arm's length as it would be any other investor who would take their funds and make an arm's length purchase of T bills. But to just say, we are going to ignore protection of those trust funds, we are just going to use them no matter what the Congress wants done, no matter what the people want done, we are just going to use them at our will. I think that is absolutely wrong. I regret that the President has chosen this route and hopefully that we will be able to come to some consideration and agreement on the reconciliation bill soon.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my constituent, Mr. Larry A. Foster of Forest Park, who recently passed away. His passing at the young age of 54 is a loss that is felt, not by just his family and friends, but by the community he lived in, loved, and served over the years. He will be greatly missed. Larry was born in Atlanta but moved to Clayton County at an early age. he was a star athlete at Forest Park High School where he played lineman, participated in two State championship football games and was named all-State lineman of the year. His talent on the playing field, combined with his academic performance in the classroom, won him a scholarship to Auburn University. He later transferred to Virginia Military Institute where he also played football. He served his country with honor and distinction in the U.S. marine Corps. Larry spent 13 months of his 3\1/2\ years in the Corps in Vietnam. After leaving the Marines as a lieutenant, he returned to his beloved Georgia where he taught school and coached football at Hapeville and attended night law school at Emory University. When the night school program ended, Larry faced a difficult choice. The choice he made shows us a great deal about this man's character and determination. He left his secure job of teaching and the coaching he loved, to enter Emory as a full-time law student. After graduation, he started a legal career that grew and flourished through the years. He joined a well-known private law firm in Clayton County, but he also found the time to serve his community and State in so many other ways. From 1973 to 1989, he served as the Clayton County School Board attorney and from 1989 to 1993 he was the attorney for Clayton County. At various times during his career he also served as city attorney for both Riverdale and Morrow. His love of education led him to the Georgia Board of Education where he served for 14 years. During his time on the board, Larry played a major role in shaping the State's ``no-pass, no play'' rule, which requires student athletes to maintain their grades to be eligible to play competitive sports. He was a champion of local school superintendents and principles, pushing for better training programs and better benefits to keep school leaders from leaving the State. Service to the community went beyond his legal expertise, however. He was a member and past president of the Southlake Kiwanis Club, the past president of the Clayton County Bar Association, and past district director in the Boy Scouts where he was active for many years. Larry will be greatly missed. He will be missed by his wife, Mary Jo, to whom he had been married since 1968, and by his two children, Rachel Foster and Larry Allen Foster, Jr. He will be missed by his mother, Frances Foster, and his three brothers, Paul, Donald, and Terry. Their loss is also a great loss to the people of Clayton County and the State of Georgia. He touched the lives of so many people--his fellow classmates and athletes in his youth, the men he served with and led in the U.S. Marine Corps, the students he taught and the football players he coached while a teacher at Hapeville school, his fellow attorneys, teachers, principals, superintendents, youngsters in the Boy Scouts. The list goes on and on. Larry will be missed. His all-too-short life exhibited the grit, the determination, professionalism and service for which we all should strive in our lives. He was more than just a constituent, he was a friend. I am proud to have known Larry Foster, and I will miss him.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution by the chairman to increase the debt limit, but I do so with some reluctance. I hate to see us increase the debt that the taxpayers of this country owe and that I know that our children will someday have to pay. But I also know that if we are going to reach a balanced budget over the 7 years, as we have planned and as we have passed in both bodies, that we will have to extend that debt limit. I understand that there is a lot of confusion and controversy about how we are going to do that, and it will take a couple, 2, 3 more weeks to really rectify those differences. So, therefore, we must increase the funding and the borrowing power of our Government. The thing that I like about this bill or this proposal is it will restrict the use of trust funds. But, Mr. Speaker, you have heard the old saying, ``A day late and a dollar short.'' Well, sir, I think we are years late and several billon dollars short, because out of the $4.9 trillion that we currently owe as the debt, the debt that is owed by the taxpayers that has been created by the Congress, $1.25 trillion of it is actually owed to trust funds, trust funds that people have contributed to that they expect someday to receive in return. Let me give you some of those amounts, Mr. Speaker. The Federal employee's trust fund, some $375 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; the Medicare part A trust fund, $130 billion owed by Treasury to that trust fund; VA retirement, over $112 billion owed to that trust fund by the Treasury; and Social Security, Mr. Speaker, some $483 billion of old age pension, part of my old age pension, owed to the trust fund by the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record a table concerning the trust fund impact on budget results and investment holdings as of September 30, 1995: [[Page H 12013]]

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, the greatest challenge to this Congress is its deficit and the greatest threat to this Nation is its national debt. I believe it was Mr. Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, that said a democracy is indefinite because those who are governed under a democracy will learn of the benefits it can reap from its treasury and it will vote for people who will enhance those benefits. Well, our democracy is in jeopardy. We are spending some $500 million a day now more than we take in to help pay for benefits that have been enhanced by this Congress. The reconciliation bill will change this. It will end the deficit spending by balancing the people's books. It will change welfare from the current welfare system, a system which is out of control, a system which has spent $5 trillion over the last 30 years creating a dependency of benefits on the people's treasury, a welfare system that is anti-family and is anti-work. The budget reconciliation bill will reduce welfare dependency. It will limit cash, cash for having children out of wedlock, cash for misbehavioral children, cash for drug addicts and alcoholics. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it limits cash to able-bodied, irresponsible parents. But it does one other thing; it still provides health care, nutrition and child care for unfortunate children. Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this body, support ending the addiction that we have created to the public's budget, the people's Treasury. Support balancing the people's books. Vote for the Budget Reconciliation Act.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, over the past several months I have held many townhall meetings for the purpose of listening and learning about Medicare from the people of Georgia's Third Congressional District. I have met with groups of senior citizens, physicians, and hospital administrators to better understand their concerns about the current Medicare insurance program. I have learned from senior citizens of their fear of losing their Medicare insurance. They have shared with me their concerns about excessive fees charged by doctors and hospitals. They have brought me copies of complicated doctor and hospital bills they have received. They are frustrated with these billing procedures. Our seniors are concerned over excessive charges and fraudulent use of their Medicare insurance money. I learned of the frustrations of doctors and hospitals that try to provide health care to Medicare patients under intrusive regulations and complicated reimbursement rules that have been forced onto them by past Congresses. They also shared their concerns about excessive testing and the overpracticing of health care due to the fear of lawsuits. Doctors and hospitals are frustrated because they are not allowed to legally discuss the delivery of health care within a community because of antitrust laws. Mr. Chairman, in simple terms, the people of Georgia's Third District know and understand this Congress must address the problems within the Medicare insurance program such as overcharging, waste, and fraud. They also understand that in 1996, the Medicare insurance trust fund will begin paying out more money than the trust fund collects from payroll taxes deducted from each and every paycheck earned by the working people of this country. But, Mr. Chairman, I am not the only Member of Congress who has listened and learned. The message I heard from the people of my district can be repeated by almost every Member of this House of Representatives who heard the same concerns in meetings held throughout their districts and out across our great Nation. As a result of these meetings, the Republican Members of the House of Representatives have written, and now passed, the Medicare Preservation Act [MPA]. The MPA saves Medicare by addressing the very areas of concern voiced by those who depend on Medicare to pay for the cost of their health care. Mr. Chairman, I read a speech not long ago which was given by the CEO of the Chrysler Corp., Mr. Eaton. In his speech he referred to a period of time some 15 years ago when the Japanese were taking over a large portion of the American automobile market. The Japanese were beating the domestic automakers in the area of quality and price, very similar to the way the private health care industry is beating today's Government-run Medicare Program in quality and price. What did the big three U.S. automakers do? They looked at the process of how they were manufacturing cars. They pulled together supervisors, union leaders, consumer groups, dealers, and anyone who they thought might have valuable input in how to change the process of manufacturing. As a direct result of changing the process, the quality of their products has increased two and one-half times and they are building the same number of cars with half the work force. Mr. Chairman, the process of Medicare is what the MPA changes. Let's look first at who will be covered by Medicare under the MPA. Everyone. That's right everyone who receives Medicare today. I will say it again--everyone--each and every individual who is eligible for Medicare today will remain in the Medicare insurance program. Each and every individual who will become eligible for Medicare in the future will be covered under Medicare when they reach the Medicare age. No one--not one senior or disabled person will be mandated to leave the current Medicare insurance program. Mr. Chairman, the American people are now hearing a great deal of rhetoric about how the Republicans are ending Medicare. Some special interest groups, and even some of our own colleagues in Congress, are engaging in scare tactics and giving false, misleading information about our plan. Well that is just what it is: Rhetoric. The truth is-- the Medicare Preservation Act does not and will not end Medicare. In fact Mr. Speaker, the MPA does not cut--I repeat--does not cut Medicare benefits. Well, if MPA does not cut Medicare, how do we plan to save $270 billion over 7 years at an average of $36.5 billion per year? The answer is we are making the changes our senior citizens requested to make. And by making those changes the taxpayers will spend $270 billion less than will be necessary under the current Medicare insurance program. Mr. Chairman, we have a choice--either we correct the major problems within the Medicare process or we raise taxes on every working person in the Nation. In the past, raising taxes has been Congress' answer to fixing Medicare. In fact, the payroll tax and the income base have been raised 23 times over the past 31 years to fund runaway cost in the Medicare system. But raising taxes decreases a family's income, increases the cost of consumer goods and services, and increases the cost of living for everyone, including seniors, who are on Medicare and a fixed income. Rather than raising taxes again, Republicans have chosen [[Page H 10367]] to fix Medicare, according to what our senior citizens have requested. Let's take a quick look at some of the changes our seniors have suggested. First, we are reducing the growth of excessive payments to doctors and hospitals. The Medicare Preservation Act consolidates a clumsy multiple layer reimbursement process which is unfair to general practitioners and very favorable to specialized medicine practitioners. It also simplifies the reimbursement process in a more fair and equitable manner. The Medicare Preservation Act will simplify hospital bills so those insured by Medicare will better understand the billing process while at the same time reducing the growth of reimbursements for hospital care. One of the real problems with many hospitals is the lack of utilization of the entire facility or low occupancy rates. Yet many hospitals continue to build and add on to their hospital. Have you ever wondered why? One reason is a part of the Medicare reimbursement for hospital care is based on the capital investment of the hospital. In other words the more the hospital makes capital investment, the more reimbursement they get from Medicare. Well the Medicare Preservation Act will slow down the unnecessary building by reducing the reimbursement based on capital investment. This should have been done many years ago. Mr. Chairman, back during the late 1970's I served as chairman of the board of commissioners for a rural county in Georgia. The county has a Hill-Burton Hospital and the local government was responsible for keeping the doors open. Our hospital was losing money and had a high account receivable owed to it by Medicare. As one who was responsible for the people's tax dollars, I paid a visit to the Blue Cross-Blue Shield insurance company and asked why they had not fully reimbursed the hospital for the bills submitted. They looked in the file and said, ``we are discounting your bills because you are not charging us enough.'' I could not believe what I had heard. Our hospital was being penalized by Medicare rules because we were not charging enough for our hospital care. It is no wonder Medicare has had money problems for a long time. Mr. Chairman, if we are reducing doctor and hospital reimbursements, we also must help them reduce their cost of operation or we may discourage them from serving the Medicare insured. We are reducing their costs by including in the Medicare Preservation Act a provision commonly known as malpractice reform. Today, doctors and hospitals pay ridiculously high premiums for malpractice insurance and most feel they have to practice defensive medicine to avoid lawsuits. Both the cost of the insurance and the overpracticing of medicine have led to higher costs for health care. Additionally, the Medicare Preservation Act includes an antitrust provision so doctors and hospitals can legally discuss better ways to deliver health care to a community. It is just plain common sense to allow providers this flexibility. Another good idea included in the Medicare Preservation Act is to purchase the necessary equipment to better track how much we pay doctors and hospitals for health care delivered to each Medicare insured beneficiary. You would think this would have already been done--it only makes good business sense to keep up with your accounts payable. But at this point nothing surprises me about how the current Medicare insurance program is operated. Next we heard what folks were saying about waste, fraud, and abuse. Therefore the Medicare Preservation Act includes several provisions to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. Provisions such as: One, requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services to alert individuals entitled to Medicare of scams aimed at ripping off Medicare and providing a tollfree number to report such scams. Two, rewarding beneficiaries who report huge illegal charges and rewarding them for good ideas which save Medicare dollars and improves the program. This will be a good incentive for those who are covered by Medicare to help keep down program costs and report fraud and abuse. Three, a voluntary disclosure program for doctors who may have unintentionally overcharged for Medicare services. There is no such provision in current law. Fourth, heavy fines on doctors who commit fraud against Medicare. Five, a Medicare integrity program whereby the Secretary can contract with private concerns to review activities of doctors, audit the cost reports, determine whether Medicare should or should not have paid for services charged, and gives the Secretary the authority to collect overcharges. Six, establish within the Department of Justice an antifraud task force. Third, the Medicare Preservation Act establishes a trust fund for medical education. Currently teaching hospitals receive additional reimbursement money to help pay for medical education; again increasing the cost of Medicare. Fourth, the Medicare Preservation Act establishes a baby boomer commission. This commission will begin now to look ahead for ideas of how to best ensure that Medicare will be there for those Americans born during or after World War II. In the past Congress has waited until a crisis occurs before taking an action. This commission will change that precedent. It is a very needed provision because when the baby boomers reach Medicare age there will only be 2.5 workers per Medicare insured, compared to today where there are 3.3 workers per Medicare recipient. Fifth, there is a provision requiring a look-back commission to review the Medicare Preservation Act changes and how they are working. This will give Congress an idea of just what affect Medicare reform has on the cost of Medicare and recommendations for any necessary corrections needed to protect benefits. Mr. Chairman, many of our seniors are worried about whether copayments or their hospital deductible will be increased under the Medicare Preservation Act. The answer is no. I will repeat the answer, no--capital NO--no. The question has also been asked, will my part B premium increase? The answer is: The part B premium deducted from Social Security checks will remain at the current 31.5-percent level. This is different from the Democrats substitute which would have dropped the part B premium deduction to 25 percent. Under the Medicare Preservation Act, those individuals insured by Medicare who have an annual income of $75,000; and for those couples that earn $125,000, their part B premium will increase gradually to a point they could pay for the whole premium. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of misleading comments about what happens to the money saved by passing the Medicare Preservation Act. What will happen to those dollars? First of all the hospital trust fund, which pays for part A Medicare insurance, will continue to collect the payroll taxes needed to sustain itself. Second, the fewer dollars needed to subsidize the part B insurance, less general fund dollars, will be needed to pay for Medicare. Of course, Mr. Speaker, as you know the general fund is already overdrawn by some $5 trillion. There are the changes to the current Medicare insurance program. However, there are other options for health care which will be available under the Medicare Preservation Act known as MedicarePlus plans. These new MedicarePlus options include: One, provider-sponsored organizations; two, medical savings accounts; and three, health maintenance organizations. Each new option is a marketplace program. Each option will be completely voluntary. No one insured by Medicare will be required to select one of these options. The success of these options will be determined by the marketplace according to the quality of care provided, and the fees charged for the care provided. If an individual is not satisfied with either the quality of care or the price charged, they will have the ability to go back to the current Medicare system. Mr. Chairman, the Medicare Preservation Act is a good idea. It is a plan which I fully believe will ensure that Medicare will be there for me 14 years from now when I become eligible for Medicare insurance.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying: Temptation will beat your door down, but opportunity will knock only once. Today the Democrats offer temptation: To extend Medicare until 2006. But the Republicans offer an opportunity to extend Medicare to 2012 and beyond. The real difference between temptation and opportunity is that the Democrat temptation sets the stage for another tax increase by the year 2006. Their plan will leave the Medicare trust fund underfunded by $309 billion--just when those Medicare funds will be needed by the World War II generation. But Mr. Chairman, this is nothing new--this has been the pattern of Congress over the last 31 years, since Medicare was created. Congress has either increased the rate or changed the income base 23 times in 31 years in order to keep the Medicare program running. The temptation the Democrats offer today continues that history and ensures that taxes will again have to be raised in order to continue Medicare. Mr. Chairman, what happens when payroll taxes are increased? Seniors know. Seniors know their children and grandchildren will have less income for their families; the cost of consumer goods and services will increase; and we are less competitive in the world market. Mr. Chairman, when our Medicare seniors, who are on a fixed income, go to the doctor, the grocery store, or pay utilities, the cost of each of these services will reflect the increase in payroll taxes. The Democrat temptation to Medicare reform repeats the mistakes of the past. The Medicare Preservation Act is the best of the two options. [[Page H 10332]] It addresses concerns about excessive charges for health care, addresses waste, fraud, and abuse of precious Medicare dollars, and ensures that Medicare will be solvent until 2012 and beyond. The Medicare Preservation Act requires that we look ahead and anticipate the World War II generation; and we will study the changes to make sure it is working like it's supposed to. It does all this by changing the Medicare process, without a tax increase.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I have been concerned for some time over the growing shortage of qualified commercial truck drivers in this country. This stems from [[Page H 9268]] my own personal experience in the industry, as well as from my service on the Surface Transportation Subcommittee in the last Congress. Estimates are that there are 300,000 drivers needed in the industry per year over the next 10 years. As you know, several years ago Congress required that any person operating a commercial vehicle must have a commercial drivers license [CDL] issued by his or her State of domicile. According to the Federal Highway Administration, this has had two important impacts on driver training: First, it has limited the actual behind-the-wheel experience for potential drivers, which is critical to effective driver training. Second, in addition, if a driver wishes to move temporarily to another State to undergo driver training, he or she cannot obtain either a learner's permit or a CDL because of the domicile requirements previously mentioned. Recognizing these problems, the Federal Highway Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1990 to correct the situation. However, due to more pressing matters, the action was not finalized. I understand that FHWA is now in the process of pursuing the issue, due to increased interest and the need for truck drivers. And I think it is important to note that not only has the Federal Highway Administration recognized the problem; but the industry, represented by the American Trucking Associations has also supported a change. For the purpose of expediting this rulemaking, I would simply like to ask the chairman whether you believe it appropriate for the Federal Highway Administration to address this issue, particularly with regard to issuing learners' permits.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the chairman to yield for a colloquy. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld a lower court decision declaring the 11th Congressional District of Georgia unconstitutional. This ruling found that Georgia's 11th District violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was the primary factor in its creation. Mr. Chairman, the district plan that was approved by the Department of Justice, and most recently found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, was in fact the third redistricting plan submitted to the Department of Justice for approval. The first of three plans was created during a special session of the Georgia General Assembly in 1991, costing taxpayers over $1 million. This plan was rejected by the Department of Justice. The second redistricting plan was drawn during a regular session of Georgia's General Assembly in 1992. It was also rejected by the Department of Justice. The third district was created in 1992, according to the specific direction and guidelines offered by the Department, and was consequently approved by Justice officials. And now, Mr. Chairman, we must once again return to the drawing board, in yet another costly special session of the Georgia General assembly and come up with a fourth redistricting plan that will both meet the approval of the Department of Justice and meet the constitutionality test. This special session, currently scheduled for August 14 of this year, will cost the State of Georgia thousands per day. Depending on how long the session lasts, costs will again approach the million dollar mark for Georgians. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would require the Department of Justice to reimburse a State for the costs associated with holding a special session of the State legislature in order to redraw district lines that have been previously approved by the Department of Justice, but found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Chairman, I realize that my amendment requiring the Department of Justice to provide $2 million from its general administration account for the purpose of reimbursing States for the costs of special legislative sessions is not in order at this point. However, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for the opportunity to work with you, and our counterparts in the other body, so that we can address this issue in the Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I insert for the Record the text of my amendment. Amendment to H.R. 2076, as Reported Offered by Mr. Collins of Georgia Page 28, after line 19, insert the following: reimbursement for special sessions of state legislatures For reimbursement by the Attorney General of States for costs associated with special sessions of State legislatures where the State is required to redraw congressional districts that have been previously approved by the Department of Justice but subsequently found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, $2,000,000. Page 2, line 7, strike ``$74,282,000'' and insert ``$72,282,000''.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this tax relief bill will give something like $4.5 billion of tax relief to the people of Georgia, and I am proud to be standing here in support of it. Four and one-half billion dollars of tax relief for Georgians. For the last several months we have heard opponents claim that the Contract With America is against children. They claim the welfare bill and this tax bill are antifamily and antichild. Well, Mr. Chairman, our opponents are wrong, and they know it. The truth is that every legislative component of the Contract With America is designed to benefit all Americans, individuals, families, and especially children. The Contract With America, and specifically this tax relief legislation, is 100 percent proresponsibility, pro- family, and prochildren. This legislation contains a new American dream savings account that reduces tax penalties on those that save money and use those savings for education, medical costs, and home purchases. It is profamily and prochildren. This legislation reduces the marriage penalty, making it profamily and prochildren. It provides $5,000 tax credit to help thousands of families overcome the financial obstacles of adoption. It is profamily and prochildren. It provides an increase in the exemption allowed for State taxes so that farms and small businesses started by families can be passed from one parent to child without destroying those assets. It is profamily and it is prochildren. It provides 50-percent capital gains deduction for individuals. This means that the tax penalty on a family's home or property is reduced so an individual or family can afford to sell that home or property without losing so much to the Federal Government, creating more financial security for that family and their children. It is profamily and prochildren. It gives a $500 tax credit to families with children under the age of 18. It is profamily and prochildren, and I urge its passage.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Members, opportunity knocks only once. But temptation will beat your temptation that continues an open-end entitlement program. What is an entitlement? An entitlement simply means that if you fit the criteria of a program, you are entitled to the money that comes from that program. Should not states have the opportunity to adjust their criteria? No, under the Deal substitute, they continue to be faced with mandates of how to beat that criteria. States should have the flexibility to adjust. A lot has been said about Governors, Republican Governors, mainly, but I want to mention a Democrat Governor from Georgia, Zell Miller, a real leader in welfare reform. Just last December, he said, ``Mac, when it comes to welfare reform, just send me the money. Even if you have to send it be less, I will handle welfare reform in Georgia.'' And he has and he will continue to do so. Let us end the Washington bureaucracy. Let us give the States and the local governments the ability to assist their citizens. Compassion begins at home, my colleagues, not in Washington.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor of this amendment and its role in the debate on how and why a change to the welfare system is needed. Mr. Chairman, why is change needed? Because today's welfare system provides an income-based subsidy for 26 percent of the families in this country. In 1965, President Johnson launched the war on poverty which was supposed to be a short-term investment. For the next 5 years, the rolls of AFDC grew from 4.3 million to 9.6 million--this was a record growth for welfare during 5 years when unemployment averaged 3.8 percent--the lowest unemployment rate in 40 years. It is evident the lack of jobs was not the reason for the growth. What was the reason? The 1960's expansion of the welfare system taught a new generation of Americans that it is your right as a citizen to depend on the Government to provide an income. The welfare system of the sixties said it is fine to have children out of wedlock if you cannot afford them--because it is your right to have the Federal Government support them. The welfare system of the sixties said it was fine for beat parents to evade responsibility because it is your right to transfer the needs of your children to the Federal Government. The welfare expansion of the 1960's changed the attitudes and behavior of millions of people. That attitude is wrong--but that attitude still exists today and that attitude is the major problem with the current welfare system. Middle- income American workers are tired of working hard to make ends meet, only to have more money taken out of their family budgets, to pay for those who think it is their right to depend on the Government. This legislation will change welfare assistance so that it is not seen as a citizen's right--but instead a vehicle for temporary, transitional assistance--an alternative of last resort. This amendment, under very flexible parameters, will require States to establish procedures for the revocation of driver's, professional, occupational, and recreational licenses for noncustodial parents that have failed to be responsible for their children. It will send a strong message to noncustodial parents that they can no longer push the responsibility of supporting their children onto someone else. The Personal Responsibility Act will continue to provide assistance to families while eliminating the nature of the status quo. I urge support of this amendment and this welfare change bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I too want to address the debate that is going on on the issue of welfare change. Only my position on this debate is that I am very disappointed in it. I am very disappointed in this Congress. This is the most important issue that we are going to debate in this whole entire 104th Congress. It is going to affect the lives of millions of people, even probably--or hopefully-- will change the course of lives of millions of people. But the debate has turned away from that aspect. The debate has turned to one of name-calling, finger-pointing, and distortion of the truth, all in an attempt to divide people of this country, to divide people by class, divide people by race, and divide people by nationality. Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. And I can assure you that there is not one Member of this body who wants to do harm to any one child in this Nation. I hope the debate turns better.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the President during his campaign ran on the platform of changing welfare. In fact he said, ``We're going to end welfare as we know it today.'' Well, to end it does not mean you reform it. It means you change it. Because to reform it only just changes the shape of it and leaves the same substance. Is change necessary? It is long overdue and the answer is yes, it is. Why? It is because 26 percent of the families in this country are in some way, some shape, some form or fashion drawing some type of government benefit that comes under the entitlement of welfare. Twenty- six percent of the families. What is the real problem with welfare, the real root of the problem? It is called cash. The old saying cash is the root of all evil. Cash has been the real problem and is the real problem in welfare. What is the history of cash in welfare? It goes back to the mid 1930's. In fact it was called Aid to Dependent Children, later called AFDC. It was actually created in 1935 as a cash grant to enable States now, I want to repeat that, to enable States to aid needy children, children who did not have fathers at home. Was the AFDC program intended to be an indefinite program? No, it was not to last forever. The priority of it was to help children whose fathers were either deceased or disabled or unable to work. The program was supposed to sunset after the Social Security laws were changed but they never were sunsetted. When AFDC was created, no one ever imagined that a father's desertion and out-of-wedlock births would replace the father's death or disability as the most prevalent reason for triggering the need for assistance. No one ever dreamed that fathers would abandon children as they have. In order to facilitate the sunset of the AFDC program, in 1939 the Federal Government expanded Social Security benefits by adding survivors benefits. This was to help wives and children of workers who died at an early age. In 1956 the Federal Government added disability benefits to Social Security to try to cover those children whose fathers were unable to work because of some severe disability. But rather than sunset AFDC, the program continued to grow and has ballooned in recent years, because the very nature of the program has encouraged illegitimacy and irresponsible behavior. Let me give Members a few statistics. In 1940, 41 percent of children on AFDC, their father had died. The fathers had abandoned 30 percent of the children. The fathers were disabled to work for 27 percent. In 1992, listen to have died; 86 percent of children on AFDC, their fathers have abandoned them; and only 4.1 percent, the fathers are disabled to work. Mr. Chairman, the AFDC system has created a problem, a real problem. It has encouraged irresponsible behavior by embracing a philosophy that says the government will take care of a child if a father won't. H.R. 4 stops this problem. It stops cash benefits in certain years, requires personal responsibility and it gives the States the flexibility, the very same thing that was supposed to happen in 1935 to handle the situation.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in 1912 Mrs. William Howard Taft accepted 3,000 cherry trees as a gift from Japan for the Nation's capital. Since 1948 the National Conference of State Societies has sponsored the Annual Cherry Blossom Festival. Congress chartered the National Conference of State Societies in 1952 with Public Law 82-293. NCSS includes all of Washington's State and territorial societies. NCSS submits a financial report each year to the House Judiciary Committee. GAO has approved every audit for 42 years. President Abraham Lincoln was a member of the Illinois State Society, founded in 1854. Dozens of Members of Congress have served as presidents of State societies, including former Representative Bob Michel and Vice President Al Gore. Members and congressional wives currently chair the Michigan, Texas, Illinois, and Puerto Rico societies. As a member of Georgia State Society, I am pleased to announce the NCSS will once again sponsor this year's festival events from April 2 through 9 in cooperation with National Park Service, the Downtown Jaycees, WRC-TV, and the Embassy of Japan. The festival celebrates our Nation's youth, represented by State and territorial cherry blossoms princesses, and celebrates our friendship with Japan. On behalf of many colleagues, I would like to recognize the generous support NCSS receives from corporate sponsors such as American Family Life Assurance Company, headquartered in Columbus, GA. AFLAC and NCSS will be partners in a special cherry blossom donation for relief of earthquake victims in Kobe, Japan. Forty-three years after Congress chartered NCSS we can be proud this group still serves its original purpose with energy and distinction.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, you know, I rise very seldom this year to speak to the House for 1 minute or any time, but I hear comments about--like the former speaker had to say about the work program in the welfare reform bill the Republicans put out. It raises the hair on the back of my neck. You cannot get any stronger than telling people, and allowing States to even make it stronger, 2 years. Two years of welfare, then you go to work. You engage in some work program. And in 3 more years you are off. How much stronger can you be? That is 100 percent. One hundred percent of those who are on welfare today in 5 years will be in a work program or they will be off of welfare. How much stronger can you get? It is rhetoric coming from the minority side. That is all it is. They are trying to confuse the public. The Republicans have a strong welfare-work-State responsibility bill.

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and pay tribute to an outstanding educational institution located in Georgia's Third Congressional District. On November 22, the Heritage School of Newnan, GA, celebrated its 25th anniversary. The Heritage School was founded in 1970 to create an outstanding educational alternative for the families of Newnan and the surrounding areas. Renowned for its emphasis on family involvement in the educational process, the Heritage School prospers through intense communication between teachers, students, and parents. In fact, the parent conferences at the Heritage School are led by the students. This highly innovative method allows students to analyze their scholastic progress, outline areas needing improvement, and share with both parent and teacher the steps that will be used to achieve the goal. Stressing personal growth as well as academic excellence is evident in the Heritage School's Bigs/Littles program. This program is designed to foster social and academic relationships between the students ranging from age 3 to 18. The Bigs/Littles program provides younger students an opportunity to have older, more experienced students as role models. In turn, older students have a sense of duty to look after the well-being of their little friends. The Bigs/Littles program at the Heritage School fosters respect, trust, and friendship throughout the students' lives. The Heritage School prepares students for success in college and life by encouraging and demanding academic excellence. The fact that 98 percent of the Heritage School graduates attend college, and 92 percent of those graduate from college with their entering class, illustrates the success of this educational institution. The success of the Heritage School is deeply rooted in its three-part educational philosophy. First, students must become involved and develop a strong desire to participate in their own education and in the life of their school. Then, students need to experience genuine success in an academic area or activity. Finally, students are encouraged to strive toward excellence, develop the ability to tap their deepest personal resources, and interact meaningfully with others. Mr. Speaker, at a time when the education of America's youth is under constant attack, I am honored to have an institution in my district that continually produces outstanding young individuals. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing the achievements of the Heritage School on its 25th anniversary and encourage this institution to continue to uphold what has become the standard for academic excellence in Georgia.