Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great delight that I take this opportunity to honor Art Nash for his many contributions to the State of Michigan through his work with the Department of State Police and the Department of Natural Resources. Art is retiring after 26 years of dedicated and loyal service to the Great Lakes State. His professionalism and exceptional work ethic will be sorely missed by those who have had the pleasure of working with him. Art grew up in Dearborn, MI, and graduated from Fordson High School. He went on to Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo, MI, where he obtained a bachelor of science degree in psychology and sociology in 1970. In addition to his academic pursuits, Art also participated on the varsity swim team and served as an officer of the Pi Kappa Alpha fraternity. He would later return to his alma mater to earn a master's degree in public administration in 1980. Art's professional career began in 1970 when he took the oath as a trooper with the Michigan State Police. He served until 1977 in the department's uniform and criminal investigation division enforcing traffic laws, investigating criminal and civil complaints, and serving as an undercover officer for drug traffic investigations. In 1977, Art's career path took him to another division within the Michigan State Police. For the next 17 years, Art was an integral member of the department's fire marshal division, playing an important role in the division's growth. As a member of the fire marshal division, Art rose through the ranks from detective sergeant in the First District Office to first lieutenant commander of the hazardous materials section. As first lieutenant commander, Art was responsible for administering the division's Hazardous Materials Enforcement Program. This also included the task of developing and implementing division policies and procedures. In May 1994, Art said goodbye to the Michigan State Police and took his talents to the Department of Natural Resources where he served as chief of the Department's underground storage tank division. Though his work with the DNR was less than 2 years, his accomplishments were monumental. I am extremely appreciative of his efforts in the development of the underground storage tank regulatory program and his role in the creation of the risk-based corrective action plan for leaking underground storage tank sites. Michigan residents are fortunate to have had the expertise and knowledge that Art has to offer. Art's commitments also extend beyond the workplace. He is a member of the St. Luke Lutheran Church in Haslett where he once served as president of the church council. In addition to support from his church Art has also been blessed with the love and support of his wife, Jennifer, and son, Kirk. Mr. Speaker, there are some people you meet in life that you feel very privileged to know. Art Nash is one of those people. I am extremely thankful that I had the opportunity to work with this man of great character while I served in the Michigan Legislature. It is with great delight that I offer this tribute to salute Art Nash, an outstanding and dedicated employee and citizen of the State of Michigan.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a staunch environmentalist. I opposed this bill in some earlier versions. In fact, Members may recall that this is the third try which finally managed to get past the House. I voted against it the first two times because I was concerned about environmental issues. But I am satisfied that this bill in its present form is the best bill we are going to get out of the House. I believe that the environmentalist concerns are largely satisfied. In regard to the National Endowment for the Humanities, I was also one of those who worked to maintain funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. In fact, we managed to get it increased considerably over some of the earlier proposals. Once again, I believe this is the best bill that we can get from this House as it relates to funding for that organization. I read the veto message from the President, and to me it seems like a rather thin veto message. I suspect if this bill had hit his desk by itself and not in the company of the other two bills he vetoed the same day, this bill would have been signed and passed into law because the objections are not that strong. I believe it is very important that we vote to override the President's veto on this bill. It is important that we open our national parks, our wildlife refuges, our national forests, put 130,000 Federal employees back to work, open our museums and the Smithsonian in particular do a good service to the American public by once again allowing them to use and visit these national treasures which we have. I urge my colleagues, particularly those on the other side of the aisle, who are concerned about these issues to recognize that this bill in its present form is a good bill, certainly the best we are likely to get through this Congress, and I urge them to override the President's veto and put this into effect.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, this evening we are hearing a litany of comments about various problems that have arisen with the Government shutdown. I am afraid the other side of the aisle is trying to confuse the issue by citing all these examples. There is no question about it. The Government shutdown is causing problems, but that is simply confusing the issue, as I said. Talking about ad hominem stories, in other words Government by anecdote, does not really solve the problem. Telling horror stories about some things that are not being done or services that are not being provided does not solve the problem. Just standing there and blaming the Republicans for the problem, does not solve the problem. I think we have to go back and look at the real issues involved here, and the real issue is the incredible size of the national debt and the size of the budget deficit every year, and the amount of money that we put into paying interest every year. Mr. Speaker, we have a national debt approaching $5 trillion. That calculates out to about $19,000 for every man, women and child in these United States. And when we consider the number who are working and are able to repay this debt, that balloons to approximately $30,000 per capita. We pay interest at the rate of $1,000 per year on the national debt for every man, woman and child in the United States; $1,000 per capita. And, once again, if one translates that into the taxpaying citizens, on average each taxpaying citizen is spending well over $1,500 or $1,600 just to pay the interest on the national debt each and every year. The budget deficits continue, which means the debt gets bigger every year and the interest payments get bigger every year. We simply cannot continue. And that is a fact. That is the real issue here. It is not the horror stories about the Government being shut down, the issue is our national debt. We have proposed, Mr. Speaker, that we achieve a balanced budget in 7 years using honest numbers. That is a very modest goal, but that is something that the Republicans have proposed, and that is something that the Congress has passed and sent to the President. In November, the President promised that within 30 days he would present a balanced budget that met those criteria, balanced in 7 years using honest numbers. December 15, when his proposal was supposed to be unveiled, it did not balance. it was out of balance by a large amount, according to the Congressional Budget Office, which analyzes these things. In the meantime, the House and the Senate passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It passed on October 26. The President vetoed it. I can understand his philosophical problems with some of the issues, but I do believe he has an obligation to negotiate seriously and to present to the negotiators his version of a balanced budget. That has not come forth even up to this point. As a result, the Government has shut down in an attempt to force the issue. It simply has not worked. He has still not presented a balanced budget. I am reaching the conclusion that the President does not want to balance the budget and he is not going to present his version of a balanced budget. I believe that is tragic given the enormity of the problem. He will not sign our balanced budget, he will not present one of his own, what do we then do? Now, Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious problem for this Nation, and it is a very serious problem for this Congress. We are trying to address it, and perhaps we have to take another track if the President simply will not respond and will not present a balanced budget of his own. After all, the House is the body that initiates the legislation dealing with appropriations. That is prescribed in the Constitution. Perhaps what we have to do is present to the President bite-sized budgets. Maybe we should call them mini budgets, dealing with one issue at a time and saying, Mr. President, this is all we can afford to spend on this particular item in this fiscal year and ask him to sign each of these, almost a line-item budget, if we like. And maybe if we put it in bite-sized chunks, he will be able to understand the problem, we will be able to deal with it, and we can achieve a balanced budget in that fashion. In any event, we have to take another approach, something that he will understand given the fact that he simply will present a balanced budget to us and will not sign the one that we have prepared. So I urge all of us to look at this afresh, and I especially urge the President to work with us and negotiate in good faith as we try to solve this enormous national problem.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just would like to assure the majority leader of my full confidence in his good judgment. And in regard to the issue of delaying any action on a continuing resolution until we are present to vote on it, I would assure him that if he and the other Members of both parties and leadership should decide to adopt a continuing resolution for a day or two, if we have good progress, I would certainly encourage them to pass such a short- term continuing resolution by unanimous consent pending our return for a full-fledged vote on a further continuing resolution, so that we can get the Government operating as soon as possible.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any prepared comments but would rather speak from the heart because I find I can do that much better without a prepared statement. I have not known the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for very many years. I am probably the least senior of the Members from Michigan in that regard. But I have known him long enought to know what an outstanding person he is. My first acquaintance with him was serving with his son, Christopher, in the Michigan Senate for several years, and Chris and I came to be good friends partly because we shared a technical background, partly because we have common interests, even though we are from opposite parties, and we worked on a number of issues together and got a considerable amount accomplished. But I decided, if John Dingell was anything like his son, Christopher, he was a fine person, and it was a pleasure when I arrived here to discover indeed that that impression was correct. I must confees I was always puzzled as an outsider at the power that John Dingell was reuputed to have. I recall an article in the Michigan newspapers when Mr. Foley was elected Speaker of the House. The article stated that John Dingell could have had the job, but did not want it, and the reason was that he had more power as chairman of the Committee on Commerce than he would have had as Speaker of the House. When I arrived here I realized why everyone considered him such a powerful member of the House. He was not only the chairman of the Committee on Commerce, but he had also defined the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce to include virtually everything that came before the House of Representatives. That reminds me of the comment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] a few moments ago about the exceedingly good knowledge of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] about the rules of the House, and that surprised me, because I assumed during his 40 years here he had probably managed to rewrite most of the rules of the House so that they would make more sense and could be used properly. But what particularly impressed me when I arrived in the Congress was the kindness and courteous attitude displayed by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] as the dean of our delegation. He introduced me to the House. He was extremely helpful to me, and I thought that was exceedingly gracious that the dean of the delegation, one of the wisest Members of the House of Representatives, certainly the most experienced, took the time to be considerate and thoughtful toward me as I made my maiden voyage, which is always a different thing when entering as a result of a special election, because you are thrown into the maelstrom. It is similar to sitting in a tree above the river waiting for a canoe to go by and trying to jump into the canoe without tipping it over. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] was very gracious and helpful in getting me established in the House, helping me learn its myriad ways. I certainly appreciated that. Mr. Speaker, I am here not only to give tribute to Mr. Dingell, but also to his wife Debbie, who I had the pleasure of meeting shortly after I arrived. What I have said of him is true, in many ways, of Mrs. Dingell as well; being very thoughtful, very kind, very helpful to me in getting settled here, and also to my wife. I appreciate her thoughtfulness as well, and particularly the way she organized events for the Michigan delegation. I found that also to be a real asset. Mr. DINGELL is a gentleman, a sportsman, a man of courage, a man of honesty, a man of integrity, all extremely valuable attributes in the House of Representatives. I wish that there were more Members of the House who had these characteristics, and we are here tonight to honor Mr. Dingell, Congressman from Michigan for 40 years, for what he has taught us and for what he has shown us about being not only a good representative, but a civil human being who is kind and helpful to all those around him. I thank you very much for your service to our State and our Nation, Mr. Dingell.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, this is what a prominent Governor has to say about reforming Medicaid: ``If the Federal Government would just release us from its bureaucracy and nonsense, we'd make these programs better for those they serve, and we'd do it for less money.'' Any guesses on who said this? It was Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld in a Wall Street Journal article from Monday. Here's quote from another well-known Governor: ``Medicaid mandates have put great stress on State budgets and undermined the States' ability to properly fund education and other important services.'' Any guesses on this one? Well, this quote is from a document coauthored by Governor Bill Clinton in 1989. As Governor, Bill Clinton warned that Medicaid mandates were too burdensome and in need of more State-level control. Now, as President, Mr. Clinton has the opportunity to take care of that problem, but he has changed his position, and he has vetoed a bill that would have accomplished that. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to join us in giving the States better control over our Medicaid system.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, Just as the previous speaker did, I wish to speak about the budget deficit. However, contrary to what the previous speaker did, I wish to put politics aside and just talk about some of the facts that are involved. Mr. Speaker, we currently have a national debt which, within a week or two, will exceed $5 trillion, or more than three times the amount of the annual revenues of the United States of America. Furthermore, over the past several years we have had budget deficits in the neighborhood of $200 billion or more a year and, in general, they have been greater than 10 percent of the annual revenues of the United States of America. Let us break that down into human terms, as the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] just did. That means that each and every man, woman, and child in the United States owes $19,000 as their share of the Federal debt. Every man, woman, and child in this country. Every American child born comes into this world with a debt of $19,000. Currently, each of us, every man, woman, and child in the United States, pays $1,000 per year, roughly, in interest alone on the national debt. In other words, of the amount of money paid in taxes to the Federal Government, roughly $1,000 per capita goes to cover the interest. Mr. Speaker, I pointed out a week or two ago that if any one of us as a family owed an amount of money three times or greater than our annual average income, and continued to spend 10 percent more than our annual income, and we went to a credit counselor because our credit cards had been cut off and we could not get any further loans, and we went to a credit counselor and said that we would like to balance our budget, but we wanted 7 years to do it, a credit counselor would say, ``You are crazy. You are in trouble. You have to balance your budget this year.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, we as a Congress are proposing to balance the budget in 7 years and there are a number of Members, many from the other side of the aisle, who say that is too soon; we need 10 years or 9 years or 8 years. I think 7 years is too long and I think Uncle Sam needs a credit counselor, someone who would shake some sense into our heads and say, ``You need to balance the budget now.'' Mr. Speaker, I think as a nation we have become addicted to spending money. We expect to get services without paying for them. I learned long ago that there is no such thing as a free lunch. We as a nation have to learn that. If we want services, we have to pay for them. If we are not willing to pay for them, then we had better go without the services. That applies across the board. As I said, I was trying to put politics aside here and just deal with the facts. I would say that too many people in the debate here, and between the Congress and the White House, have gotten into political discussions. The President, for example, tried to use Medicare to defeat our continuing resolution and scare the elderly about what might happen to Medicare. Some Members on the other side of the aisle continue their refrain about cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts for the rich. We just saw an example of that. But, Mr. Speaker, I am also going to fault the Republicans, because I personally think that a number of things that we are seeking to cut are being cut too severely, and other things that are not being cut should be cut or should be cut more than they are. I think all sides have to work together and recognize the overwhelming nature of the budget deficit, and recognize that this has to be our top priority. That is why I am delighted that we were able to reach agreement with the White House that we will, indeed, balance the budget in 7 years and that we will, indeed, work on this together. Mr. Speaker, we have to do more than just reach agreement that we will do it. We have to work on the details. This House of Representatives has spent most of this year working on that specific issue: preparing a budget that will achieve balance in 7 years. I am proud of the work that has been done in this Chamber and in the Senate. We have sent that bill to the President. He has said he will veto it, and I suspect he will. But then, Mr. Speaker, comes the real work. Not simply posturing to the public and saying we are going to injure the elderly by cutting Medicare, which in fact we are not, but rather we have to sit down together and negotiate in good faith and say, ``Look, we have agreed to balance the budget in 7 years and the question is not whether or not we should; the question is how we are going to do it and what we are going to cut.'' Mr. Speaker, that is going to take a very detailed and active and well-intentioned debate in the weeks ahead. [[Page H 13938]]

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress we are sent here to, as the Constitution says, ``secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our Prosperity.'' For a generation now Congress has forsaken the mandate laid out in the founding documents: limited government freedom of opportunity, and common responsibility. For years now, Congress has helped to create a government that is too big, taxes too much, and makes people dependent. Well, last year the American people said ``Enough.'' They are tired of seeing their paychecks shrink while the Government gets bigger and goes further and further into debt, and elected a new majority to Congress. Congress and the President are now in a conflict over the budget. It must be made absolutely clear, the people and the President that Congress now follows a very different agenda than it did before. This Congress is committed to balancing the budget, so that our children will inherit the American dream and not the American debt. I hope the President will join us in this commitment.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for making that point so eloquently. That is precisely the point that should be raised here, and that is why we should defeat this amendment. If we do not, we will end the acquisition and expansion of these lines. We will end the addition of jobs. We will see more lines closing marginal sections, and we will see more jobs lost both at the railroads and at the factories which use these railroads. I urge defeat of this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This amendment is not about labor protection. It is not about worker protection. It is not about job protection. It is about killing jobs. Let me recite some of the experience we have had in the State of Michigan. Michigan is in a unique situation because it is an industrial State but it is not on the main line between other major industrial areas. It is, in a sense, an offshoot going up in a peninsula. We have a number of lines that were in financial difficulty, and it was only through the good graces of the ICC, in providing that labor protection as proposed in this amendment need not be applied, that these lines were able to sell off the unprofitable sections, and these small lines have proved to be marginally profitable over the years. Unfortunately, under the current administration, the ICC is no longer giving those waivers against the labor protection, and I believe it is very important to remove this amendment from the floor and defeat it, simply because if this amendment is adopted, those small lines such as we have in Michigan will not be purchased or formed but rather the jobs will be lost because the lines will be closed. Furthermore, the jobs of the railroad workers are not the only ones lost, but there are a number of companies that are dependent upon rail transportation, and if the railroads close, these companies are likely to close because of increased costs of transportation, using other forms of transportation. I think we have to address the situation directly, get rid of this unfunded mandate which is being imposed on them. Why in the world should Federal law govern labor practices--and for a company such as this--whereas we do not do it for 120 other companies which are larger than many of these railroads and who have successfully operated mergers, acquisitions, and in fact have participated fully in the expansion of the economy for the past few years? I think it is time to get the Federal Government out of the business of insuring these long-term labor protection practices and make the railroads meet the competition of the marketplace. Now, lest I be considered heartless for proposing this, let me tell you that there are many success stories in Michigan, but not just in Michigan. Here I have an article which appeared in the St. Albans Messenger, Vermont's oldest evening newspaper, where the workers tell the story of a small railroad which was going bankrupt but was acquired by a new firm, and they were able to streamline the operations and, through good participation between workers and management, it finally turned a profit after many, many years, and it looks as if the railroad is going to survive now.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I ask you to imagine an American family, Mr. and Mrs. Doe, who have accumulated a debt more than three times their annual income and who are spending each year 10 percent more than they receive as income. Within a few years, their credit card companies say, ``We have to cancel your credit cards,'' and their other creditors say, ``We want to be paid off.'' Mr. and Mrs. Doe go to see a credit counselor. They say, ``We would like to work this out. We want to achieve a balanced household budget, but we would like to have 10 years to do it, or at least 7 years. What do you think?'' The credit counselor is going to say, ``That is absurd. You have to do it this year.'' Yet we as a nation have a national debt over three times our annual income. Furthermore, Uncle Sam is spending 10 percent more than his annual income each year. What do you think a credit counselor is going to say to Uncle Sam? I think Uncle Sam needs a credit counselor. The counselor is going to say, ``You have to balance the Federal budget. You do not have the luxury of the 10 years the President is asking for. You probably do not even have the luxury of 7 years.'' Let us balance the Federal budget right away, just as the American family has to do.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in decrying the coming crisis. However, I believe it is extremely important to resolve the crisis that we are facing, and believe we should not shut down the Government. Let me just give some of the facts. You heard earlier from the gentlewoman from California that the deficit is above $4.9 trillion; in fact, within a few weeks it will be $5 trillion. In one-thousand dollar bills, that would be a stack 300 miles out into space. We have to address the deficit problem. The Republicans have addressed it. We have voted for a balanced budget. I applaud those Democrats in this Chamber who have voted for a balanced budget proposal. The President's proposal, 18 pages long, does not even begin to outline a solution. I believe it is time for the President to come to the table to meet in all sincerity with the Speaker and the majority leader of the Senate. It is time for us to reach agreement on a balanced budget. The American people demand it. They deserve it. Let us pass a balanced budget.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 2527. Just 2 years ago I ran for Congress for the first time. I was very surprised when the time came to file the first campaign finance report and discovered that I had to file a copy with the secretary of state in the State of Michigan and a copy with the Clerk of the House. I just assumed that the report would go to the FEC. I did not realize it would take a few days for them to get it. What amazed me even more is that when the news media wanted to find out what we had expended on the campaign, they did not go to the secretary of state of Michigan, they did not go to the Clerk of the House, and of course they could not get it from the FEC; they came to our campaign office and we had to run off multiple copies for the media. This bill will cure those problems. The report will be filed with the agency that is responsible of reviewing it, the FEC. That is where it appropriately belongs. Even more importantly, we can file by electronic means. I certainly will take advantage of that. It will save a lot of work, it will save a lot of postage, and it will certainly speed up the time that the press will have to spend scanning these particular reports. Once again Mr. Speaker, I believe it is an excellent bill and I rise in strong support of this bill. I encourage its passage.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 765. I missed the vote due to cancellation of one airplane flight and mechanical problems requiring the delay of another flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 767, I missed the vote due to cancellation of one airplane flight and mechanical problems requiring the delay of another flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 766, I missed the vote due to cancellation of one airplane flight and mechanical problems requiring the delay of another flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 768, I missed the vote due to cancellation of one airplane flight and mechanical problems requiring the delay of another flight. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, after months of debate and thousands of meetings across the country, the House passed the Medicare Preservation Act [MPA] on October 19. Crafting the legislation, which generated strong feelings on all sides of the issue, was by no means an easy task. I am pleased with the hard work and sincere effort that was put forth by many people in developing a better Medicare system. Reforming Medicare is an urgent matter that must be addressed. Because of the complexity of the issue and its widespread effect on our Nation, it is important to understand why the system needs to be reformed and what our reform proposal involves. In April the board of trustees of the Social Security funds reported that the Medicare part A trust fund, which pays for hospital-related services, will be bankrupt in 7 years. The part B trust fund, which pays for outpatient services, is not in danger of bankruptcy, because almost 70 percent of part B premiums is paid by the Federal Government, and the rest is paid by beneficiaries who choose this coverage. In 1996, for the first time since its creation, the part A trust fund will be paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes. Why? Mainly because the costs of providing Medicare benefits have grown at more than double the growth of private-sector health care costs. If we fail to address this problem and control its excessive costs, Medicare will collapse. It is critical, therefore, that we make reforms to save Medicare because there are thousands of beneficiaries who depend on it. Medicare has served us well for 30 years, but its failure to incorporate private- sector innovations and to end waste, inefficiency, and fraud requires us to develop a better system. The MPA will expand the types of coverage Medicare offers: One, current Medicare coverage: A beneficiary can choose to continue the same Medicare coverage they have now. If they choose to do this, their copayments and deductibles will not be increased. They will also continue to pay the same percentage of part B premiums, 31.5 percent, with the Government paying the remainder of the premium. Two, MedicarePlus: A beneficiary is given choices from a new category of coverage, MedicarePlus. This option will allow beneficiaries to choose the same types of health coverage available in the private sector, such as HMO's and other types of coordinated care, instead of traditional Medicare coverage. These plans will likely offer full health care coverage to beneficiaries, perhaps eliminating the need to purchase costly supplementary insurance plans. These plans might also involve coverage of additional services, such as prescription drugs and eye care, in exchange for a more limited choice of health care providers. Beneficiaries would get detailed information in the mail each year about types of plans available in their area. Three, medical savings accounts: Beneficiaries could also choose coverage through a medical savings account [MSA]. This option would require beneficiaries to choose a high-deductible insurance policy paid by Medicare. The savings achieved through this policy will be placed in an individual MSA, which will be used to pay for health care expenses within the deductible, or to purchase long-term care insurance. The reforms don't stop there. The new Medicare Program will also make significant reforms in payments for doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers, in order to control costs. Government-funded Medicare coverage for the wealthy will be phased out, starting with couples with incomes above $125,000 and individuals with incomes above $75,000. A special commission will be created to study the effects of the retirement of the large baby boom generation, when there will be only two workers to support every retiree. Mechanisms to detect fraud and abuse will be strengthened, and beneficiaries who detect any wrongdoing in their bills will be rewarded. Finally, the plan will install a failsafe mechanism to monitor the reforms and ensure that they are achieving the savings necessary to protect the system. Unfortunately, during the long debate about the MPA some groups and individuals generated misinformation about the proposal. It is important to understand that these reforms were not introduced in order to offset tax cuts or balance the budget. If these reforms are not adopted, the system will simply collapse. This is not a quick fix; these changes are needed to protect and preserve the long-term health of the system. As is the case with any change, glitches may occur as the plan is implemented. While it would be ideal if the reforms were perfect, it is likely some may need correction. Therefore Congress will monitor the implementation process and correct any mistakes that may occur. Now that the House has given its approval, the MPA has been incorporated into a larger budget package. It will now move on to the Senate before it is sent to the President for his signature.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to offer an explanation for this resolution. Raoul Wallenberg was a Swedish Protestant who risked his life to save approximately 100,000 Hungarian Jews during World War II, at the time that the Nazi troops occupied Hungary. He was fearless in this effort. He risked his life; he risked the lives of those around him, and certainly deserves commendation. This country already has given him that commendation; in 1981, he was made an honorary citizen of the United States by the Congress of the United States. In 1994, this Congress passed legislation to place a bust of Wallenberg in the Capitol to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his rescue mission. The purpose of this particular resolution is to allow the use of the Capitol rotunda for the ceremony at which this bust will be dedicated. If I may, Mr. Speaker, just add a personal comment. I happen to be of Dutch extraction. Many of my relatives and friends were involved in the resistance of World War II. Everyone here, I am sure, is familiar with Das Tagebuch Der Anne Frank, The Dairy of Anne Frank, which chronicles in a very touching and moving way some of the experiences of those who were hid by my Dutch friends during World War [[Page H 9715]] II. It took great courage on the part of many people to do that. They have earned respect throughout the world, just as Mr. Wallenberg has. So I have a particular place in my heart for Mr. Wallenberg, who epitomized the same thing my Dutch friends did and mirrored, perhaps exceeded, their heroism in very, very difficult circumstances. I strongly urge that we adopt this resolution unanimously and permit the ceremony to take place so that we can dedicate the statue to Raoul Wallenberg on November 2, 1995.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution [H. Con. Res. 94] authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a dedication ceremony incident to the placement of a bust of Raoul Wallenberg in the Capitol, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is addressing a matter currently under consideration by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, and under House rules that is not permitted.

Mr. EHLERS. Point of order.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a point of order.