Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Clinton budget. Not only is it bloated and unbalanced but it contains a dog's breakfast of job-killing tax changes dreamed up by green eyeshade types apparently in the bowels of the Treasury. For example, the Clinton budget would strike the so-called 2 percent de minimis rule which allows companies to invest up to 2 percent of their assets in tax-exempt bonds without any cumbersome recordkeeping. Eliminating this rule would severely impact the market for small issue industrial development bonds, a key local job creation instrument, and would raise interest costs for all State and local government borrowing. In short, eliminating this rule will eliminate jobs and raise local taxes. In addition, the President's plan contains a proposal to deny deductions to companies on certain securities they issue, discriminating against long-term debt financing. By limiting the financial options of American companies, the Clinton budget would limit their ability to invest in new equipment and technology. It would hurt the ability of American workers to compete in the world market. Vote against this budget.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, today we are going to attempt again to protect Social Security and other Federal trust funds during the budget negotiations by putting up a vote, hopefully a successful one, on this debt limit bill. For senior citizens in America, this is an absolutely key vote and one which everyone should watch. I listened to the comments of my friend and distinguished colleague from Florida. Let me suggest to him that no President in his right mind would veto this bill. This bill is timely. Because in the wake of the President's veto of prior debt limit legislation, the administration took some extraordinary and disturbing steps to circumvent the legal debt limit. As our chairman noted, on November 15, Treasury tapped into $61.5 billion from the civil service retirement trust fund and the G Fund in the Thrift Savings Program. This raises chilling questions about where Treasury will look next to create further borrowing authority. Let us be clear on this. The President does not want to erect fire walls around these trust funds because he needs the assets in these accounts to get around the debt ceiling and resist serious budget negotiations. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2621 provides essential protections for Social Security and other trust funds now being raided by the Treasury to avoid the statutory debt limit. It restores public confidence in these retirement systems. This bill is both necessary and responsible. It reasserts Congress's constitutional right to determine the debt, it protects senior citizens' trust funds and benefits, and it closes the loophole that this administration has used to siphon retirement assets in its possession. This is not about cash management, Mr. Speaker. It is about the integrity of Social Security and the federal retirement system and keeping faith with those who depend on them.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 862, final passage of H.R. 2621, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2684, legislation that will raise the Social Security earnings limit for working seniors who right now face higher real tax rates than millionaires in the current system. While senior citizens are the primary beneficiaries of this legislation, I am pleased to say another important sector of our work force will also benefit, and that is members of the clergy. H.R. 2684 includes a provision that I have advocated that would provide a 2-year open season for members of the clergy to enroll in Social Security. Some members of the clergy elected not to participate in Social Security early in their careers, before they fully understood the ramifications of opting out. Because the election process is irrevocable, there is no way for them to participate in the program under current law. Clergy typically have the most modest earnings throughout their working lives, and would be among those most likely to rely on Social Security. This legislation would give them an opportunity to enroll.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and for his handsome comments. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, I think, provides fundamental reform of the registration of foreign agents. I think it is timely and necessary, given that this aspect of the law has not been modified for many decades and is demanding of reform. It is an obscenity right now that most representatives of foreign interests do not register. They are not in the public domain. The public is not protected from them and is not provided with the information that they need about the level of foreign interest representation. Mr. Chairman, let me say, there is no controversy here. The managers of this bill have conceded, despite some technical arguments, that generally this amendment would strengthen this bill. That clearly is not in question here. I think the managers of this bill have made one real argument against this amendment, that somehow it impedes the progress of the legislation. However, I would repeat my earlier argument on previous amendments, like the English-Traficant amendment that was defeated last night by a very narrow margin, that we need to do our business. It has been conceded here that this bill, this underlying bill, should be stronger. I would submit that we will feed public cynicism if we do not go forward and produce, here and now, the strongest possible bill, and have the discipline to follow through and get a conference passed by both houses. I do not think we can jump start this by simply passing the Senate version which, as has been conceded, does not go far enough in some particulars.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I think it is essential for American workers and American companies that every Member of this Chamber who supports fair trade, who supports protecting our economic interests, who opposes economic quislings supports this amendment. It is essential. Ladies and gentlemen, let us get this one done.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Youngstown, OH [Mr. Traficant], one of the most distinguished trade warriors in this Chamber.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/4\ minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the English-Traficant amendment and ask that the House do the right thing and slam the revolving door for all U.S. trade officials who then try to go to work for foreign interests. The underlying bill here, which I strongly support, includes a life ban on people leaving the position of U.S. trade representative or deputy trade representative and going to work for foreign interests. It also applies a ban on individuals being hired for those positions who have previously worked for foreign interests. I believe that it is very important that we extend this restriction to the Secretary of Commerce and to the members of the International Trade Commission. This is a clear conflict of interest. I think this is a fundamental reform necessary to protect American companies and American workers and preserve the integrity of U.S. trade law enforcement. Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow these people to serve on one side of the table negotiating on our behalf, learn our secrets, learn our strategies, learn the inside, and then move over to the other side. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think we have made the case here very strongly for this amendment. I think it is very difficult to argue with. I think it is a matter of equity for American workers. It is a matter of sound trade policy. I think it is something that we need to provide as a fundamental protection to our institutions and to American companies. Let me say that I acknowledge the concerns of the advocates of reform, lobbying reform, who are here today. I want to join with them. I want to push for a good bill, a strong bill. My sense is that, since we are operating under an open rule, there will be changes in this underlying bill. On that basis, I offer this amendment because I think it is an authentic improvement on this bill and an enhancement of a very important provision that I think is central to any lobbying reform. The gentlemen who are here tonight have long been pushing lobbying reform, and that has proven to be a Sisyphean task. In Greek mythology, Sisyphus was a figure who was consigned throughout eternity to roll a boulder up a hill only to reach the peak of the hill and have the boulder roll down the other side and be forced to restart the process. I recognize that lobbying reform is an initiative that has been out there a long time, has moved forward and always at the peak. There has been a failure to get it done. I believe that we need to move forward on this Sisyphean task, and I believe that during this session, with the support of this leadership in the House of Representatives, and on a bipartisan basis, we will be able to achieve fundamental lobbying reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] a very distinguished voice of reform, my colleague.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment on my own behalf and on behalf of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] a strong supporter of American workers and a strong advocate of a strong trade policy for America. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the underlying bill, and I want to say at the outset that I think we need to extend a great deal of credit to the gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Massachusetts, who are speaking here tonight. I believe the bill before us is a strong one, and I believe on several key points it needs to be strengthened even further. One of the areas where I believe that this bill strongly merits support is its inclusion of a lifetime ban on the employment of the U.S. Trade Representative or deputy trade representative subsequent to leaving public service by foreign entities. This prohibition is coupled by a prohibition on the appointment of individuals who have aided or advised foreign companies or foreign interests to the position of trade representative or deputy trade representative. My amendment builds on and amplifies that provision, addressing a significant oversight by extending this ban to the position of Secretary of Commerce and the position of member of the International Trade Commission. Mr. Chairman, in my view this restriction is very, very important because it addresses a fundamental conflict of interest that exists within our trade hierarchy. Mr. Chairman, we are engaged in a trade war and we cannot allow our generals to trade allegiances on their retirement. If we do so, we compromise the interests of American workers, American farmers, American companies, when we allow trade officials to switch sides of the negotiating table. [[Page H 13126]] In my view, this House has an obligation to block the revolving door that allows the trade talent that we have nurtured to cash in on their expertise at the expense of American workers. My amendment offered here today sends a clear message to the political class in Washington that we will no longer tolerate trade quislings or economic Benedict Arnolds. In my view, it is appropriate that we extend this restriction to the Secretary of Commerce and to the International Trade Commission, because they play a seminal role in overseeing and administering trade policy in America. The Secretary of Commerce has responsibility for leading key trade missions. The Secretary is familiar with trade policy and helps shape it. The Secretary of Commerce is familiar with the trade objectives of key American companies and overseas the Eximbank and other key trade programs that we depend on as part of our trade policy. The Secretary of Commerce also plays a significant role in the enforcement of our trade laws. Similarly, the International Trade Commission provides advice on trade negotiations. The Commission rules on import relief for domestic industries. The Commission also provides for investigations of predatory dumping practices by our competitors. The Commission advises the president on the domestic consequences of our trade policy and assesses the injury to American workers from imports. Overall, the ITC plays a fundamental role in shaping and administering our trade policy. I urge my colleagues, recognizing that many of my colleagues would like to keep this bill free of amendment, to consider supporting this amendment to stop U.S. trade officials from using their position from cashing in on their expertise and insider knowledge at the expense of U.S. workers, farmers, companies and jobs. I urge support of this amendment to stop former government officials from using their specialized knowledge of U.S. trade laws and regulations from benefiting by aiding our competitors. We should insist the employment restrictions in this bill apply to all of our trade officials. So I urge support for the English-Traficant amendment. And I also urge this House to ultimately support this important piece of lobbying reform legislation which does us great credit. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, it is a violation of the law to offer a policeman a bribe, much as it is a violation of the law for the policeman to accept the bribe. I think it is somehow fundamental here that we should sanction this behavior on both ends. Similarly, if we are serious about a gift ban, I think we should also impose a sanction on the deliberate and intentional giving of a gift that is illegal. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Fox amendment is a distinct improvement on this underlying bill, which I am a strong supporter of and intend to offer an amendment to as well. Let me just suggest to the gentlemen who have been making a very eloquent argument here that this bill should be kept pristine, that there should be no role of the House in improving this legislation, may I suggest that we are considering a reform bill here, but not the Pentateuch. There is nothing sacred about the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I think it is incumbent upon us in the House of Representatives to pass the best reform bill that we possibly can. If we have to take that to conference, then we should have the discipline to insist that our conferees come forward with a product that we can approve and send to the White House. I do not think we should skip a step merely out of convenience.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great regret. On Saturday Congress sent the President a bill that would have extended the statutory debt limit, while at the same time protecting the trust funds such as Social Security, Civil Service and Medicare, from being disinvested during a so-called debt limit crisis. Unfortunately, the President decided to veto the bill. Why? Because it would have prevented the Secretary of the Treasury from gaming the trust funds during a debt limit crisis, from raiding Social Security, from tapping the pension funds of Federal retirees. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed in the President's decision to veto the debt limit extension bill. It sends a terrible message, the wrong message to all of those on Social Security. The President's veto tells the 43 million Americans who get Social Security and the 140 million workers who pay into it that it is okay to use the $483 billion in assets from that trust fund as a pawn on the President's political chessboard. It is okay to play games with the $30 billion payroll taxes that workers pay in each month and that retirees rely on to finance their benefit checks. The President's veto is an open declaration that he plans to have the Secretary of the Treasury tap trust fund assets to circumvent the debt limit. This assault on the public's confidence in these trust funds is fair game. Mr. Speaker, as a result of what has happened in 1985, the Social Security trust funds lost $382 million in interest, and long-term bonds were cashed in early. Congress later passed legislation to restore the lost interest and reconstruct the bond portfolio, but no legislation could ever restore the public confidence that was lost.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, reconciliation conferees, I would like to commend the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] for their intrusive, decisive, and successful effort to block a provision of the House-passed 7-year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act that I believe would have unfairly disrupted the livelihoods of our Nation's dairy farmers. Reconciliation contained a provision entitled ``freedom to milk,'' which legislates the dismantling of the milk marketing orders. This proposal would deregulate the current system by terminating the price support program effective January 21, 1996. After speaking with dairy farmers from western Pennsylvania, I can assure you that this would be devastating to the industry. According to a recent Mid-Atlantic Dairymen's Inc. analysis of a Food and Agriculture Policy Institute study, net returns to dairy producers would be projected to go down 65 percent in the first year of deregulation and down 43 percent per year on the average for the first 3 years. Furthermore, under freedom to milk, Pennsylvania dairy farmers are expected to lose over $150 million. Low farm milk prices and limited availability of credit, coupled with the fact that our GATT partners can still subsidize their dairy farmers, means that the freedom to farm provision is more than scary. For the small dairy farmer in my district, it is fatal. Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the present system was not haphazardly scrapped. It has continued to evolve to reflect the needs of the market and consumers. The U.S. dairy industry is one of the most efficient market-oriented dairy industries in the world, and the program which manages this industry costs the Government less than $70 million each year. Furthermore, dairy farmers recognize that once again it is time to reform the system, but let us do it constructively. Why do we not consolidate the orders through the Department of Agriculture's hearing process, simplify the system, and ensure that the small dairy farmer still has input into future reform? Unfortunately, there are still proposals out there to meet the budgetary caps that unfairly tax the dairy farmer, a new 10-cent assessment on top of the existing assessments. The purpose of agricultural reform and the objective of the reconciliation process is to reduce taxpayer support of farm programs. A new assessment on dairy producers is nothing more than a direct tax upon every dairy farmer in America. Mr. Speaker, in my view, the appropriate approach is to realize savings through the price support program currently in place. Such a reduction would realize budgetary savings at no expense under current milk prices for all products to the farmers. At the present time, nonfat dry milk is still being marketed at 6 cents over the support price while butter and cheese are currently 35 percent over support levels. [[Page H 12158]] Accordingly, reduction in the taxpayer-funded price support program would not directly impact farmers, yet would still produce the necessary tax savings. Mr. Speaker, this summer I had an opportunity to talk to dairymen throughout my district, and they are hurting. They are hurting in a way that they have not been in many, many years. We must, at a time like this, be cautious in how we tamper with price supports for dairy producers because there is a real danger that many of these small and even midsize family farmers will be put out of business by a precipitous policy.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this debt limit extension, especially in view of the strong restrictions it includes against the raid of the Social Security trust fund assets. Three million people depend on Social Security each month to meet their basic living expenses. They paid for these benefits while they were working. They should not have to worry about whether their checks are going to be paid during a debt limit crisis or whether the assets of the trust funds will be gamed or raided in order to keep the Government running. Mr. Speaker, the Social Security trust funds held $483 billion in assets as of September 30. That is a huge and an alluring pot of money right now in this crisis. The bill we are considering maintains public confidence in Social Security. It prevents a repeat of what happened in 1985 when the trust funds were disinvested to get around the debt limit. It makes it absolutely clear that these assets may not be used for any other purpose other than to pay Social Security benefits or related administrative costs. The bill also makes it clear that Social Security checks will be paid to seniors on time even during a debt limit crisis when a shutdown of the Government is being threatened. The administration claims it will not use Social Security assets to pay the bills, but the public record is littered with their zigs and zags on important public policy questions, as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle know better than anyone. This bill protects Social Security from disinvestment and does so on a permanent basis. The law currently does not do that. This bill preserves the social compact between generations that Social Security represents.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise to honor Sgt. Abie Abraham, a distinguished veteran of World War II from Butler, PA, who is being recognized this week as the Butler County Veteran of the Year. Abie Abraham was born on July 31, 1913, in Lyndora, PA, to Syrian immigrants. At an early age, Abie showed perseverance and strength when he set a record in the Guiness Book of World Records for tree-sitting on a wooden platform for 3 months. In 1932, Abie Abraham enlisted in the U.S. Army. He had been head boxing coach in Panama in 1935, and as a boxer, has a 54-6 record and was light/welterweight champion of the Panama Canal Department. In 1938, he was stationed in the Philippines, with the 31st Infantry Regiment as a platoon sergeant. Three hours after the invasion of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Japanese forces hit the Philippines. After several months of intense fighting in horrible conditions, the Philippines and United States forces surrendered. A lack of food and supplies and exposure to tropical diseases had left the troops weakened when the Japanese took them as prisoners. Sergeant Abraham was on the infamous Bataan Death March during which so many American lives were lost. He was held as a prisoner-of-war from April 9, 1942 to January 31, 1945 until the 6th American Rangers freed the prison camp where what was left of the only infantry regiment stationed in the Philippines was being held. After his release, General MacArthur requested that Sergeant Abraham remain in the Philippines to locate and disinter bodies from the Bataan Death March so that they could be brought home for a proper burial. He remained there until July 1947. Sergeant Abraham retired as a master sergeant in 1955 with 23 years of service. He had received a Purple Heart with oak leaf cluster, a Bronze Star Medal with oak leaf cluster, as well as three Presidential Unit Citations and the Philippine Presidential Award. After retiring from the Army, Sergeant Abraham worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as a road supervisor from 1955 to 1962 before leaving to work for a family business until 1979. In 1971, Sergeant Abraham wrote ``Ghost of the Bataan Speaks'' which details his prison camp experience. His book is used in several States to teach the history of World War II. He also personally answers a multitude of inquiries from people all over the world about the Bataan Death March. In addition to serving his country, Sergeant Abraham has contributed on a local level in his community. In the past 6 years, he has volunteered over 10,000 hours working nearly 8 hours a day, 5 days a week at the VA medical center in Butler, PA. He is the POW-MIA Coordinator at the VAMC and has helped to arrange ceremonies to remember the Americans who were prisoners of war and those who are unaccounted for today. He spends time visiting with patients in the VA medical center as well as trying to resolve complaints and provide assistance to veterans and their families. He was honored in 1994 as the Outstanding Veteran in the State of Pennsylvania by the Department of Veteran Affairs. He has been a member of the Disabled American Veterans--Chapter No. 64, Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, the American Ex-Prisoner's of War, and the American Legion where he continues to be active in veterans issues. Sergeant Abraham served his country courageously in the face of death and remained true to the soldiers who served with him and lost their lives. He has used his experience to educate others about World War II and to honor the memory of the ones lost. Thankfully, for the community of Butler, PA, Sgt. Abie Abraham survived the horrors of the Bataan Death March and being held in a prison camp. The service that he has continued to give to the veteran community over the years is truly outstanding and worthy of our praise. I am thankful that Sgt. Abie Abraham is a member of our community and that he continues to make a difference in the lives of those he touches.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, Mark Twain once said ``One of the most striking differences between a cat and a lie is that a cat only has nine lives.'' You have heard and will continue to hear that Republicans are cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts. Members of this body who oppose saving Medicare have fabricated the Medicare tax-cut connection because it is useful politically. Here are the facts: The tax bill approved by the House in April was financed on a pay-as-you-go basis. The [[Page H 10454]] tax provisions were paid for before the debate on Medicare reform even began. The savings came from welfare reform, lowering discretionary spending, and interest savings. We cut spending as we cut taxes and everyone here knows it. Even so, you will hear that Republicans are cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts. Even after the Ways and Means Committee adopted my amendment to establish a Medicare lock-box--a Medicare Preservation trust fund--to lock in savings from the bill into the Medicare Program. The bill now contains my language making it illegal to use Medicare savings for tax cuts. Under the English-Whitefield local-box, the savings in Medicare will be used only to save Medicare. Most of the Members on the other side voted for the similar lock-box Mr. Crapo offered this spring. They liked it back then. Even so, you will hear them claim that Republicans are cutting Medicare to pay for tax cuts. Writing in the Washington Post on October 11, Robert Samuelson noted, ``To listen to the Democrats, you'd think that every spending cut is needed to provide `a tax break for the rich.' Medicare is being cut to help the wealthy; so is Medicaid, the school lunch program and welfare. The litany is endless. Maybe this makes good rhetoric, but it flunks first-grade arithmetic.'' Mr. Chairman, only one plan saves Medicare, and keeps the savings from reform in Medicare. Reject this empty, placebo Band-Aid substitute, which doesn't even contain our lock-box protections.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Porter for completing the fiscal year 1996 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill under circumstances that can be described only as Herculean. I am a strong supporter of the Low- Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP] and this is where I respectfully differ from my colleague from Illinois. To put it quite simply, this program insures many families in my district that they do not have to choose between eating or heating. I have heard the argument that this program is no longer needed, that this program was crafted only a vehicle to get our Nation's poorest out of the energy crisis of the 1970's. But, I believe that is incorrect. LIHEAP is still necessary; unaffordable utility costs continue to be a crisis for low-income households. The facts speak for themselves. LIHEAP brings potentially life-saving heat to nearly 6 million poor families, or roughly 12 million individuals with an average income of $8,000; of these individuals about 30 percent are elderly, and 20 percent are disabled. These families spend three times as much of their income on energy as does the average American household and the average program benefit is only $200. We need to assure our constituents of our ongoing efforts to reform Federal social service programs, and to allow greater local flexibility. Because of its 10 percent cap on administrative expenses, LIHEAP delivers maximum benefits to those in need without any fraud or abuse. Eliminating an effective program like LIHEAP sends a confusing and inconsistent message to the states. In closing, I understand the budgetary reality in which we legislate, but I cannot stand silent as this Appropriations Subcommittee attempts to eliminate this effective Federal program.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, addressing the crisis in Medicare by preventing the Part A trust fund from going bankrupt may be the most important and the most difficult challenge for this Congress. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is part of a social compact we have with America's seniors. We in Congress serve as fiduciaries for this program, charged with the ultimate responsibility for its solvency. This spring the Medicare board of trustees, including three members of the Clinton Cabinet, reported that Medicare will start running a deficit next year, and will be broke by the year 2002. Medicare will be broke in 7 years. Since then, we have been inundated with speculation on why this crisis happened, whose fault it is, and even whether the crisis is for real. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, sometimes in this debate there has been more heat than light. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means, I have been seeking a legislative solution to the Medicare crisis which simplifies and strengthens the program, while preserving it for future generations. Congress must find this solution quickly and get it right, or we will leave the public to face draconian budget cuts for seniors, or punitive tax increases for working families. With the extremely short period of time Congress has to formulate a solution, I think it is vitally important to follow a three-step approach: Item one, to clean up the fraud and abuse; item two, to legislate a solution which preserves and protects senior benefits; and three, make sure the crisis does not happen again. With this in mind, I have introduced two separate pieces of legislation to address the most overlooked aspects of the process, cleaning up the fraud, and establishing a mechanism to allow for a faster and less political approach to the threat of bankruptcy, to ensure that we never get to this point again. Mr. Speaker, the costs of fraud and abuse to the health care system in general are staggering, with as much as 10 percent of the U.S. health care spending being lost to fraud and abuse every year. Over the past 5 years, estimated losses from health care fraud totaled about $418 billion, or as much as four times the cost of the entire savings and loan crisis to date. Two of the most severely abused programs are Medicare and Medicaid. An extensive report compiled by one of our Senate colleagues states that for these two programs, the Federal Government pays out over $27 billion every year in fraudulent claims. These figures are even more disturbing in light of the fact that only a tiny fraction of the bad boys who rip off the Federal health care programs are identified and prosecuted. Even when they are caught, they are often allowed to keep right on doing business with the Federal Government, and with other health care plans. For example, an alarming number of allegations of fraud and abuse have been leveled against agencies that provide services to homebound elderly and disabled. In February of this year the HHS inspector general proposed that ABC Home Health Services, Inc., which provides home health care services in 22 States through 40 wholly-owned subsidiaries, should be excluded from Medicare and State health care programs for a period of 7 years for padding its cost reports with false and fraudulent entries that were unrelated to Medicare patient care. This is simply unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, to combat this problem and to provide an initial fundamental step in Medicare reform, today I introduced the House version of Senate legislation to expand criminal and civil monetary penalties for health care fraud, to ensure a stronger, better- coordinated efort in deterring fraud. Mr. Speaker, looking ahead to the future of Medicare, looking at ways to protect its solvency and provide a faster, fairer, nonpartisan process for controlling costs, today I introduced legislation to create an independent Commission on Medicare. The Commission to Save Medicare Act of 1995 is designed to permanently protect the Medicare trust fund. The Commission proposed in my legislation would consist of seven members chosen in an entirely bipartisan manner, appointed by the President, and subject to Senate confirmation. The members would serve full time, and would consist of people who are nationally recognized for their expertise in health care policy. The Commission would report to Congress and to the President annually on the per capita value of services delivered of the Medicare benefits package and the projected growth in the program expenditures. In April of each year, Congress would set a target for Medicare spending for the upcoming year. Mr. Speaker, I believe the combination of this Commission and the new sanctions against fraud and abuse will make the Medicare Program solvent in the long haul, and that has to be part of our solution.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. To the gentleman, is the Banking Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity presently reviewing proposals to streamline the CDBG process?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I would ask when the gentleman expects to complete this bill?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from our neighboring State of New York, the chairman of the Banking Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity. I would like to direct this to the gentleman. As the gentleman is aware, I considered offering an amendment to the fiscal year 1996 VA- HUD appropriations bill to give local officials the flexibility they need to select those programs or services most deserving of community development block grants. As the gentleman knows, current law burdens the CDBG program with archaic rules and regulations, tying the hands of local officials and subverting the true intention of block grants. In many cases these regulations preclude the award of grants to those programs most deserving of support. Especially in an era of limited budgets, this Congress should not severely limit the ability of local officials to direct these limited funds to the areas of greatest need. My amendment was designed to replace section 105(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. This portion of the act lists 25 eligible activities, and imposes a bewildering, Byzantine array of restrictions and limitations that I believe as a former elected official confuses and constricts the use of Federal funds by local elected officials most familiar with their urban challenges. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand that my proposed amendment would have placed legislative language in an appropriations bill. Nevertheless I believe it is absolutely essential to cut the bureaucratic red tape strangling our communities' ability to respond to local problems. However, before I offered the amendment, I had an enlightened conversation with the gentleman form New York that I believe should be shared with other Members of this House. May I ask the same questions of the representative from the Empire State?