Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I understand.

Mr. HASTERT. It could be Wednesday or could be Thursday.

Mr. HASTERT. I would say that that bill probably will be a closed rule.

Mr. HASTERT. Tomorrow is March 1.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I really want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the former chairman on the other side of the aisle--folks who have been working on this issue for a long, long time and have put together a very, very good piece of legislation. I might add that the piece of legislation that came out of here in the last Congress, also worked on by a group of folks, but it came out on suspension. It never got out of the Senate, back to the House in a conference. The gentleman from Michigan was talking about this bill, when my Democrat colleagues passed a bill on the suspension calendar with no amendments, 40 minutes of debate, and that was it. So take the difference in what is happening here. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the Communications Act of 1995. I have worked on this legislation for several years, and I am proud to come to the floor to support a bill that will unleash $63 billion in economic activity. Reform of the 1934 Communications Act is long overdue. The road map for our communications future, outlined in the 1934 Act and the courts, still anticipates two-lane back roads rather than the fast paced super- highways we have today. The U.S. District Court began the trip toward competition when it issued the modified final judgment [MFJ] that required the breakup of ``Ma Bell'' 10 years ago and brought competition to the long-distance industry. Back then, I served as chairman of the Illinois Joint Committee on Public Utility Reform. We were charged with the task of revamping Illinois law to bring more competition. At that time, it was assumed that competition was not a good thing for local telephone service; the local telephone loop was viewed as a natural monopoly. Now, because of advances in technology, we see that it is possible--and preferable--to bring competition to the local loop. But the MFJ has not brought about the full fledged competition consumers needed in every part of the communications industry. Thus, Congress has risen to the task of planning the road-trip so that American consumers will have more choices and innovative services, and will pay lower prices for communications products. The map shows that there are pitstops along the road to competition. Everyone is in favor of ``fair'' competition as industries begin to contend in each others businesses. Fair competition means local telephone companies will not be able to provide long-distance service in the region where they have held a monopoly until several conditions have been met to break that monopoly. First, the local Bell operating company [BOC] must open its local loop to competitors and verify it is open by meeting an extensive competitive checklist. Second, there must be a facilities-based competitor, or a competitor with its own equipment, in place. Third, the Federal communications Commissions [FCC] must determine that the BOC's entry into the long-distance market is in the public interest. And fourth, the FCC must give substantial weight to comments from the Department of Justice about possible competitive concerns when BOC's provide long-distance services. Consumers can be sure BOC's won't get the prize before crossing the finish line. As a member of the Commerce Committee, I worked on several provisions of this bill, and was the author of section 245(a)(2)(B) of H.R. 1555 which deals with the issue of BOC entry into in-region inter-LATA telecommunications service. This provision has become section 271(c)(1)(B) in the conference report. Section 271(c)(1)(B) provides that a BOC may petition the FCC for this in-region authority if it has, after 10 months from enactment, not received any request for access and interconnection or any request for access and interconnection from a facilities-based competitor that meets the criteria in section 271(c)(1)(A). Section 271(c)(1)(A) calls for an agreement with a carrier to provide this carrier with access and interconnection so that the carrier can provide telephone exchange service to both business and residential subscribers. This carrier must also be facilities based; not be affiliated with BOC; and must be actually providing the telephone exchange service through its own facilities or predominantly its own facilities. Section 271(c)(1)(B) also provides that a BOC shall not be deemed to have received a request for access and interconnection if a carrier meeting the criteria in section 271(c)(1)(A) has requested such access and interconnection; has reached agreement with the BOC to provide the access and interconnection; and the State has approved the agreement under section 252, but this requesting carrier fails to comply with the State approved agreement by failing to implement, within a reasonable period of time, the implementation schedule that all section 252 agreements must contain. Under these circumstances, no request shall be deemed to have been made. Mr. Speaker, we have given serious debate and consideration to this bill. Now is the time for Congress to set reasonable guidelines for our communications future. All signs point to competition ahead, so I urge my colleagues to give the Telecommunications Act of 1996 a green light.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to override the President's veto. Clearly, securities litigation reform is needed. It is good for investors and good for America's economy. SEC rules were designed to protect investors. Investors need accurate and timely information from companies in which they invest their money. However, spectators are misusing the law to virtually extort money from honest companies when no fraud has taken place. Frivolous class action suits are being filed--sometimes multiple suits with the same typing errors--often forcing innocent companies to settle out of court rather than face massive court fees--again, after no fraud has taken place. Investors still have solid protection against fraud under this bill. However, this unwarranted litigation is harming U.S. companies and the economy. Business capital that could be used for technical innovation, capital investment, job creation, and investor dividends are diverted to lawsuits. In a sense, these suits represent a tax on capital. Lest we forget that frivolous lawsuits really exist, it is interesting to note that during the last 3 years, one out of every 12 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange was sued for securities fraud. As the author of this survey remarked, ``Either you have to believe there's rampant fraud on the New York Stock Exchange, or there are a lot of people getting sued who shouldn't be.'' Some may claim to be in support of getting rid of these meritless suits, but unless they are in support of this legislation, they are doing nothing to change the current problem. Suits with merit should be brought before the proper authorities and will continue to be brought and won under this legislation. Mr. Speaker, investors need better information. The changes to prospectuses contained in this bill encourage companies to give more and better information to investors. That is why numerous citizen investor groups have been running advertisements in favor of this bill. They know their dividends are going to be higher if the companies they invest in are not fighting off frivolous lawsuits. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, which serves investors, small business and the American economy well.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I guess in closing we will remember Ed as a gentle man, a man of great humility, a man who had a great sense about this House and the history of this House, and certainly aptly coming from a town named after Abraham Lincoln. I served with Ed's brother who served in the Illinois House and now in the Illinois Senate. I certainly stand with a great deal of pride with that family knowing this post office in Lincoln, IL, will be named after Ed and wish them very, very well.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I can remember coming to the Congress, and Ed Madigan would sit over there on the side. If you needed some wisdom or if he thought you needed a little wisdom, he would have you come over and sit down. We would have a little talk, and I learned a lot from Ed Madigan. He certainly was sage. He was wise. I think he was a politician in the finest sense of the word politician. He knew how to make a deal. He knew how to bring people into the picture. He knew how to compromise. He knew how to put things together. I tell the story, I guess it links up with something the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] was talking about. We talked about his heritage a lot, growing up in Lincoln, IL. I guess his father, too, was a horse trader, and they had a livery business. That meant you rented out horses. That livery business grew into a taxicab business. Ed's first job was to run the taxicab in Lincoln, IL. Out of that he had a fondness of cars. He especially had a fondness for Packard automobiles. I do not know how many taxicabs were Packards back then. Anyway, he collected Packard automobiles. But the stories that he told about the livery business and horse trading, I guess if you ever got into a deal with Ed Madigan, you knew that he was a pretty good horse trader. He knew how to make a deal, and he knew the value of what he was putting together. He certainly was a valued Member of this Congress in both the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which I had the privilege of serving with him, and also in the Ag Committee. He, as I said, was a Member who was a Member's Member. He could put things together. He understands people.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the following op-ed by Pamela G. Bailey ran in the Wall Street Journal on December 19, 1995. As the debate over Medicare intensifies, I commend Ms. Bailey's op-ed to my colleagues: Seven Dollars of Separation (By Pamela G. Bailey) The Medicare debate reached a new low last week, if such a thing is any longer possible, as the AFL-CIO uncorked a giant media and grassroots campaign to attack 55 House members who support the Republican on Draconian GOP ``cuts'' in Medicare and suggest that there is a huge difference between the Republican plan and the one supported by President Clinton. What you would never guess from the AFL-CIO campaign is that the division between the two sides comes down to roughly $7 a month in Medicare premiums. Combined with other reforms, the higher premium for seniors proposed by Republicans will save today's average seven-year-old more than $140,000 in income taxes over the course of this working life. Congress wants to protect our children from this additional tax hit-- after all, they'll already be paying $300,000 in Medicare payroll taxes over their lifetime. But the president is willing to trade these taxes on our children for a $7-per- month break for seniors. Despite this superficial difference, the president's new budget has moved to a near embrace of the Republican position on Medicare. Like the Republicans, Mr. Clinton wants to open a failed government program to the choices of the marketplace. And with notable exceptions, his overall budget numbers are within talking distance of the GOP's. It couldn't have come a moment too soon. As most people have heard, Medicare Part A--the mandatory, payroll-tax-funded program that pays insurance costs for retirees' hospital, home health, nursing and hospice services--is hurtling toward insolvency and effective shutdown by 2002. And costs for Medicare Part B--the voluntary insurance program that pays doctor, lab, and equipment fees out of general federal revenues and beneficiary premiums--have been rising far faster than the rate of inflation for many years. In its present form, Medicare is quite simply unsustainable, either for the taxpayers who finance it or for the elderly Americans who depend on it. Not much controversy there. And neither, despite all the political noise, is there much controversy over what to do about it. Congress's plan to preserve Medicare and restrain its costs involves $1.65 trillion in spending over the next seven years. The president's current plan forecasts $1.68 trillion in spending during the same period--a $30 billion, or less than 2%, difference. Both proposals involve better-than- inflation increase in Medicare spending on every enrolled retiree; the Republican budget allows a 62% jump in total spending (to $7,101 per beneficiary per year), for example. And where the basic structure of the program is concerned, the White House and congressional budgets mirror one another in nearly every essential respect. Except one. Congress spreads its necessary Medicare savings across every category of program expenditure. The Republican plan brakes projected spending growth on hospitals, doctors, home health providers, nursing homes, lab tests, and medical equipment. And it asks retirees--America's wealthiest age group--to make their own, modest contribution, in the national interest, to the program that benefits them alone. How modest? In the year 2002, at the point where the two competing Medicare proposals most sharply diverge, Congress would have beneficiaries pay a monthly Part B premium $7 higher than the administration plan envisions. This is a very small amount of money with very large potential consequences. If the president's current veto holds, and Medicare's structure is left unreformed, its Board of Trustees reports that a steep payroll tax increase will be required to pay for future medical services. The current rate, 2.9%, shared evenly between employees and their companies, will necessarily more than double. Today's first or second-grader, who enters the labor force in 2010 at age 22, and earns average wages until retiring in 2053, will pay $450,314 over his working lifetime in Medicare payroll taxes. And by the same accounting assuming revenues needed to keep Medicare in long-term balance, this hypothetical worker will pay over $200,000 more in lifetime payroll and income taxes under the president's plan--taxes that are unnecessary under the Medicare reform endorsed by Congress. More than two-thirds of this tax difference, or $140,691, is directly attributable to that $7 monthly Part B premium increase. Undeterred by these undeniable facts, the AFL-CIO is sending a million pieces of mail into the districts of its 55 targeted congressmen, placing 500,000 phone calls, handing out leaflets and staging rallies--all designed to punish these elected officials for approving fictitious ``massive cuts in Medicare'' when they voted for the Republican budget. The labor federation has spent more than $1 million to put individualized television ads on the air against 22 of these House members. Each spot, over video of a worried elderly woman, ominously (and dishonestly) reports that ``he voted to cut Medicare.'' But no one has voted to cut Medicare this year. With a provision entirely unrelated to the push for a balanced budget--this treasured program must be fixed and saved whether the budget is balanced or not--Congress has voted to spare the grandchildren of current and future Medicare beneficiaries enough money in taxes to pay for four expensive years of college, or purchase a first home. Is there a grandparent in America who would not pay $7 a month for that? Find me one, and I'll eat my hat.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is simple: Should seniors be given the same choices in their health care that Members of Congress enjoy? Under the Republican plan to save Medicare, seniors get choices just like we do. They can choose from traditional Medicare, HMOs, PPOs, Provider Sponsored Organizations, Medical Savings Accounts, or other private insurance packages. Under the Republican plan, seniors' first choice is traditional Medicare. Seniors are automatically enrolled in traditional Medicare if they don't choose a different option. Under the President's plan, seniors do not get all of these choices. Isn't it time that we allow seniors to enroll in the same types of plans that Members of Congress can enroll in. Don't you think it's time we give seniors the same options that we give ourselves under our health plan. Mr. Speaker, the proposal before us today includes the President's plan to get money from Medicare. His plan does not include giving seniors all the choices that the Republican plan would provide. I urge my colleagues to reject the President's budget proposal. We have already proven that we can do better.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the following article by Robert Goldberg ran in the Washington Times on December 6, 1995. Mr. Goldberg does an excellent job of explaining why the current Medicare system is in dire need of an injection of quality-based competition and incentives. As the Medicare debate continues, I commend this article to my colleagues: Medicare and the Illusions of Protection (By Robert M. Goldberg) For all the rhetoric about how the Republican plan will bring misery and financial hardship to millions of Medicare beneficiaries, the fact is you couldn't design a better system than the current one to achieve that goal. Medicare's financial problems are largely the direct result of its subpar treatment of the chronically ill. In particular, seniors bear an unnecessary financial and medical burden in the form of higher out-of-pocket expenses and costly supplemental health insurance. Worse, because Medicare pays for all care regardless of its quality and outcome, the elderly--thinking that Medicare offers them health security--are actually spending billions on health care services that add nothing to their well-being. Those who are fighting Medicare reforms are perpetuating a system that makes the elderly sicker than they have to be for longer periods of time than they should. At the heart of the problem are Medicare's price controls which get people out of hospitals quicker (so providers can keep the difference between what they spend and what Medicare pays for), but leaves them sicker as a result. For example, a University of California at Los Angeles medical school study of seniors hospitalized for depression found that Medicare's price controls led to more care without any additional benefit to patients. The income doctors and hospitals lost because of price controls was made up by increasing the volume of services provided. Similarly, sub-optimal care has contributed to the 20- percent-a-year growth in home health services under Medicare. For instance, studies show that Medicare regulations increase the number of elderly with hip fractures that were discharged before they were fully well. As a result, more people had to rely on home health care or be sent to nursing homes for longer periods of time after the fracture. And a Rand Corp. study found that Medicare's regulations increased by 50 percent the chances that patients will be sent home in an unstable condition. The number of patients remaining in nursing homes one year after the fracture suggests that their quality of care had deteriorated. Overall, a study of a national sample of Medicare patients found that patients are more likely to be sick or die after discharge than they were before the current set of Medicare regulations were imposed. In fact, because premiums and deductibles have not increased for more than a decade, Medicare only provided the illusion of protection. And, the elderly pay a hidden tax in the form of higher out-of-pocket expenses and supplemental insurance coverage called Medigap, due to Medicare's mismanagement of medicine. There is a little evidence that the additional coverage increases well-being. Seniors with Medigap spend up to 70 percent more on health care than seniors with Medicare coverage alone, regardless of their health status. These are the dirty little secrets that defenders of the current Medicare system will never reveal to America's seniors. Medicare can be and is being made less expensive with medical innovations that make it more humane and more responsive. One such effect is the Healthy Seniors Program, created by The Carondolet Health Plan, in Tucson, Ariz. Gerry Lamb, the director of the program notes it is designed for the ``elderly with serious chronic illness, those who constitute the highest costs, fastest growing health service group.'' Healthy Seniors provides examinations, service and individual assistance to reduce the incidence of serious and expensive episodes of illness. The result is dramatic: Participation in the Healthy Seniors program use fewer medical services than those who do not, saving nearly $6,000 per patient each year. Notes Mr. Lamb, who is a nurse practitioner: ``There are huge dollars to be saved from dealing with chronic illness early, rather than in the hospital and emergency rooms''. In fact, the proposition that better care saves money is the foundation for transforming entire private sector health care system. The Business Heath Care Action Group (BHCAG), a coalition of 21 of the largest employers in Minnesota, provides a dramatic example of such initiatives. Starting in 1997, BHCAG's 1.5 million employees and retirees will be given vouchers that will be used to purchase health care from different groups. Medical providers will have to furnish consumers with patient-level information on how they improve the health of people with chronic conditions which afflict the elderly most such as stroke, hip fractures, heart disease and arthritis. BCHAG projects that with a greater investment in quality, the voucher system will be able to reduce the rate of spending 5 percent to 15 percent each year compared to other managed care approaches. Rhetoric and emotion aside, quality-based competition and incentives are at the heart of the GOP plan. Such quality- driven reductions in spending are possible if Medicare is dramatically changes. Providers need to be placed at risk for making such savings while at the same time they are required to compete for business in terms of the quality of care they can offer. The Republican Medicare plan isn't perfect, but it does take health care for seniors in this direction. As for Democratic and federally funded senior group efforts to save Medicare as we know it, they condemn this generation of elderly and the next to substandard care. House speaker Newt Gingrich is right: The faster the government-run Medicare program withers on the vine, the sooner it will stop taking dollars out of the pockets of seniors in order to prop up an obsolete health plan that undermines their quality of life.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. At first I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for moving this bill so quickly through committee. I would also like to compliment the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], my good friend, for his good-faith efforts in working with us to perfect and draft perfecting language to the bill. Also my good neighbor to the north, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], has helped, and we worked on this bill through finding out from our employers, people who employ over 100 folks in their places, high schools, school districts, that they, quite frankly, could not make this thing work, and it was going to cost a lot of money, and it did not do what it was supposed to do. Mr. Speaker, the bills before us today deal with the Clean Air Act, an act I voted for in 1990. I believe in the underlying intent of the Clean Air Act--to clean up the air we breathe, and maintain high air quality. Those are worthy goals and I am fully committed to them. However, the Clean Air Act, although well-intentioned is not perfect. After 4 years of implementation, we know that one particular provision of the act is not working. That provision is commonly referred to as ECO--it is the forced carpooling program. Under this provision, States with severe or extreme ozone nonattainment areas must implement a program which forces workers to carpool. There is no flexibility in this mandate. The way it is written on the books, it is simply unworkable, and it is contributing no significant improvements to air quality. The USEPA has determined that while the forced carpooling program will cost billions of dollars to implement, it produces only minuscule air quality improvements. After that recognition, USEPA indicated its intent not to enforce the forced carpooling program against individual employers. Further, the States have given up trying to implement this flawed program. In Illinois, after months of making a good-faith effort to implement this program, our Governor finally gave up and told our employers last March that he will not enforce the forced carpooling program in Illinois. He made that decision after it became clear that Illinois businesses alone would be spending $210 million a year to implement a program which was not working. It was not working because Americans do not want to be told they cannot use their own cars to come in early, or to stay late, or to drop their daughter off at preschool on their way to work. The program has failed nationwide. Several other Governors and State legislatures have joined Illinois' Governor in deciding not to enforce the forced carpooling program. But State action and EPA intent can only provide partial relief from this mandate. One of the things I thought was very, very showing in this piece of legislation: If my colleagues had a small business on the edge of an urban area, suburban area, and they drew their employees from rural areas, they had to decrease their carpooling and riding from 25 percent, notwithstanding those people did not have mass transportation, there is no way to get in to work. It is a program that just did not work, but yet, if my colleagues were in a high school, and they had 1,000 kids in the high school and 100 teachers, the teachers would have to carpool or find another way to work, but yet every kid could drive. It just did not make sense, it did not work, and this a good piece of legislation to change what does not work.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 845, 846, 847, and 848 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on each of those votes.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the Ethics Committee has finally reached a unanimous conclusion about the wild attacks that have come from liberal Democrats against Speaker Newt Gingrich: Much ado about nothing. They have concluded that 64 of the 65 charges brought to the Ethics Committee about Mr. Gingrich were without merit. The 65th charge requires an outside counsel because it is narrowly focused on a technical tax law. I urge the American people to focus not on the media hype, but on the big picture. Republicans are trying to balance the budget for the first time in decades. We are doing this to provide a better future for our children, to get lower interest rates for families today, and for a stronger America. Instead of joining with us to balance the budget, liberal Democrats have launched a smear campaign meant to derail our legislative agenda. And as the Ethics Committee has concluded, these charges are baseless. I urge my colleagues to stop playing political football with the Ethics Committee. It was established to bring greater integrity and respect to this institution. When you drag the Ethics Committee through the mud, every Member of this House gets dirty.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a red letter day for this Congress, but certainly, even more than that, a red letter day for the seniors of this country. It would not have happened, and I want to thank specifically the gentleman, who, after we passed this bill out of this House with over 400 votes on it, and the funding mechanism was rejected by the Senate, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] came back, worked with the staff diligently and made it work. We need to thank him profusely for that effort to make sure that this bill is on this floor today so that we can pass it and move it on. I also want to thank other Members, the gentleman from Texas, Dick Armey, who carried this bill for years in the House; and another gentleman from Texas, Bill Archer, who carried it for 20 years in the House as an important piece. What this bill does, ladies and gentleman, it helps working seniors, seniors who do not have pension income or stocks and bonds tacked away; people who have never had the chance to save and invest, and yet when they want to work to bring up their standard of living, to be part of this country, to share in the economy, to help their grandchildren, to take a vacation, to buy a car, when they go to earn those extra dollars, they get hit with a marginal tax rate of 56 percent when they exceed the limit of $11,000. Fifty-six percent, nearly twice the rate that millionaries pay today. Those seniors who live off investment incomes are not impacted by the earnings limit. Mr. Speaker, this is not just a right. America's working seniors should not be punished just because they never had money to tuck away and must now keep working to make ends meet. This tax relief for working seniors is sorely needed. Even though we know working seniors will pay more into our economy and more than offset the cost associated with lifting the earnings limit, the Congressional Budget Office will not allow this dynamic method of scoring. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] has worked to put together a proposal that meets the CBO budget rules and has also looked at that extra dynamic. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a salute to senior citizens, people who have worked their whole life, people who have yet to give information and education and leadership to people who are younger, that they can be the person that they look up to in a work force in a small store, a candy store, a McDonald's, the Sears area, all of those people who endorse this piece of legislation. I again salute the gentleman from Kentucky for his tremendous leadership and his staff for bringing this piece of legislation together and salute the seniors of this country so that they can make a statement in their behalf as well.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the introduction of the Senior Citizen's Right to Work Act of 1995. This bill provides long-awaited relief for America's working seniors. By passing this bill, Congress fulfills the pledge we made just 3 short weeks ago to lift the Social Security earnings limit by the end of 1995. That pledge was: Whereas the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed legislation to raise the exempt amount under the Social Security earnings limit three times, in 1989, 1992, and 1995; Whereas such legislation is a key provision of the Contract With America; Whereas the President in his 1992 campaign document, ``Putting People First'' pledged to lift the Social Security earnings limit; and Whereas the Social Security earnings limit is a depression- era relic that unfairly punishes working seniors: Now, Therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the intent of Congress that legislation will be passed before the end of 1995 to raise the Social Security earnings limit for working seniors aged 65 through 69 in a manner which will ensure the financial integrity of the Social Security Trust Funds and will be consistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget in seven years. The unfair earnings limit penalizes low- and middle-income seniors who need to work. The earnings limit takes away $1 of every $3 a senior earns over the limit. In 1995, this limit is a mere $11,280. This bill will lift the level to $14,000 in 1996 and up to $30,000 by 2002. If current law remains in effect, the $14,000 threshold won't be hit until 2002. Working seniors don't have pension income or stocks and bonds tucked away. They never had the chance to save and invest. And yet, they get hit with a marginal tax rate of 56 percent when they exceed the limit-- nearly twice the rate millionaires pay. But those seniors who do live off investment income are not impacted by the earnings limit. Folks, this is just not right. America's working seniors should not be punished just because they never had money to tuck away and must now keep working to make ends meet. It is time to remove the penalty on seniors who need to keep working. I want to commend my friend, Representative Bunning, who has done yeoman's work to bring this issue to the fore. Even though we know working seniors will pay more into our economy and more than offset the costs associated with lifting the earnings limit, the Congressional Budget Office will not allow this ``dynamic'' method of scoring. Thus, Mr. Bunning has put together a proposal that meets the CBO's budget rules. The House Ways and Means Committee will be considering this legislation tomorrow. And soon after, the Congress will consider this bill on the floor. We promised working seniors that we would provide relief before the end of the year, and we're going to keep that promise. Working seniors across America can trust Congress to deliver relief when they need it most. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill today.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the balanced budget provisions and the CR, and ask for a yes vote. Mr. Speaker, the President's men have been making the circuit of the talk shows today trying to tell the American people that the words of this agreement don't mean what they say. Mr. Speaker, the words are plain and simple. When the President signs this agreement, he is saying without reservation that he will balance the budget in 7 years--not 8, not 9, not 10--he is saying he will do it in 7 years. Second, when he signs, the President is agreeing that it will be the independent Congressional Budget Office that determines whether or not the numbers are real. Mr. Speaker, there are other words in this agreement. They restate our commitment to ensuring Medicare solvency, reforming welfare, providing adequate funding for Medicaid, education, agriculture, national defense, veterans, and the environment. In addition there are words that restate our commitment to adopt tax policies that help working families and stimulate future economic growth. Mr. Speaker, these words about our principles and priorities are important, and we will do our best to live up to them. But we need to be very clear that we are not agreeing to let those words be an excuse for not balancing the budget in 7 years with real honest numbers. [[Page H 13374]] Mr. Speaker, nothing in this agreement allows for any excuse. We are saying, in law, that we will balance the budget in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, when we vote for this measure, we give our word that it will happen. Likewise, by signing this agreement, the President gives his word--no excuses--no reinterpretations--no outs--just a balanced budget with honest numbers in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, if the President doesn't understand it that way, he should not sign this bill. And if he does sign it, and I hope he will, let's not insult the American people by having any army of the President's spin doctors running all over the country in the next few days telling us it really means something else. Let's stop the political games and get the job done. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has written and passed in this Congress its 7 year balanced budget. We've proved it can be done. After the President signs this agreement into law making his commitment to balancing the budget in 7 years, he should send us a detailed budget of his own so the negotiation can begin. Mr. Speaker, the time for sound bites is over. It's time for the President to translate his principles into specific budget numbers so the negotiation can seriously begin.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am filled with sadness on the passing of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the Rabin family, and the friends and people of Israel. Like Abraham and Moses before him, Rabin was an extraordinary leader of the Jewish people who had a vision of peace and prosperity for the Israeli Nation. His tremendous accomplishments are an inspiration to us all and reveal Mr. Rabin's dedication to God and his country. Rabin's service to Israel is that of both a warrior and a peacemaker, continually pursuing the dream of normalcy and tranquility for Israel. Signing the Oslo accords at the Washington ceremony, he addressed the Palestinians with the following words: ``We, like you, are people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live side by side with you--in dignity, in empathy, as human beings, as free men.'' His memory is a blessing to each and every one of us because of the standards he defined for character, integrity, vision, courage, and leadership. For his diligence and dedication to authoring a lasting peace, he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. With his efforts, he served not only the people of Israel with great distinction, but that of the world as well. It is my hope that the foundation he created for peace between Israel and the Palestinians will continue to be built upon. Its hard to understand why such tragedies occur. Yet, we must believe that good can come out of evil. We must hold to the belief that soldiers believe in their souls--with death, there is peace. As we devote ourselves to that, may we gain hope from our martyred friend that there will be peace in Israel. For his unwavering devotion and undying vision for peace, I will not forget this man. Once again, my prayers go out to his wife, Leah, his loving family, and the people of Israel as they struggle through this tremendously sorrowful and trying time. May our memory of him prevail, so that his vision will not vanish.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I would say that if there is not any information or movement within a reasonable time, I would say that would be probably shortly after midnight that the House would stand adjourned.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], I would like to advise all Members that [[Page H 12178]] as things currently stand, we hope we will have not any additional votes tonight. However, I would advise Members that discussions initiated by the Speaker and the majority leader with the President will be going on starting at 10:00 tonight and should those talks yield any agreement that would necessitate action on the House floor, all Members will have 1 hour notice to return to the Capitol. One other thing I might add is that if the President does veto the CR that has been sent down, we are obliged to pick that up tonight. So I would urge all Members to keep in touch with their respective cloakrooms.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I would not anticipate being in session at that time. I would think that for the remainder of this evening, at least until midnight, the House would be in session so that if there is movement or results from the discussions tonight that we could act upon it or at least be advised.

Mr. HASTERT. Under all circumstances, we will anticipate that Members have an hour lead time before there will be a vote. We will take special orders and our intention is when special orders are exhausted or finished, we will go into recess and wait for a report from the meeting at the White House. We anticipate that our Members will have the ability to hear what happened at the White House this evening.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Ohio and urge Members to defeat the previous question so we can substitute his amendment with a superior one. Mr. Speaker, the Congress created the Environmental Protection Agency in the 1970's to ensure a safe, clean, and healthy environment for our country. I wholeheartedly support those important goals--every American needs clean air to breathe, safe water to drink, and a healthy environment free of toxic pollutants. However, when Congress crated the EPA, it did not make the agency infallible. Over the years, we have all seen that there are many ways that the EPA can do a better, more efficient, and more cost effective job. It is our duty as a Congress to the American people to see to it that this happens. Mr. Speaker, the Members of this body, in approving H.R. 2099 earlier this year, sought to address several specific issues of EPA regulation. By narrowly restricting a specific use of EPA funds, the Congress is saying, give us a chance to stop and look at what the EPA has been doing. As a Congress, it is our duty to evaluate the effectiveness of Government regulatory policy. The gentleman from Ohio offers us an all-or-nothing proposal. His motion would have us instruct our conferees to drop every one of these riders, regardless of their merits. Although the gentleman and his supporters would have us believe that his is the only way for us to proceed, I believe that the House should not be limited in choosing only all of the riders or none of the riders. Instead, we should instruct conferees to review each proposal on its merits. Mr. Speaker, if we vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question, it will give us an opportunity to consider another, superior motion, that will instruct our conferees to consider each one of these riders on their merits as they rightfully should. To support the gentleman from Ohio's all or nothing approach, I would be encouraging Conferees to drop a provision that forces the EPA to rethink its silly, forced carpooling system. This is a program which even the EPA admits is a failure in helping us clean up our air. It would cost employers in Illinois hundreds of millions of dollars to implement and unnecessarily inconvenience one out of four commuters. How can I support the EPA spending money to administer this foolish program when serious environmental problems like the clean-up of radioactive thorium in West Chicago really need the attention of EPA officials.