Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, this is a common sense issue. It is about economics and it is about common sense. First of all, this debate about being an environmental issue, that is ridiculous. You pump water into this well to raise the oil to pump it out in the first place. There is not one drop of oil that has gone out of this reserve into any natural environment, so let us not talk about that. The second point is we have to have a billion barrels of oil to protect our military, to protect our economy against what could happen, our trust in the Middle East. We do not know what those people are going to do. We do not know what is going to happen to us in the Middle East. But if we give it away, we do not have the billion barrels of oil. We have 591 million barrels. What happens is, sure, the last 7 million cost $17.50 a [[Page H 7053]] barrel. But there are 591 million barrels that cost us $33 a barrel, so the average cost of that barrel of oil is about $32.27. If we want to sell something for $15 that we bought for $32, I have got a lot of good deals for you. But in order to keep the integrity of our economy, the integrity of our defense and the integrity of the whole SPR system, we have to defeat what is there. We have to pass the Schaefer amendment. I ask for an expedient effort to do so.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding civic leader of Illinois' 14th Congressional District, M. Edward Kelly, on his forthcoming retirement. Ed Kelly has served since December of 1976 as the executive vice president of the Elgin Area Chamber of Commerce. The list of accomplishments during his long career are many, and there are many States across this Nation that are better for his service there. Born and raised in Parkersburg, WV, he graduated from Marietta College in Marietta, OH and entered the field of organization management in 1955. He began his professional career with the Benton Harbor-Saint Joseph's Chamber of Commerce in Michigan, and managed chambers in Oshkosh, WI and Springfield, MO before settling in Elgin, IL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kelly has been a valued member of the Elgin community for years, and his list of civic and professional activities is a long one. A former director of the YMCA corporate board, Miss Illinois Scholarship Pageant and Elgin Sesquicentennial Committee, he is also a past president of the Rotary Club of Elgin. To this day he serves as a member of the American Chamber of Commerce Executives, as an ex-officio member of the Center City Development Corporation and as a trustee of the Northwest Suburban Mass Transit District. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in honoring this dedicated man, for his commitment to this Nation's businesses and to the Elgin community. I wish my friend the best in his retirement. His experience and dedication have served the people of Elgin well.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor an outstanding civic leader of Illinois' 14th Congressional District, M. Edward Kelly, on his forthcoming retirement. Ed Kelly has served since December 1976 as the executive vice president of the Elgin Area Chamber of Commerce. The list of accomplishments during his long career are many, and there are many States across this Nation that are better for his service there. Born and raised in Parkersburg, WV, he graduated from Marietta College in Marietta, OH and entered the field of organization management in 1955. He began his professional career with the Benton Harbor-Saint Joseph's Chamber of Commerce in Michigan, and managed chambers in Oshkosh, WI and Springfield, MO before settling in Elgin, IL. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Kelly has been a valued member of the Elgin community for years, and his list of civic and professional activities is a long one. A former director of the YMCA Corporate Board, Miss Illinois Scholarship Pageant, and Elgin Sesquicentennial Committee, he is also a past president of the Rotary Club of Elgin. To this day he serves as a member of the American Chamber of Commerce Executives, as an ex officio member of the Center City Development Corp. and as a trustee of the Northwest Suburban Mass Transit District. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in honoring this dedicated man, for his commitment to this Nation's businesses and to the Elgin community. I wish my friend the best in his retirement. His experience and dedication have served the people of Elgin well.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 371, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 372, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record immediately following that rollcall vote.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the pending substitute and in strong support of the Kasich budget. I have the greatest respect for the Members who bring this alternative to the House, and I appreciate the work they have done to make this substitute in order under the rule. It is not easy to balance the budget. If it were, the Congress would have done it years ago. This budget alternative underscores the differences between Republicans and the more liberal members of the Democrat caucus. The Payne substitute raises taxes by $700 billion, while cutting defense by $108 billion. Clearly, this is not the path Republicans or most Americans are willing to take to a balanced budget. My constituents believe they are taxed too much, and they also understand the necessary role the Government plays in promoting national security. The Kasich budget provides tax relief, not tax increases. I am especially pleased about its tax relief to senior citizens, who are now taxed at rates that discourage their active participation in job markets. The Kasich budget also guards our national defense by keeping our defense spending at levels necessary to keep our people safe. Mr. Chairman, cutting defense and raising taxes is not the best way to a balanced budget. The Kasich budget is not painless. It is not perfect. But it is the best way to reach a balanced budget while maintaining a strong defense and providing tax relief to middle-class families. I urge all Members to vote for the Kasich budget and vote against the Payne substitute.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, for the last few days, liberal Democrats have taken to the floor to denounce so-called Medicare cuts. What cuts? Where are they? This chart clearly shows that under the House Republican budget, Medicare funding will increase. This year, we will spend over $150 billion on Medicare. This will not decrease. Let me be absolutely clear about this--Medicare funding will not decrease. Under the House Republican plan, Medicare spending will have increased to about $230 billion by the year 2002. Let me say that again--Medicare spending will be $230 billion in the year 2002. Now, if Medicare spending is $150 billion this year and $230 billion seven years from now, that is an increase in Medicare spending. Where's the cut? Only in Washington could an increase be a cut. Well, the American people are tired of the old Washington accounting methods. Those methods are the very reason we have a $5 trillion debt. Republicans are committed to scrapping the old Washington accounting methods and replacing them with the truth, something not often seen around here.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, as we wrestle with a way to save Medicare, I rise today to urge my colleagues to help me save college wrestling and other sports that have fallen victim to an intrusive Federal bureaucracy. In my home State of Illinois, four of the major State-funded universities have either dropped or threatened to drop wrestling as a varsity sport. These schools have been forced to consider these cuts because of a misinterpretation of title IX. The Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education has demanded that schools drop men sports, such as wrestling, soccer, and swimming, in order to achieve numerical proportionality with women sports. This is another example of what happens when good intentions turn into unintended consequences. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of title IX is not to limit opportunity. The purpose is to create even greater opportunity for all of our young athletes. As a former wrestling coach, I urge my colleagues to consider commonsense changes to title IX. Let us not allow Federal bureaucrats to pin down the hopes and dreams of millions of America's athletes.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the House voted to pass provisions to lift the Social Security earning penalty on older Americans of retirement age from the current level of $11,280 to $30,000 by the year 2000. In part, we have seven very special senior citizens to thank for this action. These people came out to Washington to tell their stories this week because America needs to know how the earnings penalty affects its citizens. Therefore, I would like to share these stories with the Nation. Gloria Davis, Marina Del Rey, CA Gloria has worked since she was 16 years old. Two years ago, when she discovered she owed the Social Security Administration $4,000 for benefits she received after exceeding the earnings limit, she became active in the effort to change the law. The Social Security Administration gave her 30 days to pay. She has told her story on television and through print media and has heard from seniors across the Nation who wrote her after seeing her on television. Gloria and her husband owned their own business, but went bankrupt in the 1980's. They lost everything and were saddled with debt. So, Gloria doesn't have a retirement income and must work. Gloria, like many older women, worked at jobs which paid little, and sometimes for employers who did not pay into the Social Security System. Her monthly benefit averages $467. Gloria has a background in public relations, sales, advertising, and television production. At one time she was State director of the Miss U.S.A./Universe Pageants, Miss America pageant and several other pageants. She has served as an event planner and trade show organizer for many years. Gloria currently works a full time job at Car Barn Airport Parking. Betty bourgeau, taylor, MI Betty entered the workforce at age 50 when her husband left her and her children. She worked two part-time minimum wage jobs at a department store and for a security company. She then became a teacher's aide for a Head Start Program, went back to school and became qualified to be a Head Start lead teacher. However, Betty quit teaching Head Start, the job she loved, when she began taking Social Security. She would lose most of her benefits with both jobs. Her department store job included health care benefits she needed, so she remained employed there. Betty has received several Employee of the Year awards at the department store over the years, accompanied by pay raises. However, when she takes the raises, she must reduce Security. This puts her in a particularly difficult situation because her health benefits are predicated on working a certain number of hours for the department store. Regulating her hours is also difficult during the busy holiday season at the end of the year. The store needs her more during these times, but she loses most of her benefits if her work puts her further over the Social Security limit. Mary Lou Livingstone, Springfield, IL Mary Lou was divorced 19 years ago and worked ever since. She has no pension or retirement plan to draw from. She had to pay the Social Security Administration back $549 in 1991, $281 in 1992, $935 in 1993 and $730 in 1994 for earnings exceeding the Social Security earnings limit. During those years, her average Social Security check was $288 per month. In 1994, Mary Lou cut back her hours to try to avoid the penalty, but still had to pay some money back. Mary Lou supplements her grocery bill each month through the Share Program sponsored by Catholic Charities. This program allows her to pay $14 per month and receive $35 worth of groceries. Mary Lou works as an information receptionist at the visitors center of the Lincoln Home National Historic Site in Springfield, IL. She has worked there for nearly 12 years and has received numerous complimentary letters for her job performance. She was also featured as a staff star of the Springfield Bureau of Tourism. mr. and mrs. robert and shirley hickey, unadilla, ny Robert and Shirley have both worked most of their lives. Shirley suffered a brain aneurism several years ago and is no longer able to work. However, Robert still works at a calendar factory as a kensole operator imprinting the lettering on the calendars. This is just to make ends meet. They have a 401(k) plan, but no other outside income. Last year, Robert earned more than the earnings limit allows and was recently fined $1,650 by the Social Security Administration. As a result, he and Shirley took out a personal loan against their 401(k) plan at a rate of 10 percent in order to pay their bill to Social Security. They can not afford the alternative, under which the Social Security Administration would cease payment of monthly Social Security benefits until the payment was complete. At the same time, Robert pays over $3,000 a years in Federal income taxes for the privilege of working. Mary Lou Hagan, Groville, CA Mary Lou is a widow and is currently looking for part time work. She has been in the banking business for years, serving as a bank manager, loan officer and operations manager. She was earning a comfortable salary when the bank went under, with her retirement benefits with it. All of her retirement plan was in bank stock. After the bankruptcy, she recovered only $1,000 from her retirement plan. In addition, much of her savings was invested in this stock, so she suffered further loss. Mary Lou is an avid volunteer and serves on the hospital board, the Chamber of Commerce, Friends of the Park, and Soroptimists International. Nevertheless, Mary Lou wants and needs to get back to work, but the earnings penalty poses obstacles to gainful employment. A job she has recently applied for would require her to work all year at a salary that would exceed the limit by about $3,000. She could not take the job without agreeing to this work load, but she would not receive the benefits of the extra work. joseph o'brien, rancho palos verdes, ca Joe is an electrical engineer with 40 years of experience. He holds three patents for high speed counters. He has deliberately stopped working because he reached the earning limit after the first few months of the year. Society is being deprived of his considerable expertise because he is unable to keep his earnings if he works over the limit. He pays taxes to the Federal Government, which he feels are not adequately considered when the cost of the lifting the Social Security earnings penalty is calculated. Joe feels that the optimum strategy is for a senior to work until hitting the limit, then quit for the rest of the calendar year. This makes it difficult for him to find a job fully utilizing his talents. His prospective employers know there must be limits on his commitments, so he ends up working on a contract basis, which means there are no benefits. In 1993, after reaching the limit, he made only 17 cents on the dollar after marginal tax rates were applied to his income. Joe realized he could have earned more on California unemployment. Joe's father was also affected by the Social Security earning limit when he was alive. After raising three children alone--this wife died at age 42--and sending them through college, he was forced to work in his retirement years. Joe's father ended up taking money under the table through jobs that did not report his income to Social Security to avoid the law. While Joe does not advocate this, he knows it is a reality for many seniors.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed here to sit and listen to this debate here tonight and see how fact and fiction is twisted and turned and twisted. I would like to set the record straight. First of all, I have a letter here from Abraham Chayes who is a professor of law at Harvard University. He says: I am writing to express my concern about the current proposal before the U.S. House to impose a tax on persons leaving the United States who renounce their citizenship. I understand this proposal is now in the House in debate. I am the Felix Frankfurther Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School where I teach international law. From 1961 to 1964, I was the Legal Adviser to the department of State. In my opinion, the proposed expatriation tax raises serious questions under the Constitution and international law involving the fundamental right of voluntary expatriation and immigration. As you may know, the International Law Section of the ABA in its statement of March 8, concluded that the proposed expatriation tax ``may be an illegal restriction on the fundamental right to emigrate.'' I go on. The proposed tax, which applies without regard to the individual's motivation, imposes much more than a nominal penalty on citizens who wish to emigrate. Thus, it has serious human rights implications and is inconsistent with longstanding U.S. policies with respect to the right of free emigration expressed in the Jackson-Vanik Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. And he goes on, and it is signed sincerely, Abraham Chayes, Harvard School of Law. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter in its entirety Harvard Law School, Cambridge, March 30, 1995. Hon. Nancy L. Thompson, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Johnson: I am writing to express my concern about the current proposal in the Senate version of H.R. 831 to impose a tax on persons leaving the United States who renounce their citizenship. I understand this proposal is now in House-Senate conference. I am the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law emeritus at Harvard Law School where I teach international law. From 1961 to 1964, I was the Legal Adviser to the Department of State. In my opinion, the proposed expatriation tax raises serious questions under the Constitution and international law involving the fundamental right of voluntary expatriation and emigration. As you may know, the International Law Section of the ABA in its statement of March 8, concluded that the proposed expatriation tax ``may be an illegal restriction on the fundamental right to emigrate.'' It also appears to burden the constitutionally based right of voluntary expatriation. See Richards v. Secretary of State, 752 F.2d 1413, 1422 (9th Cir. 1985). The proposed tax, which applies without regard to the individual's motivation, imposes much more than a nominal penalty on citizens who wish to emigrate. Thus, it has serious human rights implications and is inconsistent with long-standing. U.S. policies with respect to the right of free emigration expressed in the Jackson-Vanick Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974 and elsewhere. Indeed, this policy was a centerpiece of our effective opposition to the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. If the United States now adopts this restrictive approach, it will give oppressive foreign governments an excuse to retain or erect barriers to expatriation and emigration. I strongly urge you to protect these important freedoms by rejecting the proposed expatriation tax in the Conference Committee. Sincerely, Abram Chayes. You know, Mr. Chairman, after 40 years of Democrat rule, the people need a break from high taxes, higher spending and hyperbole. Last November they got that break. They voted in a Republican majority that promised change and in this tax bill we have delivered this change. I ask for a negative vote on this piece of legislation. The Gephardt substitute is not change. It is the same old story. It contains no real tax relief for middle-class Americans, it contains no real breaks for senior citizens, it contains no incentives for job creation. It is as if the Democrats do not really believe that the American people have had enough of tax-and-spend politics for the last 40 years. Well, I have news for the Democrat leadership. The American people are sick and tired of being taxed and spent to death. The Gephardt substitute proves a point I have believed for some time. The Democrat leadership wants to raise taxes. The Republican Party wants to cut taxes. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against the Gephardt substitute and vote for tax fairness and deficit reduction.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, as we know, the American family is overtaxed. But our families are not limited to just young newlyweds or those with kids in college. Our families include our parents and grandparents. And just as high taxes are antijobs and antifamily, they are antiseniors. Here are the facts: Senior citizens with an average income face the highest marginal tax rates in the country In fact, for seniors 40- to 80-percent tax rates are not uncommon; A senior working at a job that pays $5 an hour will only net $2.20 an hour after he or she works even 1 hour past the current $11,280 earnings limit; and A senior who earns juat $1 over the earnings limit annually will face an effective marginal tax rate of 56 percent. Mr. Speaker, we need to restore tax fairness to all families, including seniors. Why should the American dream disappear when someone turns 65? Why should someone be discouraged from working just when they can offer years of experience and wisdom? By raising the earnings limit to $30,000 we will be raising the hopes and futures of one of our Nation's most precious resources, our senior Americans.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow when we take up H.R. 1215, the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act of 1995, I urge my colleagues to ponder one question: Do they support working senior citizens in this country, or do they support taxing our seniors out of the work force? If Members support our senior citizens, they will support the tax bill. A vote against the tax bill is a vote against senior citizens who want to work, who want to be productive. Let me tell the Members why. This tax bill does two things that will help older Americans. First, it repeals President Clinton's Social Security tax that he passed over Republican objections last year; and, second, it increases the earnings test so that more seniors will be able to work without getting taxed at a rate twice the amount that millionaires have to pay. Mr. Speaker, the choice tomorrow is simple. Either they support our seniors or they do not. I urge my colleagues on Americans and start giving them the relief they richly deserve.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my colleague from the other side of the aisle talk about immorality and how tax breaks go to the rich. But let me talk a few minutes about what this tax bill will do for people, real people, people who are 65 years of age. And because they have never been very wealthy all their lives or never had great jobs all their lives they do not have big pensions, and they do not have a lot of income coming in from other types of investments, investments in rents and other things. But, lo and behold, people who have to work, people who have to work to make ends meet, people who have to work to pay the taxes on their homes that they live in and, heaven forbid, maybe even buy a new car someday, real people like your mother and father and your grandparents, people in your lives that you know every day, day in and day out. What happened with the 1933 tax bill is something called the earnings test on Social Security. The earnings test on Social Security says once you earn $11,280, you have to pay $1 out of every $3 in penalty that you make on your Social Security. So when you add up all your taxes and all your tax liabilities, if you are a senior and you are 66 years of age and you have to work to keep your family together and maybe pay your taxes on your home and maybe groceries and things like that, all of a sudden you are paying a marginal tax of 56 percent, twice the amount that millionaires pay. But you know in the tax bill that our friends on the other side of the aisle talk so vehemently about, there is some real relief for seniors that have to work, that have to take care of their families, that want to live a life like everybody else, that want to be productive. Mr. Speaker, what happens there is that seniors get a break with this tax bill, that we raise over the next 5 years the earnings test to $4,000 a year, and so in 5 years you can earn $30,000, not a lot of money in our day and age but enough for sustenance to keep a family together and not pay that penalty on your Social Security. Now we think this is a fair bill. The President thought it was certainly something fair because he included it in his campaign report. But let me talk to you a little bit about some real people, real people who live in my district and probably in your district and across this country: Betty Bourgeau: Betty entered the work force at age 50 when her husband left her and her children. She worked two part-time minimum wage jobs at a department store and for a security company. She then became a teacher's aide for a HeadStart program, went back to school and became qualified to be a HeadStart lead teacher. However, Betty quit teaching HeadStart, the job she loved, when she began taking Social Security. She would lose most of her benefits with both jobs. Her department store job included health care benefits she needed, so she remained employed there. Betty has received several ``Employee of the Year'' awards at the department store over the years, accompanied by pay raises. However, when she takes the raises, she must reduce her hours or lose more of her benefits to Social Security. This puts her in a particularly difficult situation because her health benefits are predicated on working a certain number of hours for the department store. Regulating her at the end of the year. The store needs her more during these times, but she loses most of her benefits if her work puts her further over the Social Security limit. Now that type of a situation happens time and time again. Why do we penalize? Why do our friends on the other side of the aisle want to penalize working seniors? Why do they want to vote no on this type of legislation? Let us look at Mary Lou Livingston from Springfield, IL: Mary Lou was divorced 19 years ago and has worked ever since. She has no pension or retirement plan to draw from. She had to pay the Social Security Administration back $549 in 1991, $281 in 1992, $935 in 1993 and $730 in 1994 for earnings exceeding the Social Security earnings limit. During those years, her average Social Security check was $288 per month. In 1994, Mary Lou cut back her hours to try to avoid the penalty, but still had to pay some money back. Mary Lou supplements her grocery bill each month through the Share Program sponsored by Catholic Charities. This program allows her to pay $14 per month and receive $35 worth of groceries. Mary Lou works as an information receptionist at the Visitors Center of the Lincoln Home National Historic Site in Springfield, IL. She has worked there for nearly 12 years and has received numerous complimentary letters for her job performance. She was also featured as a staff star of the Springfield Bureau of Tourism. Here is a person who needs to work, needs to have the tax relief that the tax bill that we will vote on the rule tomorrow will give her, but yet there are some who want to demagogue the issue and talk about how all these benefits go to the rich when, in fact, they go to real people, real people who really need them.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, as the House considers the tax cut and spending cut bill later this week, I urge the American people to listen to the rhetoric of the two sides. Republicans believe cutting taxes is a way to give people back their money. Democrates believe cutting taxes is a way for the Government to give away its money. Republicans believe that tax cuts spur economic growth and help the American people help themselves. Democrats believe tax cuts are giveaways to the rich that hurt their big spending programs. Republicans believe that taxes are evil. Democrats believe they are necessary. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. When the Democrats talk about taxes, they really believe the money is the Government's to spend. When Republicans talk about taxes, they realize that the money belongs to the people who worked hard to earn it, not to the Government.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I certainly appreciate the gentleman from California for yielding. Bob Michel, when I came to the U.S. Congress, Bob Michel certainly was already established as a name and somebody who had served many, many years and a great record here. But no matter if I was the lowest guy from the delegation, Bob took time, counseled, sat down, was almost a father image and helped the youngest member of the delegation out, and I will always remember that. You know, people have talked about Bob Michel. I guess it is the old ploy, it is good if it will play in Peoria. Bob Michel did play in Peoria time after time in the best sense of the world. He certainly represented the heartland of America. He brought those values and those ideals back to this floor and to this city, and every time that Bob Michel got up to speak, we would hear that good Midwestern common sense, metered hostility or praise or whatever he had to give. But it was certainly tempered with his roots back in Illinois. And you know, I think we talk about Bob Michel being a quiet person. He certainly was, and unless there is a piano around, then he was not so quiet. We talk about him being a true gentle man, but Bob Michel was also tough, and if there were things that he really felt that were going the wrong way, he would stand there and he would outwait you. He would listen to you and listen to you and listen to you, had that toughness inside. I just really appreciate the opportunity here to speak about Bob and certainly to commemorate this part of this building in his name, something we can always remember. I think that is very, very fitting and proper to do.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House that provisions from H.R. 8, the Senior Citizen's Equity Act, are part of H.R. 1215, the tax bill we will be considering next week. These provisions would lift the earnings penalty on seniors who need to continue working in our society. H.R. 1215 also includes provisions to repeal the 1993 Clinton tax hike on Social Security benefits and to provide tax breaks for older Americans who purchase long-term care insurance. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to understand how Congress could continue to allow our Nation's laws to punish work and send the message to seniors that society no longer wants the skills and experience of older workers. Under the earnings penalty, working seniors lose $1 of every $3 of their Social Security benefit. FICA and State taxes bring the penalty up to a 56-percent marginal tax rate--twice the tax rate of millionaires. This is simply not fair. I have been working to relieve seniors of this tax burden for 8 years. Seniors cannot wait any longer. It is time to retire the high tax burden on our Nation's seniors instead of retiring older Americans who need to work to remain independent, productive members of society. It is time to pass the tax bill.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, it is time to measure our progress in protecting the Social Security Fund, specifically the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Fund [OASI]. This is the fund into which we all pay throughout our working lives and from which we expect to receive benefits when we retire. In my tenure in the House of Representatives, I have had the opportunity to cast votes to protect the Social Security trust fund several times. Perhaps the most important vote I have cast was in 1990 when I voted to take the Social Security trust funds ``off-budget.'' The purpose of this action to ensure that the Social Security trust funds would no longer be used to mask the true size of the Federal deficit. Instead, the trust fund would have a separate account. The administrative costs of the Social Security Administration were not taken ``off-budget.'' This action moved us closer toward honest accounting procedures and away from the concept of the ``unified budget,'' a mechanism to place all revenues in one large pot from when the Government can draw. However, it turns out that the language included in the 1990 law was not enough to protect the trust fund. In 1993, President Clinton undermined the trust fund by proposing a tax on Social Security beneficiaries at a rate of 85 percent of their benefits. The money collected from this tax would not go back into the trust fund, but was instead diverted to other programs in the Federal budget. I strongly opposed this tax. In fact, I went to the Rules Committee and offered an amendment to strip this tax on Social Security from the underlying budget legislation. But, the Rules Committee did not allow my amendment and the 1993 budget containing the tax on Social Security benefits passed into law with my strong objections. Later in 1994, I had the opportunity to cast a vote in favor of making Social Security an independent agency. This legislation passed the House and Senate and became law. This means the Social Security Administration [SSA] is no longer counted as part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Thus, the budget for Social Security is completely contained in one agency and the administrative costs of the trust fund are clear and set aside with the ``off-budget'' trust funds. For the first time, there will be a bipartisan governing board that insulates the SSA from political influence and the everyday fiscal policy decisions of the administration in power. In fact, several improvements in the Social Security system as a whole will result from this change. It will now be much easier to monitor and thus, protect the Social Security trust funds. I am proud to have supported this important change in the system that bolsters the security of the trust funds. This year, I cast a vote to support the balanced budget amendment [BBA]. This, too, was a vote to protect the security of the Social Security trust funds. During consideration of the BBA I voted for an amendment offered by my friend from Illinois, Representative Flanagan, to express the sense of the House of Representatives that Social Security would not be used to balance the Federal budget. This amendment passed and will provide crucial direction to the House in future years as we seek to balance the budget. However, if Social Security had been statutorily exempt from cuts, I believe there are many who would try to expand Social Security to include benefits for nearly every group of Americans imaginable. Many of the benefits paid out by the Social Security Administration do not go to retirees, but rather drug addicts, children with learning disabilities and the like. I am fearful that this would not only continue, but expand under a system where only Social Security had an ``exempted'' status. I have explained several key votes I have taken to protect the Social Security trust funds in the past several years. I do this because the people in the 14th district of Illinois want to know that their retirement benefits are safe. In fact, a group that believes strongly, as I do, that these benefits be removed from the national budget and set aside for the intended use of retirees has recently contacted me. I have presented this history of my position to indicate that I am in full agreement. Congress should not use Social Security funds to balance the budget or mask the budget deficit, but rather to fund the earned benefits of our country's senior citizens.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify an important issue regarding title III of H.R. 956. This title incorporates the provisions of H.R. 753, the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act, a bill to ensure that adequate supplies of biomaterials are available to medical device manufacturers. During the Commerce Committee's markup of H.R. 917, I offered an amendment to protect these vital supplies, the text of which now appears, with some modifications, in H.R. 965. It has come to my attention, however, that in the period of time between offering my amendment and today, language has been added to deal with the difficult issue of biomaterials suppliers who are alleged to have wrongfully withheld or misrepresented safety information, or who know of fraudulent use of their materials. I agree, of course, that conduct of this type, if it occurs, should not go unpunished. However, I have concerns regarding the specific language added to H.R. 965 to address this issue. I have heard from a number of biomaterials suppliers in recent days that the new language will not arrest the flight of suppliers from the implantable device market. May I remind my colleagues that we came to this debate to achieve a singular objective: To stem the exodus of biomaterials suppliers from the of unnecessary and costly litigation to prevent further flight by these suppliers. If we do not act, American patients will not have access to life-saving, life-enhancing implantable devices, including pace makers, heart valves, artificial blood vessels, hydrocephalic shunts, hip and knee joints, and even simple sutures for common surgeries. Mr. Chairman, in the final analysis, this debate is about more than legal theory and procedure. It is about ensuring that those devices which can save and enhance a person's life will be available when they need them. It is imperative that we fix this problem. In closing, I believe that the issues I have raised need to be discussed further. With the help of my colleagues, I am sure we can draft language that addresses these concerns.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I certainly thank him for his great work on the bill on product liability. And certainly the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], our chairman of the subcommittee, has done yeoman's work as well, working the last few years with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman of the then majority, in trying to put together H.R. 1910. I have been involved in trying to work on product liability since I first came to Congress and certainly have looked forward to participating in this debate on the floor for many, many years. Last year I was the cosponsor with a gentleman from the other side of the aisle by the name of Doc Rowland, a former member from Georgia, who was committed to bringing on the Fairness in Product Liability Act, and along with that we had garnered 126 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. I might also add that many of the provisions of this bill came from H.R. 1910, which was that act. It is plain to see that this is a bipartisan issue. I was also extremely pleased to see that this issue was important enough that it was included in the contract. As Members know, this issue of product liability reform is a mature issue that has been around for some 14 years. The Committee on Commerce was fortunate to hear from some true veterans of the field that have appreciated the hard work and commitment that many have made to this issue. I know they are just as pleased as I am to see the House is finally considering it on this floor. Since I first became involved with product liability, I have been amazed at the adverse effects our current system has on American productivity, competitiveness and innovation. We talk here a lot in Congress about competitiveness. We try to find ways to encourage it through legislation. I can tell Members without a doubt that if we enact this bill, we will boost the ability of American industry to compete. The best news is it will not cost taxpayers a dime. United States liability costs are 15 times greater than Japan's and 20 times greater than Europe's. These costs represent American dollars not spent for research or development or employee benefits or new job creation. U.S. costs are higher because all manufacturers, U.S. or foreign, sell most of their products at home. Since liability costs per product are based on liability exposure, and exposure is so much less under the legal systems of our competitors, our liability costs are higher than those of other countries. It seems to me that we should be encouraging American companies to stay in business. But this flawed system under which we currently work has just the opposite effect. We are not saying that you cannot file a suit if you have been wrongfully harmed or a company has been knowingly negligent, but if you pick up your lawn mower to use as a hedge trimmer, then you should not be able to sue the manufacturer. This bill only limits the number of lawsuits that have little or no merit. If we were only interested in employing lawyers, then maybe we would not need to be concerned about product liability. But American families are paying more for everything they buy, from their air conditioners to their Zenith TV's, because companies must pay billions for meritless lawsuits. I know some argue that we simply do not need to create uniform standard product liability laws. I have heard the opponents of the bill saying Republicans are doing an about-face, trying to pass laws on States from the Federal level, but the fact of the matter is that the creation of Federal uniform standard laws has been called for twice by the National Governors Association. Humor me for just a minute, but it is my guess that these folks are tuned in to what is needed at the State level. It is critical that the manufacturers of each of our districts have a good grasp of what their responsibilities are as producers. And our constituents' rights as consumers should not vary widely from State to State. I am hopeful that we will be able to address this issue, not only Republicans and Democrats as a united front here but as legislators committed to fixing the inequities and inconsistencies that currently exist in our laws.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment by the gentleman from California. This amendment, to provide a true safe harbor, strikes a balance between the need to encourage companies to provide information to the marketplace and the need to protect investors. The amendment requires companies to include a cautionary statement in their prospectus for investors. This statement, describing activities expected to be undertaken by the company, would make it clear to investors that the statement is forward-looking and inherently subject to risk because the statement may not come to pass. If investors are properly warned, then the company will not be subject to suit for the statements made. This provides a true safe harbor for companies that want to reveal as much information as possible. The amendment will also make clear that the SEC has the power and flexibility to provide other safe harbors. The safe harbor provisions offered up to this point do not provide clear definitions, so they still leave companies vulnerable to lengthy and expensive litigation. It's not really a safe harbor if the jagged rocks and sandbars of continued litigation threaten to run U.S. companies aground. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Committee on House Oversight; the Committee on International Relations; the Committee on National Security; and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1058, the Securities Litigation Reform Act, a bill that will discourage meritless suits. There is a securities litigation explosion in this country. In 1993 we saw the highest number of pending cases in any year for which data are available except 1974. Since 1990, filings have increased dramatically. The number of cases filed in the 4 years from 1990 to 1993 nearly equals the number filed in the previous 10 years combined. Some argue that H.R. 1058 will hurt investors, but just the opposite is true. The current litigation explosion punishes investors because companies increasingly fear so called strike suits which are filed each time their stock fluctuates. Thus, companies reveal less and less information to investors that could be used against them in the future. Clearly, investors lose when they do not have access to information when making decisions about where to place their life savings. Investors are also hurt under current law because they, in reality, are the ones who pay the costs when a company has to go to court to defend itself against a meritless lawsuit. They also pay the high cost of maintaining insurance against these strike suits. Finally, investors, who have legitimate claims, receive less money than they deserve because it is common practice to simply settle out of court. Companies settle out of court, whether or not the suit has merit, because it costs an average of $692,000 in legal fees and 1,055 hours of management time to successfully defend a strike suit. When meritless suits can be dismissed, the cases of real fraud will be brought to court. Then, investors will get paid the real value of their loss. That is just not the case today. Today, investors receive between 6 and 14 cents on the dollar lost. Securities litigation reform will reward investors by removing these punishments. However, in addition, specific provisions are included in the bill to give investors the same authority over their attorney as other clients, in other types of litigation, have. The bill provides for a court-appointed steering committee to make sure that lawsuits are maintained in the client's best interest. It also requires settlement offers to disclose the amount paid to lawyers and class members per share of stock. These significant changes favor those investors who have legitimate and important suits. But investors are not the only ones punished by meritless strike suits. High-technology and high-growth companies are also punished. One in every eight companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange is hit with a strike suit. Even more startling is that one of every four strike suits targets these high-growth companies. The average settlement, which is over $8.6 million, has, in essence, become a litigation tax on these companies. Those who have a tangential relationship to these suits, primarily the accountants who certify the books, are also punished. The long arm of the law has sought to include them, even when there is no fraud on their part, just because they have deep pockets. It's time that we reform our judicial system so that those who commit crimes are the ones who are punished, not those who abide by the law. H.R. 1058 will restore integrity to our system and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this important bill.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of a scientific milestone, announced this afternoon at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, IL. Today, physicists at the laboratory, which is located within my district, announced the discovery of the subatomic particle called the top quark, the last of the six basic building blocks predicted to exist by current scientific theory. Mr. Speaker, this discovery demonstrates the prominent role the United States and Fermilab play in the field of high energy physics. In addition, it is clear that Fermilab's Tevatron accelerator has established itself as the world's preeminent site for high energy physics research. of the work of the CDF and DZERO experiment collaborations are to be congratulated. I would also note the positive role played by the Department of Energy in funding this continuing research, and the efforts of Universities Research Associations, Inc. in the operation of Fermilab. We can also not overlook the contributions of the National Science Foundation as well as scientists and additional funding to the project from some 12 other nations worldwide. Fermilab's success can be shared by all of us in this House who have supported high-energy physics research by our votes. We additionally can be proud that we have assured Fermilab's continued leadership in this field through our support for construction of the main injector. Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to congratulate Dr. John Peoples and the excellent staff at Fermilab for another great contribution to the advancement of science. They are a valuable research and education resource for the world, this Nation, and my home State of Illinois.