Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

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

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to ask the gentleman from Tennessee a question. I have great respect for the gentleman from Tennessee and I would ask him if this was a decision that was made in a year, or 2 years, or maybe 4 years, up to 4 years, and the gentleman had students at the University of Tennessee, or some other university, would it not be proper to notify those students when that decision was made to drop the sport? It would not mean the gentleman would have to hold that sport.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my good friend from Delaware that the language says anytime within that 4-year period. So the interpretation is if they decide in 1 year, or 2 years, or 3 years, or 4 years, whenever that decision is, they just ought to come forward and let kids know. It does not say they cannot do this. It does not restrict them in any way. It just says there should be notice given, not a restriction of the Federal Government. And this is really kind of a red herring to cross this path. We are just saying notice ought to be given. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to listen to rhetoric. In fact, we need to understand what this provision in the bill really does. It is one of the foundations of our educational system that our kids should be taught the difference between right and wrong. Should we not teach our kids to be honest and forthright? And should we not teach our kids that rules apply equally to everyone? Answering these questions is what today's debate and the Roemer amendment is all about. The Roemer amendment says that it is basically okay for colleges and universities not to tell prospective students that they plan to eliminate or reduce the funding for sports programs that kids plan to participate in once they enroll. Mr. Chairman, I view this as a matter of honesty and simple fairness. I would ask anyone, should schools be able to hide from students the fact that they are planning to terminate their competitive sport, a sport that weighed heavily in their life decision about which school they should attend in the first place? And let me be clear, nothing in this provision prevents schools from eliminating sports programs nor does it require them to give 4-years' notice before they do so. I repeat, it does not require them to give 4-years' notice before they do so. All this language requires is that once a school knows it is going to eliminate a team, they must notify the affected athletes by giving notice; not notice to the Federal Government, just notice in a yearly report. In effect, this notification could take place 1 or 2 or 3 years before the actual termination. The key point is, once they decide, they need to disclose. Colleges and universities enjoy a special position in this country. As parents, we entrust them with the education of our children. In return, we should expect that they act in a manner that justifies this trust, and that certainly does not include making decisions which affect our kids' lives without honestly disclosing those decisions to them. I, for myself, cannot believe that Congress will send the message to college students that it is all right for schools to knowingly not tell them and the athletes and students and prospective students about the status of the sport which they care about. If we allow this to happen, it would certainly send the wrong message that right and wrong does not apply if you are a college or a university. Mr. Chairman, in 2 short years, between 1994 and 1996, nearly 200 colleges and universities canceled sports programs. That is thousands of kids who will never again have the opportunity to participate at the collegiate level, opportunities that many of us once enjoyed. I wonder how many of the kids who played on these teams were warned that their teams were slated for elimination? I wonder if any of them would have chosen a different school if they had known in advance that the school was planning to drop their sport? Many universities are doing the right thing, and I applaud them. But in some cases, the affected students are the last to know about the plans to drop their team. Mr. Chairman, let me tell my colleagues about the experiences of Scott Gonyo and his teammates. In 1993, Drake University decided to eliminate one of its, not a major sport, so it was either wrestling or track or soccer or swimming. When they eliminated their teams in 1993, did the school take the time to notify the team that they were being dropped? No. Did the athletic director take the time to notify them of the cancellation of their sport? No. Scott Gonyo and his teammates found out when the members of the media called them for reaction. I do not know about anyone else, but I think this sends a terrible message about how some colleges and universities are treating the very kids they are supposed to serve. What the Roemer amendment seeks to strike from this bill is the right of students to be informed about decisions which affect their lives, and that is all. We all know that kids and parents consider a number of factors before deciding which school to attend. Among these factors is the ability to participate in sports, for some students. I cannot believe that anyone would support a college's effort to keep pertinent information out of a student's hands. The fact that a school has decided to drop a sport is important information that kids and parents have a right to know before they decide which college they invest their time and their talents in. I would certainly prefer that the NCAA deal with this matter by seeking the voluntary cooperation of their member institutions. In my office last week, I met with representatives of the American Council on Education, ACE, the NCAA, and the small colleges. We agreed in that meeting that I would support removal of this provision in conference if the NCAA would simply urge members to embrace voluntary notification requirements. The next day, I received a letter from the president of the NCAA, the ACE, confirming that agreement, and was prepared to come to the floor and enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Member from California (Mr. McKeon) to that effect. But sadly, on Tuesday I received a letter from the NCAA actually breaking the deal. They simply want this Congress to go away and let them do whatever they please. Mr. Chairman, if the NCAA were a real estate agent trying to sell a house without disclosing leaky roofs or a used car salesman trying to sell flood-damaged cars without disclosure to the consumers, I dare say colleagues on both sides of the aisle would demand action. A college education is one of the most important purchases any student and their parents will ever make. What is wrong with asking these universities and NCAA to simply tell the truth? A ``yes'' vote on this amendment is a vote against kids knowing what their future will be and the families' right to know. I urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Certainly I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), who has worked with me to try to structure this language that made sense. I like to fish. I wish I had my pole here today because we have a lot of red herrings that have been floating around this place. Let me be very, very honest and straight. The gentlewoman from Hawaii talked about title IX. This is not about title IX. Some people say it takes 4 years' notice. It is not 4 years' notice. It is notice when a school decides up to 4 years to give notice to kids who are not going to have the opportunity to participate. But let me talk a little bit about what has arisen here as far as men versus women, certainly not the intent of this gentleman to talk about that. As my colleagues may know, my wife started teaching about the same time I did. She is a women's athletic coach. At that time the only opportunity that women had was GA, Girl's Athletics; it was an intramural thing. Today women have all types of opportunities; as many in girl sports in this high school as there are in boy sports, and that is great because it has changed the way. All we are saying in this amendment is let us be decent, let us be honest, and let us tell our kids when their opportunities are gone that they have the chance to go someplace else if that is the case. That is what we are asking about. But let me just say one more thing. As my colleagues may know, I had worked with the universities and small colleges, independent colleges and the NCAA. We had an agreement. An agreement was when this bill goes to conference let us work to make sure that this is a voluntary system. Now the Congress is going to work their will today, one way or another, but those who so vociferously stood up and said let us not do mandates, let us then talk to the NCAA and make sure that this does, win, lose, or draw, become something that is voluntarily encouraged by the NCAA to its members. That is the bottom line. Let us let kids have the understanding and the knowledge when their sport is terminated that they have the ability to make a choice. Let their parents have the ability to make their choice. Now, unfortunately, a lot of these kids are going to be vested in these schools, they are going to have hours. Maybe there will be sophomores or juniors and they cannot afford to change. What we are asking them, if they can, if they want to, if they are following their life's dream and this is part of what they want to accomplish with a college education, they need to have the opportunity of the knowledge, the same knowledge that the school has. It is not going to change their ability or their budgeting or anything else. It is common sense. Mr. Chairman, let us vote on the side of common sense in this Congress for a change.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana and really congratulate him because, as my colleagues know, together with the chairman and this gentleman, he brought an important issue before us, something that needs to be moved forward and talked, and I think we have to do it with a balance, and I would be happy to hear what the gentleman has to say.

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

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, one of the things, I just recently came back from a trip to Chile. Now we think Chile is a Third World nation stuck down the end of the Western Hemisphere. Mr. Chairman, one of the interesting things was we went to make a phone call in Chile. If we wanted to call the United States, we could call the United States cheaper from Chile then we could from the United States back to Chile. Now we always thought we had the best competition, the best system, the best service and the cheapest rates. If we wanted to call Japan from Chile, we have the best rates from Chile to Japan instead of Japan to Chile. If we wanted to call Argentina, which is right across the mountains maybe 45 miles away from Santiago into Argentina, rates were cheaper if we called from Chile into Argentina. Why? Because there are eight telephone companies, all with individual contracts. If we sign up for one phone company and somebody got a better price, we can arbitrate that contract and we can get with the next company. Why? Because they have the ability to hook up with those satellites, there is competition up there, and they go for the best price. Now we may want to protect some entities that made contracts before this system changed, but the system has changed. Competition is there. The world is opening up. And all we are saying is those companies that were tied into the old contracts under the old system before the universe changed, let them step back, let them take a fresh look, let them renegotiate, and let consumers win, because when we come down to it, ``fresh look'' is a simple concept. I say let consumers, that is right, consumers, negotiate their contracts with COMSAT once competition is permitted. It is a commonsense system, it is a situation that we ought to reject this amendment and stay with the good work of the chairman of the committee.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, we all know satellite technology is moving at light-year speed, and that our manufacturers are the best in the world. However, the 30-year-old law under which they operate needs to be updated for the twenty-first century. Private companies like Motorola, PanAmSat and Teledesic are planning ventures that would have been unthinkable three decades ago. Consider Motorola for a moment--Its network of more than 60 satellites, known as Iridium, will soon begin providing voice and paging services. Further down the road is its proposal to complete a network of more than 70 satellites, known as Celestri, in order to provide high-speed data and video services worldwide. Mr. Chairman, I believe the effect of this legislation will be a boon to consumers as they benefit from the increased efficiency and lower costs that competition brings. Although IntelSat and InMarSat have served us well, we all know it's time for these organizations to join other cold war relics on the scrap heap of history.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the chart is not being used.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. First of all, I want to acknowledge the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) in her earnestness in this fight. We have stood and debated issues and like issues many times, and I certainly believe that she is sincere in her efforts. I also commend my colleague from Baltimore in the State of Maryland. I know he is sincere in what his views are and what he is trying to do, and we have had testimony in committee on what he is trying to do. But I listened to the speech of the gentleman, the previous gentleman, and I am amazed. First of all, we are talking about drug use in this country, and we are talking about trying to stop drug use in this country. I will tell my colleagues, I feel sorry for the 40 percent of the AIDS victims who are children, but those 40 percent of the victims who are children are not using needles, so the whole needle issue does not affect those folks at all.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the gentleman, and I would appreciate it if he would not interrupt me. What we are talking about are 20,000 people who die on our street corners every year. They are dying in our emergency rooms, OD-ing, they are dying in the darkest parts of our cities, and they are also dying in the wealthiest of our suburbs. They are young people. Most of those 20,000 folks are children. Some of us know members of our family or friends who have had drug problems, who have had very, very serious situations with drugs. What we are saying, if drugs are illegal in this country, if it is illegal to use cocaine or heroin or anything that is injectable, then we should not be handing out free utensils to be able to inject that substance in our arms. I think that is a common-sense proposal. Mr. Speaker, we wave around a lot of studies, and we talk about the Montreal study, and we talk about the Vancouver study, we talk about the Chicago study, and we go back and forth on what somebody said. I understand, I read the op-ed that the two folks that did the Canadian studies talked about. Mr. Speaker, the reality is the study did not prove what they believed. They do not like the results of the science. The science did not prove their theory. Now, that is too bad. We talk about unintended consequences around here, but I will tell my colleagues, the unintended consequences of handing out free needles in our cities and in our suburbs and on our street corners is that in the study in Montreal we found, and in Vancouver, we found out that we had more kids using drugs when we handed out free needles. We found out that the incidence of exchanging needles, trading needles around when we handed out free needles, was 39 percent. Thirty-nine percent more people or people still traded needles. Do my colleagues know what the percentage was when we did not have free needles? It was 38 percent. So the problem of exchanging and trading needles, this is just a false argument. It does not exist. So the whole issue here is--excuse me, sir. I did not mean to interrupt the gentleman. So the whole issue here is we are talking about something in passing out needles in HIV that exacerbates the problem, it does not solve the problem. I do not care what the arguments are on the other side. That is what the facts prove. It also proves, and I have talked to people who work in these areas, but quite frankly, a person who gets a buy of heroin or a buy of cocaine--

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the comments of the gentlewoman from California and the interruptions that we have seen in here, but I think everybody ought to be heard on this, and I think everybody ought to have the opportunity to make their arguments. What we have seen when somebody gets a buy of cocaine or heroin to be able to inject, they really do not care. They need that narcotic. They do not care whether they are going to go out and be able to buy a needle or trade a needle or steal a needle. They are going to get a needle to get their fix, and that is the consequences. So when we really get back to what we are talking about in the use of drugs, I think the first premise is we should not be handing out a utensil or tool to allow people to break a law. That is pretty simple. The second issue is commitment. If we are talking about trying to show that we are going to reduce demand in this country on drug use, and we are going to try and also persuade countries south of our border to stop and try to reduce the supply, we have to be honest and genuine about trying to stop demand. I think it certainly is a wrong message to say that, oh, by the way, we are going to try to stop demand in our country, but here we are handing out free needles to drug users. What happens when you hand out free needles to drug users, the incidence of drug use goes up. It was proved in the Montreal study and proved in the Vancouver study. It was also proved in the Chicago study. As a matter of fact, the Chicago study showed that HIV increased 8.4 percent per 100 people when there are free needles, and there was a drop without free needles of 71 percent of HIV in that community when there were no free needles. Mr. Speaker, we need to have a commitment to stopping drugs in this country. Giving away free needles is not part of that. We also have to have local solutions to national problems. And the best way to start those local solutions is to help people clean up their neighborhoods. Handing away free needles or giving away free needles in people's neighborhoods does not stop the drug problem, it exacerbates the drug problem. Mr. Speaker, this is a good piece of legislation and a needed piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that we debated last year and was passed overwhelmingly in the House, and it is a shame that we have to retread this argument and go over it again.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Susan Rakow, the recipient of this year's Cosmopolitan Club of Elgin's Distinguished Service Award. The Award is sponsored by the Cosmopolitan Club of the City of Elgin, Illinois, and Ms. Rakow is truly worthy of this honor. She has spent countless hours serving the community of Elgin in a variety of roles, and her contributions have been many. Honored by the Altrusa International Club of Elgin with its Woman of the Year Award in 1997, and by the YWCA with its Marjorie Leonard Community Service Award in 1988, Ms. Rakow has served on the boards of the Jayne Shover Easter Seal Center, the Elgin Symphony, and the Sherman Hospital Auxiliary. She has also been active with Elgin U-46 public schools, serving both as a substitute teacher and as a member of the Instructional Council, has served as President of the Elgin Enrichment Series for several years and has been active in her local church. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Cosmopolitan Club of Elgin, Illinois in my district on their selection, and urge you and my colleagues to join me in honoring Ms. Susan Rakow for her years of service to her community and for her selection as this year's recipient of the Cosmopolitan Club of Elgin's Distinguished Service Award.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado yielding time to me, and the eloquence of the whip from Texas, a very nice presentation. But the sad story is that we have 20,000 people who die of drugs in this country every year, 14,000 directly from drugs. They die because of overdose, they die because of gang violence. They are our kids. They are dying today at our street corners in the darkest parts of our cities. We should not help them die. We should work to stop the drug menace in this country.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I would thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. And certainly this is a real issue. I appreciate him talking about what happens when government has too much money. And when they have too much money there, there is a lot of ideas that people have about how to spend that money. Unfortunately, one of the ideas that this administration has was, well, it was a good idea to hand out free needles to drug addicts. Now we have to look at this issue. You know, drugs are not legal. Marijuana, heroin, crack, cocaine, all those are against the law. But, yet, the paraphernalia, needles and other things that are used to inject those drugs into a human body all of a sudden are not just legal, all of a sudden, you have the Federal Government with a plan to use taxpayer dollars, Federal dollars to hand those needles to drug addicts. I am saying, you know, maybe we have got something wrong. We talked about trying to stop kids from smoking cigarettes. I think that is something we should do. I mean, we should send a message. We should have the moral courage to talk about this issue. Certainly teen smoking is not a good thing. But I question when we take a cigarette out of a kid's mouth and stick a needle in his arm, I mean, where are we going? What is the issue here? How can you justify that and morally move that idea forward? I think we have a bad message, certainly a bad message to drug addicts to all of a sudden say it cannot be too bad. The Federal Government is giving me the paraphernalia to put these drugs in my veins. And certainly the message to parents, and I think as a parent myself, and a teacher, the worst thing that I would ever want to happen is to think about my kids using drugs. I think most parents think of that, boy, one of the things I do not want to see ever happen in my family is to have my kids use drugs. Yet, the Federal Government is actually saying, oh, by the way, if you need free needles to use drugs, you cannot use drugs. That is bad. That is illegal. But if you want the free needles to use them, here they are. I do not quite understand that. The logic is not there. You know, it is the wrong message. I am particularly frustrated in what signal, in what message we are sending to the kids in this country, the parents of this country, the schools of this country, our foreign neighbors. I was just down in Chile last weekend attending the President's Summit down there in South America on issues that are relevant. One of the things, one of the messages we are trying to get across to our South American neighbors is that we need to stop drugs. We need to have them stop growing drugs in South America and in Colombia and Peru and Bolivia and other countries. We need to stop having them move those drugs or transit those drugs across their countries and across through Mexico and on to our borders. But when we are saying it is our job, too, to take care of the demand in this country, but, oh, by the way, we are against people using drugs, and we want to stop the demand because we know the demand in some sense drives supply and vice versa, here, by the way, here is what we are doing. We are instigating a program. We are giving away needles so people can use drugs. The message is wrong, very, very wrong. I think this Congress needs to stand up. They need to say it is wrong. They need to convince this administration that it is a wrong- headed policy. That is our job. I think, you know, one of the reasons we are talking tonight and trying to get involved in this and have talked to the American people is to get people to react. I am not sure if there are many people in this country who realize that the Federal Government wants to instigate a program that starts giving away taxpayer-paid needles to drug addicts. I think in the heart of hearts of some people, the reason they are going to do that is that because there is a high incidence of AIDS among drug addicts, and they want to stop AIDS. But do you know what the facts are? In both the Montreal study and in the Vancouver study and in the Chicago study, and I would like to enter those studies into the Record. What it says is, you know, people who get free needles pass these needles around anyway. The drug is such, especially the purity of heroin that we have today, is such a driving need for those people, once they become addicted, is that they do not care; they just have needles. They do not care if they are clean needles or dirty needles. Once they get that drug buy, they do not want to go more than 100 feet away from where they are at to inject the drug. They will take a dirty needle. They will take a needle from a friend. The statistics are amazing that, in programs where you do not give needles away, 38 percent of the people trade needles. In programs where you give needles away, such as they did in a study in Montreal and Vancouver and in Chicago, 39 percent of the people trade needles. So it does not make any difference. As a matter of fact, it exacerbates the problem. What else you find is, when there are free needle programs, it does not do away with drug addicts. The percentage of drug addicts in a neighborhood actually rise. More people are using drugs. And do you know what? The whole issue is to do away with HIV. And do you know what? You have more incidents of HIV. Plus crime increases. So you have all these dynamics that happen that certainly are not good. Another interesting thing, too, in New York City, we had a hearing last September, as a matter of fact, September 18, 1997, and it was a hearing on the needle exchange and legalization and the failure of the Swiss heroin experiments. In this study, we found out that, in New York City, for every 40 needles given away, only one needle was actually exchanged. Let me explain that. The idea of a needle exchange is, you give one needle to the person; he gives you the dirty needle back. Here in New York City, they give 40 needles away and get only one dirty needle back. So the exchange means you just put out more needles in the universe and certainly something that just perplexes me. Interesting, I have a constituent in my district who heads up the Illinois Drug Educational Alliance, a woman by the name of Judy Kreamer. Ms. Kreamer says needle exchange programs are offered as a way to prevent the spread of HIV, AIDS. However, studies have shown that such programs increase the spread of HIV, AIDS. In addition, needle exchange programs encourage drug use and pose a serious threat to the health and safety of innocent people, and I will attach support. Mr. Speaker, I include the documents referred to for the Record. [From the New York Times, Apr. 22, 1998] Clean But Not Safe free needles don't help drug addicts (By James L. Curtis) Donna Shalala, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, wanted it both ways this week. She announced that Federal money would not be used for programs that distribute clean needles to addicts. But she offered only a halfhearted defense of that decision, even stating that while the Clinton Administration would not finance such programs, it supported them in theory. Ms. Shalala should have defended the Administration's decision vigorously. Instead, she chose to placate AIDS activists, who insist that giving free needles to addicts is a cheap and easy way to prevent H.I.V. infection. This is simplistic nonsense that stands common sense on its head. For the past 10 years, as a black psychiatrist specializing in addiction, I have warned about the dangers of needle-exchange policies, which hurt not only individual addicts but also poor and minority communities. There is no evidence that such programs work. Take a look at the way many of them are conducted to the United States. An addict is enrolled anonymously, without being given an H.I.V. test to determine whether he or she is already infected. The addict is given a coded identification card exempting him or her from arrest for carrying drug paraphernalia. There is no strict accounting of how many needles are given out or returned. How can such an effort prove it is preventing the spread of H.I.V. if the participants are anonymous and if they aren't tested for the virus before and after entering the program? Studies in Montreal and Vancouver did systematically test participants in needle-exchange programs. And the studies found that those addicts who took part in such exchanges were two to three times more likely to become infected with H.I.V. than those who did not participate. They also found that almost half the addicts frequently shared needles with others anyway. This was unwelcome news to the AIDS establishment. For almost two years, the Montreal study was not reported in scientific journals. After the study finally appeared last year in a medical journal, two of the researchers, Julie Bruneau and Martin T. Schechter, said that their results had been misinterpreted. The results, they said, needed to be seen in the context of H.I.V. rates in other innercity neighborhoods. They even suggested that maybe the number of needles given out in Vancouver should be raised to 10 million from 2 million. Needle-exchange programs are reckless experiments. Clearly there is more than a minimal risk of contracting the virus. And addicts already infected with H.I.V., or infected while in the program, are not given antiretroviral medications, which we know combats the virus in its earliest stages. Needle exchanges also affect poor communities adversely. For instance, the Lower East Side Harm Reduction Center is one of New York City's largest needle-exchange programs. According to tenant groups we have talked to, the center, since it began in 1992, has become a magnet not only for addicts but for dealers as well. Used needles, syringes and crack vials litter the sidewalk. Tenants who live next door to the center complain that the police don't arrest addicts who hang out near it, even though they are openly buying drugs and injecting them. The indisputable fact is that needle exchanges merely help addicts continue to use drugs. It's not unlike giving an alcoholic a clean Scotch tumbler to prevent meningitis. Drug addicts suffer from a serious disease requiring comprehensive treatment, sometimes under compulsion. Ultimately, that's the best way to reduce H.I.V. infection among this group. What addicts don't need is the lure of free needles.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 54, I was out of town attending a wake. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 55, I was out of town attending a wake. Had I been present, I would have voted yes.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on roll call no. 53, I was out of town attending a wake. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, two years ago, on February 8, 1996, virtually the entire bipartisan leadership of Congress and the Administration gathered to celebrate the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It was supposed to reduce regulation, foster competition, create new jobs, and expand customer choice. But today, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Federal Government has not delivered on that commitment. Of course, everyone has someone else to blame. However, the fact remains that we have more regulatory roadblocks than ever. At every juncture, the FCC's approach has been to adopt more rules and regulations. Almost all of those actions have been overturned by the courts. Why should this matter to consumers? Because it means that they aren't getting the benefits of lower prices and more choices. Mr. Speaker, it's time for someone to get a handle on these runaway regulations, so I'm looking forward to the new commissioners stepping up to the task. My message to the FCC is simple--Congress is still looking for competition and more choice--let's allow the communications marketplace to work for the American people, not the lawyers of the regulatory bureaucracy.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, there will be no votes until after 5 o'clock.