Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from southern California, my good friend, and let us talk about the Clean Air Act for just a second. When we wrote the Clean Air Act in 1990, there was a provision in there for employer trip reduction. It was based off technologies that were going on in southern California, in my State, in Texas and other-- Pennsylvania and other States around the country. It has not worked, but yet that technology is in the law, and what we are saying, if we reauthorize that, that ought to be looked at as a cost-benefit analysis. If it does not----

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HASTERT. If the gentleman from New York will listen for a second, Mr. Chairman, I would say, ``You know, we don't write the regulation. We write the law. We write the policy. And regulation that follows is done by the bureaucrats, you know, down the street. And what we're saying is when we write the regulation, that the regulations they write are based on the law that we're trying to establish here, and it's only fair that we do this, or we set this policy, and when you reauthorize and new legislation that comes forward from reauthorization is written on the same type of language and basis.''

Mr. HASTERT. Absolutely, and, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman understands when we do those that, if we change that bill, or we write it, the regulations henceforth will be under the language of this bill, and that only seems sensible to do.

Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very simple and very brief. I say to my colleagues: You've heard a lot of discussion, you've heard a lot of legal language, you've heard a lot of lawyers talk on this piece of legislation, but very simple what this bill does, and what this amendment does, and what the, quote unquote, supermandate does, is allow, when we have to authorize or reauthorize pieces of legislation, that the regulation that comes out of that is based on the new law, that we actually can do cost based regulation. So all the discussion here, when you boil it down, is saying, whether you take an old law, whether it's the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act, and when you apply new law to that or reauthorize it, is that the regulations that come out of that hence forward are the same type of regulations under the same type of regulation writing that comes out of any new law that we'd write. So, if you want consistency, and if you want fairness, and if you want the ability for this country not be overwhelmed by old legislation and old regulation, you simply say that we do not pass this amendment that guts, quote unquote, supermandate, but what it does is allow us to go forward when we write, when we reauthorize, old bills or old pieces of legislation, and we write new regulation out of it that is very simple, very concise and very consistent.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, just very briefly, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] in helping us come together, but the genesis amendment came a year ago after the crime bill was passed, very serious problems, especially in counties where there was simply not enough room to take care of juvenile offenders in a pretrial situation, and they are jockeying these young offenders across county lines, back and forth. We needed to find a way to solve the problem. So again, with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] and myself and the gentleman from Texas across the aisle, this does solve the problem. It takes care of those juvenile offenders that by law that you cannot intermingle with hardened criminals and those adult criminals waiting for trial. This is a good piece of legislation. Again, there is bipartisan cooperation, and I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller] for putting this together.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, because of a serious fire at my father's home in Illinois, I was unable to return to Washington earlier today and missed a series of votes. Had I been present I would have voted: Present on rollcall No. 56; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 57; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 58; ``no'' on rollcall No. 59; ``no'' on rollcall No. 60; ``no'' on rollcall No. 61; ``no'' on Rollcall 62; ``no'' on rollcall No. 63; ``no'' on rollcall No. 64; ``no'' on rollcall No. 65; ``no'' on rollcall No. 66; ``no'' on rollcall No. 67; ``no'' on rollcall No. 68; ``no'' on rollcall No. 69; ``no'' on rollcall No. 70; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 71.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, today, the American people will see who wants to do their business and who wants to give them the business. Today, we vote on the balanced budget amendment. Since any amendment requires two-thirds of the final vote, the fate of the balanced budget amendment lies in the hands of our friends on the other side of the aisle. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with Republicans and those who are supporting this to pass a tax-limitation balanced budget amendment. The reasons to vote for the Barton substitute are clear. The American people want their Government to be fiscally responsible. They want us to balance the budget in order to lower our debt and make our children's futures brighter. But they want us to cut spending first, not raise taxes even higher. The Barton substitute makes it more difficult for the Government to balance the budget on the backs of middle-class taxpayers by requiring a three-fifths vote on tax increases. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to pass the Barton substitute. It is the best alternative for the middle-class taxpayer.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to rise in support of this concurrent resolution. I have long been a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. But one of the nagging concerns of some of my constituents and myself has been Social Security. Although the record of the Republican Party has clearly shown that we have no intention of harming the Social Security program, it seems like not everyone believes us. The passage of this resolution will show the American people that we are serious when we say we are going to balance the budget and we are not going to do it by robbing the Social Security trust fund.

Mr. HASTERT. Here is what the resolution says: ``That, for the purposes of any constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget, the appropriate committees of the House and the Senate shall report to their respective Houses implementing legislation to achieve a balanced budget without increasing the receipts or reducing the disbursements of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Trust Fund to achieve that goal.'' We also are not going to raise taxes to do it. That is the other part of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, balancing the budget is a day-by-day, step-by-step process. If we start today by trimming away useless and wasteful programs, we are going to succeed in balancing the budget without resorting to new taxes. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, for offering this resolution. The American people have been demanding a balanced budget amendment for a long time. When the House passes that amendment this week, Americans will know that we do not need to raise taxes and that we do not intend to cut Social Security. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible support of the tax limitation substitute of House Joint Resolution 1 that has been put forward by my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. I have heard comments from our friends on both sides, but especially one comment from one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle several speeches ago that said ``The President, over 12 years of Republican Presidents, had never signed the budgets that were unbalanced, and he had never once vetoed that budget.'' That is not true, because the President does not sign a budget and the President does not veto a budget. That is part of the problem. The President does not have any control over this budget. It is Congress that passes the budget. Forty years of Congresses have passed a budget that basically is out of control. The U.S. Congress has not been able to control itself in meting our dollars and cents to the various programs across this country, and do it without mounting that debt higher and higher and higher every year. In the past, as recently as two short years ago, this House passed the largest tax increase in history, and it passed it off to the American people as deficit reduction. That is why the substitute offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton] is critical. Adopting this balanced budget proposal and requiring a super majority vote in order to raise taxes will ensure that we can no longer look to the wallets and the pocketbooks of the American taxpayers to save us from ourselves. Mr. Chairman, a national debt of $4.5 trillion should finally convince every Member in this Chamber that Congress has not got the discipline to solve its own problems. This balanced budget amendment will put discipline upon us.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Republican Conference, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 41) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] for reserving this time. I rise today to join my colleagues in marking a passing of a former Member of the House, a person that is certainly unique. Ed Madigan of the 15th District of Illinois was not only a friend and a colleague, but certainly a mentor. Ed serve in this House, in this Nation, over a period of two decades. He was first elected to this House in 1972 following three terms in the Illinois legislature, and served ably, both as a representative of his district in central Illinois and later as Secretary of Agriculture during the Bush administration. I remember the gentleman from Lincoln as both a friend as a mentor. We both served for 6 years in the Illinois House prior to coming to Washington and we both served on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In fact, I remember just coming on the House Committee on Agriculture or House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Ed was kind of giving me advice all the way along, and finally one day he said, ``Well, what are your subcommittees going be,'' and I said, ``Well, Ed, I wanted to be on the Telecommunication Subcommittee,'' and I thought it was important to be on the Energy Subcommittee, and he said, ``I'm a ranking member on the Health and Environment Subcommittee,'' and he said, ``You know it would serve you well to get on that subcommittee because,'' he said, ``you know it's going to be a lot of things happening in health and environment in the next year or two.'' And, sure enough, I put in to get on the Health Subcommittee, and within 3 weeks Ed Madigan was Secretary of Agriculture, and I sat on that committee being the only Illinois person on it and later taking on all the health issues, and Ed would call me from time to time and lend me some good advice. Ed, when I think of his time in both agriculture, and in science issues, and the energy issues, and telephone issues, I also think of his time, as my colleagues know, that Ed was not a professional politician. He had came from Lincoln, IL, and he ran the local taxi company in Lincoln, IL. Prior to that his dad and he ran a livery company, a horse-trading and service company in Lincoln, IL. So the stories and the humor that Ed pulled out from time to time go back to those earthy times back in Illinois dealing with Illinois farmers. He was never a farmer, but he knew the farmers and the people that he dealt with there almost on the same hustings that another Illinoisan served on--Abraham Lincoln. One of the things I always remembered that I shared particularly with Ed, Ed, I guess coming from the taxi business, loved old automobiles, and he could talk about old Lincolns and old Packards. You could see his eyes light up with the love of those cars, and he actually collected a few. We have to look back on Ed Madigan with a smile and a tear for his loss, but, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues that I take the well today because Ed was a friend. He was also a leader of this House, and he represented the best that this House stands for. He certainly was a person who could cut through a lot of nonsense. He was a person who cut to the quick of what the issues were. We remember him fondly today as a friend and a fellow Member of this Congress and as a man who did his best to serve the people he loved. For a Member of the House of Representatives, I guess we can ask no greater honor.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I along with Representative Bunning, Representative Kelly, Representative Thurman, and over 100 others introduced the Senior Citizens Equity Act, 1 of the 10 pieces of legislation proposed as part of the Contract With America. The Senior Citizens Equity Act recognizes that it is time we change our laws so that our Nation's seniors are treated fairly. First, this legislation sharply curtails the impact of the Social Security earnings limitation on our seniors who continue to remain productive in the workplace. For far too long we have penalized working seniors who earn little more than minimum wage, by taxing them at rates higher than those of millionaires. It is time that we ease this burden for those seniors who need to work to supplement their pension and Social Security income. This bill would also repeal the $25 billion tax increase on seniors that was approved by the last Congress. That new tax imposed exorbitantly high income tax rates on senior citizens simply because they drew Social Security benefits and earned as little as $34,000 a year. It also set a dangerous precedent. For the first time in the history of the Social Security Program, Social Security funds were directly tapped to pay for Government programs. Some argue that we cannot repeal this tax because it will increase the deficit. But Americans know that the Federal budget deficit is not the result of them paying too little in taxes--but rather, it is the result of the Government wasting too much. Finally, this bill includes provisions that enables Americans and their employers to make their own preparations for future long-term care--and to do so without the Federal Government taxing the money set aside for that purpose. The costs of long-term care are high and it is time that Congress begin to help Americans prepare for the future. Mr. Speaker, I commend this legislation to the attention of my colleagues and urge its quick discussion and adoption. The senior citizens of this country deserve no less.