Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this morning and we hear on the radio waves and in the newspapers people are sick and tired. They are tired of the quibbling. They are tired of the Government being shut down. They want us to do our business. Let me just say to my colleagues and, through them, to the American people, yes, democracy is a messy business. As George Will said the other day, there is no such tension, there is no such disagreement going on in Beijing and Havana, that none of us are envious of that. It is messy. What we are doing is important because there is an underlying principle that is important here, and the underlying principle is a balanced budget. As we have heard, this is a reasonable balanced budget. Medicare is up by 40 percent per individual over the next 7 years. Medicaid is up by nearly 50 percent; more student loans; the earned-income tax credit is up. If that is the case, what is this all about? It is about slowing the rate of government growth so we can just live within our means, and that will mean lower interest rates so everybody with a mortgage or a car loan or business loan can spend less money on that and have more money to spend and invest in their business and to spend on their family. Yes, it is messy, but it is important, and we should balance the budget.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to correct one thing the last speaker said. I am sure it was an inadvertent error on his part when he talked about all the benefits of the tax changes going to the rich. This chart makes it very clear. Sixty-five percent of the tax relief benefits go to people with incomes below $75,000. Sixty-five percent of the tax relief goes to those working Americans. We know that rich people, middle-income people, and poor people all have children, and it is all of them that will get the bulk of this tax relief, because most of the tax reductions go to people that have children. So the tax relief goes to middle-income families. And let us not be fooled by anything else that says it goes to the rich. It does not. It goes to middle Americans.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman of this subcommittee for the work he has done on this conference report. This has been very contentious. I serve on this subcommittee; I know it has not been easy. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report and to reject the motion to recommit. I want to focus my remarks on the so-called mining moratorium here. It is a very real moratorium. It is real, and to see why, let us look at the process it establishes for a second. This moratorium stays in effect unless a balanced budget act, that is, reconciliation language, is enacted into law. That means legislation passed by both Houses and signed by the President. Or, if both the House and the Senate pass identical language in some freestanding bill the moratorium would be lifted. Now that is a significant change from where we were before because it allows those who want the moratorium, and this House has supported their position, to have a great measure of control, of leverage over this process to be sure that the kind of language that we ultimately pass into law works to their satisfaction. Now let us focus on the substance of the language that we are going to be dealing with in the next couple of days on the balanced budget act; that is, the reconciliation instructions on mineral royalties. I do not agree that it is a sham royalty. I think a 5-percent royalty is a very real royalty. It is up from 3\1/2\ percent that we were talking about before. A 5-percent tax on top of the other corporate taxes, sales taxes, and other Federal and State taxes and fees that are paid. And those are not insignificant taxes, I might add. Furthermore, we will require payment at fair market rates on land that is taken to patent in the future, and it will have to pay on top of that the 5- percent royalty. Of course there is a clause in there that does not apply it retroactively to patent claims that are already in process; and it should not be. People that have made the effort to patent land should not be told, ``Oh, the rules got changed in the middle of your patent process.'' There is also a reverter clause so that land would revert to the U.S. Government if its use is changed. That prevents sham patents being taken for mining and then put to some other kind of use. There will be significant increases in rental payments beginning in 1999. Forty percent of the royalties would go to reclamation of mined land, and that is something I think all of us have wanted to see. In addition to these provisions there are many other reasons why we should support this conference report. One provision that I am the most enthusiastic about is the recreational fee demonstration program, an innovative program to allow the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service, to establish a 1-year pilot program to allow managing agencies to utilize onsite recreational use and access fees. We need to give this kind of flexibility to these agencies for land management. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands, and it deserves our support. Vote for it. Defeat the motion to recommit.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, this is it. This is the moment of truth. We had a continuing resolution just a few days ago on this floor. The President vetoed that. He said he could not sign it because the language keeping Medicare premiums at 31 percent of Part B was unacceptable. He said he could not countenance keeping Medicare premiums at their current level. I think he is wrong. We have to do it to protect, to preserve Medicare. We will come back. We will revisit that issue on the Balanced Budget Act before this week is out. What we have here tonight is a clean continuing resolution to reopen the Government. There is no extraneous provision, no add-ons here. Oh, yes, yes, it does say we will balance the budget in 7 years, and, yes, it says the President will agree to work with us to accomplish that. But surely that is no problem. The President has already said we can do that. He said it not once, not twice, but repeatedly. President Clinton has said we can balance the budget in 7 years. In fact, he said he would submit a budget that would do it in 5 years, and that is all this resolution says. It does not say we will have tax cuts or Medicare reform or welfare reform, nor does it say what their shape would be. I think we should have them. I think we should have all of those things. But this continuing resolution does not commit the President to any of those. This stopgap spending bill would put Federal workers back on the job. It says we will work together to balance the budget in 7 years. If the President vetoes this, we will know it was not Medicare that caused the first veto. The truth will be out there for all to see, stark, bare naked. This President will be saying he cannot agree to a balanced budget, not now, not in 7 years, not ever. I say to the President, there are no more excuses. There is nothing left to hide behind. Your spokesman tonight misquoted you when he said you repeatedly rejected a 7-year balanced budget. But you can set the record straight. You can demonstrate your solidarity with the American people who want a balanced budget. You can put Federal workers back on the job. You can sign this spending bill. I urge my colleagues to support this continuing resolution.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the 5- minute special order granted to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] today.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2586.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of increasing the earnings limit for senior citizens and will work with the Congress to see that legislation to do this comes to the floor of the House before the end of the year. If any Member of Congress were to propose a 33- percent surtax on seniors incomes earning more than $11,280 a year today, the American people would not stand for it. However, this is the current situation. The earnings test is bad policy and bad economics for the country. It is ludicrous that seniors in the work force are subject to this impractical and outdated procedure. Our seniors deserve more. It is time for Congress to vote for changes to this archaic practice of reducing Social Security benefits for seniors that continue to work after the age of 65. We are robbing seniors of their right to support themselves and live with dignity. In many instances seniors stay in the work force out of necessity, not choice, and should be allowed to earn more without losing a portion of their earned Social Security benefits. The earnings test harms those individuals who do not have supplemental pension income for their retirement and need to work. Therefore, we are penalizing seniors who are trying to be self sufficient rather than rewarding beneficiaries who continue to work. The Social Security earnings limit sends a message to the elderly community that we do not respect their ability to contribute in the work force after retirement. It is time to give seniors back their dignity. This Congress has already taken the first step with the passage of the Medicare Preservation Act which strengthens and protects the Medicare system and allows seniors access to the same type of health care services as offered to all Americans. And by years end, with passage of the increased earning limit, seniors will be able to hold up their heads as they continue to work without fear of losing their earned Social Security benefits. [[Page E 2097]]

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley]. (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I will close the debate on our side, and so I am the last speaker and would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] to complete his time.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent]. (Mr. TALENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp]. (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Talent].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of a colloquy, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad], another distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, tomorrow we will come back and we will resume this debate, but perhaps it is a good point, at the midpoint of this debate, to stop and take stock of where we are and ask this basic fundamental question: Why do we do this? Earlier it was pointed out, it was said in the words of the Contract With America, ``Promises made, promises kept.'' But these were not promises that were made behind some closed door with some special interest group out of view of the American people, which is all too often the way it used to be done. These were promises that were made out there on the west steps of this Capitol; promises that were made in the full light of the American people. They were promises that were put down on paper. They were promises that were made in a Contract With America that was printed in national publications. They were promises that were repeated in town halls in stump speeches across the Nation. They were promises that were written down in campaign brochures. All of America could see them. They were there for all the world to see. Mr. Chairman, there is a more fundamental reason for doing this than promises made, and promises kept. We do this, we do this reconciliation for the young people of America. The young people who have a right to their future, as my generation grew up knowing that we had a bright future for us. We do it for the working Americans of this country who have a right to be able to provide for their families. And, yes, Mr. Chairman, we do it for the senior citizens of this country who have a right to live out their lives in dignity. The sad fact is, Mr. Chairman, Washington has been lying to these people all too long. We have lied to senior citizens by telling them we could increase their benefits and their payments and the programs that were available to them without suffering the consequences of inflation. We lied to working Americans by telling them we cared about their families, but then we denied them the wherewithal to provide for those families. Today, we see the evidence around us, the evidence litters the landscape with broken and shattered families. We just plain lied to young people. We heaped debt on them and scorned them because by and large they did not vote and now the bill comes due for them. The sad fact is that more Americans believe in unidentified flying objects and UFO's than believe that Generation X will ever see one dime out of their Social Security. Mr. Chairman, this is a moral crisis. This is a moral obscenity. We have broken the link of trust between generations in this country. But today, tomorrow, we can begin to restore, to repair that link, to restore that trust. Mr. Chairman, we can do it with this reconciliation bill, which makes deeper changes to Government than anything we have done on the floor of this House in the last 60 years. But it is not a wrecking ball, it is a mason's trowel, carefully reworking and rebuilding the walls and the floors, the doors and the windows of this edifice. At the end, what we will see is a castle, a castle that is good to live in for all Americans; a castle built on a sound fiscal foundation; a castle that is lighted with the shining light of compassion and caring by all those who live within it; a castle that is filled with hope, because there is opportunity for all to grow, to have a better life. This, Mr. Chairman, is what it is about. It is about our future. It is probably, the most important vote in the careers of any of us here, no matter how long we have been here or how many more years we will stay. We are often accused of casting our votes for today's special interests and for tomorrow's votes, but today we have a historic opportunity to do something different; to cast our vote for the future. Mr. Chairman, I know we will do the right thing. We will vote for the dignity of senior citizens. We will vote for the opportunity of working Americans. We will vote for our children's future. We will vote to pass this reconciliation bill tomorrow.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means, an individual who has been very instrumental in drafting many provisions of the Medicare and Medicaid part of this legislation.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] chairman of the Committee on Resources. (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to one thing said by the last speaker, and that is the implication of deep cuts in student loans. That is just simply not true. Mr. Chairman, we are not cutting student loans. Student loans, the Pell grants are going to grow; there are going to be a higher amount of Pell grants than before. The total amount of student loans is going to grow. The only thing we are doing is saying when you graduate in college in the 6 months that the taxpayer, the working Americans, single parents and mothers, are subsidizing that loan, we are saying they are going to pay the interest. They are going to accumulate the interest for that 6 months. That is the only difference. That is the only change we are making.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me the time. As we go through this debate, I hope we will have an opportunity to talk about some of these issues and hopefully to respond to some of the things that were said here. I just want to respond to two of them. The gentleman from Florida spoke about the fact that it does not have the $500 tax cut. He knows full well what is going on here, the fact that the Contract With America, how the tax cut was passed, the fact that the Senate resolution is somewhat different, there is a haircut or a shave in here to reduce the amount. The bottom line is, and we have been hearing form the other side, that there is a tax cut in here, that it is all going to the rich. We know thee is going to be a tax cut in this bill. There is a tax cut. And it is going to be a tax cut that is going to benefit middle America. That is the second thing I wanted to respond to the gentleman from Florida, talking about this is all going to the wealthy. Look at this. This chart here demonstrates that the vast majority of that goes to those of the income levels between $30,000 and $70,000. That is per family. That is not what, in my definition, is the wealthiest Americans. Those at the very low end get less, yes, because they pay less, considerably less taxes. In fact, in terms of the tax burden, if you are to put this on the basis of where the tax burden goes, the vast majority of this tax relief, percentagewise, goes to those who are paying the least amount of taxes. So it is distributed over income groups by giving more of it to those at the lower end of the scale. In fact, the top 1 percent of income earners in this country pays 27.5 percent of all the taxes. They do not get anywhere near that amount of the tax relief. The top 10 percent pay 57.5 percent of the tax. They do not get anywhere near that amount of the tax relief. I hope as we go through this debate we will have the opportunity to realize that what we are talking about is a tax cut that is going to benefit families. It is saying we are not going to take that money out of your pocket, we are going to leave it in your pocket, and maybe the American family can figure out how to spend the money better than we in Washington can. Maybe they can decide what is best for their education, health care, clothing and feeding and housing their families. That is what this tax cut is all about, benefiting the American family.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material in the Record on H.R. 2491, the bill just considered.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1114 and the managers amendment, a bill to reform Hazardous Occupation Order No. 12. I first heard about this issue in the late 1980's, when food stores in my own district were being punished based on a simple statement by a former teenage employee who would truthfully tell a Department of Labor investigator: ``Yeah, I tossed a box into a baler once.'' Huge fines were being levied against supermarket companies--large chains as well as independent operators. Efforts to reform Hazardous Occupation Order 12 through the regulatory process were unsuccessful. The Labor Department showed an amazing--though not surprising--lack of common sense. So, I am pleased to vote today for legislation which will correct this longstanding problem for Arizona grocers. In 1992, I saw this problem first hand. I toured a supermarket's back room and looked at a cardboard baler with members of the Arizona Food Marketing Alliance. These balers operate much like your home dishwasher. If the door is open you can't run the machine, even if you press the ``on'' button. The cardboard baler operates under the same principle. When the gate is open it can be filled with cardboard boxes. When it is time to run the machine, an authorized adult can close the gate and turn the key to operate the equipment. Only an adult has the operating key. The gate has a lock-out device which prevents it from operating when the gate is opened, even if the machine is in the operating position. This is much the way a microwave oven works. If you open it while it's on, the machine stops. It is beyond comprehension why able 16- and 17-year-olds must stack cardboard by the baler-- possibly causing a greater hazard and encumbrance to workers moving around in the area, not to mention health hazards as they attract rats and roaches--and wait for someone 18-years-old or older to place the boxes in the baler. The owners and store managers of the Nation's supermarkets who don't want to harm these young people entering the work world or working their way through school. They have a good financial incentive to look after the safety anyhow--their insurance costs. But, as it stands now, if minors are stocking shelves, they cannot toss empty, cardboard boxes into an open and locked baler. This is absurd. I urge my colleagues to support this bill which includes a compromise worked out to address safety concerns. It is a perfect Corrections Day item to fix an outdated 41-year-old regulation while keeping young people safe.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, today, Congress has a historic opportunity to pass legislation that will allow recipients of Medicare--both present and future--the freedom to choose their doctors, their health plans, and the health care services they decide are appropriate for them. It is time we allow Medicare recipients access to the same choices in health care that the rest of us have. That is the heart and soul of this legislation. It's become abundantly clear in the last several months that Medicare faces a very real threat of bankruptcy. It is this looming bankruptcy of the trust fund that first alerted the country to the need for extensive changes if we were to save the Medicare system. What won't work is another Band-Aid. Yet, for decades that has been the Democrats' only answer to ensure solvency of the Medicare trust fund. The trustees themselves have told us it needs a systemic fix to be real. This year, once again, the Democrats have proposed the same quick fix solution and have failed to deal honestly with the underlying structural problems of the Medicare system. By simply reducing payments to hospitals and physicians, the Democrats Band-Aid staves off bankruptcy for another 2 or 3 years. This is simply irresponsible; it's what we've done for too long on too many other issues. It's why Medicare faces such a bleak future today. H.R. 2425 doesn't wait for disaster to wash over us; it takes action now to assure the future security of Medicare for seniors. By providing fundamental changes to the structure of the program, the Medicare Preservation Act will keep Medicare solvent for at least 15 years, until the baby boomer generation begins retiring. We freely acknowledge that another deeper fix will be required then, but this legislation gives us time to see how well free market solutions can work to retain health care costs. The heart of this legislation is the expansion of Medicare beneficiaries choice of health care options. The private health care market has demonstrated that health care services can be provided in a cost-effective way while maintaining the patient's quality of care. Such care is found in alternative health care systems, such as managed care system, health maintenance organizations, preferred providers organizations and medical savings accounts. Currently, Medicare recipients have not had wide access to these options. With passing of H.R. 2425 Medicare recipients will not have to rely on a system that is a relic of 1965 medicine. It is unfortunate that my colleagues across the aisle, do not recognize the need for comprehensive reform. Their bill provides no security for seniors who rely on Medicare today, because it extends its life by only a year or two. It provides even less assurances for future seniors who are counting on Medicare to be there for their retirement. [[Page H 10373]] Even if the Medicare trust fund were not facing bankruptcy, this legislation would make sense. It allows Medicare recipients access to the same range of choices in health care that other Americans have. Similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, Medicare recipients would receive information each year about different health care providers and plans in their area. And like other Americans, they will be able to choose who provides their health care. Arizona has been on the forefront in developing a successful managed care market. Over a decade ago, the Arizona Medicaid program, AHCCCS, was established as a managed care system. Now, with an extensive network of HMO's seniors are enrolling in the same system in increasing numbers. They are, by and large, very satisfied with the health care services offered by the competing health plans and have found that some plans offer services outside the required Medicare services, such as eye glasses, lower or no copays for visits and lower prescription drug prices. They can compete on these added services because they hold costs down on basic services. Then there are medical saving accounts--an option not available now to any Medicare recipient. This option will allow seniors to buy a high deductible, catastrophic policy and pay for out of pocket expenses with the cash from their Medicare payment. If they use health care services prudently, they can even pocket the excess as income. It turns health care consumers into cost-conscious health care purchasers. Will these options--and there are others--save money and prevent Medicare from going bankrupt? Yes, because private health care is more efficient and consumer driven choices more cost effective than a government administered one-size-fits-all health care program. Medicare costs grew at about 10.5 percent last year. But, in the private sector, large employers actually saw their cost decrease by 1.1 percent. The marketplace can work in health care. The Medicare Preservation Act addresses another concern of seniors and taxpayers alike by putting in place a systematic program to combat fraud and abuse. As Medicare is designed right now, doctors are paid for procedures whether or not the patient needs it. That means the taxpayer gets ripped off, and the Medicare patient often doesn't get the proper care. By allowing providers and hospitals and insurers to compete for your business, the system will root our fraud and abuse, and will squeeze out waste. Furthermore, seniors who find fraud in their bills will be rewarded with a percentage of the money recovered. Mr. Chairman, this legislation provides our seniors with health care they can trust and believe in. It is not riddled with burdensome Federal mandates on providers. As a consequence, it allows physicians to do what they do best--provide top quality care for their patients. It is about time we allow seniors to have the same type of health care as the rest of us have. Let's pass this real Medicare reform.