Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. McCRERY. Yes, in its current form.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, the substance of this motion to recommit is basically to say, look, these matters are complex. My good friend on the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott, said that himself just a few minutes ago. And because of that complexity and because of the complexity of the issues, not only the tax issues in this legislation but the energy issues as well, this bill deserves regular order. It deserves to go through the relevant committees with full hearings, full ability of both the majority and the minority to offer amendments in committee, and then have some sort of rule on the floor which allows for different opinions to be voted on as either amendments or substitutes as the process goes forward. As we all know by now, in this 100-hour exercise, which I think still has plenty of time left in it, frankly, we could even go back now and within the 100 hours have committee hearings and dispense with this bill in the regular order, and that is what this motion to recommit will do. It simply says this is not a rejection of the bill, it is not a rejection of the substance of the bill, it is merely saying let's take this important piece of legislation through regular order, let's allow Members of this House the full rights of Members to talk about a bill, hear expert witnesses, delve into the particulars of the legislation, offer amendments, try to make it better, and then, finally, bring it to the floor for a vote. The way that this bill has been rushed through, without regular process, without opportunity for amendment, or even a substitute, makes a mockery of the legislative process and certainly, I think, shortchanges the important subjects covered in this legislation. I have talked about the tax consequences of the provisions in the bill which increase taxes on only one sector of American manufacturing, oil and gas. Again, it is not taking back a subsidy to oil and gas, it is not taking back a special tax break for oil and gas, it is singling out oil and gas for harsher treatment under the Tax Code than any other economic sector in this country. That is punishing oil and gas. That is punitive. And that is not what this Congress should be engaged in, in my view. We should try to give a level playing field to all sectors of the American economy, give them all the same opportunities to succeed, to return value to its shareholders, to all those millions of pensioners that have pieces of shares of stock in these American oil and gas companies. They shouldn't be punished by this Congress. We should be striking a balance between the need for, as my good friend from Washington says, new alternative and renewable sources of energy for the future, but also recognize the immediate needs of this country and for the foreseeable future, the 20 or 30 years the experts say we are going to be reliant on fossil fuels. So we ought to have a balanced approach. We ought to encourage, not discourage exploration and development of fossil fuels in this country, and also encourage research and development of new renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, the process that we have gone through on this bill didn't give us the opportunity to do that. This motion to recommit would give us that opportunity, and I urge its passage.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order. This bill should require a three-fifths majority for passage. Madam Speaker, it is important to point out that section 199(d)(6), the subject in this bill, incorporates by reference section 55 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 55 is specifically identified as a provision subject to the point of order found in clause 5(b) of House rule XXI. By amending section 199, the bill is increasing the applicable rate under section 55 as applied to oil and gas manufacturers. Recognizing the connection between section 199 and section 55 is critical to the interpretation of House rule XXI. All of the sections identified in House rule XXI deal with the imposition of taxes, and those sections, in turn, are referenced throughout the Internal Revenue Code. For example, Internal Revenue Code section 2(a)(1) defines the term ``surviving spouse'' for purposes of section 1 as a person whose spouse died up to 2 years before the current tax year. Amending section 2 of the Code to change the definition of a spouse to someone who died only 1 year ago would have the direct effect of increasing the tax rate on widows that is set by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code. By way of further example, one computation method for farm income is found in section 1301 of the Internal Revenue Code. That section of the Code also explicitly references section 1. By changing the methods for computing farm income in section 1301, you can directly raise the tax rate of a farmer that is set by section 1. Madam Speaker, here comes the denouement. Madam Speaker, certainly the intent of rule XXI is for the House to clear a higher hurdle, a three-fifths majority, before it increases taxes on farmers or widows. That intent would be just as relevant in this case where a bill effectively raises the tax rate on some American manufacturers.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to begin my remarks by saying that we are hearing today a lot of claims from colleagues on the other side of this issue. They quote various studies that they say prove this will help reduce prices to seniors and help reduce costs to the government. And as everybody in Washington knows, you can generally find a study to say just about whatever you want it to say. But if you listen carefully, you will notice that no one today, and no one will later today, dispute one fact: The nonpartisan official budget scorekeeper for Congress, the analysts that Congress is required by law to follow, the Congressional Budget Office, says that this bill before us will not save one dime. The bill will not save seniors money; it will not save taxpayers money; and it will not save the government money. Now, in case you are thinking, oh, yeah, yeah, but that is old news. That is the old Congressional Budget Office when Republicans controlled it. Well, that is what the old Congressional Budget Office said when Republicans controlled it. But, guess what? In a letter dated just a couple of days ago from the new Congressional Budget Office that Democrats control, it says the same thing exactly. Now, why won't this bill save any money? Simply because the private sector is doing an excellent job already negotiating lower prices for our seniors. And without tools that some have said today they do not want the Secretary to have, and even the language of the bill states the Secretary shall not provide formularies for part D, but without those tools, the CBO says, you can't save any money. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say, oh, we want lower drug prices for seniors; but then at the same time say, yeah, but we don't want those formularies. We don't want to restrict access to any drugs, like Lipitor, which is not on the VA formulary. The Secretary of Health and Human Services cannot do a better job of negotiating than the private sector is already doing. The Secretary says so. CMS says so, and CBO says so. The only way the Secretary will be able to further reduce it is by weakening the drug benefit by restricting access. So why is the Democratic leadership trying to rush this major legislation through the House without a single congressional hearing, without input from the committees of jurisdiction? I fear this is an example of bumper sticker politics. I am afraid they are looking for a good sound bite, not good policy. While H.R. 4 won't produce savings, it certainly has the potential to disrupt or even destroy one of the most popular programs in our history. Today, roughly 90 percent of America's seniors and people with disabilities have prescription drug coverage. Four out of every five seniors enrolled in a Medicare drug plan say they are satisfied with the new drug coverage and would recommend it to their friends. Medicare drug plans are negotiating significantly lower prices for our seniors. The average senior last year saved $1,200. Initial estimates indicate that Medicare prescription drug plans saved seniors last year a total of about $30 billion. Competition has resulted in a program that is expected to cost $373 billion less over the next 10 years than was projected just 1\1/2\ years ago. Clearly, the current drug benefit, which allows for competition rather than government price controls, is working. H.R. 4 could bring this success to a screeching halt. If the Secretary of HHS is forced to find the savings suggested by the proponents of this poorly drafted legislation, it seems certain that some seniors will lose access to the prescription drugs they need. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a drug plan have access to drugs to treat cancer, mental illness, HIV/AIDS, Lou Gehrig's disease and Alzheimer's, to name a few. They are guaranteed that. H.R. 4 does not guarantee that. Here is what patient groups have to say about the bill that is before us today. The association representing patients afflicted with Lou Gehrig's disease says, ``This shortsighted and inappropriately cost- driven bill will have particularly cruel consequences for people with ALS. If Congress makes this change, they will undo what the Medicare Modernization Act sought to ensure: access to needed prescription drugs.'' The National Alliance on Mental Illness says much the same thing; the Kidney Cancer Association much the same thing. The Republican motion to recommit, which we will soon offer, ensures that access to these important drugs continues. H.R. 4 will also hurt our community pharmacies, denying seniors access to those local pharmacists that they depend on. Seniors like to go to the drugstore to talk to their pharmacists to get advice. If, to hear some of the proponents, we go to something like the VA, for example, they won't have that opportunity because the VA is a closed system, and 80 percent of drugs delivered under the VA are delivered by mail order, not local pharmacies. Now, let us talk about veterans for just a minute. The American Legion, representing our veterans, says H.R. 4 is ``not in the best interest of America's veterans and their families. The American Legion, which represents nearly 3 million members, strongly urges Congress to seriously consider the collateral damage that would result from H.R. 4 because `each time the Federal Government has enacted pharmaceutical price control legislation, the VA has experienced significant increases in its pharmaceutical costs.' '' H.R. 4 will not save money. It is opposed by groups representing victims of disease and opposed by our veterans. H.R. 4 will likely restrict seniors' access to the drugs they need and to the pharmacies they depend upon. H.R. 4 will certainly disrupt a popular program that, despite being just 1 year old, has done a remarkable job. That is why we all ought to vote against H.R. 4, but first, vote for the Republican motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from Missouri, I just want to challenge anybody on the other side of this issue today, anybody that is in support of H.R. 4, to explain to this House how the Secretary, using the authority under the bill before us, is going to get prices lower. What are the tools that he is going to have to negotiate if he doesn't have the power to assure pharmaceutical manufacturers market share in the program, if he can't use formularies to do the negotiating? I don't think they can do that. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Member from California, a member of the Ways and Means Committee (Mr. Herger).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to another distinguished Member of the Ways and Means committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof). (Mr. HULSHOF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, having heard from the distinguished majority leader, the House is now fortunate to be able to hear both sides of this from the minority leader. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the distinguished ranking member of the Health Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Camp, and ask unanimous consent that he control the remaining time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe, based on the evidence, that the Democrats' plan can reduce prescription drug prices without reducing seniors' prescription drug choices, or without devastating local pharmacies, or without raising drug prices for our veterans. Now, they claim that won't happen. They claim they can reduce prices without doing all those things. Well, the motion to recommit gives them a chance to put their vote where their mouth is. One of the things we should be most proud about in the part D program is that it mandates that drugs for certain terrible illnesses be available. Our motion is simple. It would require that whatever government-negotiated plan emerges from this Democratic legislation must also ensure continued access to medications for those illnesses. The Republican motion says that for cancer, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, Alzheimer's, ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, you have got to have those drugs in those plans. You can't restrict them. The second part of our motion deals with community pharmacies. In the VA system, 80 percent of prescriptions are filled by mail, and the rest of them are gotten at VA centers, veterans hospitals and the like. How many people in this Chamber are willing to ask seniors to give up talking to their pharmacists? If you aren't, and I suspect most of you aren't, then vote for the Republican motion to recommit. We guarantee that they will be able to talk to their local pharmacists. Third part of our motion seeks to protect America's veterans. This motion would ensure that requiring the HHS Secretary to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices would not directly result in increasing drug prices for veterans, because as we have seen in the past, when the government gets involved in setting prices in other areas, prices to veterans go up. This motion to recommit won't allow that to happen with prescription drug prices for veterans. So if those things are what you believe, and what you want, just vote for the Republican motion to recommit, and you will ensure that those guarantees are in the legislation.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Thank you, Mr. McKeon, for allowing the Ways and Means Committee to control 30 minutes of the time in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. This debate today is important. It is obviously important to a lot of people around the country who are making minimum wage or who would seek an entry-level job in our country. It is also important, though, to many small businesses around our Nation who are struggling to stay in business, struggling to create jobs, and to face the competition often from much bigger establishments that have some advantages in the marketplace. It is those small businesses that the McKeon-McCrery alternative would address today. If we are given the chance today to modify the legislation before us to include some benefits for small businesses, in our view this would greatly improve the legislation before us regarding the minimum wage. Let me just briefly explain what that alternative would be if Members of this House were given the opportunity to vote on it. The minimum wage provisions would be the same as in the underlying legislation that is on the floor today. It would increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 over 2 years in three increments. But it would add to that a provision from the Education and Labor Committee regarding association health plans that would make it easier for small businesses to get health insurance for their employees, and three tax provisions designed to help small businesses cope with the burden that would be placed on them by an increase in the minimum wage. Those three tax provisions are a 1-year extension of the higher small business expensing limits. As you will recall, we passed in the last few years legislation allowing small businesses to expense up to $100,000 of investment in their small business in the year of that investment. That provision currently is scheduled to expire at the end of 2009. This legislation, this alternative that we would like to present today, would extend that provision 1 year through 2010. The next tax provision that would help small businesses is a 15-year depreciation period for new restaurant construction. Now, that is important because current law allows a much shorter depreciation period, 15 years, for leasehold improvements, including restaurants, but it has to be improvements to an existing building. In the restaurant business, a lot of times to keep up with the competition and to keep market share, an owner will have to build a new facility. You can't just refurbish the old facility. You have got to build a new building to keep pace. Under the current law though, he would have to depreciate that investment over 39 years. This provision would put him on an equal standing with those who just recently built a restaurant and are upgrading it with improvements. So it would give a 15-year depreciation period, both to leasehold improvements for existing buildings, existing restaurants, but also a 15-year depreciation period for the construction of new restaurants. Finally, the third tax provision that we would add to this legislation to help small businesses would be the FUTA surtax repeal, that is the unemployment payroll tax. Back in the 1970s, when we were having problems with our unemployment trust fund, and we were extending unemployment benefits across the Nation, we had to impose a surtax to bring money into the system to be able to pay the unemployment bills around the country. That debt though was paid off in the 1980s, and for whatever reason, Congress has decided to continually extend that unemployment surtax. This bill would accelerate the expiration of that .2 percent unemployment surtax that employers have to pay today. It would accelerate it from the end of this year 2007 to April 1 of 2007. As you know, that surtax, that .2 surtax is imposed only on the first $7,000 of wages, so it would most directly give relief to those employers who have those low-skilled, low-dollar employees, and would give them some immediate relief in that regard. Mr. Speaker, our proposal is to increase the minimum wage, but also give help to those businesses that will be most adversely affected by the imposition of these increased costs for their businesses. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Linder.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a report from the Congressional Budget Office as to the cost to State, local, and tribal governments and to the private sector of the provisions of the legislation before us; simply about $1 billion to governments and about $16 billion to the private sector, mostly small businesses. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, December 29, 2006. Hon. William ``Bill'' M. Thomas, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am pleased to respond, in the attachment to this letter, to your questions about the potential effects on government revenues and outlays that could result from enactment of an increase in the federal minimum wage rate from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour. In addition, at the request of Congressman McKeon, CBO has prepared a cost estimate (dated December 29, 2006) for H.R. 2429, the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2005, which would raise the minimum wage to $7.25 in three steps over a two-year period. A copy of that estimate is also attached. If you require additional information about the effects of increases in the minimum wage, CBO will be pleased to provide it. The staff contacts are Paul Cullinan, Ralph Smith, and Mark Booth. Sincerely, Donald B. Marron, Acting Director. Attachments. Congressional Budget Office Responses to Questions Posed by Congressman Thomas About the Effects of Increasing the Federal Minimum Wage Question. How many workers currently earning under or just above $7.25 an hour would be affected? Does CBO believe that a higher minimum wage will result in increased unemployment among this group? Answer. According to data from the Current Population Survey, in October 2006, there were approximately 8.4 million workers usually paid on an hourly wage basis whose wage rate was between $5.15, the current federal minimum wage rate, and $7.25; two-thirds of them were paid more than $6.00 per hour. The number of workers at or just above the federal minimum wage rate has been declining and is expected to continue to decline because of market forces and actions taken by many states. As of October 2006, 20 states and the District of Columbia had laws that required employers covered by their legislation to pay wage rates above $5.15 per hour. In 2007, eight more states will fall in that category. Some states, including California and Massachusetts, will have minimum wage rates above $7.25. Thus, the number of people that would be directly affected by an increase in the federal minimum wage rate and the magnitude of the wage adjustments that would be required of employers are expected to diminish over time. The potential employment and unemployment impacts of raising the federal minimum wage rate to $7.25 per hour are difficult to predict, but are likely to be small. Economists have devoted considerable energy to the task of estimating how employers would respond to such a mandate. Although most economists would agree that an increase in the minimum wage rate would cause firms to employ fewer low-wage workers, there is considerable disagreement about the magnitude of the reduction. The main reason for that disagreement is the difficulty in distinguishing the effects on employment that were attributable to past changes in the minimum wage from those that were attributable to other changes in the labor market. Moreover, the results of such analyses are difficult to apply to future changes because labor market conditions will be different. Many of the attempts to estimate the employment impacts of increases in the minimum wage were based on data from periods in which the federal minimum wage was much higher, as a percentage of average wages, than it is now or will be when any proposed increases would take effect. Likewise, the number of people paid at the federal minimum wage rate is much smaller now than it was prior to previous increases even though the labor force has grown significantly. Employers could respond to an increase in the federal minimum wage in many different ways. Some would reduce the number of workers they employed or cut back on the number of hours worked by some of their employees. Because many of the workers in the affected wage range are on part-time schedules, reducing the hours of employment might be easier to do than it would be if all workers were employed on fixed eight-hour schedules. Other ways that employers might respond to an increase in the federal minimum wage would not involve adjustments in employment levels or hours. Employers might screen job applicants more closely to select employees from whom they would expect higher productivity. Some employers might reduce fringe benefits for their employees. Some employers might attempt to pass along at least a portion of the additional payroll costs to their customers by raising prices. They might be successful in doing so if their competitors were also faced with higher labor costs because of the increase in the minimum wage. Any reductions in the growth in employment resulting from such an increase in the minimum wage rate would not necessarily result in a corresponding increase in unemployment--that is, the number of people actively seeking work. The impact on the level of unemployment would also depend on how the changes in work opportunities resulting from an increase in the minimum wage rate affected people's decisions about participating in the labor force. Question. Does CBO expect there to be any increased or decreased spending on work support programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, or Food Stamps? Is there an expected increase or decrease in the number of people participating in these antipoverty programs as a result of higher wages resulting from the minimum wage? Answer. The increases in the minimum wage on the order of magnitude suggested in your letter could affect federal spending, but the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) judges that those effects would be small. Moreover, whether those impacts would be an increase or decrease in spending is uncertain because the result would depend on the income and family characteristics of the affected individuals. Some workers would see their incomes increased, but others might see their work hours and earnings decline (or sometimes eliminated completely) as employers responded to the increase in the minimum wage. CBO expects that, in many cases, those groups of workers would have similar characteristics and therefore similar tendencies to participate in public programs. For those workers newly unemployed, increased participation in assistance programs would generate significant additional costs on a per-case basis, but decreased costs for workers with increased earnings would offset most or all of that effect. The majority of minimum-wage workers do not receive any benefits under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Food Stamp program, or Medicaid. Those eligible for EITC payments could receive either higher or lower payments depending on whether or not they were in the ``phase-in'' or the ``phase- out'' income ranges. Workers would lose EITC payments if they were in the phase-out range and received higher earnings, and they would gain EITC payments if they were in the phase-in range and received higher earnings, within limits. CBO's analysis suggests that more affected workers are in the phase-out range than in the phase-in range. However, the implicit tax rate for EITC recipients in the phase-out range is generally much lower than the rate of benefit accrual for recipients in the phase-in range. As a result, CBO's preliminary analysis suggests that the phase-in and phase-out effects would virtually offset each other and total EITC payments would be little changed. Food Stamp benefits would fall for some workers, but could rise for others if they were among those in the labor force who saw their work hours decline. Similarly, some Medicaid recipients would reach income levels that would make them ineligible for that coverage, while others whose work hours were diminished might become eligible. Question. Will there be significant increases in the amount of payroll or income taxes collected as a result of the increased income from affected workers? Answer. CBO's estimate of the potential effects of an increase in the minimum wage on federal revenues is similar to that for spending--the impact would be small and of indeterminate direction. The effective tax rates for workers whose income would rise are not likely to be very different from those who might see their hours and earnings decreased. Those effective tax rates reflect payroll taxes (for Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance) and income taxes. Question. What effect will the increased minimum wage have on the unemployment insurance program? Does CBO expect that state unemployment payroll taxes will need to be increased or that unemployment benefit payments will increase as a result of any unemployment resulting from the increase in the minimum wage? Answer. CBO estimates that increases in the minimum wage would have a negligible effect on the unemployment insurance (UI) program. Unemployment benefits might rise slightly from any increase in unemployment that might ensue, but only a very small share of minimum-wage workers end up qualifying for benefits. Initially, taxes under the program could rise or fall depending on what happened to earnings under the annual cap on taxable wages. Moreover, to the extent that the balances in the state UI accounts deviated from a state's desired position, the state would adjust its tax rates and benefit provisions to offset those deviations, CBO assumes. Thus, CBO expects the net effect on the UI program to be neutral over time.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the experience in New Jersey of increasing the minimum wage, and he stated that no jobs were lost. He didn't cite any study to that effect. He just stated it. There are studies, though, that show that after the increase in minimum wage in the 1990s, there were, in fact, job losses. 146,000 jobs were cut from restaurant payrolls, and operators of restaurants signaled plans to postpone hiring an additional 106,000 new employees because of the raise of the minimum wage. And, also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that following the increase in minimum wage, net increase in jobs were significantly reduced around the country. And whether that is a coincidence or not, we don't know, but certainly the evidence is fairly clear that there was an impact. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. Brady.

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson).

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, just in response to the gentleman from Oregon, no one here is suggesting that government does not have a legitimate role to play in protecting workers' rights. That is not the point of the alternative that we are trying to offer here today. Our point is that the businesses that will be most directly impacted by the increased mandated burden of costs need to be helped so that we minimize the job loss that we know will come as a result of that. So I agree with the gentleman: There is a legitimate role, and we are not arguing that. In fact, our alternative does increase the minimum wage and gives help to those businesses that will most directly be impacted. I don't have time to yield, but I will talk to the gentleman off the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), another distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the passing of Arthur ``Pete'' Singleton, former chief of staff of the Ways and Means Committee, who died this past Saturday. Pete was a great guy who served this country in a variety of ways, beginning with his Marine service and ending as the staff director of the majority Ways and Means Committee for Chairman Bill Archer. Pete retired for the second time in 2000. Upon his retirement, Chairman Archer summarized Pete's contributions. He said, ``It was he who, in 1977, drafted the minority Social Security proposals, most of which later became law. Most recently, he oversaw the committee's intensive efforts during action on the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act and Taxpayer Relief Act, as well as legislation to repeal the Social Security earnings limit.'' Chairman Archer went on to describe the quality of Pete's service to the committee and to our country: ``Pete Singleton is one of the most loyal people I have ever known. His first thought has always been: How does this impact the committee? He is one of the hardest working staff persons I have known and has sacrificed much of his personal life for the committee. He possesses a sharp wit and a quick mind. He is a true gentleman in every sense and a wonderful human being.'' It was my privilege to serve on the committee when Pete served as chief of staff. I came to rely on Pete as a steady and trusted leader and often utilized his counsel based on his vast expertise and experience. On behalf of the current and former members of our committee, we commemorate Pete's outstanding contributions to the committee that he so loved and to our Nation. Our thoughts and prayers remain with his devoted wife, Libby, and all Pete's family, friends and colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of the passing of Arthur ``Pete'' Singleton, former Chief of Staff of the Committee on Ways and Means, who died this past Saturday. Pete began his service to his country as a Marine in World War II. He joined the Republican Committee staff in 1970 as Deputy Staff Director, following two successful careers, one in journalism as a reporter and editor and one for the former U.S. Steel Company. Pete soon became expert in the complex issue areas of Social Security and international trade. In 1981, Pete was appointed as Republican Staff Director. He served in that position until 1988, when he retired for the first time. After spending time writing, along with serving on the Social Security Advisory Board, 8 years later Chairman Bill Archer of Texas asked Pete to return to the Committee on Ways and Means to serve as Majority Chief of Staff, a position which he held until his second retirement in October of 2000. Upon his retirement, Chairman Archer summarized Pete's contributions as follows: ``It was he, who in 1977, drafted the Minority Social Security proposals, most of which later became law. Most recently, he oversaw the Committee's intensive efforts during action on the historic 1997 Balanced Budget Act and Taxpayer Relief Act, as well as legislation to repeal the Social Security earnings limit.'' Even more poignant, however, was what Chairman Archer said about the quality of Pete's service to the Committee and our country. ``Pete Singleton is one of the most loyal people I have ever known. His first thought has always been ``How does this impact the Committee?'' He is one of the hardest working staff persons I have known, and has sacrificed much of his personal life for the Committee. He possesses a sharp wit and a quick mind. He is a true gentleman in every sense, and a wonderful human being.'' It was my privilege to serve on the Committee when Pete served as Chief of Staff. I came to rely on Pete as a steady and trusted leader, and often utilized his counsel based on his vast expertise and experience. On behalf of the current and former members of our committee, we commemorate Pete's outstanding contributions to the Committee that he so loved, and to our Nation. Our thoughts and prayers remain with his devoted wife Libby, and all Pete's family, friends, and colleagues.