Jim McCrery

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I am a little tired of all of this about lockboxes and trust funds and setting money aside. All of the people talking about that stuff know as well as I do that that is a fiction. The simple truth is if you pay out more than you bring in, you have got a deficit. That is what we have been doing in this country for too long. Yes, some of us want to cut taxes. Every Republican in this body 2 years ago, many Democrats who still remain here now, 2 years ago voted against President Clinton's tax increase. All we are trying to do this year is get back two-thirds of that tax increase. So if you were against taxes being raised 2 years ago, you ought to be trying to get some of that tax increase back this year. But we are going to pay for it, plus we are going to reduce the deficit, and we are going to reduce taxes. If you are not for reducing taxes, fine, do not vote for the tax cuts, but do not try to obfuscate the issue with all this talk about lockboxes and trust funds.

Mr. McCRERY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and certainly we are micromanaging to that extent. However, I was responding earlier to the gentleman's comments about us specifying in this amendment the number of diapers that can be purchased. We do not do that, and you know that.

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

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Personal Responsibility Act, H.R. 4, but I rise particularly, Mr. Chairman, to discuss the portion of the bill dealing with SSI disability for children. This program has experienced explosive growth over the past few years. Since 1989, both the costs of the program and the number of children qualifying for the program have tripled. Why? Two things: First, this is the most sought after welfare program in America. The average monthly cash benefit of about $450 per child per month is the most generous cash payment in our welfare system. Second, a Supreme Court decision in 1989, the Zebley decision, radically liberalized the criteria under which children qualify for the program. Besides the wasteful drain of taxpayer dollars, consider the harm this Federal program does to too many children. In testimony before a Federal commission studying this program, Dr. Bill Payne, a physician who oversees disability decisions in Arkansas, said, ``There is no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of children that receive disability checks who are not really disabled at all.'' Willie Lee Bell, principal of an elementary school in Lake Providence, LA, said students were refusing to perform academically so that they could qualify for disability checks. Mr. Bell told of a Lake Providence child who, prompted by a mother seeking SSI checks, fabricated a story of bizarre behavior so convincing that doctors committed him to a mental hospital, fearing that he was a threat to his family. A psychologist in another Louisiana Parish, Ray Owens, also said that parents were coaching children to do poorly, saying ``The children are being doomed to failure.'' Mr. Chairman, this is an abused program which begs for reform. Thankfully, some Democrats have also recognized the need for reform. I want to thank Mr. Kleczka and Mrs. Lincoln, particularly, for their assistance in researching the problems in this program and in helping to craft a thoughtful response to those problems. The solution to the explosion in the growth of this program, Mr. Chairman, and to the harm it is doing to otherwise healthy children, is to overturn the Zebley decision, and to offer cash payments to only the most severely disabled children who, absent the cash assistance, would have to be institutionalized. For other, less severely disabled children, we will provide medical and nonmedical services designed to cope with the child's disability. These changes in SSI disability for children will restore integrity to this out of control Federal program, while providing even more helpful resources to the most severely disabled children in need.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 831, a bill which will make permanent the 25 percent deduction for health insurance for the self-employed. We should strive to make health insurance more affordable, and this bill does that. It will make business expenditures by small businesses more certain, as they will be able to rely on the 25 percent deduction for purchase of their health insurance, unlike past years when the temporary deduction expired, leaving the self- employed in doubt as to their true costs. Should we go further by increasing the percentage of the health insurance costs of the self-employed which are deductible, or by extending this deduction to workers whose employers do not provide them with health insurance? Yes, and some of us will be working hard in the months ahead to include those even more attractive incentives in the Tax Code. But for now, it is important that we take this step in the right direction, important to make permanent this tax deduction that the self-employed have come to rely on. And a quick word, Mr. Chairman, about the proposal in Mr. Stark's motion to recommit to extend indefinitely the period of time which a former employee may remain on his former employer's health insurance. Mr. Cardin stated that such an extension would impose no additional costs on employers. In fact, Mr. Chairman, an indefinite extension of Cobra benefits not only imposes increased costs on employers, but, either directly or indirectly, imposes increased costs on the remaining employees in the business. The data shows that, when faced with paying their own premiums, former employees who are healthy seldom opt to continue their insurance, taking a chance that they will not require substantial medical care before getting another job which provides insurance. On the other hand, former employees with health problems continue on their former employer's insurance which drives up the cost for the whole group.

Mr. McCRERY

Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join with Mr. Jefferson in introducing legislation to address the preservation needs of low-income housing. I am doing so because I believe that the Low-Income Housing Preservation Act is the kind of innovative, market-oriented approach that we, in Congress, must follow in the future to solve many of our Nation's housing problems. The Low-Income Housing Preservation Act will encourage the investment of additional private capital in a large category of privately owned projects that provide housing at reduced rents to low-income tenants. It does so by eliminating some of the disincentives now in the Tax Code which have denied new investors virtually any incentive to invest in these affordable housing projects. As a result, the current owners are trapped in the projects without the ability to sell the projects to new investors with capital, or the ability to raise new capital for the projects themselves. In the meantime, the projects fall further and further behind in performing the rehab needed. The bill provides an effective and cost-efficient way to meet the increasingly serious needs of these projects for capital improvements by providing the benefits of a shortened depreciation schedule and limited relief from the passive loss rules for investors who agree to buy the projects, fix them up, and maintain them for low-income tenants. This is the direction we must be going, as we attempt to reinvent Government. In the housing area in particular we need to find new solutions that rely less on bureaucratic programs run directly by HUD, and more on programs that harness the energy of the free enterprise system, while restricting the Government's role to a minimum. Government can provide a helping hand, but it is the private sector that must take the lead. That is what the Low-Income Housing Preservation Act would do. The bill would encourage the investment of new private capital in the projects, but only so long as the projects continue to serve low-income tenants. HUD would have a role in ensuring that the projects are maintained properly for these tenants, but it would do so without HUD playing the kind of direct programmatic role it has played in the case of some programs in the past. At the same time that this bill will help solve a problem without more Government, it is fiscally responsible. Because of the way the bill is drafted, the estimate by the Joint Tax Committee indicates that the cost to the Federal Government over 5 years will be very low. But more importantly, it negates the need for alternative preservation programs at HUD that would cost much more, and require the involvement of large staffs just when we are trying to reduce the size of HUD and the Federal Government generally. Immediately upon passage, the legislation will enable HUD to sell at a higher price the mortgages on projects which they already hold because the owner has defaulted on the loan. This will reduce the loss to HUD from these defaults, and save the taxpayer money. Doing nothing, and allowing these projects to deteriorate beyond physical and financial help, would in the end cost the taxpayer much more because the Government would then have to fund the considerable expense of constructing new affordable housing projects that will be needed to replace the existing projects lost. I have no doubt that as a practical matter the legislation will save the taxpayer in the end far more than it will cost. Historically, the country has placed considerable reliance on privately owned housing to provide affordable housing to low-income tenants. I think this is a wise policy, but to make it work we cannot deny all financial incentives to private investors to purchase and maintain these projects. The Ways and Means Committee recognized this in 1986 when it adopted the low-income housing tax credit. Before it is too late Congress must recognize the same for the stock of existing but aging low-income housing that has not been able to take advantage of the tax credit. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.