Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. Mr. Chairman, no State has been impacted by the base closure process more than the State of California. Many of the programs and personnel associated with former military installations in California have either been eliminated or transferred to other States. That being said, there are still fundamental missions which occur at facilities such as the National Army Training Center at Fort Irwin. The Army has spent considerable time and resources addressing the need to establish a permanent airfield to support Forth Irwin and is now moving forward with a cost-effective plan that has been endorsed by Congress and the Secretary of the Army. Voting in favor of the gentleman's amendment will only result in needless delays in meeting this critical requirement. The Nadler amendment unravels 5 years of the Army's planning for a permanent airfield to support Fort Irwin. The decision to study California alternatives for the NTC airhead was undertaken by the Army at its own initiative beginning on December 13, 1989. The analysis of alternative study was completed in October of 1993. Here is the specific finding of that study before it went to Forscam and the Military Traffic Management Command: Fort Irwin does not have a reliable, full-time tactical airfield usable by fixed-wing, heavy-life, and wide-body aircraft. Long-term operation at McCarran is questionable. If this project is not provided, air operations at the NTC will continue to be substandard. Limited Army funding will continue to be spent to bring troops overland from great distances, training time will be lost, and command and control will be difficult. The Barstow-Daggett alternative was found to be the most economically cost-efficient as calculated over the life of the project. Mr. Chairman, I have been here now just a couple of years. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and I came at the same time. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has the district next to mine. We both represent people from the desert. We understand the desert probably a little better than someone from across the country. We know what the road is like driving from Fort Irwin over to Edwards, and it is a dangerous road, and I think that this amendment should be defeated. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Nadler amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, again, both of us coming from that area, we know when we talk about a two-lane road it is a little different out there than it is here. Two lane road there, it is up and down because of the flash flooding coming off the hills, and they have to leave low spots in the road, and so we get ups and downs, and I have had friends killed on that highway. I understand the danger there.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McKEON

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

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] for his courtesy. Mr. Chairman, along with several other Members of this body, I am concerned that small, sea-skimming, antiship cruise missiles are today in the hands of more than 100 countries. Thousands of lives and an enormous investment in capital ships, equipment, and supplies are potentially at risk because of the proliferation of, and the threat posed by, these missiles. While the Navy has improved its radar capabilities to detect small targets in open ocean sea clutter, clutter levels over typical littoral waters, relative to the open ocean, are far more severe. Consequently, in order to address the problem posed by these small, sea-skimming missiles, Congress has appropriated $30.3 million over the past 3 fiscal years to develop an upgrade to the primary radar used by aircraft carriers and big deck amphibious ships. Unfortunately, due to lengthy delays in releasing these funds, the radar upgrade modification program was not initiated until February of this year--and then only $6 million was put under contract. Moreover, the Vice Chief of Naval Operations recently informed the Congress that only $3 million in additional funds have been allocated by the Navy for this program through the remainder of this fiscal year. Despite the danger posed by these cruise missiles, the Navy did not fund continuation of this upgrade in its fiscal year 1995 budget. Recent communications with senior Navy officials have raised doubts as to whether Navy will request funds for this program in fiscal year 1997. Mr. Chairman, I understand that seeking additional funds in fiscal year 1996 for production of the upgrade modification kit--given the fact that the Navy has only recently begun to develop it--may be premature. However, I believe this program is one that deserves our consideration. I would ask the chairman's assurance that he will look into the Navy's plans for this radar upgrade development and lend his support to its production and implementation as soon as is possible.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Defense Authorization Act, as reported by the Committee on National Security. As a new member of the committee, I believe that this legislation makes major strides in advancing a strong U.S. defense policy. Mr. Chairman, there is a particular issue that will be addressed today that I wish to talk about in the brief time I have. It concerns funding for the B-2 bomber. I believe it is critical we vote to maintain the funding contained in the National Security Committee bill. We will hear a lot of talk today that the cold war is over and we do not need to spend taxpayer money on defense needs. However, let us take a moment to look at what has happened to our defense structure since the end of the cold war. First, we have closed more bases at home and overseas than at any other time in our Nation's history. Second, we are retiring more aircraft and submarines than are currently being built. Third, we have drawn down our military to numbers which have not been seen in a generation. Mr. Chairman, while it is true the cold war may be over, we cannot expect our future military leaders to engage the Saddam Husseins of the 21st century with 50-year-old B-52's and 30-year-old B-1 bombers. Seven former Secretaries of Defense, the former commander of air operation during Desert Storm, and President Bush's former Secretary of the Air Force, all recognize this fact. It is time that Congress recognize it as well. Vote ``no'' on the Dellums-Kasich amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I always love to be introduced by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. He always makes you feel so good and has some flowery use of words. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for this rule, and to decry the veto threats of the President's political advisors. There is no excuse for playing politics with working families in California who have suffered immense hardship from natural disasters. There are times when elected officials must rise above politics and respond to a crisis. When the Northridge earthquake devastated the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, and surrounding areas last year, I believed one of those times was at hand. I applauded the President for going to Los Angeles and seeing the destruction first hand. He met hard-working people who bravely faced the brunt of the disaster. It was not a question of Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, it was the President responding to an emergency that rose above politics. When the President asked Congress for $6.7 billion in supplemental appropriations to begin to rebuild in the face of massive destruction, my Republican colleagues in the House were determined to cut other spending to pay for the cost. Now, I accept second place to nobody in the desire to reduce Federal spending and balance the budget. However, I opposed my colleagues and supported the President's request without offsets. I argued last year that there are a few instances when providing relief rises above political fights. When a leader must make the difficult decisions, even stand against those who are usually his allies, in order to meet the needs of those who have been struck by a disaster. Mr. Speaker, by threatening to veto the conference report that continues to provide relief to communities decimated by last year's earthquake, the President is failing that test. He is letting down the families and communities who need this assistance. Has he forgotten his visit of last year? Maybe the political advisers urging a veto weren't with the President when he walked through the communities he now threatens to ignore? I recognize that it is difficult for this big-government President to support spending cuts. It was very difficult for me last year to vote to add emergency relief funds to deficit. But, I made a tough choice in order to help those disaster victims who needed it most. Ultimately, the political fights over balanced budgets were played out in more appropriate places. Mr. Speaker, the President's advisers have lost touch with disaster victims in California. Go ahead, oppose the balance budget amendment. Oppose the budget resolution. Oppose the appropriations bills later this year that will cut spending. But have the courage to accept a few cuts to enact disaster relief.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Rep. Bill Goodling, all Republican Members of our Committee, and Representatives Kasich, Delay, Boehner, and Davis, in introduction of the Consolidated and Reformed Education, Employment, and Rehabilitation Systems Act--better known as the Careers Act of 1995. This legislation transforms this Nation's vast array of career-related education, employment, and job training programs into a true system of workforce preparation and development. As was brought to the attention of the Congress by the U.S. General Accounting Office over the past several years, the United States currently has as many as 163 different Federal programs, totaling $20 billion, which offer some form of job training and/or employment assistance for youth and adults. In addition to the excessive number of Federal programs, the quality of U.S. training programs varies significantly. As a result, earlier this year we introduced H.R. 511, the Workforce Preparation and Development Act, which pledged that the 104th Congress would, thoroughly evaluate our current programs, and subsequently develop and enact legislation that: First, Eliminates duplication and fragmentation in federal workforce development programs; Second, transfers major decision-making to States and local communities; Third, stresses the vital role of the private sector, at all levels, in the design and implementation of the workforce preparation system; Fourth, is market driven, accountable, reinforces individual responsibility, and provides customer choice and easy access to services; and Fifth, establishes a national labor market information system that provides employers, job seekers, students, teachers, training providers, and others with accurate and timely information on the local economy, on occupations in demand and the skill requirements for such occupations, and information on the performance of service providers in the local community. Today, after a comprehensive set of hearings on this issue, we are following through on our promise. We are introducing legislation that will do what was pledged in H.R. 511. The Careers Act, does all of the above and more. The Careers Act would consolidate and eliminate over 150 existing education, training, and employment assistance programs into 4 consolidation grants to the States. Such grants would include: A Youth Workforce Preparation Grant; and Adult Employment and Training Grant; a Vocational Rehabilitation Grant; and an Adult Education and Literacy Grant. And these 4 programs, working together, will form each State's workforce preparation system. Our bill provides maximum authority to States and localities in the design and operation of their workforce preparation systems. We significantly reduce administrative requirements, paperwork, duplicative planning, reporting, and data collection requirements across the various programs--in general eliminating vast bureaucracy within the system. However, our legislation does provide some broad parameters for the design of a workforce development system, that we feel are necessary to move the system in the right direction, based on testimony heard in our numerous hearings, and in talking to people around the country. Specifically, title I of Careers, is designed to build an infrastructure in States and local communities for development and implementation of a comprehensive workforce development system. At the State level, Governors are asked to pull together key State agency heads and leaders from business and education to develop a single State plan and performance measurement system for the entire workforce development system. Governors are also asked to designate workforce development areas throughout the State, for the distribution of funds and service delivery under much of the system. To ensure the involvement of employers in the design and implementation of local systems, Careers requires the establishment of local, employer-led, workforce development boards. These boards would provide policy guidance and oversight over local systems, and would be responsible for the establishment of local one-stop delivery systems-- easily accessible single points of entry into the local workforce preparation system. The youth workforce development program pulls school systems and postsecondary institutions together with local business leaders to develop a school-to-work system for both in-school, and out-of-school youth in the community. This system is designed to result in challenging academic and occupational competency gains for all youth in the community, as well as completion of high school, or its equivalent, and other positive outcomes such as placement and retention in employment, or continuation into postsecondary education or training. States would also be require to show how special population students meet the performance standards. Under the adult and the vocational rehabilitation programs, upfront or core services--such as information on jobs, assessment of skills, counseling, job search assistance, information on education, training, and vocational rehabilitation programs in the local community, assessment of eligibility for such programs--including eligibility for student financial aid--and referral to appropriate programs would be available to all individuals through a net work of one-stop career centers and affiliated satellite centers throughout each community. For individuals with severe disabilities and determined to be in need of more intensive services, such services would be available through vouchers and other means to be used with approved providers of vocational rehabilitation services. Under the adult training system, for individuals who are unable to obtain employment through the core services, more intensive service such as specialized assessment and counseling, and development of employability plans, would be available--also through the one-stops. For those unable to obtain employment through these services and determined to be in need of education or training, such services would be provided--through the use of vouchers or other means that offer maximum customer choice in the selection of training providers. States would be required to establish a certification system for the identification of legitimate providers of education and training for receipt of vouchers--taking into account the recommendations of local workforce boards. Finally, beyond the specific area of job training, the Careers Act includes privatization proposals for 2 existing government sponsored enterprises--again focusing on the streamlining of federal programs. Sallie Mae and Connie Lee were created by the Higher Education Act and are examples of for-profit, stockholder owned GSEs which have successfully fulfilled their intended purposes. Privatization cuts the ties to the Federal Government and establishes a willingness on the part of the Government to take a successful public-private partnership and turn it into a completely private venture when government support is no longer necessary. I want to thank the administration for its thoughtful testimony at our hearing on the issue of privatization and for its assistance in identifying and addressing the important and complex issue involved in privatization proposals. And also, I would like to thank the administration for its testimony and advice on reform of our job training system. As a Congressman from a district in California that has been hit hard by defense and aerospace cutbacks--I understand that the skills of this Nation's workforce are more important today then ever before to U.S. competitiveness. However, our current patchwork of Federal programs is not the answer. The Careers Act addresses our long term workforce preparation strategy by creating a [[Page E1017]] seamless system for youth and adults to meet the competitive needs of our workforce. I thank our distinguished Chairman for his insight and leadership on this vital issue and I invite all of my colleagues to join with us in this dramatic effort to overhaul the Federal approach to job training and workforce preparation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, the State of California is currently embroiled in a lawsuit which could cost California taxpayers as much as $500 million. The case revolves around an alleged violation by the State under the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA]. What makes this case worthy of note, is that the State may be can prove they were actually harmed. Today, I am introducing legislation to clarify the law to protect State and local governments from such frivolous and costly claims. Under the FLSA, nonexempt employees may file for liquidated damages-- cash awards equal to the amount of unpaid wages--should their employer violate the minimum wage and/or overtime provisions of the FLSA. The alleged violations by the State of California were the result of budget impasses in 1991 and 1992. In 1991, a budget impasse prevented California, in accordance with State law, from paying some State employees on time. A Federal district court judge ruled that the failure to distribute paychecks on payday, notwithstanding the circumstances of the budget impasse, constituted a violation of the implied ``prompt payment'' requirement under the FLSA. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals went one step further and ruled that regardless of the circumstances, any delay in the disbursement of paychecks violates the FLSA. Thus, in the rare instance of a natural disaster which could delay the distribution of paychecks for even 1 day, a State or local government could be sued for liquidated damages. During the 1992 budget impasse, the State of California paid its employees with registered warrants in order to avoid liability under the ``prompt payment'' requirement of the FLSA. These warrants, which accrued interest and are legal negotiable instruments in the State of California, were accepted by nearly all banks and employees were able to cash the warrants as they would their regular paychecks. In spite of the fact that the plaintiffs could not prove actual harm, a Federal district court judge initially ruled in favor of the employees, finding that the State violated the ``cash or cash- equivalent'' requirement of the FLSA. Even though the judge is reconsidering his decision, the State of California remains exposed to extensive liability and court costs. If the State had intentionally paid its employees late or if the employees were actually harmed by the State's actions, then employees should be eligible for liquidated damages. However, the taxpayers in California should not be forced to pay for liquidated damages to State employees who have suffered no actual harm. This legislation, which I am introducing with several of my colleagues from the State of California and the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, would amend the Portal-to-Portal Pay Act of 1947 to address the issue of liquidated damages. The legislation would relieve States and their political subdivisions from liability for liquidated damages if: First, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that the employees were paid with a legal, negotiable instrument; second, the employee cannot demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that he or she suffered any actual harm; and third, the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that its failure to provide prompt payment was the result of a natural disaster, failure to enact a budget, insolvency, or other condition beyond the control of the employer. This House has already demonstrated its commitment to relieving States and local governments of the burden of unfunded mandates and ending the practice of frivolous lawsuits. My legislation would continue the process which has already begun and end a clear abuse of the FLSA. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my support for the mandatory work requirements contained in H.R. 4. Consistent with 90 percent American voters, H.R. 4 requires that recipients of welfare work in exchange for their benefits. Under H.R. 4, every welfare recipients is required to participate in some form of work activity within a minimum of 2 years. After 5 years, recipients face the ultimate work requirement, the end of all cash welfare, period. In addition, we require States to have a minimum of 50 percent of adults in one-parent welfare families working by the year 2003 and require that 70 Under this bill, with limited exceptions, all work participants must be in real private-sector jobs, paying real wages, and they must work for a minimum of 20 hours per week, rising to 35 hours per week by 2003. Under the GOP proposal, 2.25 million welfare recipients will be participating in work by the year 2003. In the first year alone, 180,000 recipients will be working. How do other welfare-to-work proposals fare under these guidelines? The current program, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Act, while boasting a 20-percent participation rate, has a mere 26,000 recipients working. The Clinton proposal would have had zero recipients working in the first 2 years, and at its peak would have had just 394,000 participants in a real job. Mr. Chairman I beg the question, who's serious about work? Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to add that work provides more than a wage, it provides a sense of being, increases self-esteem, and provides a role model for the societal value of self-sufficiency, reducing the pattern of dependence which currently is passed from one generation to another.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of H.R. 7 as reported by the Committee on National Security. Mr. Chairman, protecting the industrial base of strategic military programs is an issue that our Government must address in identifying a long-term strategy for defense procurement. There are three critical technology programs with an application that is dedicated exclusively to military procurement: conventional munitions, nuclear attack submarines, and long-range strategic bombers. Because these programs have no commercial benefit, it is of paramount importance that the Department of Defense act now to preserve these unique technologies. As many of us know, the administration requested funding for a third Seawolf submarine, largely because of the need to preserve the submarine industrial base in the future. In the area to cap production of long-range bombers at 20 aircraft, even though there is no successor program in either the research or development stage. Because there is no substitute for the strategic elements of the bomber industrial base, it would cost billions to reestablish existing production lines if these capabilities are allowed to dissipate. Mr. Chairman, I believe this issue is of extreme national importance and am pleased that H.R. 7 acknowledges the fact that the current bomber force falls woefully short of meeting the baseline established in the bottom-up review. I urge a favorable vote on H.R. 7.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I join today with Representative Bill Goodling, chairman of the Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee, and other members of the committee and with our Democratic colleagues in the introduction of the Student Loan Evaluation and Stabilization Act. This legislation is urgently needed in order to ensure the stability of the Federal student loan program that provide access to higher education opportunities for our Nation's students. In 1992, when Congress reauthorized the Higher Education Act, extensive consideration was given to the concept of a Government direct lending program. After long and thoughtful deliberation, the House- Senate Conference Committee which was dominated by Democratic Members from both bodies of Congress, agreed to try a direct lending program over a period of several years on a pilot basis consisting of approximately 4 percent of new student loan volume. One year later, during the budget reconciliation process, the complete phase-out of the Federal Family Education Loan Program was initiated by the administration in favor of a direct Government lending program. The pilot agreed upon during the 1992 reauthorization which allowed for a thorough evaluation of the program was no longer important. A swift move to a direct Government lending program was adopted in order to achieve budget savings. The administration continues to promote its direct lending program on the basis of the $4.3 billion in savings even though the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that approximately one-half of those savings disappear when long term administrative costs are included in the cost determination. The administration also continues to promote the concept of public/ private partnerships while moving forward with plans to eliminate a public/private partnership that has been successful ever since passage of the Higher Education Act in 1965. Over the years, Congress has taken steps to strengthen this partnership by requiring improved service to students while reducing both student and program costs. Before Members of Congress are able students, institutions, and taxpayers, we need a thorough evaluation of both programs and the bill we are introducing today allows for such an evaluation. The bill allows for a much larger pilot than was contemplated under the 1992 amendments to the Higher Education Act, but we believe that a pilot consisting of 40 percent of new loan volume will permit Congress to carefully oversee and evaluate its implementation. At the same time, we will be maintaining a stable Federal Family Education Loan Program for those institutions not wishing to participate in a Government direct lending program. When both programs are fully operational, Congress will be able to fairly evaluate the programs for efficiency and cost effectiveness prior to making decisions to totally replace one program with the other. Specifically, this bill provides for the continued implementation of the direct loan program at those institutions selected for participation in order to achieve 40 percent of new loan volume. It calls for increased congressional oversight with respect to the expenditure of funds on the part of the Department of Education and a revision to budget scoring rules that will correct the existing bias in favor of direct lending programs described by Rudolph Penner, former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, in his testimony before the Budget Committees of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate on January 10, 1995. We have attempted to ease the application process for all students participating in the student aid programs to ensure that all students are treated in the same manner. Most importantly, we have provided stability to the student loan programs which are vital to the continued access to higher education for the students of this country. In my new role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Life-Long Learning, I look forward to working with Chairman Goodling and all the members of the subcommittee and full committee as we work to reform and improve the education and workplace policy programs under our jurisdiction.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I am joining with my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania, the new chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, Representative Bill Goodling, with all other Republican members of our committee, and with Mr. Kasich, Mr. Zeliff, Mr. Boehner, and Mr. Mica, in introduction of the Workforce Preparation and Development Act--legislation that establishes the reform of this Nation's vast array of job training programs as a high priority of the 104th Congress. Specifically, this legislation pledges that the Congress will carefully evaluate and subsequently enact legislation that significantly consolidates and reforms all Federal career-related education, job training, and employment assistance programs into a true system of workforce preparation and development prior to the end of the 104th Congress. As was brought to the attention of the U.S. Congress in numerous reports issued by the General Accounting Office over the past several years, the United States currently has over 154 different Federal education and job training programs, totaling $24 billion, administered by 14 different Federal agencies, which assistance for youth and adults. In addition to the excessive number of Federal programs, the quality of U.S. training programs varies significantly. Last Congress, several important legislative initiatives were introduced with the goal of consolidating Federal job training programs--however with the advent of the new Congress, we have determined to take a step back, and to carefully examine all programs before our committee's jurisdiction, particularly those programs offering some form of employment or training assistance, to determine the best approach to be taken in development of a consolidated and reformed workforce preparation system. The legislation we are introducing today, begins a vital transformation process--consolidating and reforming the numerous Federal workforce preparation and development programs that currently exist in this country--from a collection of fragmented and duplicative categorical programs into a streamlined, comprehensive, coherent, high- quality, cost-effective, and accountable workforce preparation and development system, designed to meet the education, employment and training needs of the U.S. workforce both today and in the future. Specifically, the Workforce Preparation and Development Act, states that prior to the end of the 104th Congress, all Federal workforce preparation and development programs will be thoroughly evaluated to determine the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of such programs. The legislation further pledges the enactment of legislation by the end of the 104th Congress that: First, eliminates duplication and fragmentation in Federal workforce preparation and development programs through the consolidation and where appropriate elimination of such programs; second, transfers major decision-making to States and local communities for the design, governance, and implementation of comprehensive, integrated workforce preparation systems; third, stresses the vital role of the private sector, at all levels, in the design and implementation of a national workforce preparation system, and encourages the utilization of State and local employer-led boards responsible for strategic planning and program oversight of State and local systems; fourth, establishes a national workforce preparation system that--is market driven and accountable, reinforces individual responsibility through attachment to employment, and provides customer choice and easy access to services; and fifth, establishes a national labor market information system that provides employers, job seekers, students, teachers, training providers, and others with accurate and timely information on the local economy, on occupations in demand and the skill requirements for such occupations, and information on the performance of service providers in the local community. Finally, the Workforce Preparation and Development Act calls for the repeal of existing workforce preparation and development programs, as appropriate, upon enactment of reform legislation. The skills levels of this Nation's workforce are more important today than ever before to U.S. competitiveness, however our current patchwork of Federal programs is not the answer. In my new role as chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, Training and Lifelong Learning, I will have the opportunity to make changes in these Federal education and job training programs to create a seamless system for youth and adults to meet the competitive needs of our workforce. I believe that the Workforce Preparation and Development Act sets the stage for meaningful reform, and I invite all of my colleagues to join with us in this exciting reform process.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me and for all his outstanding work in bringing this bill to this stage. Mr. Speaker, at every meeting that I attend back home, the one question that always comes up is how can Congress pass laws and then exempt itself. We are supposed to be representative of the people, but we have consistently treated ourselves differently. I will be the first to admit that I wish we were all exempt from some of the laws and regulations Congress has passed in the last few ears. As a businessman, I have felt the burden of government regulation, but as a Congressman I am exempt from it. That must change. The Shays amendment is based on a simple principle of fairness. This legislation will require the Congress to comply with the same rules it passes. Just as we back home cannot be above the law, Congress cannot be above the laws it passes by claiming special legislative privilege. The clock has run out on business as usual. Congress must regain the trust of the American people by living under the same laws it imposes on the private sector. I urge you to support the Shays amendment and return accountability to Congress.