Jim Ramstad

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, in today's St. Paul Pioneer Press this headline caught my attention this morning. It reads, ``Drug-Related Deaths Set Record.'' The story goes on to say that ``drug-related deaths in the United States have reached a record level, while illegal drug users can buy cocaine and heroin at some of the lowest prices in two decades, according to a White House report.'' It further states that ``some 15,973 people in this country died from drug-induced causes in 1997, an increase of 1,130 people over the previous year.'' The story further states that ``only four of every 10 addicts in the United States who needed treatment received it,'' according to the report. Then it concludes by stating that ``the figures surely are distressing news for the Clinton Administration, which is spending record amounts of money to fight the war on drugs.'' Mr. Speaker, why do we have a record number of deaths from illegal drugs? Because we are spending the money in the wrong places. Now the administration is calling for the expenditure of another $1.7 billion for drug eradication and interdiction in Colombia. We have already spent $600 million fighting the drug war in Colombia. What has been the result? The production of cocaine and heroine has skyrocketed. In fact, 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin today in the United States comes from Colombia. Mr. Speaker, our priorities are all out of line in the war against drugs. For the $400 million proposed to build new helicopters for Colombia, we could treat 200,000 addicts in the United States. When President Nixon in 1971 declared war on drugs, he directed 60 percent of the funding to treatment, and do you know what it is today, Mr. Speaker? Eighteen percent, 18 percent of the funding. Overall, since the war on drugs started, we have spent $150 billion on crop eradication and drug interdiction. What has been the result? We have 26 million addicts and alcoholics in the United States today. Most are unable to get into treatment. Ten million have no insurance and therefore cannot get treatment through Medicaid. Sixteen million have insurance, but the insurance companies are blocking the access of all but 2 percent of these to treatment. In the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker, we have seen 50 percent of the treatment centers close in America. Even more alarming, 60 percent of the adolescent treatment centers in this country are gone. We need to wake up. The Congress needs to wake up. The President needs to wake up. We have a national epidemic of addiction on our hands, and we are about to spend good money after bad, another $1.7 billion for the Colombia boondoggle. We need to listen to former Lieutenant Commander Sylvester Salcedo, who for 3 years worked on this effort with our intelligence forces and our military in Colombia. This is the way Lieutenant Commander Salcedo put it: ``This is a misdirection of our priorities. This money should be going to treating addicts in the United States, rather than trying to eradicate crops in Colombia.'' Mr. Speaker, I hope that wisdom and good judgment prevail in this body when this vote comes up, because this is truly a defining moment in our effort to curb illegal drug use in the United States. Are we going to continue wasting money on these eradication and interdiction efforts that do not work? All the studies show that treatment is 23 times more effective, more cost effective, than eradication. All the studies show that treatment is 11 times more cost effective than interdiction efforts. When are we going to learn? When are we going to learn? Let us remember when this war on drugs was first declared by President Nixon, he said we should spend 60 percent of the money on treatment. Today it is down to 18 percent. We need to reverse those priorities. We need to emphasize treatment, provide access to the 26 million Americans already addicted to drugs and alcohol. Until we do something about the demand side, the disease of addiction that causes people to crave and demand drugs, we are never going to put a dent in this problem, which everyone in this body says is the number one public health and public safety problem. Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to defeat the almost-$2 billion for more wasteful efforts in Colombia and redirect those priorities to drug treatment here at home.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, we are about to spend almost $2 billion to escalate the war on drugs in Colombia, while here in the United States 26 million American addicts and alcoholics go untreated. We have already spent over $600 million to eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia. And what has happened? Both cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have more than doubled. Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin in the United States. Let us face it, our supply- side efforts have been a colossal failure. Congress and the President need to wake up and face reality. Over the last 10 years, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has spent $150 billion to combat the supply of illegal drugs. Yet the cocaine market is glutted, as always, and heroin is readily available at record high purities. The number of hard-core addicts continues to increase every day. Our drug eradication and interdiction efforts have also been a costly failure. As a former United States Navy Commander who led such efforts in Colombia for 3 years said recently, quote, ``The $1.7 billion being proposed on drug-fighting efforts in Colombia is good money thrown after bad.'' Retired Navy Lieutenant Commander Sylvester Salcedo also said, and I am quoting again, ``We cannot make any progress on this drug issue by escalating our presence in Colombia. Instead, we should confront the issue of demand in the United States by providing treatment services to our addicted population.'' Mr. Speaker, we need to listen to this veteran of the war on drugs who added, ``Washington should spend its money not on helicopters and trainers but on treatment for addicts.'' The $400 million cost of helicopters alone for Colombia would provide treatment for 200,000 Americans addicted to drugs. Mr. Speaker, this is crazy. This is wrong. We are about to spend $2 billion on Colombia for drug eradication and interdiction while most of the 26 million addicts and alcoholics in the United States are unable to access treatment. We are about to spend $2 billion on Colombia even though treatment has been proven to be 23 times more cost effective than eradication of crops and 11 times more cost effective than interdiction. When will Congress and the President wake up to the basic fact that our Nation's supply-side strategy does not attack the underlying problem of addiction? It is the addiction that causes people to crave and demand drugs. When President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971, he directed 60 percent of the funding to treatment. Now we are down to 18 percent of the funding for treatment. That is a big reason, Mr. Speaker, that fully one half of the treatment beds are gone that were available here in America 10 years ago. The other reason is that we allow insurance companies to discriminate against the disease of addiction by limiting access to treatment. Mr. Speaker, this is a defining moment in the 30-year effort to curb illegal drug use in the United States. We can keep pumping money into that supply-side cesspool or we can shift our focus to the drug addiction problem here at home. We will never stop the drug epidemic unless we cut off the insatiable demand for drugs in our Nation. It is time to reject the $2 billion for the failed policy in Colombia. It is time to redirect those resources to providing access to drug treatment here at home. Mr. Speaker, the American people literally, literally, cannot afford to wait any longer for Congress to get real about addiction in America, the number one public health and public safety problem in our Nation. I hope and pray my fellow colleagues will just say no to funds for Colombia.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, every day politicians talk about a drug- free America. Now, the Clinton administration is proposing to spend another $1.6 billion for drug eradication in Colombia so that we can become ``drug-free America.'' Mr. Speaker, let us get real. We have already spent $600 million to eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia, and what has happened? Both cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have skyrocketed. Despite eradication efforts, cocaine production in Colombia has more than doubled since 1995. Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine that comes into America, 75 percent of the heroin; and there is absolutely no sign Colombia's government can stop it or even make a dent in the problem any time soon, even with additional American dollars. Let us face it. Our supply-side efforts have been a colossal failure. When will Congress and the President wake up and face reality? Over the last 10 years, the Federal Government has spent over $150 billion to combat the supply of illegal drugs. Yet, the cocaine market is glutted, as always; and heroin is readily available at record-high purities. While the number of casual drug users may have declined slightly, the number of hard-core addicts has not. In short, Mr. Speaker, the war on drugs by the United States Government has been a costly failure. Now, Mr. Speaker, a soldier in that war is saying just that, telling it like it is, and Congress should listen to him. We should listen to retired Navy Lieutenant Commander Sylvester Salcedo, who served 3 years as a United States intelligence officer working closely with law enforcement officers and agencies doing antidrug work. As Lieutenant Commander Salcedo put it, quote, ``The $1.6 billion being proposed on drug-fighting efforts in Colombia is good money thrown after bad.'' Lieutenant Commander Salcedo also said recently that the stated goal of the aid package that is to disrupt the production and exports of drugs into our country is unrealistic and unrealizable. In fact, the lieutenant commander was so upset by the proposal, he wanted to return a Navy medal he received for his work with the Defense Department's Joint Task Force 6. Rather than spend more money in Colombia, we should confront the issue of demand here at home in the United States, providing treatment services to the addicted population. Mr. Speaker, this veteran of the drug war is absolutely correct. The lieutenant commander's stated goal, to get us to focus on our own drug addiction problem here in America, should be our goal as a Congress and as a country. As the lieutenant commander put it, quote, ``Washington should spend its money not on helicopters and trainers, but on prevention programs and treatment for addicts.'' Mr. Speaker, the cost of helicopters alone for Colombia would provide treatment for 200,000 American addicts. We are about to spend almost $2 billion, with a B, $2 billion on Colombia, while here at home we have 26 million addicts and alcoholics and most are unable to get into treatment. When President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971, he directed 60 percent of the funding into treatment. Today, we are down to 18 percent. The evidence is clear. We have had a misguided use of resources to put the emphasis on interdiction, crop eradication, border surveillance, more helicopters to fly into Colombia. We will never even come close, Mr. Speaker, to a drug-free America until we knock down the barriers to chemical dependency treatment right now for 26 million Americans already addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. That is right, 26 million addicts in the United States today, most unable to access treatment. Last year, Mr. Speaker, 150,000 Americans died from the disease of addiction. Mr. Speaker, 150,000 of our fellow Americans died. We spent $246 billion in economic terms, lost productivity, absenteeism from work, more jail cells, social service costs, Ritalin for kids from families of addicts. American taxpayers paid over $150 billion for criminal and medical costs alone last year. That is more than we spent on education, transportation, agriculture, energy, space, and foreign aid combined; and 80 percent of our 2 million prisoners are in prison tonight because of drugs and/or alcohol. How much evidence do we need here in Congress that we have a national epidemic of addiction crying out for more treatment, not more of the same, not more supply side? Mr. Speaker, let us pass substance abuse parity, knock down the discriminatory barriers to treatment. Let us get real about addiction. Mr. Speaker, this is not just another public policy issue; this is a life or death issue for 26 million chemically-dependent Americans. If we can pass parity legislation, provide the necessary treatment, then some day we can honestly talk and realistically talk about a drug-free America. Mr. Speaker, every day, politicians talk about the goal of a ``drug- free America.'' and now the Clinton Administration is proposing to spend another $1.6 billion for drug eradication in Colombia so we can become ``drug-free America.'' Mr. Speaker, let's get real! We've already spent $600 million to eradicate drugs at their source in Colombia and what's happened? Both cocaine and heroin production in Colombia have skyrocketed. Despite eradication efforts, cocaine production in Colombia has more than doubled since 1995. Colombia is now the source of 80 percent of the cocaine and 75 percent of the heroin coming into the United States. And there's absolutely no sign Colombia's government can stop it or even make a dent in the problem any time soon, even with additional American aid. Let's face it! Our supply-side efforts have been a colossal failure! When will Congress and the President wake up and face reality? Over the last 10 years, the federal government has spent over $150 billion to combat the supply of illegal drugs, yet the cocaine market is glutted as always, and heroin is readily available at record-high purities. And while the number of casual drug users may have slightly declined, the number of hard-core addicts has not. In short, the war on drugs by the U.S. government has been a costly failure. And now, Mr. Speaker, a soldier in that war is saying just that, and Congress should listen to him. We should listen to Retired Navy Lt. Comdr. Sylvester L. Salcedo, who served for 3 years as a U.S. intelligence officer working closely with law enforcement agencies doing anti-drug work. As Lt. Cmdr. Salcedo put it, the $1.6 billion being proposed on drug- fighting efforts in Colombia is ``good money thrown after bad.'' Lt. Cmdr. Salcedo also said recently that the stated goal of the aid- package--to disrupt the production and export of drugs to the U.S.--is unrealistic and unrealizable. In fact, the Lt. Commander was so upset by this proposal he wanted to return a Navy medal he received for his work with the Defense Department's Joint Task Force Six (JTF-6). Mr. Speaker, we need to listen to this experienced Naval commander who says, ``I don't think we can make any progress on this drug issue by escalating our presence in Colombia. As in Vietnam, this policy is designed to fail. Rather than spend more money in Colombia, we should confront the issue of demand in the U.S. by providing treatment services to the addicted population. That's what's not being addressed.'' Mr. Speaker, this veteran of the drug war is absolutely correct. The Lt. Commander's stated goal--``to get us to focus on our own drug addiction problem''--should be our goal as a Congress. As Lt. Commander Salcedo put it, ``Washington should spend its money not on helicopters and trainers but on prevention programs and treatment for addicts.'' The cost of the helicopters alone for Colombia would provide treatment for 200,000 Americans who are chemically dependent. We're about to spend almost $2 billion on Colombia, while here at home we have 26 million addicts and alcoholics, and most are unable to access treatment. When President Richard Nixon declared ``war on drugs'' in 1971, he directed 60 percent of the funding into treatment. Now, we're down to 18 percent! The evidence is clear that it's been a misguided use of resources to put the emphasis on interdiction, crop eradication and border surveillance. John Walsh of Drug Strategies, a private company, says $26 billion has already been spent solely on interdiction programs. Yet, by key measures of drug availability, they are all going in the wrong direction. He said ``the focus of anti-drug efforts should be switched from interdiction and eradication to treatment of drug addicts.'' Mr. Speaker, Mr. Walsh is absolutely right! We will never even come close to a drug-free America until we knock down the barriers to chemical dependency treatment for the 26 million Americans already addicted to drugs and/or alcohol. That's right--26 million addicts in the U.S. today! 150,000 Americans died last year from drug and alcohol addiction. In economic terms, this addiction cost the American people $246 billion last year. American taxpayers paid over $150 billion for drug-related criminal and medical costs alone in 1997--more than was spent on education, transportation, agriculture, energy, space and foreign aid combined! In addition, more than 80 percent of the 1.7 million prisoners in America are behind bars because of drug/alcohol addiction. Mr. Speaker, how much evidence does Congress need that we have a national epidemic of addiction? An epidemic crying out for a solution that works. Not more cheap political rhetoric. Not more simplistic, supply-side fixes that obviously are not working. Mr. Speaker, we must get to the root cause of addiction and treat it like other diseases. The American Medical Association told Congress and the nation in 1956 that alcoholism and drug addiction are a disease that requires treatment to recover. Yet today in America, only 2 percent of the 16 million alcoholics and addicts covered by health plans are able to receive adequate treatment. That's right. Only 2 percent of addicts and alcoholics covered by health insurance plans are receiving effective treatment for their chemical dependency, notwithstanding the purported ``coverage'' of treatment by their health plans. That's because of discriminatory caps, artificially high deductibles and copayments, limited treatment stays and other restrictions on chemical dependency treatment that are different from other diseases. If we are really serious about reducing illegal drug use in America, we must address the disease of addiction by putting chemical dependency treatment on par with treatment for other diseases. Providing equal access to chemical dependency treatment is not only the prescribed medical approach; it's also the cost-effective approach. Mr. Speaker, as a recovering alcoholic myself, I know firsthand the value of treatment. As a recovering person of 18 years, I am absolutely alarmed by the dwindling access to treatment for people who need it. Over half of the treatment beds are gone that were available 10 years ago. Even more alarming, 60 percent of the adolescent treatment beds are gone. Mr. Speaker, we must act now to reverse this alarming trend. We must act now to provide greater access to chemical dependency treatment. That's why I have introduced the ``Substance Abuse Treatment Parity Act''--the same bill that had the broad, bipartisan support last year of 95 cosponsors. This legislation would provide access to treatment by prohibiting discrimination against the disease of addiction. The bill prohibits discriminatory caps, higher deductibles and copayments, limited treatment stays and other restrictions on chemical dependency treatment that are different from other diseases. This is not another mandate because it does not require any health plan which does not already cover chemical dependency treatment to provide such coverage. It merely says those which offer chemical dependency coverage cannot treat it differently from coverage for medical or surgical services for other diseases. In addition, the legislation waives the parity for substance abuse treatment if premiums increase by more than 1 percent and exempts small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. Mr. Speaker, it's time to knock down the barriers to chemical dependency treatment. It's time to end the discrimination against people with addiction. It's time to provide access to treatment to deal with America's No. 1 public health and public safety problem. We can deal with this epidemic now or deal with it later. But it will only get worse if we continue to allow discrimination against the disease of addiction and ignore the demand side. We can build all the fences on our borders and all the prison cells money can buy. We can hire thousands of new border guards and drug enforcement officers. But dealing primarily with the supply side of this problem will never solve it. That's because our nation's supply-side strategy does not attack the underlying problem of addiction that causes people to crave and demand drugs. We must get to the root cause of addiction and treat it like other diseases. All the empirical data, including extensive actuarial studies, show that parity for chemical dependency treatment will save billions of dollars while not raising premiums more than 0.2 percent, or 44 cents a month per insured, according to a recent Rand Corp. study. That means, under the worst-case scenario, 16 million alcoholics and addicts could receive treatment for the price of a cup of coffee per month to the 113 million Americans covered by health plans. At the same time, the American people would realize $5.4 billion in cost-savings from treatment parity, according to another recent study. Of course, no dollar value can quantify the impact that greater access to treatment will have on the spouses, children and families who have been affected by the ravages of addiction: broken families, shattered lives, messed-up kids, ruined careers. This is not just another policy issue. This is a life-or-death issue for 16 million Americans who are chemically dependent covered by health insurance but unable to access treatment. It's also a life-or-death issue for the other 10 million addicts and alcoholics without insurance. This year, Congress should knock down the barriers to chemical dependency treatment and pass treatment parity legislation. The American people cannot afford to wait any longer for Congress to ``get real'' about addiction! Then someday, we can realistically and honestly talk about the goal of a ``Drug-Free America.''

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill to get rid of the Social Security earnings limit. I have been an original cosponsor of this bill many times, and I am pleased that we have gotten to this point today. The need for this bill was really brought home to me last Friday. In my district office in Bloomington, Minnesota, a woman named Anna Marie came to see me and said she needed to talk to me about a very personal, very important matter related to Social Security. When she came into my office she was noticeably upset and apprehensive about her situation. She sat down and explained to me that $4,000 had been taken out of her retirement benefits and she desperately needed that money today. In fact, she needed the money for dentures, and if she did not get those new dentures she would be placed on a liquid diet, unable to eat solid food. The $4,000 she had lost would help her afford these dentures and maintain the independence and life-style that she deserves. When I told her about what Congress would hopefully do today, about the bill before us to remove the Social Security earnings limit, she started to cry. Her eyes welled up with tears, she clasped her hands together and she said, ``Praise Jesus. Thank you, God.'' Well, this is an important bill in the lives of real people, real seniors who need that $4,000, who need the money that has been taken by the Federal Government. In voting for it, my colleagues, we help Anna Marie, we help many others like her across the country. In voting for it, to remove the Social Security earnings limit, we will make a real difference in the lives of real seniors, ensuring that not only can they keep the money they earn, that they need, but also the independence that these seniors deserve. So I hope in a bipartisan way we overwhelmingly pass this legislation before us today.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud cosponsor and strong supporter of the measure before us to provide urgent relief to families suffering from the unfair marriage tax penalty. About 25 million married couples currently pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes than they would as single taxpayers. in my own congressional district alone, almost 160,000 taxpayers pay higher taxes simply because they are married. That is simply wrong. Consider what $1,400 a year would mean to a family struggling to make car or mortgage payments, to buy groceries and clothes for their kids, or to save for their child's college education. If we don't believe marriage penalty tax relief will make a difference in the lives of real families, then we are severely out of a touch. And significantly, the bill will provide relief to both taxpayers who itemize deductions and those who fill out a simplified tax form. It helps two-earner couples and couples in which only one spouse earns an income. I am stunned by those who believe the families who make sacrifices so one parent can stay home with the children do not deserve relief. I had hoped when I heard the President's State of the Union Address that marriage penalty relief would be a bipartisan effort in this session. But as near as I can tell, some have decided it is ``too soon'' to provide this fairness. When is it too soon to stop an injustice? Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support real relief for real families, right now.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, President Clinton released $45 million in emergency fuel assistance to 11 States to help low-income families and senior citizens pay their utility bills, States that have been unusually hit by cold weather. Mr. Speaker, I noted that New York, New Hampshire, and nine other States got these funds, but Minnesota got nothing. A State like Minnesota which has experienced very, very harsh winter temperatures, below zero windchills on a regular basis, where fuel prices are 30 percent higher than last year has got nothing. As Senator Wellstone said yesterday, there is no reason to put families in New York or New Hampshire above families in Minnesota. I certainly agree with the good Senator from Minnesota. We are running out of money. And I have nothing against my friends in New York and New Hampshire, and perhaps their requests are warranted. But believe me, it is unfair, unconscionable, and unreasonable not to grant Minnesota the necessary funds. Ninety thousand Minnesota families in need are going to be at risk if we do not get this emergency fuel assistance. I urge the White House not to play politics with the emergency fuel assistance.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of our nation's best and brightest business leaders. By any measure of merit, William C. Shively, is a truly visionary business leader. His hard work and pioneering efforts in the area of financial management and commitment to public service are absolutely exemplary--as well as an inspiration to us all. Mr. Speaker, Bill Shively is retiring as Executive Vice President of the nationally recognized Gelco Information Network in my Third District of Minnesota. Bill had the vision in 1992 to bring corporate America's soundest financial management practices to the federal government. In his book Best Practices, Bill Shively identified areas for immediate improvement and re-engineering. He targeted official business travel within government since, in the corporate world, travel is the third largest business expense behind payroll and data processing. Mr. Speaker, in 1995 the federal government was spending over $7 billion on official business travel. Mr. Shively realized the government was spending unnecessary overhead based on the outdated business processes that governed federal travel. The need for improvement in this arena, Mr. Speaker, was the source for Bill's vision to create a business unit dedicated to identifying improvements and recommending solutions to save taxpayer money. The vision's underlying theme was to save taxpayer money through the implementation of re-engineered systems and processes. Mr. Speaker, the Government Services Division of Gelco was born on March 1, 1995 and was comprised of Bill and one other employee. Since 1995, the business has grown to close to 100 employees, supporting products and services utilized today within every single federal executive agency within our government. Bill helped the Department of Defense through the evolutionary stages of defining its vision, leading to one of the largest non-weapon procurements--DTS. Mr. Speaker, Bill Shively leaves a legacy of public service that will be long remembered. But, more important to Bill, he leaves a legacy to that is sure to inspire his family for generations to come. Despite the impact of his visionary actions around the world, Bill Shively's No. 1 priority has been his family. Bill has been a dedicated father of three sons and a devoted husband to his wife, Betty. Mr. Speaker, Bill Shively has done much for his country. We must take the time to pay tribute to great Americans like Bill, citizens who share their special skills to make outstanding contributions to their nation. Bill Shively may be retiring, but he has improved federal processes and driven down costs to taxpayer--truly lasting contributions that will benefit our country for generations to come. At a time when good role models are few and far between, a time when people of integrity are needed more than ever, Bill Shively is a shining example of how to achieve success in our personal, professional and public lives. Mr. Speaker, please join with me today to honor William Shively for all he has done to help others. We wish him and his family all the best in his retirement and in all his future endeavors.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I also thank him for his strong leadership on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important bill. Helping people with disabilities live up to their full potential has been a top priority of mine ever since being elected to Congress, in fact, 10 years before as a State senator as well. I also strongly support the tax extender provisions in this bill. I must say that I was disappointed, however, that the administration insisted that an important revenue-raising provision be dropped from the final agreement. This provision was based on legislation I sponsored, H.R. 3082, which was cosponsored by a strong bipartisan majority on the Committee on Ways and Means. This legislation would have protected employees' stock ownership plans, ESOPs for S- corporation workers by preventing the abuse of tax rules that help them build retirement savings and equity in their company. But unfortunately, the administration wanted to impose a draconian scheme that would have effectively killed ESOPs; would have killed this savings opportunity for thousands of American workers. Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and the bipartisan support for S-corporation ESOPs in Congress on the Committee on Ways and Means and in the full body, the administration's misguided proposal was soundly rejected in negotiations over this extenders package, and for that I am grateful. This was a victory for American workers and a victory for boosting America's dangerously low savings rate. Although these ESOPs S-Corporation legislation was not enacted in this bill this session, I am pleased that Congress resisted the administration's plan to dismantle ESOPs, because they are highly effective retirement savings programs. We are going to be back with this next year, and again I thank the chairman for his leadership. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the bill before us. Helping people with disabilities live up to their full potential has been one of my top priorities even since I was first elected to public office. I also strongly support the important tax extender provisions which will save families from being unfairly penalized by the Alternative Minimum Tax and will keep U.S. businesses competitive, innovative and job-creating. I was disappointed the Administration insisted that an important revenue-raising provision be dropped from the final agreement. This provision was based on legislation I introduced (H.R. 3082) which is cosponsored by a strong bipartisan majority of the Ways and Means Committee. H.R. 3082 would protect employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) for S corporation workers by preventing the abuse of tax rules that help them build retirement savings and equity in their company. But unfortunately, the Administration wanted to impose a draconian scheme that would have effectively killed this savings opportunity for thousands of American workers. Thanks to the leadership of Chairman Archer and the bipartisan support for S corporation ESOPs in Congress, the Administration's misguided proposal was soundly rejected in negotiations over this extenders package. That was a victory for American workers, and a victory for boosting America's dangerously low savings rate. Although H.R. 3082 was not enacted in this session, I am pleased Congress resisted the Administration's plan to dismantle these ESOPs, which are a highly effective retirement savings program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I can't tell you how long I have waited, along with many of my friends with disabilities in Minnesota, for this day. As many of my colleagues know, I have been working hard to help people with disabilities live up to their full potential since my election to this body in 1990, and as a Minnesota State Senator ten years prior. In fact, in 1993, Rep. Pete Stark and I introduced legislation to achieve the same goal we seek today. As I have reminded my colleagues before, it was nine years ago that many of us enacted the ADA. It was nine long years ago that president Bush signed it into law and said, ``Many of our fellow citizens with disabilities are unemployed. They want to work and they can work . . . this is a tremendous pool of people who will bring to jobs diversity, loyalty, low turnover rate, and only one request: the chance to prove themselves.'' Mr. Speaker, despite the remarkably low unemployment rate in this country today, many of those with disabilities are still asking for this change to prove themselves in the workplace. Despite all the good that the ADA has done to date, there is still room for improvement. The ADA did not remove all the barriers within current federal programs that prohibit people with disabilities from working. It's time to eliminate work disincentives for people with disabilities! Eliminating work disincentives for people with disabilities is not just humane public policy, it is sound fiscal policy. It's not only the right thing to do; it's the cost-effective thing to do! Discouraging people with disabilities from working, earning a regular paycheck, paying taxes and moving off public assistance actually results in reduced federal revenues. People with disabilities have to make decisions based on financial reality. Should they consider returning to work or even making it through vocational rehabilitation, the risk of losing vital federal health benefits often becomes too threatening to future financial stability. As a result, they are compelled not to work. Given the sorry state of present law, that's generally a reasonable and rational decision. We must transform these federal programs into spring-boards to the workforce for people with disabilities. This important bill does just that. As I have said many times, preventing people from working runs counter to the American spirit, one that thrives on individual achievements and the larger contributions to society that result. I implore my colleagues to vote for this important legislation before us today!

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, over 50 years ago, Nazi Germany began a systematic process of eliminating an entire race. Over 6 million men, women and children lost their lives in this tragic chapter in human history simply because they were Jewish. They were the ultimate victims. Others were forced to work as slaves in German factories. Some were subjected to brutal experiments, and others had their assets and belongings stolen from them to be given to those of ``Aryan'' stock or used by the German government in its war effort. Amazingly, these criminal acts have yet to be settled. The U.S. government is currently involved in negotiations between German companies and Nazi victims here in the U.S. which could lead to compensation for some of the victims. I believe the companies which profited from their complicity with the Nazi regime and the Holocaust should pay for their actions. It is absolutely appalling that to this day, German banks and businesses have not admitted their role in this theft nor have they returned the fruits of their crimes. It is inexcusable that German banks and businesses continue to deny their obvious guilt and refuse to compensate the victims. That's why I am introducing legislation today which would allow victims of the Nazi regime to bring suit in U.S. federal court against German banks and businesses which assisted in and profited from the Nazi's Aryanization effort. My legislation would clarify that U.S. courts do have jurisdiction over these claims and would extend any statute of limitations to 2010. There are people who say this occurred too long ago and that we should leave these events in the past. I strongly and fundamentally disagree. There must never be a statute of limitations on Aryanization, as genocide and related crimes should always be punished. These companies need to come forward, open their books and return their criminally-obtained gains to close this open wound on the soul of humanity. This legislation will right a terrible wrong in the annals of world history, and it's long overdue.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Madam Speaker, over 50 years ago Nazi Germany began a systematic process of eliminating an entire race. Over 6 million men, women, and children lost their lives in this tragic chapter in human history simply because they were Jewish. Others were forced to work as slaves in German factories. Some were subjected to brutal experiments, and others had their assets and belongings stolen from them and given to those of Aryan stock or used by the German government in its war effort. Amazingly, Madam Speaker, these criminal acts of confiscation have yet to be settled. The United States Government is currently involved in negotiations between German companies and Nazi victims here in the United States which could lead to compensation for some of the victims. I believe the companies which profited from their complicity with the Nazi regime and the Holocaust should pay for their actions. It is absolutely appalling, Madam Speaker, that to this day, German banks and businesses have failed to admit their role in the grand larceny and conspiracy of the Jewish race. Also, they have not returned the fruits of their crimes. It is absolutely inexcusable that German banks and businesses continue to deny their involvement and refuse to compensate the victims. That is why today, Madam Speaker, I am introducing legislation to allow victims of the Nazi regime to bring suit in U.S. Federal court against German banks and businesses which assisted in and profited from the Nazi Aryanization effort. My legislation would clarify that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over these claims and would extend any statute of limitations to the year 2010. Now, there are people who say this occurred too long ago and that we should leave these events in the past. Madam Speaker, I strongly and fundamentally disagree. There must never, never be a statute of limitations on Aryanization, as genocide and related crimes should always be punished. These companies, these banks need to come forward, open their books, and return their criminal profits to close this open wound on the soul of humanity. Madam Speaker, this legislation that I am introducing today will right a terrible wrong in the annals of world history, and God knows it is long overdue.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, for the past 20 years, the House of Representatives has been well-served by our dedicated and beloved chaplain, the Reverend Dr. James Ford. Seven days a week, year after year, Jim Ford has represented the absolute best in service to God and Country. Much priase has deservedly been heaped upon Jim Ford as he marks his well-deserved retirement. Jim's many distinguished years of service (19) to the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and his earlier years at Ivanhoe Lutheran Church in Minnesota are well-known and well- documented. What isn't so well-known are his very early years in Minnesota and his legendary escapade as a young ski-jumper at Theodore Wirth Park in Minneapolis. Let the record reflect that our own beloved chaplain, Dr. Jim Ford, still holds the record jump at the Theodore Wirth Ski-Jump--backward! That's right. When he was a very young Swede and a student at Edison High School in northeast Minneapolis, Jim Ford defied the laws of gravity and common sense and survived a backward jump on this notoriously steep ski slope and lived to tell about it! They still talk proudly about their prominent alumnus at Edison High School in Northeast Minneapolis and at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota, where Jim starred in the classroom and the athletic field. ``You can take Jim Ford from Minnesota, but you can't take Minnesota from Jim Ford,'' was how his Gustavus classmate, the Rev. Bill Albertson put it recently. Some of you remember my good friend, Bill Albertson, who served as a Guest Chaplain here several years ago. Jim, on behalf of all Minnesotans, I salute you and thank you for your many ears of service. Thank you for being there in good times and hard times, in times of joy and sorrow. Thank you for your prayers, counsel, great wit and unparalleled ability to put things into perspective. Thank you for caring so deeply about our families, our friends and our constituents. Thank you for bringing Democrats, Republicans and Independents together under God. Thank you for bringing even the Swedes and Norwegians together! May God bless you and Marcie always, just as your work here in the House has blessed us.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this critically important legislation. When we passed the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, we expected savings to be accrued to the system. While GAO and MedPAC report that there has been no loss in access to services for seniors, we have heard from providers across the country that some of these changes have significantly impacted providers, and that relief is necessary. Relief is particularly needed since the Administration is draining close to an additional $100 billion out of the system--something which no Member of this House ever envisioned! I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the important provisions included in H.R. 3075. There are a number of very important section addressing payments to hospitals, all of which I support. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of a technical ``fix'' for Minnesota's Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH problem and improvements to funding for graduate medical education. Hospitals and patients will also be helped through the provisions to create an ``outlier'' adjustment for high-acuity patients. And, as Chair of the Medical Technology Caucus, I know hospitals and patients will benefit from the new adjusted payments for innovative medical devices, drugs and biologicals in the hospital outpatient prospective payment system. I also support the provisions in the bill which will impact Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF's) by addressing the costs for caring for medically-complex patients and those who need prosthetic devices, chemotherapy drugs and ambulance and emergency services. I know many therapy providers in my state appreciate the adjustments to the outpatient rehabilitation limits. Being from Minnesota, which has experienced egregiously low payments due to our ability to provide quality care efficiently, I am particularly supportive of the efforts in the bill to boost Medicare+Choice payments. And, until we can reform the system and significantly improve the funding formula so more Minnesotans have the opportunity to participate in Medicare+Choice, I appreciate the two year extension of the cost contract plans. I also strongly support the provisions in the bill to ensure frail, elderly seniors will continue to enjoy the services they receive through EverCare and similar programs. EverCare is an effective health care option for the frail elderly living in nursing homes, and along with critical report language that will accompany the bill, this mention of EverCare will stand as a reminder to HCFA to make accommodations necessary for ensuring that frail elderly senior's have continued access to the special, intensive care EverCare provides. Similarly, I support the section of the bill that extends the life of the Community Nursing Organization demonstration projects for another two years and requires the Administration to submit a comprehensive report on the effectiveness of these programs. Lastly, I support the provisions in the bill to limit the Administration's use of the Inherent Reasonableness (IR) authority. I am hopeful they will send a strong signal to HCFA to curtail its abusive use of the authority until we have a chance to review GAO's upcoming report on it. This bill includes significant relief that will help ensure access to care for American seniors. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote for this critically important legislation!

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the tenth anniversary of a tragic event in my home state of Minnesota. On October 22, 1989, an eleven-year-old boy named Jacob Wetterling was stolen from his family in the small community of St. Joseph, Minnesota. Since then, no one has heard from Jacob or the masked gunman who stole him that day. This tragedy shook the community, our state and the nation. If a child could be taken from a closely-knit, small community like St. Joseph, Minnesota, what child in America was truly safe? Jacob's parents, Jerry and Patty Wetterling, have made it their crusade to make America a safer place for our children. They turned an unthinkable horror in their own lives into an opportunity to bring hope to other families. Over the last 10 years, they have kept the hope of Jacob's return alive, and, at the same time, created the Jacob Wetterling Foundation to promote child safety. Today, the Jacob Wetterling Foundation is an invaluable, nationally recognized resource for families with missing children and the law enforcement officials searching for them. The Foundation has helped 1,500 families with missing or exploited children and processed 1,000 leads on missing children. Patty Wetterling has been a tireless crusader, traveling around the country to educate children and families about preventing child abduction and abuse. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation has reached 160,000 people at 500 events and has distributed more than 1.2 million safety brochures across the nation. The Jacob Wetterling Foundation has been instrumental in shaping our nation's laws to protect children. Working with Patty Wetterling, I introduced legislation to protect communities from the criminals who prey on children. This landmark legislation--the Jacob Wetterling Act-- became the law of the land in 1994. Because of it, released criminals who are convicted of crimes against children must register with law enforcement, and communities are notified when dangerous offenders move into the neighborhood. Several events are taking place in Minnesota and across the country this weekend to mark the tragic anniversary of Jacob's abduction and make America award of the need for child protection. At 6:00 p.m. tomorrow in St. Joseph, Minnesota, there will be a balloon launch from Kennedy Elementary School. Also tomorrow on television, ``Dateline NBC'' will carry a report on the Wetterling case. On Saturday, a safety fair for children and parents will be held at the Rainbow Foods store in St. Cloud, Minnesota. There will also be a local broadcast on KARE-TV at 10:00 a.m. with a behind-the-scenes look at a public service announcement by Jacob's friends and classmates. On Sunday, a ``Hope Service'' will be held at St. Joseph's Catholic Church. In addition, the November issue of ``Reader's Digest'' currently on newsstands carries a cover story about Jacob. Mr. Speaker, there are few people who have touched my own life like Jacob Wetterling, a boy I have never met. Because of Jacob, America's children are better protected from those who would steal their childhood. Because of Jacob, more and more children will have the opportunity to grow up safe and secure. I ask my colleagues and fellow Americans to remember Jacob and his wonderful family. We owe Patty and Jerry Wetterling and the Jacob Wetterling Foundation a great debt of gratitude for their ten years of work protecting America's most precious gift--our children.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, this day has been a long time coming. I first heard about this problem in 1981 when I was attending a meeting as a young State senator at the Courage Center in Golden Valley, Minnesota. Jeff Bangsberg, a person with quadriplegia, told me how it was not economically sensible for him to work because he would lose his health benefits, and then Tom Haben told me the same thing, and one after another people with disabilities at that meeting in 1981 when I was a young State senator explained why it did not make sense for them from an economic standpoint to work, and that is why I am so grateful for this day when we are getting near to passing this important legislation because eliminating work disincentives for people with disabilities is not just humane public policy, it is sound fiscal policy. It is not only the right thing to do, but it is clearly the cost- effective thing to do. People with disabilities have to make decisions on financial reality, and they should not be penalized for going to work, they should have incentives to go to work, and I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the people back in Minnesota who have advised me on this bill, people with disabilities who will be outlined for the Record, and I have said many times before passing this bill, passing this bill today is one of the most important things we could do as a Congress and as a people. Mr. Speaker, this day has been a long time coming. Since my election to this body in 1990, and as a Minnesota State Senator ten years prior, I have worked hard to help people with disabilities live up to their full potential. That's why, in 1993, Representative Pete Stark and I introduced legislation to achieve the same goal we seek today. Glad we're finally here, Pete. Nine years ago, President Bush signed the ADA into law and reminded us that ``many of our fellow citizens with disabilities are unemployed. They want to work and they can work . . . this is a tremendous pool of people who will bring to jobs diversity, loyalty, low turnover rate, and only one request: the chance to prove themselves.'' Mr. Speaker, despite the remarkably low unemployment rate in this country today, many of those with disabilities are still asking for this chance to prove themselves in the workplace. Despite all the good that the ADA has done to date, there is still room for improvement. The ADA did not remove all the barriers within current federal programs that prohibit people with disabilities from working. It's time to eliminate work disincentives for people with disabilities! Eliminating work disincentives for people with disabilities is not just humane public policy, it is sound fiscal policy. It's not only the right thing to do; it's the cost-effective thing to do! Discouraging people with disabilities from working, earning a regular paycheck, paying taxes and moving off public assistance actually results in reduced federal revenues. Like everyone else, people with disabilities have to make decisions based on financial reality. Should they consider returning to work or even making it through vocational rehabilitation, the risk of losing vital federal health benefits often becomes too threatening to future financial stability. As a result, they are compelled not to work. Given the sorry state of present law, that's generally a reasonable and rational decision. Transforming these federal programs to spring-boards into the workforce for people with disabilities is the goal of legislation that I have cosponsored this important legislation before us today. I want to publicly thank the people who have worked so tirelessly on this legislation, especially Kim Hildred and Beverly Crawford of the Ways and Means Committee. But most importantly, I want to thank my friends with disabilities back in Minnesota who have counseled me on these issues for two decades. Mary O'Hara Anderson, Mary Jean Babock, Jeff and Anita Bangsberg, Bill Blom, Gary Boetcherk, Wendy Brower, Mary Helen Gunkler, Tom Haben, Mark Hughes, Carol and Jonathan Hughes, Mary Kay Kennedy, Mary Jo Nichols, Joyce Scanlan, Rand Stenhjem, Colleen Wieck, Leah Welch--this day is for you! As I have said many times, preventing people from working runs counter to the American spirit, one that thrives on individual achievements and the larger contributions to society that result. We must stay true to our Nation's spirit and pass H.R. 1180 today!

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, Connie Edwards taught physical education at Countryside Elementary School in Edina, Minnesota, for 14 years. Her fourth and fifth grade students loved her. She was a great teacher, a wonderful friend, and a true hero. This past Wednesday Connie, who fought a courageous battle with ovarian cancer, left this Earth, but her spirit will live forever through the many young people whose lives she touched. As Connie's good friend and former co-worker, Diane Morris, put it, and I am quoting, now, ``Connie had such a huge impact on so many people, from students to staff and the entire community. She had an energy that rubbed off on everybody. The school was her stage, and she shined.'' To show their affection and respect, Mr. Speaker, Connie's students, past and present, along with her staff members, fellow staff members, and parents of Countryside Elementary School, recently renamed the gymnasium in her honor. Despite her serious illness and treatments which left her weak, Connie Edwards visited Countryside School frequently during her extended sick leave just to be with her beloved students. As recently as last Monday, two days before she died, Connie visited Countryside to cheer on her students during a district-wide cross- country race. Connie was mobbed by the students, who loved her so dearly. Countryside principal Ken Hatch commented, and I am quoting again, ``There is no way in the world Connie should have been there. The courage and strength this woman had was astonishing. She displayed that right up to the very end. We loved her dearly and will miss her very much,'' concluded Principal Hatch. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to measure the great impact of Connie Edwards' life on Countryside's young people over the past 14 years. Connie's courage, energy, and spirit will live on in the hearts and minds of everyone who knew her. Connie was not only a dedicated educator, loyal friend, and role model, she was a true Minnesota hero. You might be gone, Connie, but Countryside will never forget you. As your beloved students told you in that poem they wrote for you, ``Thank you, thank you for all you have done. Our lives are forever changed because of Connie Edwards, a special one.''

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in frustration, frustration with the government agency that may even be more unpopular than the IRS, if you can believe it. My friends on the Health Subcommittee of Ways and Means and many other colleagues on both sides of the aisle know exactly who I am talking about, the Healthcare Financing Administration, or HCFA. Mr. Speaker, on Friday of this week our Health Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on refinements to the Balanced Budget Amendment, or BBA. As we plan for this hearing, I hope the administration will not appear before us again in the subcommittee and insult our intelligence. I will be asking some tough questions about their handling of the Medicare program recently, and I hope I do not hear that the agency is unable to address the concerns we are hearing about from seniors across the Nation, and also from Medicare providers, because the agency's hands are completely tied by prescriptive BBA language. That is the constant refrain we get from HCFA, the agency's hands are completely tied by prescriptive BBA language. We hear these lines about prescriptive language and Congressional intent when the administration does not want to do things, but when it does want to act, when it does want to do something, it is perfectly comfortable with ignoring bill language or Congressional intent. Some of the problems we are hearing about in Medicare from health care providers are all results of actual BBA language. Yes, they are. The Health Subcommittee is planning to provide relief in those areas. But, as Senator Roth and Chairman Thomas have said recently, there is also a lot HCFA can do. The BBA gives HCFA significant power over how things are implemented. The risk adjuster for Medicare+Choice payments is a perfect example. Many of my colleagues and I have heard concerns about the risk adjuster the administration has designed. One very important concern is how this risk adjuster will impact some very special programs, especially innovative programs that seniors want and that the frail elderly seniors need so desperately. HCFA obviously understands the grave impact the interim risk adjuster will have on these programs. In fact, HCFA exempted them from the risk adjuster for the first year. But the argument which compelled the agency to exempt them for one year remains the same and just as powerful for all the years under the interim risk adjuster. Now, I might be just a plain Norwegian from Lake Woebegone, Mr. Speaker, but even I cannot understand why the agency is not exempting them for the entire interim period. That just makes good common Governor Jessie Ventura sense. If they have the authority to do it for 1 year, it seems they have the authority to do it for multiple years. Conversely, if they do not have authority for all the years, then how do they have the authority to do it for one? I see nothing in the BBA which prohibits the agency from exempting them for more than 1 year. Even if I were to accept HCFA's claim that only Congressional action allows a multiple-year exemption, that still would not allow me to understand why HCFA is not supporting the bill I introduced to provide the multiple exemption. They tell providers, well, we need Congress to pass a bill. So I introduced one. Then they come up with the multiple weak arguments against the bill. Mr. Speaker, I am offering to address any substantive concerns in a reasonable way, in a reasonable common-sense way, and I hope we will be having such an exchange on Friday in the Health Subcommittee. I invite the administration to join me for the sake of frail, eligible, elderly beneficiaries in Minnesota and across this Nation.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, as the fiscal year draws to a close, I think we can be grateful for some of our accomplishments, including good ideas that were implemented and bad ideas that were stopped in their tracks. One of those bad ideas was the administration's proposed tax increase on the investment income of tax-exempt 501(c)(6) organizations. I and several of my colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee expressed our bipartisan opposition to this misguided proposal, and the Ways and Means Committee heard excellent testimony as to why this idea should be rejected. As Congress continues to consider tax measures, I thought it would be worthwhile to remind my colleagues why this proposal would be harmful to people in my home State of Minnesota and throughout the country who are served by America's trade and professional organizations. I urge my colleagues to heed the excellent words that follow, written by my friend and former constituent, Ralph J. Marlatt. An Association Executive Speaks Out On the Administration's Proposed Tax Increase The Clinton Administration's fiscal year 2000 budget calls for a massive tax increase on associations exempt from tax under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Administration's proposal would tax so-called ``investment'' income of 501(c)(6) associations--income that associations receive from interest, dividends, rents, capital gains and royalties. Under the plan, the first $10,000 that an association earns from these sources will not be taxed, however, all income earned over $10,000 will be subject to the unrelated business income tax (UBIT). As Past President of the Minnesota Society of Association Executives and former President and CEO of the Insurance Federation of Minnesota, I have first-hand knowledge of the devastating effect this would have on the more than 800 associations in the state of Minnesota. Associations put the synergistic power of a group to work in solving mutual problems and attaining mutual goals. More than 300,000 Minnesota individuals and firms support the activities of associations through membership and take advantage of the many benefits and services offered by associations. Thousands of Minnesotans are directly engaged in the management of voluntary non-profit trade, professional and educational associations and societies. Contrary to assertions made by the Clinton administration, this levy would hit thousands of small and mid-sized trade associations and professional societies exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(6). Under this proposal, most associations with an annual operating budget of $200,000 or more would be taxed on the income they receive from interest, dividends, capital gains, rents, and royalties. Unlike other corporations, the money associations receive from investment income, royalties and rents do not go into the pockets of shareholders, individuals or other corporations. Rather, these funds go into the associations' operating budgets to help further their exempt purposes--such as improving industry safety, training individuals to adapt to the changing workplace, and providing continuing adult education. According to a Hudson Institute Report on the Value of Associations, associations spend more on product standards and safety than the U.S. Government. Associations spend more on education than all the states except California. Community service and voluntarism provide 330 million hours valued at $3.3 billion annually. Associations and professional societies annually contribute nearly $10 million directly into Minnesota's economy and nearly $50 billion nationally. As a Board Member of the American Society of Association Executives (ASAE), and a 29- year veteran of the association business, I join my colleagues in opposing this negative tax on associations.-- Ralph J. Marlatt, CAE, Executive Vice President, Olson Management Group, Inc.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support for the bill before us today. Lack of affordable housing has an adverse effect on the most vulnerable in our society, namely senior citizens, children and people with disabilities. A recent HUD report noted that the number of affordable housing units dropped 19 percent between 1996 and 1998. Now, the central cities have company as far as waiting lists for subsidized housing. Ninety percent of Minneapolis' inner-ring suburbs have added poor children at a faster rate in the '90s than Minneapolis. Virtually all of the suburban cities I represent have waiting lists--and they are long! Mr. Speaker, that's why I have sought to work in a bipartisan, common sense way to address this critical problem and provide the necessary dollars to help these groups. And that's why I am a cosponsor and strong supporter of H.R. 425, the Housing Preservation Matching Grant Act. Provisions based on this important legislation were included in the bill before us today. This bipartisan legislation will provide the necessary federal matching funds to assist states and localities seeking to preserve federal housing. The ``Vento-Ramstad'' proposal rewards Minnesota's innovation and encourages other states to follow our lead. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 202 and expand access to housing for senior citizens.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in common sense tripartisan opposition to the bill before us today. Mr. Chairman, we need to cut to the chase and listen to Minnesota's governor, Jesse Ventura, who body slammed this bill during recent testimony before the House Committee on Agriculture. Governor Ventura, in his common sense, no-nonsense direct way put it best when he said, ``What we need, without question, is to end the nonsense that has the price of milk tied to how far the cow is from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Now that there are refrigerated trucks'' in America, ``it makes sense to abandon 50-year-old thinking and find a new way to look at the `millennium' dairy industry, one that reflects today's economic realities and is at least fair.'' Governor Ventura is absolutely right, and we all know it. If H.R. 1402 passes, it would derail long-overdue reforms to our Nation's Depression-era milk pricing regulations. As Governor Ventura further explained, and as we all know, Secretary Glickman has come up with a plan to correct some of the 50-year-old problems, but H.R. 1402 would torpedo that plan. The current system, as has been said today, is based on outdated realities of milk production, consumption, and transportation; and it has caused drastic distortions in milk production in this country. I urge my colleagues to be fair, use Norwegian horse sense on this dairy policy, use Jesse Ventura common sense. Vote for a level playing field across America. Vote no on H.R. 1402.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. The American people want us to be honest and fair, to play by the rules. That is why we need to eliminate soft money, which is clearly the biggest cancer on our political system, a cancer that has undermined people's trust in the system and many elected officials. Soft money is not honest. It is obviously a way to circumvent campaign contribution limits. Soft money raises at least the perception of undue influence on elections and candidates. It is time to ban soft money and erase the suspicion that Washington is for sale to the highest bidder. Also, Mr. Chairman, the so-called issue advocacy ads in many cases are nothing more than a sham, and we all know it. They are a way to avoid accountability and a way to avoid contribution limits. In short, they do not play by the rules, either. Let us do the right thing today for the American people. Let us restore trust and accountability in our political process. I urge my colleagues to resist the poison pill amendments and pass the clean Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important tax relief bill for America's families. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I have seen firsthand the excellent leadership of Chairman Archer in putting together this package that will bring meaningful relief to millions of over-burdened taxpayers who deserve to keep more of what they earn. This is broad-based tax relief that makes sense. This conference agreement promotes issues that people care about most--fairness for families, education, health care, retirement savings, growing jobs and being able to pass farms and businesses on to the next generation. I want to highlight two provisions of this legislation I authored. Although these items will cost very little in terms of federal revenue, they send a powerful statement about the level of fairness in this bill. The first provision is based on legislation I introduced to provide relief to volunteer drivers for charities. This common sense change will dramatically improve the ability of charities to attract volunteer drivers to serve vulnerable people. As many charities in my home state have told me, a volunteer reimbursed for mileage expenses has taxable income if the reimbursement exceeds 14 cents per mile, even though an employee performing the same function could be reimbursed at 31 cents per mile. This creates a significant disincentive for people considering volunteering for food delivery programs, patient transportation, and other services which rely on volunteer drivers. There have been examples of volunteer drivers being audited and subjected to back taxes, penalties and interest because of unreported volunteer mileage reimbursement, even though the reimbursement did not exceed the allowable business rate and the dollar amounts are quite small. This bill will codify relief to reimbursed volunteer drivers if the amount of their reimbursement is less than the business mileage rate. This solution will allow America's charities to attract the volunteers they need to for critical services like transporting elderly patients to the doctor and food to the hungry. The second provision I offered as an amendment in committee. It ensures consistent tax treatment of survivor benefits received by families of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. Survivor benefits of public safety officers slain in the line of duty are currently tax-free for the wives, husbands and children who are left behind, but only if the officer died after December 31, 1996. This means that the survivor benefits of families who lost a loved one before January 1, 1997, are still subject to tax. I see no sound tax policy reason for this discrimination. This bill corrects this inequity and will allow all families of slain public safety officers to enjoy the same tax relief. Nothing can compensate for the loss of those who pay the ultimate price by giving their lives for their communities. However, this bill will provide tangible help to the families of our slain heroes. These are only two examples of the many provisions in this package that will improve the lives of Americans in very real ways. I urge my colleagues to support this tax relief package for American families. We have already set aside the portion of the surplus needed to save Social Security and Medicare. Now, we need to return a portion of the tax overpayment to the families who earned it. If we don't, Washington will surely find a way to spend it.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I join in sponsoring this amendment to prevent the draconian 53 percent cut in Legal Services' funding. If the committee's attempt to wipe out Legal Services prevails, our poorest most vulnerable citizens will have no civil justice, and those sacred words ``equal justice under law'' etched across the street on the Supreme Court building will be meaningless. Congress has already cut Legal Services 30 percent since 1995. If we enact this 53 percent cut on top of that 30 percent cut, we would devastate thousands of domestic violence victims, children, seniors, and people with disabilities who depend on Legal Services for their mere survival. Although as sponsors of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, we would prefer to restore funding to last year's level, a problem with finding sufficient offsets means this amendment, which I am sponsoring, still represents a $50 million cut from last year's funding level of $300 million. Now, some have argued that funding for the Legal Services Corporation should be drastically cut because five legal aid programs, of the 258 programs total, allegedly overstated the number of low-income clients they serve. Mr. Chairman, it is time to look at the facts. GAO found absolutely no evidence of fraud or intentional misreporting. Let me repeat that. GAO found absolutely no evidence of fraud or intentional misreporting. The Legal Services Corporation has already taken action to eliminate the confusion about what constitutes a case for reporting purposes and it is aggressively enforcing the reporting guideline. The truth is, as the previous speaker and cosponsor of this amendment pointed out, no financial incentive exists to overstate the number of cases they handle because funding is not based on the number of cases but on the number of people in the area living at or below the poverty level. So there is absolutely no incentive for Legal Services to overstate the number of cases. Mr. Chairman, it is also time to set the record straight about the misleading outdated charges by people on this floor who ignore the fact that the Legal Services Corporation was reformed by Congress in 1996. In 1996, we enacted tight restrictions on the Legal Services Corporation, so there are no class action lawsuits, no lobbying, no legal assistance to illegal aliens, no political activities, no prisoner litigation, no redistricting representation, no collection of attorneys' fees, and no representation of people evicted from public housing because of drug charges. These restrictions are in permanent law, as we all should know, and are restated in this bill. These tight restrictions are not limited just to Legal Services Corporation funds. Legal aid programs cannot even use State or private funding on these purposes if they receive just one penny from the Legal Services Corporation. They cannot use State or private funding on these purposes that have been banned by the Congress by law. If they violate these restrictions, attorneys can be disbarred, programs lose their funding and their ability to apply for funding in the future. So we have appropriate sanctions to deal with any abuses. Now, some critics here have already pointed to a few isolated cases that appear to be abusive. In these cases that have actually been documented, not the rumors and the innuendoes, but the cases that have actually been documented, either no Legal Services Corporation funding program was involved or the Legal Services Corporation is enforcing sanctions against the abuses, as they should. But even with all the alleged abuses that have been talked about by critics of Legal Services, these represent a mere handful of aberrations in a program with countless success stories, Mr. Chairman, of service to domestic violence victims, to children in need of support, to seniors and people with disabilities in danger of losing the services that they need for their survival. Mr. Chairman, let us not shut the courthouse door to poor people in America. Let us not give our most vulnerable Americans the heave-ho. Let us give poor people and vulnerable Americans their day in court just like every other American. If our justice system is only accessible to people with means, it cannot truly be just. I urge my colleagues to support fairness, to support equality under the law by restoring Legal Services funding.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, 9 years ago today, President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act into law. Since my election to the House later that same year and as a Minnesota State Senator from 1981 to 1990, I have worked hard to help people with disabilities live up to their full potential. That is why I, like many Members of this Chamber, strongly support the Americans with Disabilities Act, and we celebrate its enactment. But, Mr. Speaker, much more work needs to be done. In signing the ADA, President Bush noted the law is designed ``to ensure that people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees for which they have worked so long and so hard: independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, the opportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream.'' As we celebrate the anniversary of this historic legislation, we reflect on all that has been achieved for people with disabilities. We must also, however, address where we have failed to empower people with disabilities. In 1990, President Bush, in signing that historic act, reminded us that many of our fellow citizens with disabilities are unemployed. They want to work, and they can work. This is a tremendous pool of people who will bring to jobs diversity, loyalty, low turnover rate, and only one request: the chance to prove themselves. Mr. Speaker, despite the remarkably low unemployment rate in America today, people with disabilities are still asking for this chance to prove themselves in the workplace. A recent Harris poll found that unemployment among people with disabilities is between 70 and 75 percent. Think of that: 70 to 75 percent, or three-quarters of people with disabilities are unemployed in America today. Historically, fewer than 1 percent of people with disabilities leave the SSI and SSDI rolls following successful rehabilitation. Individuals with disabilities have insufficient access to and choice of services they need to become employed. Most SSI and SSDI beneficiaries are never even offered rehabilitation services. Mr. Speaker, we all know the ADA sought to improve this situation. But the ADA did not remove all the barriers within the current Federal programs that prohibit people with disabilities from working. It is time to eliminate work disincentives for people with disabilities. Eliminating work disincentives for people with disabilities is not just humane public policy, it is sound fiscal policy. It is not just the right thing to do, it is also the cost-effective thing to do. President Bush knew that discouraging people with disabilities from working, from earning a regular paycheck, paying taxes and moving off public assistance actually results in reduced Federal revenues. He noted, and I am quoting again: ``When you add together the Federal, State, local and private funds, it costs almost $200 billion annually to support Americans with disabilities. In effect, to keep them dependent.'' And that was in 1990, Mr. Speaker. We certainly spend more than that today to keep people with disabilities dependent on the system. Like everyone else, people with disabilities have to make decisions based on financial reality. Should they consider returning to work, or even making it through vocational rehabilitation, the risk of losing vital Federal health benefits often becomes too threatening to future financial stability. As a result, Mr. Speaker, they are compelled not to work. Given the sorry state of present law, that is generally a reasonable and a rational decision for people with disabilities. The National Council on Disabilities said it best in its report to the 105th Congress on removing barriers to work when it wrote: ``Social Security programs can be transformed from a lifelong entitlement into an investment in employment potential for thousands of individuals.'' Transforming these Federal programs to springboards into the work force is a goal of legislation that I cosponsored in the House with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and many others on both sides of the aisle, the Work Incentives Improvement Act, or H.R. 1180. This critical legislation has been passed by the Committee on Commerce and a similar bill has been approved by the Senate. Mr. Speaker, preventing people from working runs counter to the American spirit, one that thrives on individual achievements and the larger contributions to society that result. We must not rest until we pass the Work Incentives Improvement Act. People with disabilities deserve the opportunity to fulfill their dreams. Let us give them the chance to prove themselves now.

Mr. RAMSTAD

Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise proudly this evening to salute a constituent who is one of our Nation's newest sports heroes, Briana Scurry from Dayton, Minnesota. I also want to pay tribute to all the other members of our champion United States Women's World Cup Soccer Team who have made all Americans proud. In the championship game Saturday, Mr. Speaker, in Pasadena, California, before more than 90,000 screaming fans, two great teams, one from the United States and the team from China, played to a scoreless tie in regulation time; then, two 15-minute sudden death overtimes, and still a dramatic, nail-biting 0-0 tie; a shootout and finally a world championship for our women's team, thanks to a diving save by our great world-class goalie, Briana Scurry. Mr. Speaker, it was Briana Scurry, the Dayton, Minnesota, native who soared to deflect China's third penalty shot setting up the final victory. All of Minnesota celebrated with our Nation's sports fans as Briana ran to the stands following the game, slapping hands with the fans, the huge crowd as they chanted again and again, ``Scurry! Scurry! Scurry!'' Mr. Speaker, Briana Scurry has been the number one United States goalie for 6 years. They call her ``The Rock,'' they call her ``The Wall,'' and she is both, as she showed the world Saturday night. Today, we call Briana and her marvellous teammates World Cup soccer champions. Briana Scurry, Mr. Speaker, is also a great role model for other young women in sports. She is a great leader both on and off the soccer field. Briana excelled in her political science studies in college at the University of Massachusetts and she also gave a great deal back to her community, working as a volunteer for AIDS education and awareness and also for the Make A Wish Foundation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, America's team was in good hands in this World Cup. There is little to worry about when Briana is in the net. She gave up only three goals in the entire World Cup championships and one of those, by the way, was kicked into our net by one of our own players. Briana shut out opponents four times in six games in the tournament, four shutouts in the six games comprising the World Cup championship. Briana Scurry's work ethic, her fierce competitiveness, her engaging personality, great dedication and amazing talent all have had a powerful impact on the young women of Minnesota. Hockey may be king in Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, but soccer is kicking at its heels thanks to Briana Scurry. At Anoka High School, Briana led her team to the 1989 State championship, was named All-American and was voted the top female athlete in Minnesota her senior year. At the University of Massachusetts, Briana was the top college goalkeeper in 1993 and won two national ``goalie of the year'' awards her senior year. She led her team to the NCAA Final Four as well as to Atlantic 10 titles. Briana had 37 shutouts in her 4 years and a career goals-against average, listen to this, soccer fans, career goals- against average of 0.56. What a tremendous record. So today, Mr. Speaker, we salute Minnesota's own Briana Scurry and all her teammates on America's World Cup championship soccer team. They proved what teamwork, dedication, hard work and heart can accomplish. Mr. Speaker, congratulations to our new World Cup champions. They are role models for all of us, and all Americans are proud of them.