Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. They can set up a political action committee and they can advertise and their members can also contribute as individuals. But the 1974 law made it illegal for foreign individuals, not citizens of the United States, not residents of the country, made it illegal for them to contribute, but they too can contribute soft money. It is the gigantic loophole. Let me just back up and give a little more detail. In 1907, Theodore Roosevelt got elected, he actually got elected before then, but he got elected using corporate treasury money. The public was outraged by it, and Theodore Roosevelt and Congress decided to ban any corporate treasury money from being contributed to campaigns. They did not mind individuals contributing. They thought it was wrong for corporations to contribute. In 1947, actually earlier during World War II, it was illegal for union dues money to be used in campaigns. And then Congress codified this executive order in 1947 in the Taft-Hartley law, making it illegal for union dues money to be contributed to campaigns. And in 1974, Congress and the President made it illegal for foreign money to be contributed to campaigns. Now, the amazing thing is it is illegal and yet all three things are happening. I know my colleague has his own personal experience as it relates to union dues money, but beforehand let me just introduce what I saw in the newspaper on February 13. This was an AP story. It said, ``The labor federation is committing $40 million to put Gore in the White House and to win back control of Congress for its allies, traditionally Democrats.'' I look at this and I say $40 million of union dues money, that is illegal. They cannot do it. Except they can do it with this soft money loophole.

Mr. SHAYS. It is more fun to talk about the other side of the aisle. Is that what you are telling me?

Mr. SHAYS. Let me if I could just say that the significance is that soft money creates a gigantic loophole. It allows corporate treasury money to be contributed, whereas the law in 1974, the individual contribution limits and the political action committee never allows for corporate treasury money to be contributed to a candidate. It allows for labor unions to get around the law because it is illegal for labor unions to contribute to political campaigns.

Mr. SHAYS. The reason you do not have a problem is it is voluntary, the members can contribute or may not but it is not taken out of their union dues money.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have seen the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) on the floor of the House so many times talking about this issue. And I have learned a lot. I have learned a tremendous amount, and it was ultimately why I was very happy to support his legislation. I represent a district with a lot of Democrats, a lot of Republicans, a lot of conservatives, a lot of moderates and liberals. It is a very mixed district. But in one town meeting I had in Greenwich, Connecticut, which is pretty much a more conservative area of my district, I had a number of people at a town meeting. They were young. They were old. I could tell from the very issues they were talking about that they were the whole range of the political spectrum. And I asked this question, I said, ``How many of you think that if an HMO causes the injury or death of someone that they should be held accountable or liable?'' I expected about maybe two-thirds of the hands to go up. Every hand went up. In fact, in some cases both hands went up. And then there was story after story. And I also submitted to my constituents a questionnaire asking them about health care and there were various choices, and one of them was we should keep the health care system the way it is. Only 3.5 percent responded that we should keep it the way it is. This really kind of shocked me. Twenty-five percent wanted to eliminate HMOs. Now, I am a strong supporter of health maintenance organizations, but to have 25 percent of the 15,000 people who responded to my questionnaire wanting to get rid of HMOs for me was a big wake-up call. And it just spoke volumes about how we need to do what is in the legislation that my colleague has championed. To be able to have a process that would encourage people to get the proper health care that they need without going through a litigation process makes eminent sense. But, in the end, there always has to be that final hammer to try to encourage sometimes proper behavior. I want to thank my colleague for being such a fighter on this issue. And I know and I hope that we will eventually get to another issue that is near and dear to both him and me. But I appreciate what he has done for so long on this issue.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of reasons why we need it; and we need it more desperately as each year goes. But I would first say that we have needed to reform the system for many years. One of the things that is very clear is we have had a hard time finding consensus because we each have our own campaign finance reform bill. So one of the first key things to do was to see if we could build consensus amongst different groups. But in terms of why we need it, we need it because, in this democrat system of government, we need to make sure that decisions are being made based on merit and based on what is right for our country and not based on who gave me this campaign contribution or that campaign contribution. When you had the abuses in 1974 centered around Watergate and all that was involved, the majority party made two decisions. One, they were going to hold President Nixon accountable and they were secondly going to reform the system. They did both. I have been hard pressed to know why we did not take the same tack as this new majority. We needed to hold President Clinton accountable, and we needed to reform the system. Our failure to reform the system then calls into question in the minds of some of our constituents, ``Well, you're just doing this to get the President.'' No, we needed to hold the President accountable, but then we needed to reform the system to make sure the decisions, to the best of our ability, are based on merit, not based on the kind of money that was contributed. Now, in 1974 they devised a system, you would limit what a candidate could spend and you would limit what a candidate could raise in terms of individual contributions, and you would have a system where both of them worked. The Supreme Court said it is constitutional to limit your overall individual contributions but you cannot limit what someone spends, so a wealthy person can spend whatever they want, and a wealthy person under the law can spend whatever they want helping a particular candidate as long as they do not work with that candidate. But once they begin to work in tandem with that candidate, then they come under the contribution limitations. Those contributions were $1,000 for an individual and $5,000 for PAC contributions. One of the confessions I would say as I worked on this issue, I thought the real problem were the political action committees because they were, quote-unquote, the ``special interests'' and so I looked to eliminate political action committee money. As I went around the country and around my State arguing on this issue and debating people, I felt I was losing the argument. I began to realize that people had a right to assemble under a political action committee for whatever special interest they want. And then a candidate has the right or not to accept it. But a political action committee contribution is $5,000. That is it. That is the limit. Soft money, which is the unlimited sums contributed by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups have made political action committee money look saintly because it is unlimited, and it has brought in such incredible amounts of money that most reasonable people could concur, and concur rightfully, that Members' votes are affected by the large contributions that are given.

Mr. SHAYS. I am torn by this feeling that I want to kind of clarify and be a little more precise between soft money and what I call sham issue ads which are really good campaign ads, much like you might want to correct me in some of the intricacies of HMO reform.

Mr. SHAYS. That was the maximum that he could receive.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are straining out gnats and swallowing camels. Tax cuts are for those who pay taxes. For the last 3 years, we have gotten our country's financial house in order and eliminated the deficit. Since last year, we no longer spend our social security trust fund money. We are looking at surpluses of $3 trillion to $4 trillion in the next 10 years, We are taking $2 trillion and paying down debt. Whether we have $1 or $2 trillion left, we want a tax cut, and we want to deal with tax fairness. It is wrong for married people to pay more than single people. And then to complain about the AMT tax as denying some people the benefit? It is the Democrats' tax. They, my colleagues, in the last minute are more concerned for the AMT, and it is like being the captain of the Titanic and finally noticing the iceberg. It was there a long time ago. Deal with it. It is a separate issue.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3261, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act. This legislation will reform international satellite policies that are nearly 40 years old. The world of telecommunications has changed dramatically since 1962, when it was believed that only governments could finance and manage a global satellite system. Back then, Americans had rotary phones they leased from the one and only telephone company in the United States. Today, a rapidly growing number of Americans carry cellular phones wherever they go. They wear pagers and send e-mails across the world. And yet, we still have the same structure for international satellite communications that was designed before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. The result is a distorted marketplace, stifled competition and innovation, and increased prices for consumers. H.R. 3261 will put an end to the last remaining telecommunications monopoly in the United States. The bill promotes competition and opens foreign markets for U.S. companies by privatizing the intergovernmental satellite organizations--called Intelsat and Inmarsat--that dominate international commercial satellite communications. These organizations operate as a cartel-like structure comprised of the national telephone monopolies and dominant companies of its member organizations. Today, private companies such as PanAmSat, GE Americom, Teledesic and Motorola have the ability to offer high-quality international satellite communications services. But these companies cannot compete with Intelsat because of the advantages bestowed upon this organization. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Tom Bliley of the Commerce Committee for his leadership in bringing this important bill to the floor. I also would like to thank Congressmen Billy Tauzin and Edward Markey for their work in crafting this pro-trade, pro-consumer legislation. The promotion of a competitive satellite communications marketplace is a goal we should all support and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. It has been my pleasure. Mr. Speaker, when I was elected in 1987, I had had 12 years, actually 13 years experience in the State House in Connecticut, where I was the ranking member of both the appropriations committee and the finance committee. And it amazed me as a member in the State House how Members in Congress could ignore the requirement to get our country's financial house in order. On the State level we simply had to stay within a budget, we had to stay within the flow of funds that presented themselves in terms of revenue. We are in an extraordinarily interesting time because we have seen a lot happen since 1987 when I was first elected. When I was first elected, I joined forces with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), who really led the fight as a minority member at the time, who started to present ways to slow the growth of what we call mandatory spending, which are what others refer to as entitlements and to actually cut what government spends. When we look at our Federal budget, only one-third is what we vote on each and every year. Over 50 percent are actually on automatic pilot, unless we change the requirements. If a program fits the title, they get the money, whether it is Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security is a retirement system, but if an individual puts into the fund, they are entitled to certain benefits, and there are other entitlements as well. So we have about one-third of the budget that we actually vote on and two-thirds we are just on automatic pilot. And everyone seemed content to allow that to happen. Part of that automatic pilot was interest on the national debt, which is almost 14 percent of our overall budget. It was interesting as Congress pre-1987 had adopted Gramm-Rudman. That was a program that was adopted before I was elected. The interesting thing about Gramm-Rudman, it basically said you had to stay within certain budget caps, except it only was on that one-third of the budget. And so what Members started to do is they could not stay within the budget caps of what we vote on in defense and nondefense budgets, the 13 budgets that we work on, so what they did is they started to put things into the entitlements and make the automatic pilot grow even faster and faster. I would like to go through certain budget charts and I would like to thank my own staff member, Peter Carson, who is my AA, or what we refer to as an AA is really your chief of staff and serves with me on the Committee on the Budget as well as Dick Magee who is on the Committee on the Budget as a staff member and who helped me prepare these charts. I would like to go through 10 charts and describe what has happened since 1992 and what we project out to the year 2009. What is interesting to me is that when I was elected early on in 1987, we were looking at deficits as far as the eye could see. But just before you had a new Republican majority, the estimates for what that deficit would be are shown in the lower red line on this chart to my right. We were looking at deficits in the estimate in 1992 of $291 billion, then going to $310 billion, $291 billion, but by the year 1999, the year we just concluded, we were looking at deficits of $404 billion. And in the budget we are in the process of adopting, deficits of $455 billion, just in that one year. In other words, $455 billion more money going out than coming into the Federal Government. When we made the estimates in 1995, we were still looking at deficits, the middle red line, as far as the eye could see, not above the line in which we have more revenue coming in than going out. Even in our estimates in 1997, just before we adopted the balanced budget agreement, we were looking at deficits of $108 billion, $124 billion, $120 billion, $147 billion, ad infinitum. Only deficits. We passed an historic budget agreement in which we slowed the growth of entitlements and we cut government spending. From that, we started to see a significant change. This second budget chart just shows you the change in revenue estimates based on October 1999 and January 1999. The blue line was the estimate in January 1999. Even then, just within a year, we are seeing a significant increase in the amount that we anticipate, just over a change of 10 months. Revenues are coming in at a much greater rate. They are coming in for a number of reasons. First and foremost, we have an extraordinarily well educated populus that compete with anyone in the world. The cold war is over and admittedly the world is a more dangerous place but we are able to focus more now on economic competition with our trading allies and we are finding that we are quite able to compete. And so revenues are coming in at a much greater rate because of that. But it is also coming in because Congress in particular, and this new Republican majority, quite frankly, put the emphasis on getting our country's financial house in order. We started to reduce our deficits, which started to reduce the interest payments that we have to make, which started to help contribute to lowering interest rates in general and helping to increase the employment rate and decrease the unemployment rate. This next chart illustrates why this Republican majority is concerned about taxes. Revenues are coming in at an extraordinary rate. People have become quite successful, our businesses are able to compete with the best in the world, and we are seeing a lot of small businesses that are generating awesome economic activity and even our large businesses have become much more efficient and they are able to produce more at a cheaper cost and able to pass on some of that cost savings to consumers and also able to make a profit and to pay their employees more who in turn can buy more goods. But what is of concern to us is in 1945, just at the end of World War II, we had the gross domestic product, revenues constituted 20.4 percent of all of the gross domestic product of our country, 20.4 percent were coming into the coffers of the Federal Government. In 1950, that went down to 14 percent. But you can see that it has gotten back to its all-time high of 20.7 percent, and we anticipate that it is going to continue to grow and grow. The question is, what is going to happen to that revenue? Now, another chart that illustrates our concern with taxes are the fact that in 1947, if you took all of the Federal, State and local tax revenues, it accounted for 21.7 percent of our gross domestic product. But our Federal, State and local revenues now constitute 31.2 percent. Again, our concern is with the increase in revenue that is coming to both the Federal, State and local government, what is to happen to that revenue? Are we going to spend it and make all three governments larger and larger and larger? Or are we going to look to return some of that revenue back to the taxpayers who are paying that? The next chart that I want to show is a chart that illustrates Congressional Budget Office estimates since 1992 to the year 2009 of the total amount of receipts coming in with the total amount of outlays, the money going out. The key point is the year 1998, in which for the first time since 1968 that we had more revenue coming in than going out. Now, since 1960, the Federal Government has been spending Social Security reserves. It has been spending it on mandatory spending and it has been spending it on the appropriations expenditures that we have, the 13 budgets. We have been taking since 1960 Social Security money and spending it. Basically it is being used to disguise the overall debt of our country. But the first thing we had to deal with before we even dealt with that was to just make sure that we had an economist's view of a balanced budget, which was more money coming into the Federal Government than going out. Not only were we spending Social Security money but even with the Social Security money, we were still spending more than was coming in. So our first objective in the balanced budget agreement of 1997 was to reach that point, that point in which receipts started to overtake outlays. We had a 5-year plan to do it. We passed it in 1997 and we anticipated by the year 2002 that we would finally reach that point in which revenues would exceed our outlays or our expenditures. But it happened in the first year of the balanced budget agreement. In other words, revenues came in at a faster rate than even we anticipated. Again, I raise the question, what is to happen to those revenues? Do we spend them? Do we pay down debt with them? Or do we return them to the American people by cutting taxes? This chart is really one of the ones I find most interesting, at least in trying to explain why in the world would this Congress want to cut taxes and why by such a large amount of money. The Congressional Budget Office anticipated, and so did the Office of Management and Budget of the President, that in the next 10 years, we would have $3 trillion more money coming in to the Federal Government than going out. Both OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, and CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, both of them agreed that of that $3 trillion, $2 trillion was Social Security money, and $1 trillion was true surplus. In other words, no longer having to spend that Social Security money since 1960, even then we would still have a surplus over the next 10 years of $1 trillion, or almost $1 trillion. Admittedly, in the first year, it would be $147 billion, in the year 2000, rather, $147 billion of Social Security reserves that we would have and not spend, and then $14 billion that was a true tax overcharge, in other words, more money coming in. What is to happen to that $14 billion? What is to happen to the $38 billion in the year 2001? What is to happen to the $28 billion in the year 2002? These are excess moneys, what I call a tax overcharge. We are taxing people more than we are actually going to spend. And then in the year 2005, $92 billion. And in the year 2006, $129 billion. And then 2007, $146 billion; 2008, $157 billion; 2009, $178 billion. What is to happen to that? That amount of money that I have mentioned is marked in red. It was our view that most of it should be a tax cut, we should return it back to the American people. Now, if I was a dictator, not even President, but if I was a dictator, what would I want to have happen? I would want to take all of this tax overcharge and I would want to pay down debt. That would be my first choice. But I happen to believe that if it is left on the table, it is going to get spent. In fact, the sad part of the story is that is actually what is starting to happen, because the President vetoed our tax cut. So you had $3 trillion, $2 trillion of it is truly for Social Security. What did we do? We took all of this money in this area here, the Social Security surplus, and we took that money and we did not spend it, we paid down debt with it. We reduced the debt of the United States owed to the American people and to businesses and to foreign interests that have helped fund our debt and we just started to pay down those obligations. That is what we want to do, $2 trillion of it. It was this $1 trillion that we debated. Now, our Republican majority decided that we would provide a tax cut of almost $800 billion, which is about 80 percent of the total amount of what we call the true surplus. I will illustrate it in another chart. This chart again illustrates the total amount of surplus, and in red is the amount for a possible tax cut. That is what is available. That is what is the true surplus. This part here is the money that we want to reserve for Social Security. The interesting thing is that the budget that we just concluded, we came so close for the first time in not spending Social Security reserves. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office determined that we actually had a true surplus of $1 billion. But the Office of Management and Budget, the office out of the White House, decided that they would hold $2 billion more in reserves, and by doing that, they are saying we are still spending $1 billion of the Social Security surplus. They determined that by simply deciding to hold on to $2 billion more in reserves. But whatever number you are using, whether we use the Congressional Budget Office that said we have truly for the first time since 1960 not spent Social Security, or even using the President's number of only spending $1 billion of it, in other words, even using the President's office, we have had a surplus of $123 billion, a true surplus of $123 billion. Actually, I want to say it differently. We have had a Social Security surplus of $124 billion, and a unified surplus of $123 billion. The White House says we are still spending $1 billion of Social Security money but the Congressional Budget Office says we have spent not $1 billion but actually have saved $1 billion. Why would we want a tax cut? And how would we compare with the President? When the President presented his budget the beginning of this year, he did not want a tax cut. He wanted a tax increase. He actually wanted a net tax increase of $52 billion and, over 10 years, it would be $96 billion. So one can imagine our concern when we start seeing more surplus coming in, we are looking in 10 years of a true surplus of $1 trillion; and the President, instead of wanting to return that to the American people still wants to spend $52 billion over 10 years, have a tax increase of $52 billion over 5 years and $96 billion over 10 years. He wants a tax increase; we wanted a tax cut. Now, our tax cut over 10 years, admittedly, would be $792 billion, about 80 percent of the protected surplus. Over 5 years, it would have been $156 billion. The reason we want that tax cut is, if we do not have a tax cut, it will be spent. It will be spent because Congress, even some of my colleagues on my own side of the aisle have programs they want to spend money on, and if it is left on the table, it will be spent. Why do I know it will be spent? Because it has been in the past. We have had a budget agreement in 1997 where we had budget caps, but even before the agreement in 1997, we had the pay-go agreement with President Bush that said that one could not increase an entitlement unless one found another way to pay for it; one could not have a tax cut unless one found another way to pay for it. Now, our problem was not the same in 1990 because we still had a deficit. We want a tax cut because we now have surpluses. But this is my concern. And one will notice that there is a sharp increase in what happened in the budget of 1999, the one that just concluded. And that sharp increase occurred because a year ago at this time, the President of the United States, just before the congressional elections, decided that he would not agree to a budget unless we spent more. And sadly, too many on both sides of the aisle concurred with the President and agreed to spend more. We have never been within the budget caps because Congress has declared emergencies and Congress has done other approaches that have enabled us to go over the budget caps. My big concern is this number right here and the trend line. Now, this is where we will be in this new budget agreement; and the question is, will we then go down and actually cut spending, or will it continue to rise? The one value to the budget caps have been that there has been some uniformity at least staying close to them. But sadly, a year ago, when the President demanded more spending, he got it. So why would I want a tax cut and why would other Members want a tax cut? Because if the money is left on the table, it is going to be spent. The sad point is that it is already being spent. All the money that we had reserved for a tax cut in our $800 billion tax cut that we sent the President and he vetoed is now being spent. It is not there for a tax cut. Let me just show one last chart. This is a good news story, for the most part. It basically is showing what is happening to our national debt. Our national debt is starting to level off and it is starting to level off because we have surpluses, and it is starting to level off because we are going to use the Social Security surpluses and pay down public debt. Our debt to the trust funds continues to rise, but our debt, our public debt is going to fall and continue to fall because we are using the money from the trust funds to now at least pay off debt until we can reform Social Security. I have a number of concerns about where we are at this point. The good news is that 10 years ago we had extraordinarily large deficits and when we looked at our estimates, those deficits were high then and they were looking to be even larger. We elected a new Republican majority. And I say new Republican majority because this was the first Congress that wanted to look at entitlements and slow their growth and wanted to cut some spending. And the end result has been that we have seen actual surpluses take place. My concern is that we not begin to designate too much emergency spending that again allows us to go over the caps, that we do not have too many advanced appropriations that begin to appropriate money; the Committee on Appropriations appropriates money, but not spend out over 13 months instead of 12, and that we do not do other items that ultimately make our efforts to balance the budget next year more and more difficult. The bottom line, we are getting our country's financial house in order. We are seeing an economy that is thriving; we are seeing more and more revenue come into the Federal Government, and what the American people are going to have to decide is what do we do with those surplus monies. My hope, my prayer, and my votes are going to be to pay down the national debt. But if that is not going to happen, then it must be returned to the American people in tax cuts, because if it is not returned to the American people in tax cuts, then it will be spent as we are seeing happen right now. What I would like to place ultimately the greatest emphasis on is we have been using Social Security funds since 1960, and we came so close this past year in not spending any Social Security money, according to the Congressional Budget Office, we have not according to the President, given the fact he took $2 billion out in reserves, and we have spent $1 billion of it. But next year, we intend to spend no Social Security money. We are going to use all of that to pay down the public debt. It is not going to be used to pay for programs. We are going to ultimately reduce our total debt. The question is, what happens to that true surplus, above and beyond Social Security? Will it pay down public debt? Will it be returned to the American people in tax cuts, or will it be spent? And sadly, while we are in next year's budget not going to be paying, using Social Security money to balance our budget, we are not going to be using that money, I am afraid that the money that we had reserved for taxes is now being spent, and it is being spent frankly, in large measure, because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are critical with our efforts to cut spending, even though they say we are spending too much in certain areas, they have opposed any efforts to try to cut spending or slow the growth in spending. Mr. Speaker, if we cannot cut spending, if we cannot control the growth in government spending, there will be no money for tax cuts. It will all be spent.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I think all year I have taken a special order. I have done a number in past years, but I am very grateful to have the time to do this. Before I discuss the budget, which I intend to talk about in my special order, I would just make the comment that quite often the criticism on the other side of the aisle is that we spend too much or we are not spending enough. And it is really important, I think, for the other side of the aisle to decide on one of their arguments and then we can have an honest debate about it. We want an across-the-board 1 percent cut, and yet we are hearing on the other side of the aisle that we should not make that reduction; yet we are also hearing that we are spending too much. Before I talk about my budget, we have the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), really the most informed and most dedicated person on the issue of education, and I would like to give him an opportunity to make some comments on what we are doing in education.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 3075, the Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act, I rise in strong support of its passage today. Our seniors, hospitals and providers have spoken in a loud, clear voice. Today we have the opportunity to answer their calls for relief by dedicating $11.5 billion over the next five years to strengthening Medicare for all seniors. The Medicare Balanced Budget Refinement Act, introduced by Representative Bill Thomas of California, makes a number of important adjustments to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA 97) designed to ensure seniors have access to the care they need. H.R. 3075 eases the financial burden on hospitals that care for a disproportionate share of low-income individuals, and includes measures to ease the transition for outpatient hospitals switching to the new payment system established by BBA 97. In addition, the bill includes a number of provisions to ensure the availability of home health services, increases payments for medically complex skilled nursing facility patients, and creates separate therapy caps for physical and speech therapy on a per-facility rather than a per-beneficiary basis. In 1997, we passed the Balanced Budget Agreement (BBA 97) which was an important first step in placing Medicare on firm financial footing while giving seniors options in how they receive care. BBA 97 was more successful at slowing the growth of Medicare than even Congress envisioned when we passed the legislation in 1997. In 1998, the growth of Medicare spending slowed sharply, and outlays for the program actually declined by 2 percent during the first six months of fiscal year 1999--representing the first spending decrease in the program's history. We need to pass H.R. 3075 to ensure our success in slowing the growth of Medicare does not come at the expense of our seniors' health. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support H.R. 3075, a vital, common-sense piece of legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report for the Financial Services Act. This bill is a wonderful testament to the important things we can accomplish when we set aside partisan differences and work together on the nation's business. The historic bill, which has been 20 years in the making, has the support of a majority of Congressional Republicans and Democrats, as well as the Administration. S. 900 replaces outdated, Depression-era laws that separate banking from other financial services with a new system to enhance competition and increase consumer choice. The bill repeals the anti-affiliation provisions of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, as well as the 1956 Bank Holding Company Act. In doing so, financial companies--either through a financial holding company or through operating subsidiaries--will be allowed to offer a broad array of financial products to their customers, including banking, insurance and securities. To be permitted to engage in the new financial activities authorized under the bill, banks affiliated under a holding company would have to be well-managed, well-capitalized, and have a satisfactory Community Reinvestment Act rating, thus ensuring that banks continue to lend to inner-city and minority communities. Encouraging greater competition will lower prices for financial services and improve products, benefiting consumers and the economy. It's true that some may benefit from these changes more than others. But fostering competition between financial institutions will ultimately ensure consumers have greater choices at lower cost. Madam Speaker, the simple fact is, these banking reforms are long overdue. The anti-affiliation provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act are sorely outdated and have increasingly impeded the United States' ability to compete in the new world economy. To illustrate the changes in the financial services sector, consider the following fact. In 1933, when the Glass-Steagall Act was signed into law, upwards of 60 percent of the nation's assets were deposited in banks and thrifts. Today, banks and thrifts control 37 percent of the nation's assets. In recognition of this changing climate, we have seen the prohibition on the mixing of banking and securities substantially reduced by sympathetic regulators, favorable court decisions, and large mergers. And today, we have come together to consider this landmark bill. I want to thank Chairman Jim Leach of the Banking and Financial Services Committee and Chairman Tom Bliley of the Commerce Committee for shepherding S. 900 through its final, difficult stages and urge the adoption of this conference report.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), and wish to thank again the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) for their graciousness in letting a number of Republicans speak on this incredibly wonderful gentleman. And also to say to my colleagues that the Senator clearly was an American first before he was a Republican, and that is what made him so great. We just appreciate his graciousness and thoughtfulness. Once again, I thank my colleagues from Rhode Island, and I apologize because we had more speakers than I had thought we would, but that was nice.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with some of my colleagues, and I thank the Rhode Island delegation for their love and respect for this great Senator and wonderful human being. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Weygand), who is going to allow a number of our colleagues to make short comments before they get on their way. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 754, the Made in America Information Act, Introduced by Representative Traficant of Ohio. This important piece of legislation establishes a toll-free hotline consumers can call to determine if a product is ``Made in America.'' The self-financed hotline established by H.R. 754 applies to those products with a sale price of over $250, and the bill imposes a fine of up to $7,500 on any manufacturer who falsely registers a product as ``Made in America.'' The Made in America Act has passed the House the last three Congresses, and enjoys strong bipartisan support. Many Americans want to ``Buy America,'' and we have an obligation to provide consumers with the information they need to make informed choices about how to spend their money. Mr. Speaker, this is a win-win proposition, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage of the Made in America Information Act.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to welcome Rabbi Robert Orkand and to thank him for his special opening prayer this morning. It is also my pleasure to be given this opportunity to share this great man and community leader with my colleagues. For a quarter of a century Rabbi Orkand has been a source of wisdom, inspiration, and pride to his family, wife Joyce and son Seth, friends, congregation, and the larger community in which he lives. From Miami, Florida; to Rockford, Illinois; to Westport, Connecticut, his commitment to education, activism, and religious pluralism have benefited the lives of so many. Rabbi Orkand's energy and compassion are testament to his dedication and to all that he believes and cherishes. On a national level, he is currently chair of the National Commission on Jewish Education of the Reform Movement, co-chair of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the Association of Reform Zionists of America, and a member of the Executive Board of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the United Jewish Appeal. And locally he is a member of the Human Services Commission of the Town of Westport and has served as past president of the United Way, a member of the Board of Directors of the United Jewish Appeal Federation, and president of the Westport-Weston Clergy Association. Rabbi Orkand has coauthored three prayer books for children, ``Gates of Wonder'', ``Gates of Awe'', and ``A Child's Haggadah.'' This House salutes Rabbi Orkand for his dedication to duty and his love of God and humanity. He has left a wonderful mark on his congregation and all the communities he has touched over the years. Rabbi Orkand is a man of God and a true healer.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not need 2 minutes. I would like to concur with what we just heard. The gentleman from Alabama said it right on target. It is not about animals, it is about people. It is not about freedom of speech, it is not about federalism, it is about people. It is certainly not about needing to do it because we do need to. It is about a sick society we are trying to make better. This is an obvious way to do it. We cannot prosecute these people without this law. It will continue. It will grow. It will just fester and fester and fester. It is just gross and it is sick and we need to put an end to it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Missouri yielding me this time. I just want to say that I think I came in part because I wanted to debate something where we could be bipartisan, something where we could talk about the real needs of our communities. I have people with disabilities who want to work. Yet, if they work, they make less and have less benefits than if they stay home. So I just applaud my colleagues for bringing this legislation forward. It makes tremendous sense, I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) in particular and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) who just spoke. The bottom line is, under our current system, the government pays for health benefits for people with disabilities who do not work, but is unwilling to pay for those same benefits when people with disabilities get a job. We are going to change that, and it is about time.