[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3227-H3272]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but
opposed to the choices.
Greek history gives us the term pyrrhic victory, meaning that one
army found against another and won but was so weakened by the time that
it won that it could not go on to fight other battles.
This choice pitting veterans programs which we need to fund, and I
will support, and I hope we accept this amendment, pitted against
AmeriCorps, which does not have pork, which is at the grassroots, which
Speaker Gingrich signed a letter supporting AmeriCorps, a program run
out of the University of Notre Dame last year.
We should not be pitting these programs against each other. Why not
cut the CIA's $28 billion budget $206 million? Why not section 936 of
the Tax Code? Better choices should be in order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Filner].
Mr. FILNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to substitute for the amendment
the restoring of the full $206 million for the Veterans budget without
any offsetting cut.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has no amendment in writing.
Mr. FILNER. Do you want to force us to choose between----
Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order, Mr. Speaker. Let's get some order around
here.
Mr. FILNER. I have the time.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham] wants to force us to
choose through his objection between the veterans and service
opportunities for our young people.
{time} 1630
I think this is hypocrisy.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's unanimous-consent request was out of
order. The gentleman is recognized for debate only.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a new game being played
in Washington. It is called bait and switch. The rules are simple.
Propose massive and irresponsible budget cuts and then 2 weeks later
stand up in front of the TV cameras and claim you are fighting to
restore the very cuts you have initiated.
I am tired of this hypocrisy, Mr. Chairman. We should not be having
choices between our veterans and our opportunities for our young
people.
Regular order in this Nation is not being followed by this budget.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. SOLOMON. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, if Members are going to be yielded 45
seconds at a time, are they not supposed to stick to the 45 seconds and
not carry it to a minute and one-half?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. SOLOMON. Then let us abide by the rules of the House.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield three-quarters of a minute to the
gentleman from Puerto Rico [Mr. Romero-Barcelo].
Mr. ROMERO-BARCELO. Mr. Chairman, I move to restore the rescission of
$206 million for veterans affairs, but I question the wisdom of trying
to take the money away from a program that is a yearly program, an
expenditure program. When we take $206 million out of Americorps we are
actually taking $1 billion away in 5 years.
I think the reasonable proposal was made here by the gentlewoman from
Connecticut who proposed that capital expenditure programs be
substituted by another capital expenditure program in NASA for projects
that have not even been authorized.
I ask the leadership of the other side of the aisle to reconsider on
their conditions. It is unfair to take a capital expenditures program
and offset it with expenditures in the regular program because it is 5
times in 5 years the savings that you take.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues whether they like it or not this
is a raid on veterans programs. And what concerns me is later on the
budget will be coming out; how much are they going to cut the veterans
programs? How much is the appropriations going to come back and cut
veterans programs gain?
I reluctantly will support the amendment, but I do not think this is
the right way to do it. I asked for a clear amendment earlier and I did
not get it, so I thank the gentleman for giving me this time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 1 minute
remaining and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself my remaining time, and I would
simply say this in closing: I urge Members to vote for this amendment.
But I would also urge Members to recognize the cynical situation that
is presented to us by the majority party. The fact is that it is their
party who proposed the $200 million cut in veterans funding in the
first place. They have now chosen to prevent us from restoring that
money by going to a more benign source such as the bloated NASA budget.
Instead they want to go after the domestic volunteer program.
It is a lousy choice but I think the record is clear that the
Democratic Party intends to keep its commitment to veterans no matter
what the political machinations on the other side of the aisle.
I urge support for the amendment, misguided though half of it is.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has
expired.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 45 seconds
to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, the last comment of the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] was probably the most correct one. This is an
issue of policy. Do not allow politics to overtake policy and try to
think of other reasons. I am one who gave the suggestion that this
should be taken out of Americorps.
Listen to some of the testimony before the Readiness and Personnel
Subcommittees of the House National Security Committee.
The Marine Corp Sargeant Major testified that for the first time
since 1980 the Marine Corp missed its fiscal year 1994 recruiting
goals.
If we look at DOD's fall 1994 Youth Attitudes and Awareness Survey,
after hearing about Americorps, 47 percent
[[Page H3228]] of the prospects would rather consider Americorps over
service in the United States military.
Just yesterday Lieutenant General Shoup testified the propensity to
enlist now is the lowest it has been in 10 years and it has fallen 39
percent amont 16- to 21-year-olds.
The facts speak for themselves.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] has 15
seconds remaining.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, in a year when our nation is recognizing
the great contribution of our World War II veterans, we must redouble
our commitment to those who have served our country--not renege on the
promises we made to them.
America owes a tremendous debt to all of our veterans and their
families. At a time when many of our veterans need more health care
services, the House is considering a rescission package that originally
would have cut $206 million for medical equipment and medical
facilities for veterans. Specifically, there were proposed cuts of $50
million from medical equipment for our ill-equipped Veterans Hospitals,
and $156 million from construction projects for veterans facilities.
Those cuts say to our veterans: ``You were there when we needed you,
but now that you need us we've forgotten you.''
In order to restore the $206 million, the Republicans are forcing
cuts to be made in other programs. This Nation's veterans should not be
arbitrarily placed in competition with other federal programs in order
to fund new spending initiatives. Veterans are entitled to advanced
medical care, compensation for disabilities, benefits for families and
freedom from government redtape--they must not be forced to compete for
scarce federal resources.
We must never forget the promises remade to our veterans and their
families. We must maintain and improve the quality of care they
receive. Our nation is proud of our veterans, and they have earned our
gratitude and respect. We must keep the commitment our country has made
to them.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Stump amendment
to H.R. 1158.
This amendment provides us with a chance to maintain the commitment
to our veterans that we entered into when they chose to give of
themselves for us.
The $206 million this amendment would restore to the Veterans'
Affairs budget is vital to providing our veterans with more modern
outpatient care and catching up with the current backlog of essential
medical equipment purchases. Without this money, the VA would not be
able to provide improved, more cost-effective outpatient-based medical
services to areas servicing over 1.2 million veterans. Furthermore, the
VA would not be able to meet existing healthcare system equipment
needs.
Our Nation's veterans deserve our highest priority. It is hardly
fiscally irresponsible to oppose this rescission. In fact, the funds in
the Stump amendment promote fiscal responsibility.
Last year, VA hospitals provided care for 26.3 million outpatients.
This amendment would allow for the construction of six desperately
needed outpatient clinics. Without them, the VA would have to continue
to rely on expensive inpatient care, when outpatient visits can provide
our veterans more modern and cost-effective assistance. These clinics
are fundamental to our commitment of providing our veterans with the
best care available. Outpatient clinics provide better care to a larger
number of veterans for maximum return on the dollar.
This $206 million recession is not in the best interest of America's
veterans. I urge my colleagues to support the Stump Amendment and show
America's veterans that we are committed to providing them with the
care they deserve.
Mr. MINETA. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to the amendment.
The choice presented to us in this amendment is unnecessary, unwise
and, in my opinion, represents a distortion of the debate over our
Federal budget priorities. Beyond the requirements of the current rule
of debate, there is no reason for this House to pit health services for
our Nation's veterans against a program to encourage our young people
to devote themselves to community service.
It is a false choice, dictated by the unjust rule under which we are
considering this bill, and I will vote ``present'' on the amendment.
Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Stump
amendment to restore funding to the veterans programs that have been
cut in this bill. As a nation, we have asked veterans to put their
lives in harms way to preserve our freedom. Many have given the
ultimate sacrifice, and many more have suffered severe and debilitating
injuries that they carry with them each and every day. As a nation, we
have also asked these veterans to take cut, after cut, after cut to
fund the modest programs to provide adequate health care. They have
always responded ``we'll do our fair share.'' Mr. Chairman, there is
enough fat existing in the Federal Government that other programs
should be cut before we ask the veterans of America to make yet another
sacrifice.
The amendment before us restores $206 million needed for VA
outpatient clinics and essential medical equipment purchases. These
clinics will provide outpatient services at a much lower cost than if
these services were delivered from a large hospital. The medical
equipment cut of $50 million would only add to the $800 million backlog
in needed medical equipment that already exists.
In order to restore these funds to the VA, the amendment reduces
funding from Americorp. In my opinion, Americorp shouldn't be in
existence at all. It's another example of a big, unnecessary Federal
program that is a nice idea, but unwarranted in the wake of our budget
problems. Furthermore, Americorp, which was created by the National
Service Act, undermines and trivializes military service as a form of
duty to country. Not only does Americorp provide these paid-volunteers
the same educational benefits as military personnel under the GI bill,
but the military member must pay $1,200 into this fund. The paid
volunteer pays nothing into the Americorp fund.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores necessary and important funding
to the VA and offsets these costs with prudent cuts from an unnecessary
Federal program. Let's do the right thing and support the veterans of
America; vote yes on the Stump amendment.
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the
Stump amendment to this rescission package.
Let me explain why. First of all, the Stump amendment does not lessen
this package of much-needed reductions. We'll pay for it by reducing
what American taxpayers are forced to shell out for a Federal volunteer
program, AmeriCorps.
The rescissions bill is still a $17 billion blow to big government--
and a $17 billion victory for the American taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, a conservative view of the Federal Government's role
holds that there aren't really that many things the Federal Government
needs to be involved in.
Most Americans don't believe that everything good has to come from a
Washington politician or bureaucrat.
We should all realize that a monstrous, expensive Federal Government
is threatening our way of life.
But among the chief missions only the Federal Government can fulfill
is that of national security. And Mr. Chairman, an effective military
demands that we take proper care of the men and women who have put
their lives on the line for our country.
It also happens to be the honorable thing to do. But we have not
always done so in the past.
The military is not an easy way of life--even in peacetime.
Service men and women usually have little choice over their duty
station. They spend months at sea, or in a tent--away from their loved
ones.
And if we go to war, they can be ordered to the front lines to
possibly lay down their lives for our country.
Of course, even in peacetime, the military can be a dangerous
profession.
Mr. Chairman, the 104th Congress must do a better job of taking care
of our active duty and retired military personnel.
We began to address the needs of our active duty service men and
women with the National Security Restoration Act.
The Stump amendment will save $156 million for veterans and help us
address their needs.
The sad fact is that America has often betrayed its veterans in the
past. How many of the brave men and women of Operation Desert Storm are
sick and don't know why?
Thousands of young men and women in the prime of their lives--many of
them reservists--don't have the energy to return to work.
We owe it to them to see that they're taken care of.
We are cutting dozens of big government programs today, Mr.
Chairman--many of which are duplicated elsewhere, or filled with waste,
fraud and abuse.
But I suggest now is not the time to turn away from the needs of our
men and women in uniform.
Mr. Chairman, I will vote ``yes'' for the Stump amendment today. And
I urge my colleagues to devote some of their energy in the future to
taking better care for those who have taken care of us.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It came
as no surprise to anyone that one of the few programs President Clinton
proposes to increase in his recently released budget is his pet
project, AmeriCorps. But does this program really warrant the kind of
unwavering support the President would have us give it?
[[Page H3229]] We keep hearing that this is one program that works
because the volunteers themselves and the communities they assist seem
happy with it. But why shouldn't they? The communities receive services
that are paid for by the Federal Government rather than local
taxpayers. As for the AmeriCorps participants, they receive a stipend
of $7,500 and $4,700 in educational credits for 1,700 hours of work
which is a little more than 10 months at 40 hours a week for--quote--
volunteering. In 1995 the program is expected to spend over $24,000 per
volunteer. Supporters will cry foul at the use of that number since it
includes administrative costs and the average participant doesn't
receive that amount. But the President claimed in his State of the
Union Address that the program is ``changing the way government works
because there's no bureaucracy at all.'' We are spending $24,000 per
volunteer. If there is no bureaucracy and the volunteers don't get it
all where is the money going?
Clearly the fact that those who benefit from a Federal program are
happy with it does not prove its worth to the taxpayers. So what other
ways do we have to evaluate the program? The President says that the
program will rekindle the spirit of community and mutual cooperation.
This is a example of the belief that if the Government doesn't do it,
it doesn't happen. The President ignores the 80 million Americans--
about a third of the population--who currently volunteer their time for
no compensation. I assert that they represent a spirit of community or
sacrifice more than do the 47,000 AmeriCorps volunteers who are
compensated. The volunteers across this Nation didn't & don't need a
Government program to encourage them to give of their time to make
their community a better place.
Another problem with taxpayer financed volunteerism is that many
activities which are just fine for someone truly volunteering his or
her time, are inappropriate when Government funding is involved. That's
surely true of political protest and advocacy--activities which are
supposedly prohibited for AmeriCorps by law. We have probably all heard
by now about the protests sponsored by the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now--ACORN--which prevented our Speaker from
addressing a lunch sponsored by the National Association of Counties.
The National Service program has hired 42 volunteers for ACORN at a
cost of over $1 million. National Service supporters point out that the
volunteers were not involved in the protest, but we must ask why a
service program is giving money to an organization the main function of
which is political advocacy in the first place. Furthermore,
according to the Los Angeles Times, Americorps volunteers in San
Francisco's Summer of Safety program were used to organize a protest
against last year's crime bill's ``three strikes and you're out''
provision. Americorps denies that this happened but the journalist who
wrote the article stands behind her story. Is this a proper use of
federally funded volunteers?
Proponents also like to paint the program as a way to help young
people pay for college. But the cost of one Americorps participant
would pay for seven Pell grants. Moreover, you don't have to be in
economic need to participate in Americorps. Why are we paying for the
education of students whose parents may be wealthy or who themselves
may have high after-school incomes while many low-income people cannot
afford to send their kids to college? If our current student aid
programs are not meeting the need, we should change those programs, not
try to do it through the back door of Government jobs program.
The President is ignoring the obvious; Government cannot program true
volunteerism and cannot mandate acts of charity. This program
undermines the volunteer spirit it was intended to foster.
We have heard a great deal about the importance of the veterans
programs this rescissions bill seeks to cut. Well, we would all like to
increase funding for any justifiable program. I don't want to cut
veterans either. But it is time to be responsible. If veterans programs
are to be restored we should make the cuts elsewhere and the national
service program, which duplicates other Government programs and private
efforts, compromises true volunteerism, and puts Federal tax dollars to
questionable uses, is a good place to start.
Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill cuts
approximately $206 million from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The
money will be taken from the Veterans Health Administration, which
provides important services to our Nation's veterans. American
veteran's have earned their health care through blood and sacrifice and
deserve better. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's veterans should be honored
for their heroic deeds, not punished. How can we expect the military to
protect us when we don't honor the contract we made with our veterans?
I support the Stump amendment which would restore the $206 million to
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise to ask the
Members to support what is now the Stump-Lewis-Young-Solomon--and even
Obey--amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 382,
noes 23, answered ``present'' 27, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 239]
AYES--382
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
[[Page H3230]] Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--23
Abercrombie
Bentsen
Conyers
Dellums
Doggett
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Hall (OH)
Johnston
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Moran
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Sabo
Serrano
Shays
Stark
Torres
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--27
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Clay
Collins (IL)
Eshoo
Farr
Fields (LA)
Flake
Hilliard
Kaptur
Lofgren
Markey
Martinez
Mineta
Reynolds
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Schroeder
Studds
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Waxman
Williams
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--2
Collins (MI)
Cubin
{time} 1657
Mr. STARK and Mr. HALL of Ohio changed their vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
Mr. UPTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mrs. SCHROEDER, Messrs. MARTINEZ, REYNOLDS, and RUSH, Mrs. COLLINS of
Illinois, and Messrs. CLAY, HILLIARD, VENTO, and YATES changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
Mr. DeFAZIO and Mr. WARD changed their vote from ``present'' to
``aye.''
Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``present'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Yates
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 13,
which is made in order by the rule.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Yates: Strike section 307 (page
14, line 17 and all that follows through line 24 on page 27).
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition and ask for time
on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
{time} 1700
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to strike the so-called
Taylor amendment. The Taylor amendment is a timber lobbyist's dream. It
deals with salvage sales, and under its definition the salvage
amendment will salvage our forests. Among the phrases in the
amendment's definition of salvage are the following: the removal of
associated trees imminently susceptible to fire, insect attack.
The Bureau of Land Management noted in a recent memo, quote, the
definition of salvage timber sale is too broad; speaking of the Taylor
amendment it is too broad, and is more or less a license for
unregulated timber harvest.
What does this amendment do? It almost doubles the cutting of timber
from our national forests over the amount cut last year. At the same
time it suspends all environmental laws protecting the preservation of
our forests.
On the question of how much will this cost the government, Mr.
Chairman, the sky is the limit. As stated in the amendment, the
language of the amendment itself, quote, salvage timber sales
undertaken pursuant to this section shall not be precluded because the
costs of such activities are likely to exceed the revenues derived from
such activities. This could mean the government is required to unload
much of the new timber even if it has to give it away. These sales are
called deficit timber sales, money losers which are most frequently
salvaged timber sales.
I say to my colleagues, once you peal away the misrepresentation of
rhetoric, you realize that this amendment literally suspends every law
governing management of the public forests, including those that
protect fish, wildlife, water quality, and recreation and the jobs that
depend on such critically important forest resources.
But this amendment does not stop there. It turns off judicial due
process in standing court cases by overturning every past court
decision in the country that protects timber sales. It bars public
comment on these timber sales and eliminates administrative appeals.
Legislative committees in both the house and the Senate are now
considering this question: Why should we permit a quick fix in an
appropriations bill for a 13-page legislative amendment? The rules of
the House which prevent legislation from being included in the
appropriations bills should be sustained in this instance.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment which will strike the
Taylor amendment from the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], chairman of the subcommittee of the
Committee on Appropriations.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, in 1989 a 2-by-4,
8 feet long, was $1.75. Today that same 2-by-4 is $3.02
Now what that means is that as young people in America want to
achieve the American dream of owning a home, they are going to pay an
extra 5 to $7,000 more for timber.
The point of that is that let us take advantage of this salvage. It
is salvaged timber. It is diseased, burned; it is not live trees.
There are three reasons we need to do this, and one is that these
trees are a threat and fire hazard because, if they stay there, they
fall over and become fuel for a forest fire that will hit living trees.
Second, we need to clean the land so that it can be regenerated. Part
of the money that is earned by these salvage sales will be used to
replant, reforest, the land so that the wildlife will have habitat in
the future and there will be timber available in the future. Timber is
a resource, but it is also a crop.
Third, Mr. Chairman, it is important that we salvage these burned and
diseased trees that can be made into lumber like this if we do it
within 2 years. Otherwise it rots, and it is no longer useful, no
longer in the condition that can be made available for home building
and for the things that we use timber for.
For all of those reasons I think it is important that we get this
salvage, harvest it, clean up the land, regenerate it for future
generations, and I would point out that this is only a 2 year bill. It
terminates at the end of 2 years for the simple reason that we have to
do it or the trees will no longer be of the quality that can be used
for saw logs.
So I urge the Members to reject this amendment, leave the language in
that is in.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, for too long the extremes in the debate
over western forest management have dominated the stage. On one side
there are those who oppose any timber harvests in our public lands,
even if it is necessary to improve forest health and reduce the risk of
catastrophic fires. On the other side there are those who would treat
our national forests as little more than industrial tree farms,
sacrificing even the most basic environmental protections in the
interests of short-term profit.
Last summer's western fires provided a hint of what may lie ahead.
Catastrophic fires, unlike the low intensify fire regime that has been
the historical norm, could devastate habitat for many declining and
threatened species, including Columbia Basin salmon populations. An
ecologically sensitive program of thinning. Controlled burning and
salvage logging is essential to restore forest health across millions
of acres in the West. If done with care, such a program could improve
forest
[[Page H3231]] conditions while providing the secondary benefit of
increased fiber supplies for our region's mills.
Mr. Chairman, I would have liked to offer a balanced alternative to
this proposal today, but the Republican leadership would not allow it.
The issue should never have been brought to the floor in this fashion.
Salvage and forest health should be properly debated in the committees
with jurisdiction and expertise and not written by special interests in
the back rooms out of the public eye.
This proposal lacks even the most basic environmental protections for
steep, unstable slopes, fragile soils, critical riparian habitat, even
wild and scenic rivers. It defines what is to be harvested as dead,
dying, diseased or associated with the large stands of green timber to
be harvested.
I have legislated salvage before, but I did it properly in my first
term in Congress. I played a major role in resolving a salvage
controversy at least as contentious as the forest debate now raging
here in Congress. The Silver Fire burned and erodes this area of the
Siskiyou National Forest, long defended by environmental activists.
That salvage was successfully done without harm. We could do the same
across the Western United States if we were given the chance to offer a
proper amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for too long, the extremes in the debate over western
forest management have dominated the stage. On one side, are those who
oppose any timber harvest on our public lands, even if it is necessary
to improve forest health and reduce the risk of catastrophic fires. On
the other side, there are those who would treat our National Forests as
little more than industrial tree farms, sacrificing even the most basic
environmental protections in the interests of short-term profit.
In my first term in Congress, I played a major role in resolving a
salvage controversy at least as contentious as the forest health debate
now raging in Congress. The Silver Fire burned in a roadless area of
the Siskiyou National Forest long defended by environmental activists.
The industry wanted to extend a road into the area and engage in
wholesale salvage of dead and green timber. I was able to mediate an
agreement that prevented new road building and green timber harvest,
but allowed a significant amount of helicopter salvage of burned
timber.
Neither the industry nor the environmental community were entirely
happy with the agreement we reached. But today the Silver Fire salvage
stands as an example of environmentally sound salvage that had the
additional benefit of providing a significant volume of timber.
Today, I once again find myself somewhere between the extremes. On
one side are those who oppose any thinning and salvage logging in the
fire and pest-stricken forests of the West. On the other side are those
who would throw all environmental protection out the window, and
maximize timber production under the guise of a sound salvage program.
Neither side has it right.
Forests across the West are in the grip of an ecological crisis of
unprecedented proportions. The forest health crisis is the result of
long term drought and a century of human impacts in the form of fire
suppression, timber harvesting, and the introduction of foreign pests,
to name a few. The result is that millions of acres of public forest
are in the worst shape they've ever been, victim to disease, insect
infestation, and fire.
Fire suppression has played a big part in undermining forest health.
Controlling wildfires in forests where frequent, low intensity fires
historically kept vegetation sparse has allowed a huge build-up of
dense understory vegetation to take place. One study on the Boise
National Forest in Idaho found that tree density on one site was about
29 trees per acre for the 300-plus years before 1906. Today on the same
site, tree density has increased to 533 trees per acre and the species
composition has
changed from predominantly Ponderosa pine to predominantly Douglas
Fir.
Last summer's Western wildfires provided a hint of what may lie
ahead. Catastrophic fires, unlike the low-intensity fire regime that
has been the historical norm, could devastate habitat for many
declining and threatened species, including Columbia basin salmon
populations.
An ecologically sensitive program of thinning, controlled burning and
salvage logging is essential to restoring forest health across millions
of acres in the West. If done with care, such a program could improve
forest conditions, while providing the secondary benefit of increased
fiber supplies for the region's mills.
We need legislation to help expedite a response to the forest health
crisis in the West. But a sound salvage and forest health program needs
some environmental safeguards. Unfortunately, the Taylor-Dicks
amendment contains none. The Taylor-Dicks amendment would allow logging
in Wild and Scenic River corridors and sensitive riparian and roadless
areas, with no restrictions based on slope or soil conditions. Its
definition of salvage is so broad that it opens the door to wholesale
logging in the region's remaining old growth forests and roadless
areas. This is not the balanced approach to forest management that most
Oregonians want to see.
By setting an arbitrary minimum timber sale level, while prohibiting
any environmental considerations on the part of the Forest Service, the
Taylor-Dicks salvage amendment guarantees that sensitive salmon streams
will be damaged, roadless areas will be opened up to commercial timber
harvest, and areas that are simply unsuitable for timber management
will be logged. This is a proposal that lurches from one unacceptable
extreme to the other. That's why I will vote against this proposal and
hope we have the opportunity to craft a salvage bill that gets the job
done while protecting the values that Oregonians share.
I would have liked to offer a balanced alternative to this proposal
today, but the Republican leadership wouldn't allow it. The issue
should never have been brought to the floor in this fashion. Salvage
and forest health should be properly debated in the committees with
jurisdiction and expertise, not written by industry lawyers in
backrooms out of the public eye.
So I am faced with two unacceptable choices--an extreme salvage
program with no environmental safeguards or the status quo, which is
simply not getting the job done.
It bears stating that the Forest Service is moving ahead with a
salvage program, though slowly. The agency plans to offer at least 1.4
billion board feet of salvage in each of the next 2 years. Assistant
Secretary Lyons tells me they could offer even more if Congress would
appropriate more money for sale preparation and other related
activities. But this salvage bill contains no additional money for sale
preparation.
Oregonians, by and large, support policies that protect our
environment and quality of life, without sacrificing our state's
economic well-being. I hope to have an opportunity in the weeks ahead
to offer a balanced Oregon alternative to the extreme log-it-at-all-
costs salvage approach offered here today. I believe I'll have the
support of most of my state's citizens when I do so.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Taylor], the sponsor of the amendment and a
distinguished member of the subcommittee.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, in 2 minutes I can tell
my colleagues several things about this. First of all, it will restore
forest health. Most of the things that have been said about it so far
just are not true. Scientists recognize that the forests are undergoing
a serious ecological decline because of a lack of management. Fire
disasters, unnatural species compositions, disease, insect infestation;
all of these are threatening the forest health, and this legislation
which has been worked out with professionals, it has been worked out in
consulting with the Forest Service, as many people as we could find to
try to alleviate this emergency were brought in in this short period of
time, and it is an emergency. Even the chief of the Forest Service, Mr.
Chairman, has said we need to increase our salvage cutting for forest
health.
Second, there are tens of billions of dollars of revenue coming to
the Treasury, or millions of dollars of revenue coming to the Treasury.
It is not a loss. CBO scored it $37 million last year. FPA says it
could be as much as $650 million. So it is a very positive revenue
producer.
Third, it will stabilize the cost of homes. It will create jobs, and
that is why the home builders, and realtors and many others are
supporting this. It will create thousands of jobs all across this
country in a much needed area, putting timber in the pipeline, and that
is why the Teamsters Union supports it. It is why the Western Council
of Industrial Workers supports it, the United Paperworkers
International Union supports it, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
supports it, the International Association of Machinists and the
Association of Western Paperworkers, because these are men and women
who make the livings of this country and recognize that this will
produce jobs, and they are endorsing this amendment in this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, it is an opportunity for us. It is an opportunity for
us to
[[Page H3232]] provide forest health and to provide a good amendment
to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the provisions of section 307 of H.R.
1159, a measure co-authored by myself and Mr. Dicks, and supported
strongly by a number of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee
and on the authorizing committees with jurisdiction.
I wish to outline the intent of the provision, and the direction we
have provided to the agencies affected for two reasons. First, I wish
to be sure that the requirements of the provision are not
misrepresented as the debate over this bill continues to the other
body. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I wish to provide clear
direction to the implementing agencies, and do everything possible to
assure that the agencies understand, and can execute the direction we
have provided.
To this latter end, the authors of section 307 have met several times
with U.S. Forest Service Chief, Jack Ward Thomas, and his staff since
the provision imposes most of its requirements on the Forest Service.
The Chief and his staff have been quite helpful in reviewing the terms
of section 307, suggesting modifications to assure that these
requirements are technically correct, and evaluating the Forest
Service's technical and operational capability to meet the requirements
of section 307, including the volume targets for timber salvage. As a
forester by training, I am very sensitive to saddling our Federal
agencies with mandates that they are not able to implement.
Based upon our discussion with Chief Thomas it is the clear
understanding of the authors of section 307 that--aside from the
question of whether the Clinton administration agrees with the goals of
section 307 as a matter of politics and policy--the Forest Service can
implement the provision of section 307 in a fashion that meets the
timber salvage targets contained in this section. Today, I have sent a
letter to Chief Thomas which I will include in the Record at the end of
this statement. In this letter, I review with the Chief the intention
of the authors of section 307 and our expectations about Forest Service
implementation of the measure. I have asked the Chief for a prompt
response so that, if there is any difference in interpretation, this
can be reviewed during Senate consideration of the bill and any
necessary adjustments can be made. If the measure passes both bodies
and is signed into law, we expect appropriate implementing actions to
carry out a clear congressional intent which is, itself, grounded in an
understanding of agency capabilities.
Now let me review the terms of section 307. Section 307 would provide
authority and direction to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the
Interior to conduct a 2-year emergency salvage timber sales program on
lands of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management [BLM].
The purpose of this one-time, short duration congressional mandate is
to eliminate the extraordinary backlog of dead and dying trees on
Federal lands in all regions of the country. This backlog has been
created by the alarming decline in forest health and the unprecedented
scale of wildfires over the last 2 years. Without an accelerated and
dedicated response from the land management agencies in planning and
conducting these emergency salvage timber sales, the decaying trees
will soon lose any commercial value, thereby preventing harvesting and
the timely accomplishment of reforestation and other restoration
activities on the affected lands.
The two Secretaries are directed to offer a sufficient number of
salvage timber sales during the 2-year emergency period following
enactment to ensure that a minimum of 3-billion board feet is sold each
year on Forest Service lands and 115-million board feet is sold each
year on BLM lands (subsec. (b)(2)).
These volume targets were derived after extensive discussion with the
Forest Service and BLM. The Forest Service targets were established
after consultation with the Agency's field offices. They are statutory
mandates that represent reasonable progress toward reducing the backlog
of dead and dying timber on our Federal forests. The agencies have
indicated that it is within their capability to achieve these targets
and thereby improve the health of our Federal forests under the terms
of section 307.
A timber sale qualifies as a salvage timber sale that can be offered
under the provisions of section 307 only if an important reason for the
sale is the removal of diseased or insect-infested trees; dead,
damaged, or down trees; or trees affected by fire or imminently
susceptible to fire or insect attack. Removal of associated trees for
the purpose of ecosystem improvement or rehabilitation can occur if the
sale has an identifiable component of trees to be salvaged. (Subsec.
(a)(4).)
Salvage timber sales are to be offered whether or not revenues
derived from the sales are likely to exceed the sales' costs (subsec.
(c)(5)). In conducting the sales, the Secretaries are authorized to use
salvage sale funds otherwise available to them (subsec. (b)(3)). But
the Secretaries are not to substitute salvage timber sales under
section 307 for planned non-salvage sales (subsec. (c)(7)).
Section 307 does not permit any salvage timber sales on specifically
protected lands, namely areas designed by Congress as units of the
National Wilderness Preservation System, any roadless areas in Colorado
or Montana which were specifically designated by acts of Congress by
geographical name or map reference as Wilderness Study Areas, any
roadless areas recommended by the Forest Service or BLM for wilderness
designation in their most recent land management plans, and areas where
timber harvesting for any purpose has been specifically prohibited by a
specific statutory provision. This proscription does not include any
prohibition in any regulation, land management plan, agency guidance,
research study, or settlement agreement which purports to rely on
general statutory authority (subsec. (g)(2)).
This last distinction is important because we do not, even by
inference, want to prohibit application of this section in areas where
the agencies on their own have restricted timber harvesting. This
includes agency initiatives such as the timber sale screens on the
East-side of the Cascades and the California Spotted Owl Report, the
following environmental assessment, and the pending draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Whether and to whatever extent the agencies choose to
restore the forest health by scheduling salvage sales in such areas,
they are still bound to meet the salvage targets in subsection (b)(2)
of this section.
In order to ensure that the sales are conducted in a timely manner,
section 307 requires the two land management agencies to follow certain
schedules, expedited procedures, and reporting requirements. The
schedule for offering timber sales requires that sales for at least 50
percent of the volume each agency is directed to make available in the
first year must be offered in the first 3 months after enactment, and
sales for at least 50 percent of the volume each agency is directed to
make available in the second year must be offered within 15 months
after enactment. Sales for the remaining 50 percent of the volume
required each year can be spread evenly throughout the remaining 9
months of the year. (Subsec. (c)(2).) To track compliance with this
schedule, the Secretaries are required to report to Congress every 3
months throughout the 2-year emergency period on the sales and volumes
offered during the last 3-month period and expected to be offered
during the next 3-month period (subsec. (b)(2)).
To meet this schedule, the Secretaries are admonished to use all
available authority in preparing and advertising the salvage timber
sales. This includes use of private contractors, and applying the type
of expedited contracting procedures used to fight fires to the tasks of
advertising and preparing salvage sales. To augment the available
personnel, section 307 authorizes employment of former employees who
received voluntary separation incentive payments under the Federal
Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-226) without applying the
provisions of Section 3(d)(1) of P.L. 103-226. (Subsec. (c)(4).)
Sale procedures are expedited by the requirement that each Secretary
prepare a single document analyzing the environmental effects of each
salvage sale. The level of analysis in this consolidated environmental
analysis document is to be that normally contained in an environmental
assessment (not an environmental impact statement) under the National
Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] on the environmental impacts of the
sale generally and in a biological evaluation under the Endangered
Species Act [ESA] on any specific effects the sale may have on any
endangered or threatened species. (Subsec. (c)(1).) The language of
this provision is explicit that these are the only document and the
only procedure required from
an environmental standpoint to comply with existing laws and
regulations (subsec.(c)(6)). For example, the agency does not have to
prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact under NEPA, nor consult with
the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service
under the ESA after completing the consolidated environmental analysis
document. Nor is an agency bound by any existing documents. On the
other hand, if a NEPA document or a biological evaluation is already
prepared for any particular sale by the date of enactment, a
consolidated environmental analysis document need not be prepared for
that sale. (Subsec. (c)(1).)
Each Secretary is to make the decisions on a sale's configuration and
whether to offer the sale on the basis of the consolidated
environmental analysis document. The Secretary may decide to not offer
the sale or to reduce the size of the sale for an environmental reason
grounded in the consolidated environmental analysis document, but he
must then determine if he can meet the applicable volume requirement on
schedule. If he determines he cannot, he must substitute another sale
or
[[Page H3233]] sales with volume equal to the shortfall. (Subsec.
(c)(3).)
The Secretary's decision, based on that consolidated environmental
documentation, is deemed to satisfy all applicable environmental and
land management laws (subsec. (c)(6)). This means, for example, that
the Secretary cannot be sued for violation of the Clean Water Act, the
provisions of the National Forest Management Act concerning species'
viability, unsuitability, or consistency with the resource management
plans, or the jeopardy or take standards of the Endangered Species Act.
Furthermore, as indicated, a sale can be offered that does not comport
with a resource management plan, or interim guidelines, or management
directives. This provision is both reasoned and consistent with the
one-time, emergency nature of section 307. Few if any such plans,
guidelines, screens, or other agency guidance contemplated the dramatic
decline in forest health and consequent unprecedented wildfires.
Section 307 does not excuse long-term compliance with such agency
guidance; instead, it permits only a one-time divergence therefrom.
Without such temporary divergence, the very wildlife and other
resources that the guidance is intended to protect may be destroyed or
damaged, thereby rendering the guidance ineffective for the longer
term. Finally, a sale can be offered even if it would be barred under
any decision, injunction, or order of any federal court (subsec.
(c)(8)).
Expedited procedures continue to apply after the decision to offer a
salvage timber sale. Section 307 bars an administrative appeal of any
sale decision (subsec. (e)). This allows challengers to go directly to
court and hastens a final disposition of the challenge--a disposition
timely enough to permit the sale and harvesting of dead and dying
timber if the court ultimately determines that the sale is legally
valid.
Finally as to expedited procedures, in language borrowed verbatim
from previously enacted law (section 318 of Public Law 101-121),
section 307 sets deadlines for challengers for filing and appealing
lawsuits challenging salvage timber sales (15 days and 30 days,
respectively) (subsec. (f)(1) and (7)) and for the district courts to
decide the lawsuits (45 days, unless the particular court decides a
longer period is necessary to satisfy Constitutional requirements)
(subsec. (f)(5)). To protect challengers, the section requires that
each challenged timber sale must be stayed by the appropriate agency
for the same 45-day period in which the court hears and decides the
case (subsec. (f)(2)). With a mandated automatic stay, restraining
orders or preliminary injunctions are unnecessary and, therefore, are
barred (subsec. (f)(3)).
A court is free to issue a permanent injunction against, order
modification of, or void an individual salvage timber sale if it
determines that the decision to prepare, advertise, offer, award, or
operate the sale was arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in
accordance with law (subsec. (f)(4)). As the sale is deemed by law to
satisfy the environmental and land management laws (subsec. (c)(6)),
the challengers must allege and prove to the court under this standard
that the sale was arbitrary or capricious under, or violates a specific
provision of section 307.
The Secretaries' duties do not stop after the salvage timber sales
are sold; they are directed to complete reforestation of the lands as
expeditiously as possible after harvesting but no later than any
periods required by law or the agencies' regulations. This last
requirement is every bit as important as the rest of the section
because it completes the forest restoration process and highlights the
authors' commitment to sound forest stewardship.
Section (i) of section 307 addresses another related timber supply
problem of an emergency nature. In this case, the emergency involves
government liability for failure to perform the terms of a contract.
Previously-offered timber sales in the Northwest cannot be operated
due to administrative delays and reviews. Many of these sales were
mandated by Congress in Section 318 of the Department of Interior and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 1990, Pub. L. 101-121;
others were offered in fiscal year 1991 and some more recently. Many of
these sales were awarded to purchasers years ago; the government will
have to pay tens of millions of dollars in contract buyouts if these
sales were cancelled. Other sales were auctioned years ago but never
awarded; in some cases the agencies rejected bids well after the
auction due to administrative reviews and delays and changing
standards. This is the case even though the preponderance of these
sales were approved for harvest in the Record of Decision accompanying
the President's Pacific Northwest Forest Plan, as not jeopardizing the
continued existence of any of the numerous species of wildlife
considered by that plan. The government will forego $207.8 million in
timber receipts if these sales are not operated.
Subsection 307(i)(1) frees up all these sales, saving the government
over one hundred million dollars in buyout claims, generating the
$207.8 million in revenues and immediately providing substantial
amounts of timber for mills hurt by Federal supply reductions. It
applies to all national forests and BLM districts that were subject to
section 318 of the Department of Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, fiscal year 1990, Pub. L. 101-121; it applies
throughout fiscal years 1995 and 1996, or longer as necessary,
notwithstanding any other provision of law; and it requires full
compliancy by the agencies within 30 days of the date of enactment of
the section. It directs the award of all unawarded sales as originally
advertised, whether or not bids on a sale previously rejected, and it
directs the release of these sales and all other awarded sales in the
affected area so that all the sales can be operated to completion, on
their original terms, in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
Subsection (i)(2) provides that agency compliance with this section
will not provide a legal basis for a court to block an existing agency
management plan, or to order an agency to change an existing plan. It
leaves in place all other grounds unrelated to this section that may
exist for any person to challenge an agency plan for any reason. It
does not affect pending cases challenging agency plans for reason
unrelated to this section.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, March 15, 1995.
Dr. Jack Ward Thomas,
Chief, U.S. Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chief Thomas: We write to continue our important
dialogue on the emergency forest health amendment contained
in Section 307 of HR 1159. This amendment has bipartisan
support in the House, and will shortly be considered in the
Senate when that body takes up HR 1159.
We thank you and your staff for the technical assistance
you provided to us as we developed the provision. While we
understand the Administration has yet to take a position on
the measure, we nevertheless appreciate the nonpartisan
assistance the Forest Service provided to make sure that the
amendment is drafted in a technically and legally sound
fashion. We are sensitive to the need to avoid saddling our
federal resource management agencies with mandates that
cannot be implemented on the ground.
To this end we request one more review by your resource
specialists and attorney advisors of the final language of
Section 307. Enclosed is the final language and a floor
statement we made during House consideration explaining our
intent in writing this amendment. We want to ensure that the
amendment can be implemented in a manner that brings salvage
timber to the marketplace as quickly as possible within the
environmental process provided.
We would like your review to assure that your specialists
agree that the language would have the on-the-ground effect
that we intend. Alternatively, if this is not the case, we
would like to know which provisions are problematic, why this
is the case, and what technical changes would better
accomplish our purposes.
Let me be clear that we are not asking whether the
Administration, the Agency, or you support the amendment or
agree with its intent. We respect any difference of opinion
you might have with specific requirements. Nevertheless, we
need to be sure that we have a common understanding that our
intent is implementable under the term of amendment. If the
amendment is passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by
the President we will expect full implementation of its
terms.
Since the bill is being taken up in Subcommittee in the
Senate next Wednesday, we will need your response by Monday,
March 20. We apologize for the short notice, but we are
victims of the legislative schedule.
We appreciate your continuing assistance and cooperation on
this matter.
Sincerely,
Charles H. Taylor,
Member, U.S. Congress.
Don Young,
Chairman.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
the Yates amendment to strike the Taylor Timber Salvage Language. We
have all heard the old adage that you have to spend money to make money
but the timber salvage provisions of H.R. 1159 turn this into a case
where we will be spending money to lose money. Nominally, CBO shows
that such sales will bring in $134 million, a far cry from the $1
billion in receipts proponents were touting just 2 weeks ago. The other
side of the CBO analysis which bill proponents will not be speaking
about is that salvage is direct spending, and thus the money goes right
back out.
The taxpayer loses under the Taylor Salvage Language because whatever
profitable
[[Page H3234]] sales there are will subsidize the many below cost
sales that are not only needed but required to achieve the unrealistic
cut in excess of 6 billion board feet called for in the bill. Further,
since the estimates of revenue do not even count such significant costs
as purchaser road credits the treasury will never see a dime from these
sales.
Looking at savage from the question of forest health, what kind of
perverse logic says that to make our forests healthy, we have to
suspend not just every environmental law but every law dealing with
forestry management and administrative procedure. What little judicial
review there is in the bill, is made meaningless since all salvage
actions are deemed to satisfy
APPLICABLE LAW. Not content with this the Taylor Language goes on to
USURP the role of the judiciary by lifting existing injunctions,
prohibiting future injunctions, and dictating to the court when and how
it may consider appeals.
Proponents of the salvage provisions have taken a complex forestry
issue and boiled it down to a simple solution. That is to fight fire
and insects with chainsaws. It is a discredited policy that is being
resurrected under the guise of an emergency.
Is the Taylor Salvage Language forest health or hype? If proponents
are truely interested in forest health, why are they mandating a
specific, but unrealistic, cut? The answer is that this amendment is
all about the cut and the notion that a dead tree is a wasted tree.
Proponents both inside and outside of Congress who for years advocated
fire suppression at any cost are now seeing that cost. But instead of
owning up to it, they view it as an opportunity to bypass sound science
and management and embark on a cutting frenzy. The use of thinning,
pruning and prescribed burns are not even considered because that would
diminish the all-driving cut.
This whole notion reminds me of the General in the Vietnam War who
said they had to destroy a village to save it. That is what we are
dealing with here. Look where this cut will come from. In their rush to
get the Taylor Language out, proponents would open designated national
wild and scenic river corridors to logging. In what appears at a
minimum to be a serious oversight but perhaps is a devious design,
wilderness study areas in Montana and Colorado are protected but not in
Idaho.
The vast amount of logging will occur in roadless areas and we are
not talking about helicopter logging here. No, the widely scattered
nature of fire and infestation means that heavy equipment will be
brought in to punch scores of new roads with machinery roaming over a
forest floor disturbed by fire and highly susceptible to damage.
If we are serious about forest health, and we should be, the Taylor
amendment is the wrong answer. It has no place in this bill both from a
procedural and policy standpoint. The Taylor Salvage Language is a bad
deal for the taxpayer and the environment. I urge adoption of the
Yate's amendment to strike this ill-conceived language from the bill.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, let me draw your attention to something
that I do not think the sponsors of this legislation intended, but it
will happen under this salvage sale. As my friends know, timber harvest
and road building is not allowed in wilderness areas. In the last
Congress this House voted by 300 votes in favor of a bill to designate
a million and a half acres of wilderness in Montana. Now although that
bill did not become law, although the Senate went along with most of
it, there just were not enough days left in the session for it to
become law. Although it did not become law, this bill before us today
allows timber harvesting and road building in one million of those
acres.
Mr. Chairman, neither Republicans, nor Democrats, would intend that,
that one million acres in Montana, the last best place that we all
agree should be wilderness, is now going to be harvested if this bill
becomes law. The bill is poorly written.
{time} 1715
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield two minutes to the
gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks], a distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand and strongly support this
legislation. In the Pacific Northwest, we have seen harvest levels
reduced by almost 95 to 100 percent over the last 4 years. We have been
under a court injunction. At the same time, we have had blowdown, we
have had burned timber, bug-infested timber that could be salvaged, and
we could take that and sell it and bring money into the Treasury at a
time when housing prices for lumber are sky high. It has added $5,000
to $7,000 per house because of the shortage of lumber.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to stick with the committee.
The committee almost unanimously approved this amendment, and we did it
with environmental sensitivity. Every sale has to have an environmental
assessment. Every sale has to have a biological opinion. If they
violate that, you can still go to the Federal Court for an injunction.
What we tried to do was expedite the process. Why? Because dead,
diseased, dying, bug-infested logs only last for 2 or 3 years, and then
they are gone. So if we went with the normal process, we would simply
not get to it.
What are we doing here? We are not raping
anything or tearing anything apart. We have said we will not go into
wilderness areas. What we are doing is doing this in a very responsible
way, that will restore forest health. The ecologists have looked at
this and said this is a good way to go. There are 18 to 21 billion
board feet of it laying out there over the country. The administration
wants to do 3 billion. We are saying go out there and try to do 3
additional billion, or one-third. So two-thirds of it is going to be
left, dead, dying, diseased on the ground for the ecosystem, for the
bugs, to help the spotted owl recover, and all those other good things.
But this is good common sense. We need the lumber, we need the chips
for our pulp and paper mills. This is an amendment that makes sense. We
ought to bipartisanly back it and help out an industry that has been
badly hurt over the last 4 years.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have the highest respect for the
gentleman from North Carolina, but this is simply not the way to do
business. When we walked into the full Committee on Appropriations
markup, we received a copy of the Taylor amendment for the first time.
The amendment was over one dozen pages long and included portions that
were handwritten. There were no hearings on the amendment by the
authorizing committee nor the Committee on Appropriations. For years we
Republicans have told Democrats who did this often that this was not
something that we would countenance. Here we are, in power, and now
doing it on our side.
This is not part of the Contract. We do not have to vote on it in the
first 100 days. It ought to go to hearings. It ought to be considered
very carefully. It is not simply a good way to do business.
I am also concerned about the substance of the amendment. The
amendment overturns past court decisions, limits the power of courts to
review Federal agency actions, and waives or puts on a fast track
necessary environmental studies or surveys.
If the Taylor language truly promotes the long-term health of the
forest, why must we waive the ability of the courts and the public to
guarantee that our environment enforced management laws are being
upheld. This is going to cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of
dollars. I urge Members to oppose the Taylor language and to support
the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alaska [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Natural Resources, the authorizing committee, to speak to the emergency
nature of this bill.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, let us look at this amendment.
This is the amendment to try to harvest dead, dying, dead trees. Double
adjective. These trees burned last year. If we do not harvest them,
they are rotted, they cannot be used, they are a waste. And it appalls
me when I hear Mr. Porter saying this overturns court decisions, et
cetera, et cetera. These are not live trees. These are burnt trees, 16
billion board feet standing, and all we are asking is for 3 billion
board feet this year and 3 billion board
[[Page H3235]] feet next year. That is all we are asking, to keep some
of our American people working. There is no work for these mills, for
the sawmills, for the people that make their living here, if we cannot
have trees, and we stopped cutting live trees because of action of this
Congress and the courts.
It is time that we pass this Taylor amendment and this legislation.
We did have hearings. There was a long, protracted hearing of a whole
day. We heard from those people who are not only working, but from the
biologists, that said for the health of the forest we must harvest
these trees. Let us stand with the committee.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds].
(Mr. STUDDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates amendment to
strike section 307 or H.R. 1159. This provision is legislation and
should never have been included in an appropriations bill.
Section 307 would double the amount of salvage timber cut on Federal
lands and increase total logging on Federal lands by more than one-
third. Salvage timber is ostensibly harvested to prevent dead and dying
timber from rotting and going to waste, while reducing the risk of
disease and fire. But this amendment goes well beyond that. It will
condemn healthy timber because it sets a salvage quota that is twice
the amount requested to be harvested by the Forest Service, broadens
the definition of what constitutes salvage timber, and will allow
logging on thousands of acres of old growth timber set aside by court
order. This undermines forest health and rational timber lands
management.
If the proponents of section 307 are as concerned about forest health
as they claim, why does this legislation waive numerous environmental
laws and administrative review, and severely restrict judicial review
of timber sales? The answer is that many of these sales would not pass
muster under the appropriate review. In a rush to sell off public
assets and under the guise of forest protection, the proponents will
run roughshod over the Constitution and the law. Of course by now, this
is becoming somewhat mundane.
Proponents argue that this provision raises revenue. But under the
peculiarities of scoring, the value of the assets is not considered.
The Government can sell a tree worth $100 for $5 and that is counted as
a receipt of $5. Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office's scoring of
this provision does not include the millions spent yearly to build
roads and to prepare timber sales. The scoring process notwithstanding,
salvage sales do not benefit the taxpayer because most of the receipts
that they do produce go to mandatory spending programs, much of it to
hold even more salvage sales.
Rising interest rates always depress new home starts. This in turn
depresses timber prices. Timber prices are driven by home sales, not
the other way around. So tying the ability of Americans to own homes to
the price of lumber is at best misleading. Dumping billions of board
feet of timber onto the market under these conditions will further
depress timber prices and will guarantee a poor return for the taxpayer
on the sale of their assets.
Behind the rhetoric, section 307 is a subsidy for special interests
that will harm the environment, and it has no place on a rescission
bill. I urge the House to support the Yates amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for the
time.
Mr. Chairman, it is really a shame that this issue is having to be
debated in this way before the House of Representatives, because had we
wished to put together a thoughtful, well-considered, informed piece of
legislation to deal with what is a real problem, I am sure we could
have done it. This is not such a piece of legislation.
Salvage. We incant that word as if it can be used to finesse
fundamental definitional and practical problems in this bill. This is
not just about salvage timber. It goes far beyond that. There was no
attempt to frame a bill that really fits both reality and practicality.
Where did the 3 billion board feet a year number come from? We have
no evidence that BLM or the Forest Service is really going to be able
to accommodate that. The gentleman from Illinois already pointed out
this was dropped on us in appropriations with no warning and no ability
to really engage in thoughtful consideration.
But, above all, the other gentleman from Illinois, the chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary who is sitting in the back of the
Chamber, ought to be particularly exercised. This provision completely
runs over regular judicial process. It did not go through the
gentleman's committee for any kind of review. Although it pays lip
service about availability of judicial review, as a practical matter,
there is absolutely no way any citizen in this country will have access
to any process that enables a review of these timber cuts.
All environmental review, all judicial review, for all practical
purposes, is gone. It cannot be accomplished, given the constraints
that have been put in this amendment.
This is going to cost this country in untold ways. Among others it
has a below-cost timber sale provision in it, notwithstanding CBO
scoring. I would predict we are going to come back in a couple of years
and find that, again, the harvest has cost more than it has brought in
by a large measure.
This provision is an affront to sound environmental policy, it is an
affront to sound forest management, it is an affront to sound judicial
process.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], a valiant member of the Interior
Subcommittee.
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by Mr. Yates.
In my own State of Nevada, 6 years of drought have produced large
areas of dead and dying trees and other accumulated fuels in Nevada's
forested lands. Last summer's wildlife season was the worst in history,
and extreme wildlife danger still exists in many of the forested lands
in Nevada.
The Lake Tahoe area, for instance, in addition to the drought, has
suffered years of insect infestation, resulting in a dangerous
overloading of fuels.
The bill before us includes emergency timber salvage provisions that
are vital for the health of Nevada's forests, and forests across the
West. Unless we take immediate action, the dangerous build-up of fuel
for forest fires will continue unchecked, and the 1995 wildfire season
may well be the worst yet.
I oppose the amendment offered by Mr. Yates, which would strip these
necessary provisions from the bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. Nethercutt], another distinguished member of the
committee, who is also a member of the Interior Subcommittee.
Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in opposition to the Yates amendment
and in support of the Taylor amendment. This is a common sense solution
to a very difficult problem that we face out west. I wish that every
Member of this body could come through the Copper Butte area of my
State and my district and see the devastation of the forest fires that
occurred last summer. You would see the timber rotting in the forest
and you would see the necessity for this emergency measure.
It is an emergency measure. This is an expedited treatment of the
environmental laws and an expedited treatment of an ability to get in
and salvage timber that is dying and diseased in the forest, and it is
absolutely necessary to protect the areas of my district. It will
provide jobs, it will provide money to the Treasury, and it will
provide a common sense environmentally sensitive solution to this very
grave problem.
I ask the support of this body to oppose the Yates amendment and
support the Taylor amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn].
(Ms. DUNN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Ms. DUNN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Emergency Timber Salvage
Program in the rescissions bill.
Last year, devastating fires burned almost 1 billion board feet of
timber in Washington State. I remember flying home last summer
[[Page H3236]] and seeing the clear blue sky at 40,000 feet clouded
with smoke from these fires. As soon as I landed, I contacted friends
in eastern Washington who were trying to protect their homes and
orchards from fires burning less than a quarter of a mile away from
their properties.
Thankfully, the western part of my State did not suffer from those
fires. However, we do know about the effect of fires on private lands.
Just this year there was a fire in Carbanado, a small community in my
district. And the Forest Service representative in the Mount Baker/
Snoqualmie National Forest informs me that there is a strong
possibility that a fire similar to the ones in eastern Washington could
be in our future because of the 200-year fuel load on the ground.
On my side of the mountains, we also have millions of board feet of
blown-down timber in need of salvage. Salvage work that could put
families back to work doing what they have been doing for generations.
Mr. Chairman, this is not just about salvaging timber. It is about
salvaging families, communities, and human dignity. We have the
opportunity to give a hand up to people in need, not the mere handout
of public assistance.
Further, this issue is also about the health of our forests. Ignoring
that concern now will result in larger and more catastrophic
environmental tragedies later.
If we do not remove a significant amount of the fire-killed timber,
we increase the likelihood that the area will burn again in the very
near future. Another burn would destroy more valuable forest resources
and wildlife habitat. And once again, we would place human lives and
property at risk.
With that in mind, this language simply directs the Forest Service to
perform emergency salvage sales during a 2-year period and directs the
Bureau of Land Management to perform salvage sales each year for 2
years. These sales would be conducted on Federal lands managed by these
two agencies.
The salvage program only involves less than one-third of the total
estimated volume of dead, dying, and diseased timber on suitable
Federal lands.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there has been some misinformation
accusing the supporters of this program of ignoring, or trying to
bypass, the administrative review process required before a sale goes
to market.
Nothing--I repeat, nothing--could be further from the truth.
This language streamlines the process in order to allow the agencies
involved to expedite these sales over a period of months, instead of
years. Right now, many of these sales are locked up in litigation,
appeals, and other roadblocks.
What this salvage program provides is the predictability that this
process has so sorely missed.
Last and certainly not least, this salvage program will also return
money to the Federal Government, up to $620 million.
The timber salvage program presents an opportunity to begin cleaning
up our national forests, generating Federal revenues and providing
family-wage jobs in affected communities. I strongly support this
Timber Salvage Program.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].
(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Yates/Vento
amendment which would strike the timber salvage sales provision in H.R.
1159.
Under the guise of forest health, the salvage timber sale provision
would savage our Nation's forests. Not only would the measure throw out
all existing environmental safeguards and public oversight, it would
result in significant losses to the Federal Treasury.
The provision mandates a minimum cut of 6.2 billion board feet over 2
years--almost doubling the current annual yield from the entire forest
system. Even areas studied and proposed as wilderness would be open to
logging.
The salvage timber sale provision would negate decades of effort by
Congress and the Forest Service to ensure that national forests are
managed in an environmentally, socially, and fiscally responsible
manner.
And it wouldn't even provide any real savings. According to the
Congressional Research Service, ``Salvage timber harvesting generally
costs more than the revenues they generate because of lower timber
quality and higher operating costs for buyers.''
In fact, this provision would likely cost the Federal Treasury at
least $220 million more than the revenues salvage logging would bring
in.
Put simply, salvage timber harvesting makes no sense. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the Yates/Vento amendment to stop
this far-reaching assault on our public forestlands.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
(Ms. FURSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Yates
amendment. I want to quote from a letter I received from the two
largest Northwest sports and commercial fishing groups. They represent
100,000 jobs in my area and billions of dollars. They say, ``We oppose
the effort to approve sufficiency language and mandate minimum timber
harvest levels in the northwest.'' They say, ``It makes no economic
sense to harvest timber on the backs of fishermen and the expense of
jobs and coastal communities which salmon support. This would be a form
of economic suicide.''
Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a forest health program. It
needs to be fixed, but not by bypassing our laws and sacrificing good
science. I urge my colleagues to support the Yates amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the
gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Bunn], a member of the Interior
Subcommittee.
(Mr. BUNN of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BUNN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I think it is about time we bring
common sense back into the formula. I have listened to the extremists
say if lightning strikes, let the trees burn and ignore the jobs. I
think it is totally absurd when we are trying to find a balance, we are
trying to maintain a sustainable yield, that we will not take the
pressure off the green timber, but instead we have an opportunity to
salvage trees that are going to rot if we do not do it. We are simply
going to lose 22,000 jobs and deny the opportunity to maintain a
sustainable yield. I urge a ``no'' vote on the Yates amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Emerson].
(Mr. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Yates
amendment and associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Oregon.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. Bryant].
(Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BRYANT of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge you to use some common
sense here and ask yourself a question: If this bill only relates to
burned timber and rotting timber, why was it necessary to suspend every
single environmental law which applies to forest, to fish, and to
wildlife and recreation in order to pass it? If it applies only to
burned and rotting timber, why was it necessary to provide in the bill
that it is OK to log and build roads in a wilderness area that is
permanently protected?
That is not what this bill is all about. This is no way to go about
this. If you can make the case this is necessary, make the case in the
authorizing committee. This is an extremely bad amendment.
Finally, if it is such a good piece of common sense, why in the world
is it necessary to put a provision in here that says this is OK even if
we lose money doing it? What interest do the American people have with
permitting the cutting of forests in a situation in which we are going
to lose money.
The fact of the matter is, we are suspending every environmental law,
letting them log in the wilderness areas, and letting them sell this
timber at below cost prices, which is a significant detriment to the
American people. I strongly urge you to vote yes for the Yates
amendment and oppose this extreme measure.
[[Page H3237]]
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Riggs], a member of the committee, and a distinguished
one at that.
(Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1730
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the full committee chairman for
yielding time to me.
Let me first say to the gentleman from Texas, he obviously has not
read the provisions of the Taylor timber salvage amendment.
The Taylor amendment explicitly excludes wilderness areas or those
areas under study or consideration for designation as wilderness. This
bill is not about ideology. It is about jobs. It is about good
productive resources, and it is about making our federal resource lands
for fire suppression purposes and the health of the forest land.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, even if it is a salvage sale, we have got to
do a complete EIS. That takes 3 years. It takes the Forest Service 3
years to prepare a single sale.
This is an emergency. If we do not do it rapidly, the timber is going
to rot and is not going to be useful. That is why we have to do an EA
instead of an EIS.
Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments and
his contribution and his efforts, which make it a genuinely bipartisan
effort.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the Yates motion to strike. Support
the Taylor amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in defense of our National Forests and the hard-
working Americans who rely on the forests for their livelihoods. We are
facing a national emergency.
A landmark timber salvage amendment is included in H.R. 1159, offered
by Representatives Charles Taylor and Norm Dicks, with my full support.
This amendment is about putting people back to work in one of our most
important industries.
At a time when many are concerned about exporting jobs, we have a
chance to put Americans to work--in an industry owned by Americans,
harvesting a product consumed by Americans.
By providing the increased harvesting of salvage timber, we will be
providing a product for idle sawmills throughout the country. Since
1987, a total of 51 facilities have closed in California. Twelve of
those sawmills were in my district.
We must return to an intelligent, long-term forest management plan
that is primarily focused upon forest health. This amendment starts us
off in that direction.
This amendment also makes fiscal sense. CBO scored it as a revenue
maker. Industry and labor estimate the provision will generate at least
$620 million in additional Federal revenues. Local governments will
receive another $200 million.
The U.S. taxpayer spent over a billion dollars and 33 lives to fight
forest fires last year. These losses could have been drastically
curtailed had similar legislation been in place.
This amendment is a win-win proposition. We must not miss out on this
opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, our forests are sick and our communities are dying. We
must help our people get back to work. We must help our forests regain
their productivity and provide a renewable resource for our children
and grandchildren to enjoy.
I urge my colleagues to support the Taylor-Dicks amendment.
Sierra Pacific Industries,
Arcata, CA, March 14, 1995.
Re: Taylor/Dicks Emergency Salvage Amendment.
Congressman Frank Riggs,
Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Riggs: An article in the Times Standard Newspaper
on Sunday, March 12, regarding the proposal to salvage the
dead timber on our National Forests prompts me to write this
letter. The article reports that the large amounts of timber
that would be logged from our National Forests as a result of
the Emergency Salvage Amendment would decrease the price of
private timber to the point that the private landowner could
ask the Forest Service for relief under the theory of a
``taking.'' Further in the article Senator(?) Leahy guesses
that the G.O.P. has created this situation.
I find it hard to read this kind of reporting without
wondering whatever happened to responsible thinking and
reporting. I would like you to know that a salvage program on
our National Forest is a must. The scare tactic that our
National Forests will be overcut as a result of removing the
dead material is just not true. In fact years of responsible
management of our National Forests has resulted in wood
products for our country as well as a healthy National Forest
for all of us to use and enjoy.
You and your colleagues know that there are a lot of us
here in Humboldt County that want you to support the passage
of an emergency amendment to salvage the dead and dying
timber on all our National Forests. As you know it will not
put an extra amount of timber on the market and result in
lower prices on private land. The salvage timber will help
maintain existing jobs. I doubt that it will create new jobs,
however, because the amounts of timber that will be harvested
are far below historical levels once produced under sound
forest management practices. The practice of salvaging will
help to maintain a healthy forest. You must ask (tell) the
National Forest to closely monitor the harvest to assure all
salvaged area will be fully restocked with new trees whether
they are planted or seed in naturally from the surrounding
timber.
The mills in our area will be asked to competitively bid on
any salvage timber offered for sale. In the past this process
has resulted in jobs for not only woods workers and their
families but also for mill workers and support businesses and
their families. Our schools will also benefit from the income
to the Forest Service because 25% of the money received from
the sale of timber goes to the county schools and county road
departments. Our mill currently is no longer sawing any
National Forest timber due to the fact the Six Rivers
National Forest is no longer selling any timber sales. The
salvage timber that could be sold from the Six Rivers
National will help our sawmill as well as the other sawmills
in the local area.
Please support the theory of a healthy National Forest by
working for an Emergency Salvage Amendment. Thank you for
your time and consideration of this matter.
Very Truly Yours,
Ron Hoover,
Timber Manager.
____
Schmidbauer Lumber, Inc.,
Eureka, CA, March 14, 1995.
Hon. Frank Riggs,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Riggs: This letter is intended to indicate
our STRONG SUPPORT for the Taylor/Dicks Emergency Salvage
Amendment.
This amendment will create jobs in our area, and improve
Forest Health of increasingly unhealthy public lands.
This amendment is critical to the future of our area and
the future of our company. Please make every effort to see
that this amendment is attached to the Omnibus Rescission
Bill.
Sincerely,
Mark Anderson,
Resource Procurement.
____
Blue Lake Forest Products,
Arcata, CA, March 14, 1995.
Hon. Frank Riggs,
Congressman, First District of California.
Dear Frank: Blue Lake Forest Products employs directly 100
men and women and another 300 jobs in the area are indirectly
dependent on the company's operation.
We strongly support the Emergency Salvage Amendment. It
means jobs and survival to companies in the hard hit region.
The Amendment will raise substantial revenues for the U.S.
Government.
The Amendment fosters forest health, as the local Forest
Service are full of dead and dying trees. This bill is
critical to our company's survival and to local forests, and
economic health. We urgently request you and your colleagues
to support this amendment.
Very Truly yours,
Bruce M. Taylor,
Owenr Blue Lake Forest Products.
____
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Washington, DC, March 10, 1995.
Dear Congressman: On behalf of the 600,000 members of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, I am
writing to request your support for the timber salvage
amendment to the Omnibus Rescission Bill sponsored by
Congressmen Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Charles Taylor (R-NC). This
measure gives the U.S. Forest Service emergency authority to
remove dead, dying, diseased and fire-damaged timber from
federal forests.
This amendment addresses two primary concerns of our
membership. First, salvage harvests will provide a needed
supply of timber to mills where tens of thousands of our
members work. Harvest restrictions to protect endangered and
threatened species on federal forest land have created a
timber supply crisis, particularly in the Pacific Northwest
and Northern California. During the past five years, almost
20,000 timber-related workers have lost their job in the
region due to the supply crisis. Salvage timber, if removed
in a timely manner, can help slow mill closures.
The Dicks-Taylor amendment mandates the Forest Service
salvage not less than 3 billion board feet of timber from
federal forest in 1995 and 1996. In 1994, the Forest Service
salvaged just 1.5 billion board feet nationally. Doubling the
salvage amount will
[[Page H3238]] create approximately 22,000 new jobs in
forest products and related industries and timber-dependent
communities nationwide.
Secondly, removing dead, dying and diseased timber will
protect the health of our national forests. The dead and
dying timber presents a serious fire hazard--standing as a
fuel load across billions of acres of federal forest land. If
not removed quickly, diseased timber can infect other trees,
jeopardizing the health of the entire forest.
Importantly, this legislation requires salvage sales comply
with environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act.
It also expedites the judicial review process without
undermining the public's right to challenge federal timber
sales. This is important because of the brief window of
opportunity for obtaining the value of salvaged timber.
It is essential the Congress pass his emergency measure as
quickly as possible. In the last five years, an average of 6
billion board feet per year of timber died in national
forests. The U.S. Forest Service timber salvage program
averaged just 1.8 billion board feet for those years. This
means that in the last five years alone, 21 billion board
feet of dead timber has accumulated on Forest Service lands.
This timber must be removed as soon as possible to reduce the
risk of fire and obtain the timber for production before it
loses its value.
The Dicks-Taylor amendment provides a rare opportunity for
the Congress to provide a ``win-win.'' The amendment will
protect the ecological health of our forests and help support
the employment base in timber-dependent communities by
providing some small amount of timber for milling.
We hope you will support the Dicks-Taylor timber salvage
amendment when it comes before the full House for
consideration.
Sincerely,
Sigurd Lucassen.
____
Sierra Cedar Products,
Marysville, CA, March 7, 1995.
Hon. Frank Riggs,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Riggs: Our people, our communities and our state
need your help convincing Congress to pass the emergency
salvage amendment to the Omnibus Rescission Bill.
The amendment would allow the Forest Service to salvage
fire damaged and dying timber and return burned forests to
healthy forests.
The amendment would provide 6-billion board feet of salvage
timber to the harvest and processing industries--a vital step
to the renewal of our state's forest products economy.
Salvage work must begin quickly to help prevent another
season of catastrophic fires and destruction of our wild life
habitat and our emerging timber lands.
Sincerely,
Hal Stilson,
Sierra Cedar Products.
____
Western Council of Industrial Workers--United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Portland, OR, March 10, 1995.
Dear Congressman: On behalf of the 20,000 members of the
Western Council of Industrial Workers, I am writing to urge
your support of the timber salvage amendment attached to the
1995 Omnibus Recision Bill. The amendment is sponsored by
Congressman Norm Dicks (D-WA) and Charles Taylor (R-NC).
The Dicks-Taylor amendment will help address the national
forest health emergency. Over the past five years alone, more
than 21 billion board feet of dead, dying and diseased timber
has accumulated on federal forests. In my home state of
Oregon, foresters estimate that more than half of the
national forests are facing a health crisis. The backlog of
dead and damaged timber in these forests threatens to infect
other trees and serves as kindling for wildfire. The Dicks-
Taylor amendment will enable the U.S. Forest Service to
conduct emergency salvage sales to remove the damaged,
diseased and dead timber.
Additionally, by passing this amendment, Congress can help
save the jobs of our members and tens of thousands of other
men and women employed in the forest products industry.
Salvage timber, harvested in a timely manner, can be milled
into forest products. Estimates show the salvage harvest
levels called for under the amendment will add 22,900 jobs in
forest products and related industries and communities
nationwide. At a time of increasing unemployment and mill
closures due to harvest restrictions on federal lands in the
Pacific Northwest and Northern California, salvage logging
can provide an important source of fiber supply to keep mills
up and running and workers employed.
The amendment also recognizes the need to implement salvage
operations as soon as possible. Because of the brief window
of opportunity for obtaining the value of the salvaged
timber, the amendment expedites deadlines for filing and
appealing lawsuits.
Our members have long been concerned about forest health.
The forest is our home. It supplies us with our livelihoods.
It's where we raise our families. And it's where we recreate.
We believe that with proper care, our national forests can
continue to provide for an array of needs. We believe we
can--and must--protect forest ecosystems and the economic
base of our timber-dependent communities.
This amendment is a sound, moderate approach to help us
reach these goals. We urge you to support the Dicks-Taylor
amendment as it moves before the full House and join us in
our efforts to secure quick passage.
Sincerely,
J.L. Perrizo,
Executive Secretary.
____
Standard Structures Inc.,
Santa Rosa, CA, March 14, 1995.
Congressman Frank Riggs,
Longworth H.O.B., Washington.
Dear Frank: The FY '95 Rescission Legislation will be
before the House this week. There is an important provision
within this legislation that calls for the harvest and sale
of 6.2 billion board feet of dead and dying timber from our
national forest.
It is very important that this provision stays in the bill.
As a manufacturer of engineered wood products, we are in
desperate need of additional harvesting that will bring some
stability to our business.
This is a win-win provision as it will not only benefit the
forest products industry and its employees, but will
contribute to the short and long term health of the forests.
Please do all you can, Frank, to oppose any attempt to
strip these provisions from the FY '95 rescission bill.
Sincerely,
Richard C. Caletti,
President.
____
Peterson Tractor Co.,
San Leandro, CA, March 8, 1995.
Hon. Frank Riggs,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Riggs, I am writing to urge you to
support the emergency salvage amendment to the Omnibus
Rescission Bill. This is a major first step toward
development of a proactive forest health program on federal
lands. Of equal importance, it will bring desperately needed
jobs to my region again and help stabilize my suffering
community.
With Congress cutting programs to trim the deficit, it's
noteworthy that you've found a way to increase revenues and
provide environmental benefits at the same time.
Last summer, more than four million acres of forests
burned, largely because of buildups of dead and dying timber.
Over $1 billion was spent to control those fires, and several
lives were lost in the process.
The amendment would allow the Forest Service to recover
some of the fire-damaged trees, and dying timber elsewhere,
through emergency salvage sales. It calls for sales of three
billion board feet each year for the next two years. No new
money is needed to do this; it's already contained in the
salvage trust fund. As a bonus, the amendment would give
federal foresters the ability to convert dead, dying and
burned forests into healthy young forests for the purpose of
stabilizing soils, protecting streams, reducing the risk of
catastrophic fire, and developing wildlife habitat.
With so much dead and dying timber threatening the health
of our forests, and thousands of jobs at stake, it's
impossible to believe that anyone would oppose a bill like
this. Actually, there is a group who opposes it:
environmental extremists. They don't want national forest
timber harvested under any circumstances. They should be
ignored, and I encourage you to pass the bill quickly.
Salvage work must begin quickly to gain value from already-
burned timber and to remove dead and dying timber before it
is consumed in this year's firestorms.
Sincerely,
Jerry Lopus,
Vice President--Sales.
____
Peterson Tractor Co.,
San Leandro, CA, March 8, 1995.
Hon. Frank Riggs,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Riggs, I am writing to urge you to
support the emergency salvage amendment to the Omnibus
Rescission Bill. This is a major first step toward
development of a proactive forest health program on federal
lands. Of equal importance, it will bring desperately needed
jobs to my region again and help stabilize my suffering
community.
With Congress cutting programs to trim the deficit, it's
noteworthy that you've found a way to increase revenues and
provide environmental benefits at the same time.
Last summer, more than four million acres of forests
burned, largely because of buildups of dead and dying timber.
Over $1 billion was spent to control those fires, and several
lives were lost in the process.
The amendment would allow the Forest Service to recover
some of the fire-damaged trees, and dying timber elsewhere,
through emergency salvage sales. It calls for sales of three
billion board feet each year for the next two years. No new
money is needed to do this; it's already contained in the
salvage trust fund. As a bonus, the amendment would give
federal foresters the ability to convert dead, dying and
burned forests into healthy young forests for the purpose of
stabilizing soils, protecting streams, reducing the risk of
catastrophic fire, and developing wildlife habitat.
With so much dead and dying timber threatening the health
of our forests, and thousands of jobs at stake, it's
impossible to believe that anyone would oppose a bill like
this. Actually, there is a group who opposes it:
environmental extremists. They don't want national forest
timber harvested under any circumstances. They should be
ignored,
[[Page H3239]] and I encourage you to pass the bill quickly.
Salvage work must begin quickly to gain value from already-
burned timber and to remove dead and dying timber before it
is consumed in this year's firestorms.
Sincerely,
Ernie Fierro,
Vice President--Product Support.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
(Mrs. SMITH of Washington asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
Yates amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is the best news my constituents have heard
in a long time--cutting Government and putting people back to work. In
the State of Washington, the spotted owl has caused 50 lumber mills to
close since 1989, dislocating thousands of workers.
Now, help is on the way. This bill is going to put people back to
work in economically depressed areas like Grays Harbor County. A
sawmill owner there informed me that this bill will free up enough
timber to put 50 people immediately back to work.
This bill is also good news for small timber towns in my district
like Morton, Randle, and Packwood. Mills in these towns travel
thousands of miles for wood when there is salvage timber right down the
road.
Do not be misled by those who claim we are going to harm the
environment or small critters if we salvage this timber.
In many cases we are just taking timber that was blown down in storms
and has been on the ground for several years just rotting away.
So let us improve the health of our forests and put people back to
work at the same time. I urge my colleagues to reject any effort to
remove the timber salvage provisions from this bill.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Oregon [Mr. Cooley].
Mr. COOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Yates
amendment. This is an obstructionist move that takes aim at the rural
American taxpayer. A vote for the Yates amendment is a vote against the
environment and people of this country. A vote for the Yates amendment
will make our already sick forests sicker, substantially increase fire
hazards and completely waste a valuable resource that can employ
thousands of people in a depression community.
A vote on the Yates motion is a ``no'' vote. The Taylor amendment
will improve the health of the forest, returning hefty revenues to
Uncle Sam and put people back to work.
If your head is screwed on today, as it should be, you will vote
``no'' on the Yates amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier].
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about environmental
quality in this country. I represent an area in southern California
that has the highest number of first-stage smog alerts in the Nation.
I have come to the conclusion that we must have a balanced policy. If
we look at this issue of restoring forestry health, the need to create
jobs and the opportunity to kill and actually salvage dead trees, this
is the responsible approach for us to take.
I strongly support the language that is included in this bill. I
believe we can bring down the cost of lumber, the cost of housing to
people out there who are trying to attain the American dream and
maintain environmental quality.
Support the committee position.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. [Yates] has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I have only one speaker. Did I understand
the Chair to say that the gentleman from Louisiana has the right to
close?
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. He defends the committee position.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield a half minute to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
Mr. ROTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
First of all, let say that this Taylor amendment is a good amendment.
Last year we spent a billion dollars fighting wildfires here in
America. But more importantly, we lost 26 good people and millions of
acres of forest land.
The past few years have seen a stunning decline in the management of
the health of our forests. This amendment will give us a chance to
bring some of the health back to our forests.
In the last 5 years we lost 6 billion board feet per year in timber
wasted in our national forests.
This is a good, commonsense amendment, the Taylor amendment. I hope
Members vote for it.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Herger].
(Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Yates
amendment. This amendment is anti-forest, anti-taxpayer, and pro-fire.
Last year 375,000 acres of forest in California and 4 million acres
nationwide were incinerated by wildfire at a cost of $1 billion of
taxpayer money.
This ecological mayhem was caused primarily by the excessive buildup
of nature fuels in our forests. Some extreme environmentalists claim
that this buildup and the devastation it caused was natural, but to the
families of the 33 fire fighters who lost their lives it was an
outrageous and needless tragedy.
Mr. Chairman, I have forests in my district that are 60 and 70
percent dead and dying due to insects, disease and 7 years of drought.
These forests are fire bombs that will explode in the months ahead
unless we act now.
I urge my colleagues to champion our forests, our fire fighters, our
taxpayers.
Vote no, no, no to the Yates pro-fire amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has 1
minute remaining and may close the debate. The gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Yates] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield one-half minute to the
gentlewoman from Idaho [Mrs. Chenoweth].
Mrs. CHENOWETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
I rise in support of the Taylor amendment because actually this
amendment did not require hearings necessarily. We are not creating new
law. What we are doing is mandating that the Forest Service do whatever
already has been passed in law in the Resource Planning Act and the
National Forest Management Act.
It is required under those acts that the salvage be kept out of the
forest. This bill does not even go far enough, because this last summer
we burned 8.135 billion board feet of timber.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] will be closing
debate on his amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi].
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Taylor
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by Mr. Yates
to strike the Taylor provision from the rescissions bill. The committee
provision mandating targets for timber salvage sales on our Federal
lands simply does not belong in this bill. It is an issue that should
have been given ample and careful review by the appropriate authorizing
committees.
The timber industry will love this Federal give-away. Under the
pretense of saving our forests, the Taylor provision would instead
double the amount of logging in our forests and wilderness--to 6.2
billion board feet. Armed with the excuse of removing salvage timber,
roads will be built where they should never have existed and forest
areas, previously untouched, will bear the new scars of timber industry
greed.
The Taylor provision is a back-door attempt to open the floodgates on
increased timber harvests. It is bad public policy and should be
rejected. I urge my colleagues to support the Yates amendment to strike
this excessive provision.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento
amendment.
[[Page H3240]]
Mr. Chairman I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, without this amendment we will in one sweep double the
cutting of timber from our national forests and virtually suspend all
environmental laws protecting our forests.
I urge you to support this amendment to strip the bill of provisions
mandating specified levels of timber salvage sales.
The bill would declare a 2-year emergency and direct the Secretaries
of Interior and Agriculture to produce a minimum total of 3.115 million
board feet of timber per year. Since when does Congress set minimum
cuts? Is this an effort to reduce the risk of forest fires or an effort
to serve special interest logging companies?
The bill defines ``salvage'' timber to include the removal of live
and healthy ``associated trees,'' the removal of insect infested trees
and the removal of ``trees immediately susceptible to fire or insect
attack.''
Mr. Chairman this bill is a radical and excessive chainsaw solution
that requires the Federal Government to cut regardless of environmental
impact and regardless of the cost to the American taxpayer.
Vote for this amendment.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment.
It is high time we began to look at what you have written and what you
have done.
The reason this has no place in a rescission bill, this is a budget
buster, this particular amendment. That is why we appropriate hundreds
of millions of dollars to build timber roads in this country. It is
because of amendments like this that we are going to have to devastate,
not only what we have to pay out of our pocketbooks, but we are going
to have to pay, future generations are going to have to pay with their
legacy. Read what you have done.
It protects two States in terms of wilderness: Colorado and Montana,
and Montana very little. Idaho is completely open. Any area that is a
nonlegislative study area for wilderness is opened up. You suspend the
deficit timber sale.
The fact of the matter is, this is just a fig leaf used to cover up
to justify action when the authors should get arrested for indecent
exposure here, based on what is going on, trying to wrap yourself in
forest health. Forest health has more to do than just cutting down
trees and trying to blame the wilderness areas for the fires after 100
years of fire suppression.
The proponents of this proposal would like you to believe that it is
a win-win scenario, that we would be saving forests in danger of
chronic health problems and extracting valuable timber. But this
salvage timber sale savages the taxpayer and the national forests.
The substance of the bill points out that forest health is the least
of their concerns and the real target is to ignore sound science, due
process, to carve up our forests, to harvest regardless of law and
cost. This particular measure stands every law right on its head. This
is going to be the governing document, not the environmental laws, not
the courts, not any type of reasonable due process that exists under
current law.
You have really done it with this one. To superimpose, to mandate on
the Forest Service and the BLM 6.3 billion boardfeet in the next 2
years in terms of cutting on top of everything else that they are
doing, to disregard the courts, to disregard the taxpayer, to disregard
everything, and it is a loser. CBO, it points out that it makes money,
but they do not count the cost of the roads.
The Congressional Research Service points out that almost every sale
is a deficit timber sale under salvage. You say you do not cut green
trees, the definition that you put in here cuts out a lot of green
trees and provides for a lot of roading in areas that are not roaded
today.
This will, in fact, destroy many, many wilderness areas. This
amendment deserves to be promoted. This provision of the bill should be
knocked out. It has no place in a rescission bill. This is a budget
buster, and it ought to be defeated, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento amendment to
strike the timber salvage provision. This provision is an outright
assault on our public forests and environmental laws and does not
belong in this bill or any rescission proposal because it is a revenue
loser. It costs the taxpayer twice--from their wallet and from the
destruction of natural legacy. The salvage timber provision not only
violates House rules on legislating in an appropriations bill, but
arrogantly wraps itself in a label of forest health while savaging the
substantive scientific issues involved.
This provision should be labeled for what it is--under the guise of
improving forest health this provision would allow timber companies
heretofore unfettered access to logging in our national forests
suspending all environmental laws, all past Federal court decisions,
and all public input. The fig leaves used to cover up, to justify such
action, should get the authors arrested for indecent exposure.
Proponents of this provision would like you to believe that this is a
win-win scenario, that we would be saving forests in danger from
chronic health problems and extracting valuable timber. But not this
salvage timber provision which savages the taxpayer and the national
forests. The substance of this bill points out that forest health is
the least of their concerns and that the real target is to ignore sound
science, due process and to carve up our forests to harvest regardless
of law and cost.
Roadless areas will be carved up in many States and even areas being
proposed and studied for NFS or BLM wilderness would be put to the
bulldozer, the saw and the axe with this Taylor policy. The unrealistic
goal of 6 billion board feet if enacted would change the face of
America's landscape. Like a Third World nation, American exploitation
would be our national patrimony for the profit of the few at the
expense of the taxpayer and our national legacy.
The definition of salvage timber sales and the arbitrary mandated 6.3
billion board feet number contained in the provision clearly exposes
the centerpiece of benefits being yielded to the timber industry.
Salvage timber sales are defined so broadly that extensive logging of
healthy trees and forests would be fair game. The Bureau of Land
Management memo readily points this out: ``This is an obvious attempt
to open up areas for timber harvest without regard to environmental
safeguards. it would not be necessary to set minimum harvest levels if
the intent were to simply remove the trees in need of salvage.''
The National Forest Service [NFS] in fact has a comprehensive plan to
address chronic forest health problems based on five
primary actions, of which selective harvesting is but one element.
However the Forest Service is careful to point out that salvage timber
harvesting is not always the best treatment for rehabilitating forests
and can be used in context with thinning, species composition,
prescribed burning and watershed restoration.
The NFS report asserts: ``Some salvage--harvesting--is desirable, but
often salvaging dead and dying trees in and around root disease centers
can aggravate the situation and result in increased mortality * * * It
should be recognized that salvage alone will do little to enhance
forest health. Our ecosystem analysis will determine whether and when
salvage should take place.''
Mr. Chairman, I agree that we need to aggressively address chronic
forest health problems. But salvage logging has significant impacts on
fish, wildlife, soil, and other resources just as in the case of any
other kinds of timber harvest. Forest health has been hijacked in this
debate. To simply justify this savage/salvage operation--the same old
business as usual with Congress feeding the timber company harvest
sales figures without regards to science or the facts, is
irresponsible. Past sales figures so stressed U.S. forests in even the
most productive areas that the courts had to step in and stop the
violation of fundamental laws--laws that this slam dunk timber salvage
bill overrides and throws out.
Lastly, the September 26, 1994, CRS report on salvage sales should be
kept in mind with regard to cost. Notwithstanding some creative CBO
scoring on this bill, I quote: ``Salvage sales often cost more than the
revenues they can generate because of lower timber quality and higher
operating costs for buyers.'' The report goes on to point out that even
on revenue generators Treasury loses because by law, 100 percent must
be returned to the salvage fund and 25 percent of the value must be
paid to State and local governments, that is, the dollars incidentally
are permanently appropriated--125 percent spending of 100 percent of
the revenue. Now we find out that the Congressional Budget Office [CBO]
doesn't even score the costs of timber roads regarding such sales and
that the NFS pays out the local revenue up front inconsistent with the
law--the taxpayer is left holding an empty bag with the enormous
rehabilitation and reforestation tab for yet more hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Approving the salvage timber harvest provision in this legislation
disregards the science of all environmental laws governing timber
harvesting, flies in the face of common-sense budgeting and elemental
fairness. I strongly
[[Page H3241]] urge the Members to strike this 14 page legislative
timber grab from the bill.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has the
right to close and has 30 seconds remaining.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from California, [Mr. Doolittle].
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Taylor
amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 20
seconds, to the gentleman from Washington, [Mr. Metcalf].
Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, this 500-year old Douglas fir is a blow
down in Washington State. Mr. Carlson tried to buy it for his lumber
mill for $10,000 to $20,000. He was refused. Later on, as it
deteriorated, it was sold for firewood and the taxpayers got just under
$100.
Let us stop this waste and oppose the Yates amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I would only say that Federal
firefighting alone cost $1 billion in 1994 and whoever sent this flier
out that says Speaker Gingrich is for the Yates amendment and against
this Taylor amendment is wrong. This is not true.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento
amendment.
As my colleagues know, this amendment would strike provisions in the
bill which mandate specific levels of timber salvage sales on Federal
lands in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
The Yates-Vento amendment would maintain common sense in American
land use planning. It would strike the bill's dangerous salvage sale
provisions and ensure that Congress doesn't allow the raiding of the
Treasury and the pillaging of the environment just to hand a bonus
check to the timber industry.
Our distinguished colleagues Sid Yates and Bruce Vento have warned
that this provision is a timber lobbyist's dream. But it is more than
that. It is a taxpayer's nightmare.
As Mr. Yates noted during last week's markup, no funds will be
returned to the Treasury from the salvage sales, since all receipts
will go into the Salvage Fund or to individual counties. The loses to
the U.S. Treasury will require subsequent supplemental appropriations
and new funding to cover the costs.
The bill ignores our current fiscal problems and encourages timber to
be cut at any cost, stating in section c(5) that salvage activities
``shall not be precluded because the costs of such activities are
likely to exceed revenues derived from such activities.''
This means that even if salvage sales don't make money, they will
continue, because Congress has said that protecting the timber industry
is more important than protecting the environment or safeguarding the
U.S. Treasury.
Perhaps even more incredibly, this provision would waive all Federal
laws. By passing this bill unchanged, we would literally be suspending
criminal law, conflict of interest limitations, Federal contracting
requirements and anti-fraud provisions, not to mention the rule against
obligating Federal funds without authority to do so.
Left unchanged, the bill replaces the rule of law with lawlessness.
It says to the American people that Congress cares more about creating
a few temporary jobs now than it does about deficit reduction and
environmental protection for the future.
During the debate on this bill, we have heard a lot of rhetoric that
this salvage authority is desperately necessary to save our forests and
ensure forest health.
What we have not heard is that the Forest Service is already
conducting an aggressive ``salvage'' program.
In fact, since 1978, the Chief's Annual Reports show that 15 percent
of the cut was salvage--a figure representing more than 22 billion
board feet!
The Forest Service currently has all the legal authority it needs to
carry out an aggressive salvage program within existing law and clearly
intends to do just that.
But perhaps my biggest concern with this ill-gotten gains legislation
is that the level of logging required by this provision would require
massive new road-building in roadless areas and massive clear-cutting.
Both of these practices seriously degrade the environment, including
eroding the soil; harming the watersheds downstream; destroying salmon
and trout spawning and rearing habitat; threatening watersheds and
drinking water supplies and reducing the ability of forest soils to
nourish healthy forests.
Mr. Chairman, in all the rhetoric of the debate on this issue, we've
heard repeatedly about how the Clinton administration's land use
policies have constituted some kind of ``War on the West.''
I would submit that this timber salvage provision is the real war on
the West.
Unless we pass the Yates-Vento amendment to strike this industry
bonus program, we will deliver a one-two punch to our country: we'll be
robbing the Treasury and destroying our environment and the precious
natural resources we all cherish.
Mr. Chairman, I did not come to Washington to do that. My
constituents sent me here to ensure that we have an environment that is
protected, natural resources that will still be around for future
generations to enjoy, and a fiscal policy that makes sense.
They did not send me to Washington to vote for legislation dressed up
to look like Little Red Riding Hood that's really the Big Bad Wolf.
Vote yes on the Yates-Vento amendment.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento
amendment because it corrects the misguided piece of legislation which
sits before us today. Unless changed through the adoption of the Yates-
Vento amendment, this rescissions bill will seriously harm America's
national forests.
Last week, while the Republican majority was busy cutting and
slashing social programs which benefit America's neediest Americans,
they got so carried away that they thought they might clear-cut a few
trees as well.
Unfortunately, what has been tacked on to this ``rescissions'' bill
is a costly environmental disaster known as a timber salvage plan.
Although timber salvage is rhetorically pleasing--evoking images of
saving rotting trees from their imminent demise, this timber salvage
plan is a thinly disguised excuse for unregulated timber harvest in our
treasured national forests.
As written, the timber salvage plan would mandate that 6.2 billion
board feet be cut from our national forests over the next 2 years. Even
more horrifying is that a majority of this astounding sum will come
from our Northwest national forests most pristine roadless areas and
old-growth remnants.
In order to go in and harvest these trees, the legislation before us
today allows an extreme and unjustifiable legal exemption which permits
the Forest Service salvage program to operate well beyond Federal laws
and environmental regulations for the next 2 years.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible environmental
policy masquerading as timber salvage before us today and pass the
Yates-Vento amendment. Allowing the so called timber salvage plan to
pass not only threatens the future of our national forests, it
continues Congress' irresponsible assault on our Nation's environmental
policy.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition
to the Yates amendment which attempts to remove the Taylor-Dicks
emergency salvage language from this bill.
Throughout the West, the condition of our forests could not be worse.
Years of drought and lack of any management activity on these lands led
last summer to some of the most devastating wildfires on record.
Millions of acres of pristine national forest land were destroyed and
34 lives were lost. If we don't take emergency action, millions more
acres will be destroyed and even more lives could be lost during the
upcoming fire season.
The Taylor-Dicks language in the bill allows for the immediate
harvest of 6.2 billion board feet of dead and dying timber. In addition
to providing for healthier forests and more wood for our struggling
timber dependent communities, this provision will bring in an estimated
$1.5 billion of revenue into the Federal treasury.
Mr. Chairman, the Taylor-Dicks amendment is good for the economy. It
is good for the environment. And on top of all that, it is good for
deficit reduction. Rarely in this body do we come across a ``win-win-
win'' situation. I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this
opportunity by voting no on the Yates amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 150,
noes 275, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 240]
AYES--150
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
[[Page H3242]] Beilenson
Berman
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Durbin
Ehlers
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Fox
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
LaFalce
Lantos
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Matsui
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moran
Morella
Nadler
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Porter
Rahall
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOES--275
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Saxton
Scarborough
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Williams
NOT VOTING--8
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Fazio
Gephardt
Herger
Rangel
Schaefer
Seastrand
{time} 1800
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Miss Collins of Michigan for, with Mrs. Cubin against.
Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Herger against.
Mrs. THURMAN and Ms. BROWN of Florida changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
Messrs. GREENWOOD, TOWNS, and GILMAN changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Personal Explanation
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently missed the vote on the
Yates amendment to strike the timber sales language in the bill. I
would have voted ``no.''
amendment offered by mr. porter
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Porter: On page 23, line 10:
strike ``$1,603,094,000'' and insert ``$1,601,850''.
On page 24, line 18: strike ``$3,253,097,000'' and insert
``$3,221,397,000''.
On page 25, line 12: strike ``$82,775,000'' and insert
``$53,925,000''.
On page 26, line 20: strike ``$2,168,935,000'' and insert
``$2,178,935,000''.
On page 29, line 4: strike ``$113,270,000'' and insert
``$148,570,000'' and on line 5: strike ``$105,000,000'' and
insert ``$140,000,000''.
On page 29, line 16: strike ``$757,132,000'' and insert
``$747,021,000''.
On page 29, line 18: strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert
``$90,000,000''.
On page 29, line 19: strike ``-D,'' and insert ``-E''.
On page 29, line 20: strike ``$21,384,000'' and insert
``$10,084,000''.
On page 29, line 22: strike all after the semicolon through
the semicolon on page 29, line 23.
On page 30, line 20: strike ``$232,413,000'' and insert
``$119,544,000''.
On page 30, line 22: after ``III-A,'' insert ``and''.
On page 30, line 22: strike ``and -E,''.
On page 30, line 23: strike ``$151,888,000'' and insert
``$43,888,000''.
On page 30, line 24: strike ``section''.
On page 30, line 25: strike ``384(c),''.
On page 30, line 25: strike ``$31,392,000'' and insert
``$26,523,000''.
On page 31, line 6: strike ``$83,375,000'' and insert
``$187,475,000''.
On page 31, line 7: after ``IV,'' insert ``part A-1,''.
On page 33, line 11: strike ``$34,742,000'' and insert
``$26,716,000''.
On page 33, line 13: after ``$15,300,000'' strike ``, and
part VI, $8,026,000''.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 30 minutes
on this amendment be divided between myself and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] opposed to
the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. No, Mr. Chairman, I am not.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there any Member opposed to the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois?
Hearing none, the unanimous-consent request will be accepted without
objection.
There was no objection.
modification to amendment offered by mr. porter
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
be modified to correct three technical errors in the drafting of it,
and I have an amendment for that purpose at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Porter, as modified:
On page 23, line 10: strike ``$1,603,094,000'' and insert
``$1,601,850,000''.
On page 24, line 18: strike ``$3,253,097,000'' and insert
``$3,221,397,000''.
On page 25, line 12: strike ``$82,775,000'' and insert
``$53,925,000''.
On page 26, line 20: strike ``$2,168,935,000'' and insert
``$2,178,935,000''.
On page 29, line 4: strike ``$113,270,000'' and insert
``$148,570,000'' and on line 5: strike ``$105,000,000'' and
insert ``$140,300,000''.
On page 29, line 16: strike ``$757,132,000'' and insert
``$747,021,000''.
On page 29, line 18: strike ``$60,000,000'' and insert
``$90,000,000''.
On page 29, line 19: strike ``-D'' and ``-E,''.
On page 29, line 20: before ``-G'' and strike ``and''.
On page 29, line 20: strike ``$21,384,000'' and insert
``$10,084,000''.
[[Page H3243]] On page 29, line 22: strike all after the
semicolon through the semicolon on page 29, line 23.
On page 30, line 20: strike ``$232,413,000'' and insert
``$119,544,000''.
On page 30, line 22: after ``III-A,'' insert ``and''.
On page 30, line 22: strike ``and -E,''.
On page 30, line 23: strike ``$151,888,000'' and insert
``$43,888,000''.
On page 30, line 24: strike ``section''.
On page 30, line 25: strike ``384(c),''.
On page 30, line 25: strike ``$31,392,000'' and insert
``$26,523,000''.
On page 31, line 6: strike ``$83,375,000'' and insert
``$187,475,000''.
On page 31, line 7: after ``IV,'' insert ``part A-1,''.
On page 33, line 11: strike ``$34,742,000'' and insert
``$26,716,000''.
On page 33, line 13: after ``$15,300,000'' strike ``, and
part VI, $8,026,000''.
Mr. PORTER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment, as modified, be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Illinois?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is modified.
There was no objection.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment to correct 12 line
items in our portion of the rescission bill, and I said, Mr. Chairman,
that when we began our markup, we probably would make some mistakes. I
think we did. We have attempted to correct them through this amendment.
It would add back to the National Skill Standards Board $500,000.
To the Women in Apprenticeships program also under the Department of
Labor $744,000.
To organ transplantation under the Department of Health and Human
Services, $2.45 million, and 3 rural programs under that department,
rural outreach at $27.4 million, rural hospital transition grants, $8.5
million, and essential access community hospitals, $1.5 million.
Under the Department of Education, Mr. Chairman, we would add back
$28.811 million. Tech prep, $108 million. In each case, in both of
those cases, all of the amount that was rescinded.
Arts and education, $6 million.
Library literacy, $8.26 million.
National Institute for Literacy, $4.869 million.
And Reading is Fundamental, $5.3 million.
This would be offset by State unemployment insurance and employment
service operations, $31.7 million, which is money that is not needed.
From the $300 million of surplus and Pell grants, $104.1 million.
From the Eisenhower Professional Development line, $30 million.
And from title I, $35.3 million.
I do not believe that there is opposition to the amendment, Mr.
Chairman. I would commend it to the Members.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I guess this amendment is what I would put in the
category of ``Thank You for Small Favors.''
What the subcommittee of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
originally did on this bill is to cut $5.9 billion out of programs such
as Healthy Start, Chapter 1. Safe and drug-free schools were
eliminated. Education for the homeless was cut in half. Tech prep was
cut by $108 million. School-to-work was cut by $25 million. 100,000
State incentive grant scholarships were cut out for college kids.
Public broadcasting was cut 10 percent the first year, $60 million the
next year, and put on a 3-year route to oblivion. Summer jobs is
totally eliminated in both 1995 and 1996. The new program to raise
educational standards, Goals 2000, was cut by a large amount. The
Eisenhower teacher training program was cut by a very large amount. All
in total, $5.9 billion.
In addition, the energy assistance program was ended under which 2
million seniors get help to pay their home heating bills. Even programs
like Green Thumb were reduced. Veterans medical care was cut back by
$200 million, something which the House has scurried now to reverse
today.
Now this amendment out of that $5.9 billion restores $200 million,
about 4 percent of the mistake.
It restores that $200 million by making an additional cut in title I.
It makes an additional cut in Eisenhower teacher training, and in the
Pell grant carryover.
What it does is to restore the cut that was made in homeless kids and
to restore $37 million of the cuts that were made in rural health
programs.
In the rural health area, it still leaves substantial cuts in the
rural outreach program, in the rural hospital transition program, and
in the essential access community hospitals program.
I am not very happy about where these cuts come from, but I think
that it is hard to object to where they go in the tiny restoration
which is accomplished by this amendment, and so I would simply say that
I would support the amendment but I think all it does is indicate just
how savage some of the reductions and how misguided some of the
reductions were that were made in the first place.
I would also note that despite the fact that we were told earlier
today by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations that this bill
needed to be supported because there were way too many education
programs and way too many job training programs, that this amendment
manages to restore 4 of the programs which were eliminated and the
elimination for which the Republicans were taking credit just about 2
hours ago, including, I understand, one that has even caught the
interest of the speaker, I am happy to say.
So it seems to me that we cannot object to this restoration, but it
does in the process of restoration indicate how misguided many of these
original reductions were, targeted as they were at kids and senior
citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
amendment offered by mr. castle to the amendment offered by mr. porter,
as modified
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Castle to the amendment offered by
Mr. Porter of Illinois, as modified; Strike the item in the
amendment relating to page 29, line 18, of the bill and
insert the following:
On page 29, line 18: strike ``$60,000,000, title IV,
$481,962,000,'' and insert ``$100,000,000, title IV,
$471,962,000,''.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, the effect of this amendment, the numbers
are large but the basic effect of what this amendment does is it
reduces the Eisenhower Program which I will explain in a minute by $10
million, actually $10 million beyond the $90 million that is already
going to be reduced, and it leaves $10 million in the safe and drug-
free schools and communities to be used for the DARE program.
That particular program is not a line item program and it is very
important, I think, that we establish on the floor here today that the
intent of this body is that $10 million which will be left in the safe
and drug-free schools and communities program will be used for the DARE
Program, a program which I think has generally been viewed as highly
successful in virtually every State of the 44 States it is in, of the
50 percent of the school districts across the United States of America
which is participated in by many, many tens of thousands of children
and which may have had a positive an effect on dealing with the
problems of young people using drugs as any other program which I know
of in my personal hands-on experience in the drug area.
It also has the benefit of leaving this particular area open as the
Senate considers this legislation to show that we consider this to be
vitally important. That is the intent of what we do.
The Eisenhower Program which is going to be cut an additional $10
million supports State grants for the professional development
activities to address teacher training needs in all the core academic
subject areas and indeed that is going to still have some $220,298,000
left when it is all said and done.
{time} 1815
So that is the intent of the amendment which is before us.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
[[Page H3244]] Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for
a moment to discuss the DARE Program.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just like to say in my hometown, Colquitt County, GA, the
DARE Program has been extremely important in our educational system.
The program has been in effect for the last 4 or 5 years, during which
period of time we have had numerous incidents of the police officers
who come into the school being looked upon as role models by the other
students. This had led not only to an increase in awareness of the drug
situation and alcoholism in our homes, but it also provided many other
benefits in the area of child abuse.
It is a program that I am very familiar with, my wife having been a
teacher for 25 years in our public school system. It is something that
has worked very well; it is something that is needed and I support the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania.
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I too rise to support of the
Castle amendment to the Porter amendment because the DARE Program
happens to be the best anti-drug, anti-alcohol, pro-student program
there is in the United States. It started in Los Angeles County some
years ago in the sheriff's department. It is now administered in
Pennsylvania through most of our sheriffs departments.
It starts in fifth grade and teaches the refusal skills, leadership
skills. It has done more to bring families together, to have students
focus on what is really important about learning and leading. It has
led to students actually being involved with community policing.
I know in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and in fact the Delaware
Valley area how important the DARE Program has been, and this amendment
is certainly a step in the right direction to underscore for our
students, for parents and for teachers that this is the kind of program
that the Congress can endorse, the kind of program that America needs,
and I fully support this program, which is in support of DARE, which is
the drug abuse education program, and I believe the Castle amendment
deserves the support of all of our colleagues here in the House of
Representatives and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on its
behalf.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to say I think this amendment indicates
just how ludicrous the proposal is which is before us. The bill
recommended by the Republican majority eliminates $482 million for
drug-free schools, and then it tries in this amendment to restore $10
million of that $482 million reduction.
It pretends that it is going to restore the money for D.A.R.E. But in
fact, this amendment cannot restore the money for D.A.R.E. because this
money goes out by formula, goes to States and local school districts,
and the school districts have the authority to decide how the money is
spread out.
So we can pretend, by restoring a tiny $10 million fig leaf, that we
are restoring D.A.R.E., but in fact this amendment does no such thing.
It merely pretends to do that. And I guess it is sort of in the context
of eliminating the entire drug-free school program; it is sort of like
burning down the House but keeping the front doormat there as a
souvenir; that is about all we have left of the drug-free school
program.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Vento].
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I rise certainly in opposition to the warped
rescission bill that we have before us. I appreciate my colleague from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and our colleague from Delaware [Mr. Castle]
attempting to try and mollify and to key dollars to some of the special
programs. I know in the homeless youth education program that there is
a small program here where he tries to. But I think as we look closely
at the what is happening here, we are losing our focus.
A gaping wound is cut and targeted to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, public housing development. In fact, there is a drug
rehabilitation program that is targeted for public housing that is
eliminated in this rescission bill, and block grants.
The bulk of these programs provide basic housing for Americans in
dire need of assistance that virtually prevent and end homelessness for
thousands of families and children, and keep our senior citizens in
their own homes independent instead of in more expensive nursing homes
and dependent.
Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that this measure before us does
precious little to deal with the deficit. In fact, as we know, the
Republicans plan to use most of it for a tax cut for the well-off. And
regrettably, the human deficit that continues to grow, the kids in
poverty, the unemployed, the underemployed, the elderly, deeper and
deeper the despair grows that pervades their lives; they live in the
shadows.
We ought to do better; we can do better. We ought to offer hope. We
ought not to be pulling away the very threads that tend to guide these
people to a better life and to the people we represent.
Mr. Chairman, while I appreciate the gentleman's effort to try and
put out a doormat for these, I think we need real programs and we have
had them. I hope in the future we can work for that.
I think it is regrettable we are trying to pass a bill like this. I
think 43 percent of the cuts in this program go right at the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, at the homeless, at programs that
deal with public assistance, and our cities will not be able to absorb
those types of cuts in the next 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this warped rescissions bill
which cuts $17.1 billion in spending mostly from programs that serve
working families, children, the elderly and our Nation's veterans, and
uses these cuts--not to cut our deficit--but instead to fund the
current California disaster relief and primarily to fund a tax cut for
well off Americans. Further, under this rule, which requires that
restoration of funds not only be paid for from the same chapter, but
only from the programs included in this bill in the first place, the
basic inequitable nature of the bill is compounded. Changes are only
possible by further cutting the people programs included in the bill
before us not the programs that are not included. This is like the
starving fighting over a crust of bread.
Let me be clear, I am not opposed to paying for the supplemental
assistance to California earthquake victims. I am, however, deeply
concerned that we are paying with cuts in programs of those least able
to pay. Knowing that the Republicans want these rescinded funds to be
used for a GOP contract tax cut for the rich is adding salt to an open
wound. Furthermore some of the very programs cut are taking from the
California victims themselves. This is nonsensical.
Mr. Chairman, a gaping wound is the cuts targeted for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development: Public Housing Development and
Modernization, Housing for People with AIDS, Lead-Based Paint,
Congregate Services for the elderly, Drug Elimination grants, and
Community Development Block Grants are some of the basic programs that
this bill targets.
The bulk of these programs provide basic housing for Americans in
dire need of assistance. They literally prevent or end homelessness for
thousands of families and children and keep our senior citizens in
their own homes--independent--instead of more expensive nursing homes--
dependent. There is a direct link between housing assistance and
homelessness. Reducing Section 8 assistance will affect at least 12,000
homeless families and children who will be forced to stay in shelters
or on the street instead of in permanent housing. Some have estimated
as many as 63,000 families could be homeless because of this bill
before the House today. These numbers are part of an entire picture of
the United States which research has shown to have 7 million people in
the past 5 years who have been homeless. Increasing homelessness
through obliterating housing assistance is wrong. We can't deny the
facts. We should not be washing our hands of the issue and withdrawing
from a limited commitment.
The fact of the matter is, 43 percent of these rescissions are from
programs affecting housing and community development. That is not
balanced and not fair. It is a tremendously unfair burden to place upon
programs that support working American families, children, the elderly,
people with disabilities and the homeless. These cuts are real--very
real, not just cuts in bureaucratic bodies. In Minnesota, alone, under
the provisions of the total bill we would have an estimated loss of
over $296 million. Minnesota would lose 886 Section 8
[[Page H3245]] units, $15.5 million in public housing modernization,
$2.8 million in operating subsidies, $4.7 million in Community
Development Block Grant funds, and almost $1 million in AIDS housing.
These are funds that have been planned for and are an integral part of
hundreds of responsible communities' futures. Minnesotans had a right
to count on the funding for the last 6 months of this 1995 fiscal year
to stay in place.
Other homeless assistance programs under the McKinney Act are
decimated by this rescissions bill: job training for homeless veterans,
education for homeless children, adult education and literacy, and the
McKinney portion of the Emergency Community Services Block Grant. These
are not budget busting programs. These are not problem programs--they
are working in Minnesota. This elimination serves notice that the
unique programs designed to take the necessary step for our most
vulnerable citizens today are serving as targets, literally: targets
for potshots at programs aimed at alleviating poverty and helping
working people help themselves.
Mr. Chairman, several amendments will be offered here today that I
will support--amendments to restore what was so irresponsibly cut from
vital housing programs and I would urge my Colleagues to support these
amendments that will prevent homelessness and the tremendous burden
that that represents for people and governments. Unfortunately, because
of this gag rule, several more amendments I would have supported cannot
be offered.
Referring back to the underlying legislation, another provision which
deeply concerns me is the proposal to zero out the funding for the Low-
Income Home Energy Assistance Program, otherwise known as LIHEAP. As a
Member from one of the coldest States in the Nation, I am alarmed by
the potential impact of this ill-advised action.
In 1994, approximately 6.1 million households received aid to help
cover heating costs nationwide. Nearly half of these households contain
elderly or handicapped persons--often on fixed incomes--and about 80
percent of them earn less than $10,000 a year. Where are these people
to turn when they no longer can afford to heat their homes? Where are
my constituents in St. Paul to turn when the temperature drops to 15 or
20 degrees below zero and they do not have the money to pay for heating
fuel?
The Republican answer to us today is that the States and the utility
companies will pick up the tab. Are they so flush with money? Well, the
reality of the situation is that this $1.3 billion LIHEAP rescission is
literally going to leave families in the cold. The shortfalls in our
economy and disparities of incomes today, need programs such as LIHEAP
to fill in the gaps.
The atrocious cuts to education contained in this bill counter any
pretense of deliberate consideration of public policy. My frustration
with the education cuts contained in this bill are not only with the
cuts to Minnesota, which are indeed significant--over $14 million--but
also with the lack of respect for the children who are our future.
Every dollar for education is an investment in the future of this
country and our national economy. This bill eliminates the funds used
by 94 percent of schools across the country to make schools safer and
drug free. This action is not just thoughtless, it is ignorant of the
problems and needs and it is this indifference that speaks to an
arrogance in this Congress today which doesn't serve the people. This
bill cuts funds to assist students striving to meet higher standards
for achievements and kills aid that makes college more accessible for
thousands of students. At a time when jobs demand more preparation,
cutting education funding is indeed a losing proposition. We need to
support education as a budget priority and this bill before the House
has it backward.
The cuts in summer youth job training and employment programs are
illogical and shortsighted. How can we advocate choosing sensible
alternatives when indeed none would exist for so many of our urban
youth with this program terminated. Young people often choose improper
behavior, even illegal activities, and the cost associated with the
juvenile justice system pale in comparison to the cost of helping young
people prepare themselves for a responsible future. The $210 million
cut in the National and Community Service [AmeriCorps] has the same
effect of pulling the rug out from under positive opportunities which
offer hope for the future for young adults.
Another of President Clinton's priorities, Community Development
Financial Institutions [CDFIs], whose development was bi-partisan, has
fallen under the rescissions axe. CDFIs could be powerful utilizers of
Federal seed capital for private sector community activities that will
provide job creation, economic development, and affordable housing
opportunities in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The cut of
their funding before they have even had a chance to prove themselves is
grossly unfair.
From the party that claims the high ground on private property rights
and management of our National Parks, the cuts contained in this
legislation strike me as hypocritical. The rescissions to both the BLM
and National Park Service Land Acquisition funds are a perverse
infringement on private property rights. Private property owners within
parks or the public domain want to sell their land to the Federal
Government but this legislation eliminates the funding needed to
accomplish such end--in effect, denying property owners such long
sought compensation. In addition, my Republican colleagues constantly
complain about the inability of the NPS to manage their backlog and yet
the first thing they do is to eliminate the funding necessary to carry
out commitments--hence compounding the problem. When will we engage in
common sense regarding this debate?
Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns in what these rescissions mean
both in themselves and in what they signal as the direction of this
Republican Congress. What I am seeing is an erosion in support for
working families and an eradication of support for those who cannot
make ends meet: all in order to give folks making $200,000 or more a
tax break and such tax cut is 30 times more than families making $20 to
$30,000 a year. As I said, Minnesota will be out nearly $300 million in
the next 6 months if this proposed bill were to become law. These cuts
have been narrowly pulled from a small part of the Federal budget, cut
from American working families, their housing, their schools, in
essence, their hope for a better life.
Mr. Chairman, we have a budget deficit and we have a human deficit.
This rescission bill will do little to help the deficit. In fact, the
Republicans plan to use it for a tax cut for the well off, and
regrettably the human deficit grows, the kids in poverty--the
unemployed deeper, and the underemployed. The despair pervades those in
the shadow of our society. We ought to be offering hope. This
legislation does not acknowledge the reality that the Federal
Government must remain a partner for supporting the basic needs of our
citizens, and not serve as just an agent to cost shift burdens to State
and local governments, and the non-profit sector that is already
operating on overload today. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
legislation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri [Mr. Clay].
(Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this rescissions
bill.
In my 30-plus years in public service I have never witnessed such a
vicious and mindless assault on the Nation's children.
This rescission bill is the clearest demonstration of the cynicism,
indecency and greed of a Republican strategy to relieve their rich
friends of the responsibility to pay taxes.
They would rather eat their young than cut one penny--one penny--out
of defense.
Let the record show: when the Republicans decided to cut spending to
pay for their tax cut they went after children, especially
disadvantaged children. They went after these children with vengeance.
Nearly two-thirds of the rescissions are in low-income programs--even
through they account for only 12 percent of fiscal year 1995
discretionary appropriations. The bill would slash 15 percent of
appropriations for low-income programs, while other programs would be
cut by only 1 percent.
At a time when we should be investing in our people, this bill
reduces funding in education and job training. At a time when we should
be addressing important social issues, this bill eliminates funding for
the drug free schools program. At a time when politicians praise the
value of work, this
[[Page H3246]] bill eliminates the Summer Jobs Program and reduces job
training funding. No Mr. Chairman, this bill makes no sense at all.
This bill terminates programs that everyone who cares about our
schools tells us, without a dissenting voice, are important.
This bill terminates the Drug Free Schools Program. This bill is the
major Federal effort aimed at providing young people with a wide range
of drug and alcohol abuse prevention training. By eliminating this
program, as this bill does, 39 million students throughout the country
will no longer benefit from drug prevention efforts. Almost every
school district in the Nation will be affected. This makes no sense at
all.
The bill cuts title I funding by $140 million. Title I helps at-risk
students improve their reading and math skills and master challenging
school work. It is a successful program. Last Congress we worked on a
bi-partisan basis to improve it. Yet we all know that not every
eligible child receives title I services, even though these services
have helped students achieve better in school. Today about 60 percent
of eligible title I kids do not receive title I benefits because the
program does not have enough funds. What does this bill do? It cuts
title I funds. One hundred thousand at-risk kids will be put more at
risk by this cut.
Mr. Chairman, I could take all the time allotted to this bill to
outline for my colleagues the destruction this bill will cause to
children and families across this Nation. The bill eliminates funding
for literacy programs for homeless adults; it eliminates money to help
schools acquire new technology--the Speaker says that every poor person
should have a lap-top computer at home. This bill won't even permit
every school to have a computer.
The bill eliminates funding for the Star Schools Program, a program
that is vital to rural areas and areas that rely on distance learning
as a necessity, not a luxury.
Mr. Chairman, let me close with a brief discussion as to what this
bill does to summer jobs. This bill ends the program. Six hundred
thousand teenagers won't have summer jobs because of this bill. I have
heard from mayors all over the country about what this will mean for
their cities. These mayors have decried this elimination of summer
jobs. And this has been a bi-partisan outcry, from the Republican
mayors of Los Angeles and Knoxville to the Democratic mayors of Boston
and Philadelphia. They are united in their belief that this cut may be
the most illogical cut of all.
This is a bad bill. It will not get any better through the amendment
process. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise that he would like to put the
question on the Castle amendment to the Porter amendment if there are
no further speakers. At that time, there will be time remaining on the
Porter amendment.
Are there further speakers to be yielded to on the Castle amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who wants to address the Castle amendment.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment by the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle] does, and I will support the Castle amendment,
but what it simply does is it moves a terrible bill into the lousy bill
category. We have cut $482 million out of drug-free schools.
Now, I applaud the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] for restoring
$10 million out of $482 million, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Porter] for attempting to restore Tech-Prep and a host of other
programs, but what they are using as offsets are the Eisenhower
professional development program, among others things. We are losing
good education programs, cutting proven education programs to help
teachers teach better, to help our children learn better, and we are
moving them, moving them in a shall game from one program to another.
It is a lousy choice that this bill offers. The gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Barrett] and I, a Republican on the other side, offered
an amendment last year to restore all of the D.A.R.E. funding. This is
$10 million out of $482 million. We need to go a lot further.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further speakers on Castle amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that all the remaining
speakers want to address the amendment as well as the underlying
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gene
Green.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
allowing me to address the Committee for 2 minutes. I serve on the
Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities and the restoring
of $10 million with the $482 million cut is to small.
Just recently, a Wall Street Journal--NBC poll showed that 79 percent
of Americans believe cutting the Department of Education funding is
moving in the wrong direction. So that means even restoring $10 million
is moving in the wrong direction.
Let us look at what the rescission bill does to education as a whole.
As my ranking member now of the committee, the gentleman from Missouri
[Mr. Clay], said, $105 million from Title I of Chapter I funds, in the
State of Texas we are losing $9 million out of this bill on just title
I alone.
Title I was reauthorized last year, and allowed for more flexibility
in our school district and now we are actually cutting it. Drug-free
schools, a $481.9 million cut, again, and a $10 million restoration
will not go anywhere all over the country to help; it is literally a
fig leaf.
Diana Kelly, President of the Galena Park Area Council PTA, stated
that eliminating these programs would be catastrophic not only to her
district but to our Nation's youth.
Cutting the safe and drug-free schools by $472 million, if this
amendment is adopted, is robbing from our kids by providing tax breaks
for the wealthy. The tax cut is already out of the Committee on Ways
and Means.
Tech-Prep was cut $108 million. Tech-Prep, every witness in our
committee this year called by the Republican majority supported Tech-
Prep, and yet we are zeroing it out because we are taking away money
from current education. Seventy-nine percent of the people say they did
not want to cut education funding, yet this House, by thee Republican
majority, is doing that.
This represents the Goals 2000, which was many years in the making by
President Bush and now President Clinton, is actually being cut $142
million. This is not the way the American people want us to go.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time at this point.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Fattah].
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the underlying
bill, the rescission package in total, and also to the Porter amendment
and the Castle amendment to it.
Page after page of misguided and misplaced budget priorities, when
the Federal Government already distributes such a small amount to
education programs, to be standing here talking about $200 million in
education programs we want to cut makes no sense, unless we are not
concerned about the next generation and we are only focusing on the
next election.
{time} 1830
I would challenge all of my colleagues to think clearly abut what it
is that we are saying about where this future of this country lies. We
need to invest in education, invest in the young people of our Nation,
and I would hope, even though I know that it will not be the case, that
some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will eventually
wake up and see the light. If they fail to see the light, I would hope
that the American public one day soon will have them feel the heat.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York [Ms. Slaughter].
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, there has been enough tragedy in all of these
rescission bills to go around.
I see a very great bright spot in what the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Porter] is doing today.
In the United States there are anywhere between 750,000 and 1
million
[[Page H3247]] homeless children every single day. In any of the
education bills that we have, none of the money applies to them,
because they are not in school. A few years back with some wisdom we
put together a bill here to educate the homeless children, to give them
transportation, a piece of paper and pencil to write with.
We have reduced the number of homeless children not in school with
this bill from 50 percent to 18 and continuing to go down. To take this
program out was the height of stupidity. We are not going to be able to
compete with the next century if we have children uneducated,
unhealthy, and unskilled.
I am delighted to support the Porter amendment, because the homeless
children in this country who have absolutely no voice but what we can
muster in this House will have an opportunity to continue a program.
It is not their fault they are homeless. Their mothers and fathers
are out of work because we failed somehow to create jobs in this
country. But I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]
for including the homeless children in this bill.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute, the remainder of my time,
to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
I do want to rise in support of the efforts of my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle], but I wish we had
been given a different choice here.
I think he is absolutely right when he wants to restore $10 million
to the highly successful DARE program. Some of us though would have
liked to have paid for that by taking money, for example, out of the
operation and maintenance account of the Southeastern Power
Administration, $13 million. I offered an amendment that would have let
us pay for this kind of program that way, but because of the rule we
are under, we are not permitted to do that.
Having to pay for this out of programs that help in the continuing
education of teachers is a tragedy. Nevertheless, I will join my
colleagues in supporting the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle], but again, remind the majority they have cut off
debate where it really should happen here.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman from Illinois
for yielding. I will be very brief.
But essentially I do believe that the Porter amendment does a lot to
reinstate some funds that needed to be reinstated as has been already
set forth on this floor today. But I would also point out that the
amendment which I have prepared for the DARE program, I believe by the
discussion we have had today, will go to the DARE program.
I understand some of the objections which have been raised by some of
my colleagues concerning where the cuts have to come from. We are
limited by the rule with respect to that. But I would hope that
everybody would understand that this is one program which is almost
universally recognized as having been successful across the United
States of America in fighting drugs. For that reason, I hope we can
support both the Castle amendment and the underlying Porter amendment.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers on this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as modified
The amendment to the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Horn].
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to offer at this time, if
it were appropriate, an amendment relating to saving the summer youth
program. Unfortunately, some of the items have been precluded by the
rules of the House that are being applied to a rescission bill that
normally are applied to appropriations, which are not rescission bills.
That is creating great difficulty.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from
Delaware [Mr. Castle] have already preempted in essence the particular
sections except for one on the amendment 42 which I had filed at the
desk at the appropriate time on Monday, and what is left is page 25,
line 23, where we could at the appropriate time after this, if that is
not precluded, strike $682,282,000 and insert $582,282,000.
I would like to see a lot of this problem solved in conference. I
think there is an overwhelming feeling in this House, in fact, many of
the leaders on authorizations and Appropriations have said just that to
me, to do something to restore the summer youth program. The fact is it
was removed at 1:30 a.m. in the morning when I suggest some of the
individuals might not have known what they were doing.
This is very vital for urban America. The school superintendent in
Long Beach, my home city, has endorsed it even though I was taking
funds from various education programs.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I would just say, my friend, if the
gentleman does not like so much what is here, then one good way to deal
with that would be to vote against it, and maybe if the gentleman does
not like the rule because he is precluded, a good thing would have been
to have voted against the rule. I think to vote for a restrictive rule
and then vote for the bill which makes all of these cuts and then to
lament them is very puzzling.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], as modified, as amended.
The amendment, as modified, as amended, was agreed to.
amendment offered by mr. murtha
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 53.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Murtha: Add the following Section
to the end of the bill:
``savings to be used exclusively for deficit reduction
``Sec. 302. An amount equal to the net budget authority
reduced in this Act is hereby appropriated into the Deficit
Reduction Fund established pursuant to Executive Order 12858
to be used exclusively to reduce the Federal deficit:
Provided, That such amount is designated by Congress as an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985, as amended.''
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Does any Member rise in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I request allocation of half of the
time.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Murtha].
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, today I want to rise in support of deficit reduction,
and I think it is important to go back and look from a historical
perspective of what I am trying to do and what I think is important.
If we are going to pass a budget resolution, I am convinced it is
absolutely essential that we show we are going to make the spending
cuts first. I do not think, based on my years here in Congress, it is
possible to cut taxes and at the same time balance the budget. I am
convinced that when President Reagan came to office, he believed he
could balance the budget in the 8 years that he was here. I am
convinced that President Bush believed that he could balance the budget
in the 4 years that he was here, and even before that, President Carter
talked about balancing the budget.
Because of the tax cut we implemented during the Reagan
administration, the deficit got larger. Now, it was not that Congress
did not cooperate,
[[Page H3248]] and it was not that the President and the Congress did
not want to balance the budget. There were all kinds of efforts during
that period of time.
Probably the most important single thing that happened was that
entitlements increased substantially during this whole period. During
the period of time that, the 12 years, almost every single
appropriation bill that was sent to the Congress was reduced by the
Congress, and the Presidents, President Reagan and President Bush,
signed those bills. We worked out a compromise, and yet the national
debt grew. It grew from $1 trillion to $4 trillion.
What I am saying today and what I am trying to impress upon the
Members who have been advocating a tax cut is that first we ought to
focus on the deficit and try to put the savings that we get from
rescissions like this, and by the way, some of these rescissions I
agree with, and some of them I do not agree with, but we ought to take
the savings from these rescissions and put them against the deficit.
Most of the cuts that were made in the budgets that were sent to us
were made in defense, and they were forced by the fact that there was
no place else to go. It was defense against domestic programs, and we
cut about $155 billion in a 12-period from defense. All of us believed
that we were cutting the right amount at the right time. We had budget
resolutions which passed, usually partisan budget resolutions, but in
the end the bills passed in a bipartisan manner. Democrats and
Republicans voted for them.
I am proud to say that the members of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee have reduced the size of the military after the cold war
and after the Berlin Wall came down in a way that we retained a world
class military. The Chief of Staff of the Army just testified before
Chairman Young and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee today and
talked about how good the Army is compared to after the Vietnam war,
after the Korean war, and after World War II. It could be better. It is
about an 8 on a 1-to-10 scale is what he testified today.
And as I look down the road and as I worry about the possibility of a
tax cut versus deficit reduction, I see defense competing with critical
domestic programs. I see Social Security and Medicare and all of those
programs overwhelming defense, and I do not think there is any way that
we can keep that from happening.
I am concerned that Members with less experience that do not
recognize or realize the difficulty we have gone through and the work
that we have done, and we were probably the only committee in the House
over those 12 years that actually made a reduction; everybody else
might have made cuts in increases, but we in Appropriations made actual
reductions in budget requests from the President, and we struggled with
those budget requests, trying to make sure the funding priorities went
to readiness, to quality of life, and I think that Desert Storm shows
exactly what happened.
For instance, when Desert one went down in 1980, we had a very inept
force, a force that was hollow, a force without training, a force with
poor equipment. Half the combat aircraft of this country were deadlined
because of lack of spare parts, and when that operation went in 1980,
we went to the desert with only four or five helicopters. We lost a
number of people. We could not even effect a rescue of our diplomats
who were captured by the Iranians. And yet a decade later, in 1991, we
pulled off Desert Storm, a magnificent operation.
So through this period when we made all of these cuts in defense, we
actually were able to build our quality force, went to an all-volunteer
force, put a GI bill in place, put new equipment in their hands, and it
culminated with an operation where we had a very minimal loss of
casualties and a phenomenal military success.
So I believe very strongly we have to be careful. We should send a
message to the country that we are interested in deficit reduction
first, and this is a policy statement that I believe the Congress
should make, and I would hope that Members on both sides would support
this as the goal. Obviously after that, after we make the spending
cuts, after the deficit is reduced, we can look at the possibility of
tax cuts.
{time} 1845
So, Mr. Chairman, I feel very strongly about it, and I would hope
that Members in this House on both sides of the aisle would support my
amendment to emphasize deficit reduction rather than tax cuts.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Murtha] was an outstanding chairman of our Defense Subcommittee, of the
Committee on Appropriations. He has done yeoman service for this
Congress over the years. He has got a good amendment. I support it, and
I appreciate his cooperation with us in this bill, and I certainly hope
that he will be voting for the bill on final passage.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
(Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, on March 10, 1995, Mr. Livingston,
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, along with the Mr. Porter,
Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, sent a
letter to every Member of the House of Representatives. The letter
states:
We are writing to seek your support for the Appropriations
rescission bill recently reported by the Committee on
Appropriations.
We are all committed to a program that will redress the
decades of financial irresponsibility that has left our
children and grandchildren saddled with over $4 trillion in
debt. The $17 billion in reductions in this bill are a down
payment on this major undertaking; a first step in setting
our fiscal house in order. . . .
Well, if the two chairmen really mean this, and if the Republican
leadership agrees, they will vote to pass the amendment before us now.
It is the only way to ensure these rescissions really reduce the
deficit. It mandates that all savings in the bill be applied to the
deficit.
As it stands now, this bill, and that letter, are a fraud. The $12
billion in ``so called'' savings in this legislation are not destined
for our children and grandchildren. They are destined to offset new tax
cuts.
And these tax cuts are not for kids. Just yesterday, the Republicans
announced their tax plan which abolishes the alternative minimum tax.
This means a return to the pre-1986 tax days where hundreds of
corporate giants including Sears Roebuck, Texaco, Boeing, General
Dynamics, Dun and Bradstreet, and J.P. Morgan and Company, could play
the system and pay no taxes whatsoever. Zero.
Just think about it: today, we cut programs our kids depend on;
tomorrow, we force our kids to pay for corporate tax cuts. Some legacy.
Two months ago, over-two thirds of the House of Representatives voted
to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Regardless of
what happened in the Senate, it is our obligation to behave as if that
amendment were law.
Because I voted for the balanced budget amendment, I supported these
rescissions in full Committee, even though I did not necessarily agree
with the cuts.
Rescissions are not easy. Coming up with $17 billion in cuts is
agonizing. The Majority rejected school lunch, Women Infants and
Children, and other children's programs.
But if our budget crises forces us to make these awful cuts, it is
imperative that we give our children a better future--as Mr. Livingston
and Mr. Porter suggest.
If this amendment fails, instead of coming through for our kids, we
will be sticking it to our kids. I urge my colleagues support the
Murtha amendment and give our children and grandchildren a real down
payment on deficit.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha. My colleagues on the
other side of the aisle--under great pressure--have now agreed to
permit his amendment requiring that the balance of
[[Page H3249]] the cuts in the bill be used for deficit reduction. The
bill currently allows money not needed for last year's California
earthquake to be set aside for tax cuts that primarily benefit the
wealthiest Americans and corporations.
As my good friend and colleague from Wisconsin said earlier, this
bill is a charade. That is why I will not dignify it by voting for the
``either/or'' amendments forced upon us by the closed rule.
While I view the Murtha amendment as a positive change, I regret that
the process by which we are considering this flawed legislation is such
a disgrace. It stifles responsible efforts to improve a rescissions
package that takes direct aim at our children, veterans and elderly
poor.
As we have seen throughout the day, the restrictive arrangement we
are operating under has forced Members to choose between important
issues like caring for veterans, providing adequate housing for seniors
and educating our children. It has also placed the defense budget,
which represents close to half of the discretionary budget, off limits.
Star wars, contracting cost overruns, and low priority or questionable
defense programs are preserved in full.
While I am supporting the Murtha amendment which places deficit
reduction above financing tax cuts for the wealthy, I still have
serious problems with the bill. The responsibility for drawing down the
deficit is being placed squarely on the backs of those Americans who
need our help most. This is occurring at a time when steps are being
taken to make the wealthy better off. I can't help but ask two
questions; ``Are we going to focus on slashing programs which help the
poor to reduce the deficit?'', and ``How do my colleagues plan to
finance the $189 billion in tax cuts scheduled to come before the House
next week?''
I believe the rescissions now being proposed by my Republican
colleagues provide a very clear answer to these questions.
Money to improve the quality of medical care available to our
veterans is being cut. This is being done despite the fact that the
projected veterans population requiring health care services will far
surpass available facilities in the future.
The Low-Income Heating Assistance Program is being terminated. This
vital program helps two million elderly households and better than 3
million low income families meet their home heating needs each year.
Without it these families will be forced to make difficult choices
between heat and other basic necessities such as food and medicine.
Today it is supposed to be 70 degrees in Michigan. After my friends on
the other side of the aisle are finished, we all better hope that next
winter is just as mild.
Cuts from housing programs will leave 14,500 seniors homeless.
Another 530,000 elderly households will have the security and quality
of their housing severely impaired as a result of these changes.
The Women, Infants, and Children Program, and the Healthy Start
Program which provide nutrition supplements and valuable prenatal care
to mothers are also being cut.
The Safe and Drug Free Schools Program is being terminated despite
recent studies showing that drug use among students is on the rise. I
find it very surprising that my colleagues would propose this cut less
than one week after former First Lady Nancy Reagan stressed to a House
subcommittee the importance of educating our young people on the harms
of drugs.
Other valuable programs to construct schools and enhance their
technologies are being terminated.
Programs to help move disadvantaged children from school to the world
of work have also been put on the chopping block. The elimination of
the Summer Youth Employment Program will translate to more than 600,000
lost opportunities for high risk youths. Funds are also being stripped
from the Youth Job Training, Job Corps and School to work programs.
At a time when we are preparing to consider the issue of welfare
reform, we should not terminate or reduce funding for valuable programs
that expose our young people to the dignity of work.
The rescissions package before us clearly represents bad legislation.
However, I commend my colleague from Pennsylvania for offering a
measure to correct a defect in this bill that runs counter to the
strong desire of the American people to see the deficit reduced.
Regrettably, the Members on this side of the aisle are barred from
offering amendments to ensure that we proceed in a responsible fashion.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote against the
bill.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Murtha amendment.
This amendment is essentially the same as one that I had printed in the
Congressional Record that I had intended to offer. However, my
amendment was not made in order.
While I do not support many of the rescissions in this package
because they are targeted on programs that benefit children, youth, the
elderly, veterans and others in need of assistance, I believe that if
we are going to rescind funds for programs, those funds should be used
for deficit reduction and not used to pay for tax cuts for wealthy
Americans.
I recently introduced House Resolution 94 which calls on Congress to
make deficit reduction a top priority. Clearly, we need to cut spending
if we want to get our fiscal house in order and there are certainly
many programs on the books currently that we don't need or can't
afford, such as the $10 billion space station. Unfortunately, that
program was not targeted for a cut in this legislation. I am pleased
that the Murtha amendment requires the net budget savings under this
bill go to the Deficit Reduction Fund established by Executive Order
12858 and used exclusively for deficit reduction.
Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 421,
noes 1, answered ``present'', not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 241]
AYES--421
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
[[Page H3250]] Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--1
Williams
NOT VOTING--12
Bateman
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Ehrlich
Fazio
Gephardt
Gibbons
Mfume
Payne (NJ)
Rangel
Wilson
Yates
{time} 1912
Mr. MENENDEZ changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
On behalf of the minority, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise and thank
the chairman and the majority for their consideration. We had a meeting
and a lot of our people were not here, and you extended the time to
afford them the opportunity to vote on this amendment. I wanted you to
know that on this side of the aisle we very much appreciate it. I thank
the chairman for his actions.
Amendment Offered by Mr. De Lay
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 29 which was printed
in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN. the Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. DeLay: On page 25, line 5 strike
``$16,072,000'' and insert ``$19,572,000.''
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] will be recognized
for up to 15 minutes in support of his amendment. Is there a Member
rising in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is allocated 15
minutes for debate.
The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for 15 minutes.
{time} 1915
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, frankly, I am somewhat disappointed that I have to
offer this amendment today. But because OSHA is so intent on flouting
the will of this Congress in an effort to add to its own regulatory
enforcement empire, I must do so.
My amendment rescinds an addition $3.5 million from the OSHA
rescission already contained in this bill. This would force OSHA to
cease its activities on the promulgation of an ergonomics standard that
is paternalistic in concept and a menace in its implementation.
Ergonomics is a fledgling science devoted to redesigning workplaces
to better fit workers. By focusing on work spaces and stations, tools
and equipment, lighting, typewriter keys and telephones, ergonomics as
a practice affects virtually every aspect of American Businesses, both
large and small. There is no consensus in the scientific community over
risks or remedies of implementing or failing to implement ergonomic
policies.
There is certainly no consensus that a Federal
ergonomics standard can actually have any positive impact on work
place health or safety.
OSHA, however, with little regard to cost, is bound and determined to
press forward with what is by their own admission likely to be the most
expensive, most far-reaching rule ever promulgated by the agency. It
has been estimated that this rule would cost $21 billion to implement.
As has been repeated on this floor, speaker after speaker, before any
regulations are imposed, there ought to be good science establishing
the risks requiring the regulation, as well as the benefits justifying
the new regulatory burden. That is why this House passed H.R. 450, H.R.
9, and H.R. 1022.
OSHA's proposal on this standard involved the imposition of billions
of dollars on the private sector and a radical new level of government
intrusion into work places and work practices without any scientific
support.
The intent of OSHA to ignore and undermine the will of this House in
reforming the regulatory regime of the Federal Government is quite
clear by the agency's own statements in just the recent days.
I would like to share with my colleagues a quotation from the head of
OSHA's ergonomics standards team which appeared in this Monday's
papers:
If the legislation says the moratorium runs through
December the 31st, our anticipation is that we would get the
proposal out January the 1st, unless it says, do not work on
an ergonomics standards or go to jail. If it only says we
cannot publish the proposal, we can continue to work on it.
OSHA's express intention to do business as usual in this area sends a
very clear signal that the discipline Congress is seeking to bring to
Federal regulatory agencies will not come easily. This amendment seeks
to impose a fiscal discipline where it is clear that other forms of
discipline will be ignored.
I appreciate Members supporting my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, sent a memo to
the Republican party leaders. In that memo he said: ``Look, whenever
you are talking about cuts for these programs, do not talk about the
program because programs have friends. So simply talk about the
bureaucrats.'' That is what is happening here. This amendment is being
presented as though it is a discipline for bureaucrats.
Let me tell my colleagues what happens. When they continue to cut
back at OSHA the way they have done in this bill and the way they want
to intensify it by this amendment, you assure that people are going to
be injured and you assure that people are going to die.
Now, when my father ran a floor covering business many years ago, I
worked with him in it for 7 years. I worked with asbestos products.
Johns-Manville had known since 1939 that asbestos caused cancer. The
first time I knew about it is the first day I served on the Labor-HEW
Appropriations Subcommittee, and I walked in here and I listened to the
NIH person testifying. And they told us that 40 percent of British
shipyard workers who had worked with asbestos had contracted
mesothelioma and were dead.
Now, mesothelioma is a form of cancer. So I think I have a pretty
good idea of what is going to get me eventually, especially because I
was a heavy smoker in those days. And back when I was laying that floor
covering and working with asbestos products, we did not have an agency
called OSHA to protect workers. And the official position of the U.S.
Government with respect to worker health was: ``We do not give a
damn!'' That was the official position.
Today, thanks to a very fine Republican Congressman from Wisconsin,
Bill Steiger, who was the father of the OSHA provisions, we have an
agency charged with the responsibility to protect worker health and
safety. And sometimes it does a lousy job of it, and sometimes it does
a darn good job of it.
But I will tell Members something. You talk about unhappiness with
the
[[Page H3251]] ergonomics standards that they are going to develop. I
cannot tell you how many times I have walked through plants or offices
and run into women who have had devices on their wrists and I have
said: ``What happened to you?'' They said, ``I just had carpal tunnel
surgery.'' I said, ``What is the matter?'' They said, ``Well, you know
how it is working at terminals all day long.'' Those women are working
mothers most of them. And they need our concern.
Now, the gentleman is worried because he says the ergonomics standard
is going to be very expensive. Of course it is. Because right now the
lack of protection for workers on standards like that is causing them
an immense amount of health problems, and health problems cost money.
So now we are told, oh, we ought to support another cut in OSHA because
the majority whip does not happen to like the agency or does not happen
to like the standard.
I would suggest, I read the story in the Washington Post 2 or 3 days
ago, discussing how lobbyists for big business were crawling all over
the office of the majority whip when they were preparing the strategy
to go after regulation, and the gentleman may be proud of it. I was
appalled. I was appalled.
He can laugh if he wants. I would not want to go to my district and
brag about the number of lobbyists working in my office to supervise
the work that I was performing. And so if you want to go ahead, this
just makes a rotten bill a little bit worse. So go ahead.
If you do not want to have workers protected from things like carpal
tunnel syndrome, go ahead. Vote for this turkey of an amendment. But
recognize that according to OSHA's own estimates, at least 2,500 more
people will be injured because of the budget reductions provided by
this amendment.
If you do not like what OSHA does in specifics, correct their
mistakes. Do what some of us have done. Work to try to see to it that
you get proper training and education for those inspectors. But do not
require an agency to cut back on its whole operation because you do not
want some more workers to be protected from things like carpal tunnel
syndrome.
It is a stupid amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just respond to the protector of bureaucrats. First off, what
we are after is good science and good regulations based on good
science, and the gentleman probably does not know that there is two
kinds of asbestos: The asbestos that comes from Africa that is harmful
and asbestos that comes from America. And after some billions of
dollars were spent in attacking the asbestos problem, we find out that
if you leave it alone, it is not dangerous and you do not tear it out
and spend billions of dollars.
So the gentleman from Wisconsin has no idea what he is talking about
and exactly what we are talking about is good science and good
regulation based upon good science here. We have an agency that does
not care about good science. It is amazing, people will die because we
will not have ergonomics.
Ergonomics talks about gripping 10 pounds, pinching more than two
pounds, twisting and bending the neck like this. Somebody is going to
lose their life because there is some OSHA regulation about how many
times you can twist your neck?
So, Mr. Chairman, the great majority leader in this House said it
better than anything: the Democrats used to be the party of the only
thing to fear is fear itself. Now they are the only party, they are the
party that all they have to offer is fear itself.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Norwood].
Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise very proudly to support the
amendment of gentleman from Texas, [Mr. DeLay]. I do so for two
reasons:
The first reason that I support this amendment is I find it
absolutely unbelievable that we allow a federal agency to absolutely
disregard what this House wants done. When they sit over there and
laugh at us when we say that we want a moratorium on their rules and
regulations and they are just going to figure out a way to get around
it, I think we need to speak to them.
Ergonomics is a fancy term for designing jobs and tools to fit the
physical and psychological limits of people. In general, that is a good
idea. But if you look at what OSHA does, assuming they pass the new
ergonomic rules and they can be adopted simply by issuing a public
comment period without the messiness of having congressional approval,
employers will be required to continuously survey and fix jobs deemed
risky by OSHA.
The list of jobs is virtually unlimited in this country. These
activities can cause or aggravate more than 160 musculoskeletal and
nervous system disorders from a back pain to joint pain to a neck pain
to tendinitis.
Joe Dear, the assistant labor secretary who heads OSHA, tries to
rationalize the upcoming ergonomics rule this way. He says, ``We
clearly intend to propose a regulation whose benefits justify the
cost.'' In other words, OSHA claims that its rules will result in huge
savings from reduced injuries and increased productivity.
Mr. Chairman, that is a wishful claim at the very best and one more
time they are not using good science at OSHA. Too little is known about
preventing neuromuscular conditions to justify mandates.
Mr. Chairman, the answer for us today is very simple. If OSHA
couldn't hear us when we voted for a regulatory moratorium, maybe we
need to speak a little louder. If OSHA couldn't hear us when voted for
cost-benefit and risk assessment legislation, maybe we need to shout.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps OSHA will hear us when cut back on their funding;
maybe then they will pay attention to the direction we are taking
federal regulators. I sincerely doubt they will listen, but this is a
first step we need to take. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to
support the DeLay amendment.
{time} 1930
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very reluctant opposition to my
leaders' amendment.
As chairman of the subcommittee that funds OSHA, I do not believe
that it is possible, by offering an amendment to cut $3.5 million out
of the salaries and expenses account at OSHA, that we are going to be
able to get at the regulation dealing with ergonomics. We may be able
to make a statement that way, but the effect of the amendment will be
to take the salaries and expenses account that is, after being amended
in the subcommittee markup down to the fiscal 1994 level, below that
level.
In making the mark, I might say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
DeLay], we did not touch salaries and expenses in any line item in our
bill because we felt that that would be unfair. We are well into and
mostly through the fiscal year. Even people who work for the government
have a right to know that they are going to have a job and be able to
afford to educate their children for the rest of the fiscal year. We
just did not think that it was fair to them to put them in a position
where a rescission would cut off their livelihood, very possibly, in
the middle of the fiscal year, so we did not cut it.
Mr. Chairman, I might well agree with the gentleman's assessment of
the regulation, but I do not think this is the proper way to get at it.
I think it is unfair to Federal employees.
For those reasons, Mr. Chairman, I do reluctantly oppose the
amendment.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Hefley].
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, in the past, I have accused OSHA of being
an agency out of control. Today, we have a good example of why that is
true.
How bad is the ergonomic regulation OSHA is drafting? You do the
math. According to the compensation insurance industry, cumulative
trauma disorders cost employers approximately $1 billion per year.
On the other hand, OSHA's ergonomic regulations will easily be the
most expensive they have ever promulgated--more expensive than their
blood-born pathogen rule, more expensive than their asbestos standard,
even more expensive than their proposed $8 billion indoor air
regulation.
Still, the regulation might be reasonable if the size of the problem
matched the costs. Is that the case? No.
[[Page H3252]] Cumulative trauma disorders make up less than 4
percent of all work-related injuries and diseases that resulted in
missed work.
OK. What about the science? To reduce the cost to employers, will
OSHA be able to draft tight regulations which give employers specific
guidelines and references. No.
Simply put, there is no scientific support for a national ergonomic
standard. Everyone agrees that cumulative trauma disorders are a
problem, but no one knows where the threshold between safety and injury
lies--not medical doctors, not the Center for Disease Control, not even
OSHA bureaucrats.
But that does not deter OSHA. As in the past, they are determined to
plow ahead where no reasonable agency would tread.
The woman in charge of writing this new standard, Barbara Siverstein,
told Forbes Magazine that despite the death of science, OSHA will
``take some sort of a performance based approach to reducing exposure
to those things that we know increase your risk of musculoskeletal
disorders.''
What Barbara says is true. It is possible to establish performance
based standards to prevent repetitive motion traumas. I will establish
one right now: Don't work, don't type, don't do any heavy lifting,
never strain yourself, and try to avoid breaking out in a sweat.
The solution is somewhere between having a work place where no one
works and a work place where something gets done. Unfortunately,
neither Barbara nor anyone else knows where that point lies.
Mr. Chairman, the American people sent us to Washington to get the
federal government off their backs and out of their lives. Support the
DeLay amendment, rescind the $3.5 million from OSHA, and reign in an
out-of-control agency.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Owens].
(Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in total opposition to H.R. 1158.
H.R. 1158 represents wasteful, inefficient, illogical, and barbaric
legislation. It is naked power exercised by the Committee on
Appropriations, which has held no hearings, no site visits, and is in
no way knowledgeable about what they are doing in this area, or any
other area where they have promoted these rescissions.
The Department of Labor will stand behind the facts and figures that
I cite here. The Secretary of Labor, Elizabeth Dole, a Republican, the
Secretary of Labor, Lynn Martin, a Republican, started the ergonomics
studies. They started the process, to be continued by a Democrat, but
all three have gone through a deliberative process based upon the facts
that they see.
Disorders for cumulative trauma, like carpal tunnel syndrome, have
increased at epidemic rates, up 770 percent in the past decade. In 1993
more than 300,000 cases of repeated trauma disorders were reported. The
overall problem of musculoskeletal disorders, including back injuries,
is much bigger, more than 3 million cases a year.
The economic costs of these disorders is huge. The workers'
compensation costs associated with musculoskeletal disorders is $20
billion a year.
Mr. Chairman, 56,000 people die every year form accidents on the job
or from illnesses contracted on the job, 56,000 people die every year,
which is as high as the number of people who are killed in all of the
Vietnam War. You can check the facts and figures with the Department of
Labor.
Over the 20-year history, the more than 20-year history of OSHA, we
have saved millions of lives and avoided millions of injuries to
workers. OSHA is a deliberative agency, based very much on scientific
evidence and the use of information. This process, with the Committee
on Appropriations legislative force, is not a deliberative process, it
is a barbaric process.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158. This bill
would cancel $17.1 billion in previously appropriated funds, more than
99 percent of which represent investments in the American people. In
return, what will the American people get? If they are low-income,
working class Americans, they will get next to nothing; but if they are
lucky enough to be among the few percent of Americans making more than
$100,000 a year, then they will get a windfall. That is because the
Contract With America is bloated with tax breaks for the wealthiest
Americans, and my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the
aisle are pressing forward with this rescissions package to pay for
this pork--pork which is considered to be nothing but fatty, gristly
meat when served on a plate to the Nation's poor, but somehow is
magically transformed into protein-laden filet mignon when served on
fine china to the Nation's rich.
Let me illustrate how the tax breaks in the Contract With America are
a boon for the rich but a boondoggle for the poor. Under the proposed
capital gains tax cut, 76 percent of the tax cut, or $10.6 billion,
would go to those individuals making more than $100,000 a year.
Moreover, a corporate executive making more than $200,000 a year would
personally gain more than $3,800, while a family earning between
$20,000 and $30,000 a year would gain a mere $5.52--not even enough to
put a t-shirt on a child's back.
So we can see that all of the promises being made by Republicans--
that people will be rewarded for getting off welfare, working hard, and
playing by the rules--are illusory. Now let us take a look at all of
the benefits which the American people will have to sacrifice so that
the Republicans can spoon-feed the fat-cat freeloaders who belly-up to
the Government trough.
To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit,
the American people will lose 1.2 million jobs for at-risk youth during
the next two summers. These jobs provide young adults with the money
they need to purchase clothes and supplies for school. They also
provide lasting gains in employment and purchasing power.
To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit,
the American people will lose nearly 30,000 AmeriCorps members
participating in the National Service program. That will be a tragic
loss for communities which are benefiting from AmeriCorps' services,
and an even greater loss
for middle class families struggling to meet the costs of college
tuition for their children.
To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit,
the American people also will lose $105 million in assistance to their
local school districts and, more specifically, services for 100,000 at-
risk children which are designed to help them achieve the highest
academic standards.
To give the corporate executive his $3,800 capital gains tax benefit,
the American people additionally will lose violence and drug prevention
programs for 39 million students due to the elimination of the Safe and
Drug-Free Schools Program. And nearly $175 million will be stripped
away from GOALS 2000 Education Reform, robbing 4,000 schools and
thousands of parents of the resources they need to improve the
education of our Nation's children.
As a result of this bill, New York alone will be hit with $1.6
billion in spending cuts. New York will lose $107 million in education
funding; $540 million for public housing; $164 million for home heating
for low-income people; and more than $160 million for job training and
assistance for at-risk youth, displaced workers, and senior citizens.
The Grand Old Party [GOP] likes to present itself as the party of
opportunity for those Americans who are willing to work. Clearly, that
is more fiction than fact, for the wolf is disguised in sheep's
clothing. Opportunity to the Republican Party means opportunity not for
those who work the hardest, but for those who have the highest incomes.
Opportunity to the Democratic Party, on the other hand, means
opportunity for everyone, particularly American families who cannot
make ends meet and work their way out of poverty despite working long
hours at back-breaking jobs.
Mr. Chairman, because I prefer to reward individuals for the strength
of their character and work ethic instead of the size of their wallet,
I must vote against H.R. 1158, and urge every Member of this body to do
the same.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will advise that the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay] has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Wisconsin,
[Mr. Obey] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
has the right to close, since he is defending the committee's position.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].
Mr. BALLENGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLay
amendment. In spite of what the opposition says, no one ever died of
ergonomics. Today we have the opportunity to say no to the runaway
Federal regulators.
Earlier this year, in a bipartisan vote, the House passed H.R. 450,
which placed a moratorium on all new Federal regulations until December
31, 1995. The passage of this bill and other regulatory reforms was
intended to send a signal to Federal departments
[[Page H3253]] and agencies to end the production and implementation
of countless regulations that strangle competitiveness and economic
growth.
However, one agency did not get the message, OSHA. Earlier this week,
one of the top bureaucrats at OSHA's ergonomics team indicated that the
agency will be pushing forward with plans to establish an ergonomics
rule, blatantly flouting the will of Congress.
Plainly, OSHA wants to continue the practice of business as usual. As
chairman of the Subcommittee on Work Force Protection of the Committee
on Economic and Educational Opportunities, the subcommittee with
jurisdiction over OSHA issues, let me tell the Members that the
proposal on ergonomics is one of the broadest and most expansive health
and safety regulations in recent times.
An ergonomics rule has the potential of devastating business and
altering every job in America. Let us not forget that the rationales
for the ergonomics regulation is not based on sound and strong
scientific evidence.
There is a clear choice before us today. A vote against the DeLay
amendment will signal Federal bureaucrats, particularly those in OSHA,
that the business of issuing needless burdensome regulation should
continue. A vote for the DeLay amendment will tell OSJA that it cannot
impose a new socially-engineered workplace policy, which will literally
affect every American worker, unless it is based on sound scientific
and cost analysis.
Vote for the DeLay amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, let us be very clear what this is all
about. As a member of the committee, there is no question in my mind
that the Republican majority just wants to get rid of OSHA. This is
just a downpayment in putting OSHA on the chopping block.
There is no question about it. Let us also make it very clear that
there is no reason for this to be a partisan issue. In fact, this
rulemaking was started under a Republican administration. Former
Secretary of Labor Elizabeth Dole made the decision to develop an
ergonomics rule in 1990. Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin initiated the
rulemaking with the request for comments in 1992. What they want to do
is just to stop all discussion and stifle any debate.
Mr. Chairman, this should proceed so there can be careful, thoughtful
consideration by employers, workers, unions, and others that can have
input on this important rule. This ergonomics rule has not even been
proposed right now. I suggest that we vote down this amendment so we
can proceed in an orderly fashion.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to my friend,
the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a champion against regulations.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, during the debate on regulatory reform, I
spent a great deal of time on the floor. I had a chance to re-read the
Constitution, in this little pocket edition of the Constitution. In the
back of this booklet is the Declaration of Independence.
If Members have not read it in a while, I recommend it. It states
forth the reasons why this country sought its independence from the
King, the oppressive King. Let me read one line here in the Declaration
of Independence.
It says ``He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither
swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.''
This is exactly what Washington, DC, has done, and what this agency has
done.
OSHA has driven our employees out of business, it has harassed our
businesses, and operates in conflict with the principles of the
Constitution. In fact, our employers and our business men and women in
this country are guilty until proven innocent.
Here is another regulation that will send swarms of new officers into
our workplaces, harass our people who are trying to create jobs, keep
jobs in this country, and make sense out of an agency that is totally
out of control.
Pass this amendment and send OSHA a message that this rule and OSHA's
oppressive actions must stop.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. Let
us call this amendment what it is, another mean-spirited Republican
attempt to harm working people in this country.
First, it is ``Let us depress wages, let us not increase the minimum
wage.'' Then it is ``Let us destroy Davis-Bacon. We cannot have
prevailing wages.'' Now it is ``Let us destroy the health and the
welfare and the safety of America's workers.''
For shame, majority, for shame. The fact is that OSHA saves lives.
OSHA improves workers' health. OSHA's enforcement programs improve
safety. Safe workplaces save dollars. OSHA's job is far from done. Each
year, 56,000 workers still die from work-related accidents and
illnesses.
The fact of the matter is that working people in this country, the
people that built this country, the people that continue to build this
country, need protections, and OSHA provides those protections. We
ought to stop the mean-spirited Republican assault on working people in
the United States.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Coyne].
(Mr. COYNE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. COYNE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does nothing to improve the
bill before us, and I strongly oppose the rescission package before the
House today.
This $17.3 billion cut in Federal domestic programs represents an
attack on children, the poor, veterans, and the elderly. Nearly two-
thirds of this bill's rescissions are from programs to assist children,
low-income families, or the elderly poor. Low-income Americans across
our country will feel the pain of these cuts but these cuts will hit
especially hard in America's cities.
Communities in Pittsburgh and other major U.S. cities will suffer a
major reduction in Federal funds for a range of basic human service
programs. Urban programs account for 78 percent of the
cuts in this package. The result will make life harder for hard
working Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet.
Who will not be hurt by these cuts? The Defense Department will not
lose one cent under the Republican majority's rescission package.
They have even denied Democratic Members the ability to restore
funding for child nutrition or any other human service program by
reducing any part of the $262 billion defense budget.
The Republican majority's rescission package would cut $88 million
from the Department of Health and Human Services' health resources and
services account. This cut will cut $10 million in funding for the
Healthy Start Program that is helping to reduce infant mortality. My
community of the first 15 U.S. cities to receive a Healthy Start
Program and has already seen an 18 percent reduction in its infant
mortality rate as a result. The lives of 18 babies have been saved in
our area's Healthy Start Program area.
The elimination of all funding for LIHEAP--the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program--will hit 50,000 households in my congressional
district alone. Seniors and low-income residents in the Pittsburgh area
will lose $9.5 million in LIHEAP funds needed to help them pay their
heating bills this winter.
This rescission package turns a cold shoulder to the children of my
district. A total of $1.6 billion will be cut from education programs.
The Republican majority's bill would eliminate every cent of funding
for the Drug-Free School Program. Our city schools alone will be denied
$500,000 needed to fight illegal drug use in our schools. The
Republican majority also says ``no'' to our area's youth who want to
get a job. The elimination of all funding for the Summer Youth Jobs
Program will deny 900 Pittsburgh area teens a chance to learn job
skills by working this summer.
Seniors housing accounts for 40 percent of the $7 billion cut from
Federal housing programs. Cuts in Federal housing programs--including a
$15 million cut in the budget for our local housing authority--will
hurt seniors and other low-income residents who depend on Federal
housing assistance.
Veterans at Pittsburgh's VA hospitals will also be affected by a $206
million cut in VA medical programs. These cuts will take place even
while our country prepares to celebrate the 50th anniversary of V-E
Day. This cut in VA medical programs is an outrageous way to
[[Page H3254]] commemorate veterans who fought to defeat fascism
during World War II.
Why are we making these cuts? The Republican majority needs to slash
domestic programs for the poor to pay for $189 billion in tax cuts.
Many of those tax cuts will benefit upper incomes Americans; for
example, 75 percent of the capital gains tax cuts will go to
individuals with incomes above $100,000.
Mr. Chairman, the Republican majority's rescission package is too
severe. It slashes Federal funding for children, seniors, veterans, and
low-income families most in need. It protects the Defense Department
budget and asks nothing from the most affluent in our society. I urge
my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have no other requests for time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I was told by the Chair I have the right to
close. I have only one closing speaker.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] yielding back
the balance of his time?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is going to close, I will
use the rest of the time myself.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] is recognized for
the remaining 2 minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, what we are seeing here is a desperate
attempt on the part of the minority to protect the status quo and what
has been going on for the past 40 years.
{time} 1945
They want to continue spending and the joy ride that they have been
on for the last 40 years, and they want to protect the bureaucrats that
have been oppressing American citizens for a very long time. That is
what this amendment is all about, is to stop the bureaucrats and stop
what is going on.
I have been collecting horror stories about regulations for every
year that I have been in Congress, and the most horror stories come
from OSHA. OSHA is an oppressive agency, an agency that steps way
beyond its bounds and way beyond the intent of the legislation.
When we had a decisive vote in this House to send a message to OSHA
and other regulations that we want regulations based on good science,
what did OSHA do? They decided to run off and continue operating as
usual.
Under these standards of ergonomics, slouching in a chair could be a
hazard, or someone holding a phone between their shoulder and their
neck could be a hazard. In Australia, when ergonomic standards were
adopted in the early 1980's injury rates increased. Workers'
compensation costs increased by as much as 40 percent in some
industries. And a single company lost more than $15 million in a 5-year
period due to increased production costs.
All we are saying is:
``OHSA, heed our message. Step back, look at what you are doing. Use
good science, good studies to do what you are doing but if you're not
going to get the message,'' then the best way to get a bureaucrat's
attention is to cut their central office.
That is what this amendment does. It goes right to the heart of the
bureaucracy and cuts $3.5 million right out of the heart of OSHA. If
OHSA does not get this message, we will come back on an appropriations
bill and send them another message.
It is time the bureaucrats in this town got the message. America is
fed up. I appreciate the Members' support for my amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, what a joke we just heard. We were just told
that it is the Democrats who are protecting the status quo and yet it
is the gentleman from Texas who is offering the amendment that is
preventing the agency from moving off the status quo to protect people
who are getting injured every day in the workplace.
Come on, get off it. Give me a break.
This amendment is paraded as the device by which you stop the
ergonomic study. In fact, this amendment has no way of stopping the
ergonomic study. It does not do that. All it does is cut 3 million
additional dollars out of OSHA, and the gentleman is nodding in
agreement. All that will do is cut the number of consultations which
OSHA can provide businessmen so that businessmen can find out how to
correct problems without being inspected, and all it does is also cut
out their ability to provide needed high visibility inspections.
Now he says he wants OSHA to follow good science.
I ask a question: Where do you think you are likely to find that good
science? From the neutral officials in OSHA who are charged with the
legal responsibility to protect American workers? Or from the horde of
lobbyists which the Washington Post described just last week as being
all over the gentleman's office as he was preparing the anti-regulation
barrage that we got hit with last week?
I think you know the answer to that one. With all due respect, if I
am looking for good science, I am not going to go to the Fortune 500
list of lobbyists they talked about in that Washington Post article
just 2 days ago.
This amendment is just like the tax cuts this party is trying to
push. They are trying to push capital gains tax cuts and give three-
fourths of the benefits to people who make more than 100,000 bucks a
year. They are trying to repeal the requirement that every American
corporation that is a big one and makes money at least pays some taxes.
They want to go back to the good old days when you do not even require
the Fortune 500 corporations to pay taxes. Why then we should be
surprised that they offer an amendment which says to workers, ``Forget
it, baby, we're interested in your bosses but not you''?
I think this amendment perhaps ought to be passed. It is a perfect
example of what the Republican party has come to stand for. It is a
perfect symbol for how bad this bill is. So vote for it. You are going
to pass it, you have got the votes, but you ought to be ashamed of
yourselves.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appered to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 254,
noes 168, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 242]
AYES--254
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
[[Page H3255]] Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--168
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Berman
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Deal
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Furse
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Petri
Pomeroy
Porter
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
NOT VOTING--12
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Fazio
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Johnson, E.B.
Lewis (GA)
Solomon
Yates
{time} 2007
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Cubin for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.
Mr. DEUTSCH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. obey
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment number 13 originally
printed by the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: At the end of the bill, add
the following new title:
TITLE IV--DEFICIT REDUCTION LOCKBOX
deficit reduction trust fund
Sec. 4001. (a) Establishment.--There is established in the
Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the
``Deficit Reduction Trust Fund'' (in this title referred to
as the ``Fund'').
(b) Contents.--The Fund shall consist only of amounts
transferred to the Fund under subsection (c).
(c) Transfers of Moneys to Fund.--For each of the fiscal
years 1995 through 1998, the Secretary of the Treasury shall
transfer to the Fund amounts equivalent to the net deficit
reduction achieved during such fiscal year as a result of the
provisions of this Act.
(d) Use of Moneys in Fund.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amounts in the Fund shall not be available, in any fiscal
year, for appropriation, obligation, expenditure, or
transfer.
(2) Use of amounts for reduction of public debt.--The
Secretary of the Treasury shall use the amounts in the Fund
to redeem, or buy before maturity, obligations of the Federal
Government that are included in the public debt. Any
obligation of the Federal Government that is paid, redeemed,
or bought with money from the Fund shall be canceled and
retired and may not be reissued.
downward adjustments in discretionary spending limits
Sec. 4002. (a) In general.--Upon the enactment of this Act,
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall
make downward adjustments in the discretionary spending
limits (new budget authority and outlays) specified in
section 601(a)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 for
each of the fiscal years 1996 through 1998 by the aggregate
amount of estimated reductions in new budget authority and
outlays for discretionary programs resulting from the
provisions this Act (other than emergency appropriations) for
such fiscal year, as calculated by the Director.
(b) Outyear Treatment of Rescissions.--For discretionary
programs for which this Act rescinds budget authority for
specific fiscal years, the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget shall include in the aggregate amount
of the downward adjustments under subsection (a) amounts
reflecting budget authority reductions for the succeeding
fiscal years through 1998, calculated by inflating the amount
of the rescission using the baseline procedures identified in
section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985.
prohibition on use of savings to offset deficit increases resulting
from direct spending or receipts legislation
Sec. 4003. Reductions in outlays, and reductions in the
discretionary spending limits specified in section 601(a)(2)
of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, resulting from the
enactment of this Act shall not be taken into account for
purposes of section 252 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] will be recognized for 15 minutes. Is there a Member standing in
opposition to the Obey amendment?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to be
recognized for the extra 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana asks unanimous consent to
be recognized for 15 minutes in the face of no opposition being voiced.
Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, since I am calling up this amendment on
behalf of the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Brewster, who is the real
author of the amendment, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
(Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today with my good
friends Mike Crapo, David Minge, and Glen Browder, and thank them for
working with me on this lockbox amendment.
I will keep my statement brief since I know there are many amendments
made in order today.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment represents a subject that is very
important to me, and other Members of this House. The subject is
deficit reduction.
Constituents around the country sent a strong message to Washington
last November. Americans sent their Representatives to Congress to
first and foremost--reduce the Federal deficit.
For most of us in Congress, our contract is with our constituents--
not a President, party or any interest group. All recent polls show
that the vast majority of Americans are wanting to see Congress keep
their word and cut the deficit.
With this said, it certainly surprises me that this appropriations
bill was reported out of committee with nearly $12 billion in 1995
spending cuts that do not go toward deficit reduction. The point is
that these cuts do not result in real savings.
The Brewster-Crapo-Minge-Browder lockbox amendment will ensure these
cuts go only to deficit reduction. This amendment will take the net
savings in the bill--the $17 billion rescissions, minus the expenses of
the emergency supplemental portion of the bill--and put them in a
deficit reduction lock box. It prohibits using these funds for anything
except reducing the deficit, and it also requires the budgetary caps be
lowered for the outyears.
Mr. Chairman, I will be candid about my feelings on this bill. There
are many difficult cuts in this bill. There are programs eliminated
that are very valuable to my State of Oklahoma. However, Mr. Chairman,
it took 200 years to reach a $1 trillion debt and since 1980 we have
added almost $4 trillion more debt.
[[Page H3256]] I have discussed with my constituents over the last
few months the seriousness of the Federal debt. They don't like many of
these cuts either. But, these hard-working, honest citizens are willing
to once again sacrifice in order to reduce our deficit.
But, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you they will not support these cuts if
the savings go for anything other than deficit reduction. Quite
frankly, Americans do not have a lot of trust in Congress right now.
Let us start changing that today, and give them the deficit reduction
they have asked for.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members of this House to support the
Brewster-Crapo lockbox amendment.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo], the cosponsor of this worthwhile
amendment.
Mr. CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to get up and talk further
about the lockbox. The deficit reduction lockbox is an idea that is
introduced with a much broader scope than just this bill and which I am
sure we will talk about a lot in the future as we address the questions
about how we must develop a budget system that truly reduces our
deficits in this country.
With regard to this bill, however, I think it addresses one of the
significant concerns that we have heard again and again and again. The
argument being made is that, well, we should not be using this money
for tax cuts, we should be using this money for deficit reduction. And
it appears that we are getting into this continuous debate as to
whether it is better to have deficit reduction or tax cuts, deficit
reduction or tax cuts.
This will make it clear once and for all that we will make the
necessary deficit reduction that we have called for in the Contract
With America. And I believe that we are going to be able to go forward
in future actions and find the necessary cuts for tax cuts.
But this bill will put into place a mechanism now that hopefully we
can use in the future as we address other budgetary problems to assure
that there is a lockbox mechanism that helps us to achieve deficit
reduction.
One thing that I hope it does is clarify the debate so that there
will be no more objection to the questions about this bill going to
deficit reduction. We have stated that in an earlier debate, in an
earlier vote today on the amendment brought by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], and this amendment provides the enforceable
mechanism to make it happen with certainty.
If we are concerned about deficit reduction, this bill will make it
happen, and I do not think that those who have debated against this
bill can now say there is no reason to support it.
This makes it clear we are working for deficit reduction, and we will
make deficit reduction a reality.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
{time} 2015
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Chairman, the cuts in this rescission bill are
devastating, WIC, jobs for youth in the summer, fuel assistance for
low-income Americans, foster care and adoption services, student loan
programs, housing for low-income Americans, local water treatment costs
for programs mandated by Congress.
Can we justify the cuts for these programs in order to finance tax
cuts for the more affluent members of our communities and increased
military spending? Absolutely not.
Going further, we have a convoluted budget-cutting process. In my
opinion, there are criteria for deficit reduction. We would not simply
say that it is deficit reduction to plan to shave $200 billion off
interest on the national debt. That is not realistic.
We need to have, if we are going to impose deficit reduction on the
American people, shared sacrifice. We should not be balancing the
budget on the backs of the poor, the veterans, and children.
Where are the cuts in the weapons systems that the Defense Department
does not want? Where are the cuts in programs for those of us with
higher incomes?
We are cutting the most vulnerable first. This stands our proud
heritage of fairness on its head. At the very minimum, let us assure
low-income Americans, students, and local communities that their
disproportionate sacrifice goes for deficit reduction.
I urge you to vote for this amendment. It mandates real deficit
reduction. It locks in the savings for 1995 and for years to come.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of speeches about how the savings
in this bill, which will amount to roughly $11 billion net, will go to
pay for the Contract or whether it will go to pay for tax cuts for the
rich and the wealthy, notwithstanding the fact that three-quarters of
the tax advantages of the Contract go to people earning $75,000 a year
or less.
But all of that notwithstanding, considering the Murtha amendment,
which has already passed almost unanimously, and this amendment, which
I expect will pass, the fact is the savings that we have reaped with
this fiscal year 1995 rescissions bill will go to help pay off the
deficit, and I think that is a significant achievement.
So I rise in support of this particular amendment, and I hope that
all of the supporters of the amendment who will cast their votes in
favor of the amendment will likewise vote for final passage of the bill
when it is all over. I challenge them to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama [Mr. Browder].
Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Chairman, we will vote in just a minute. I rise to
support the Brewster amendment.
This deficit-reduction lockbox dedicates rescissions to deficit
reduction. The American people have told us loudly and clearly that
they want us to reduce the deficit first. The American public is
rightly skeptical when we turn to budgetary gimmicks to pay for our
wish lists, whether it is tax cuts or new benefits programs.
It was in the spirit of representing those concerns that we developed
the lockbox, and it is our desire to reassure the American public that
deficit reduction comes first.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an example of how bipartisan support
moves us toward deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
I urge support of all of our Members for this amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox].
Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise just to say finally
this amendment will, in fact, give everyone the chance to put the money
into deficit reduction that all of our families want and all of our
children want. That is certainly an amendment I would ask for a
unanimous vote for.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah
[Mr. Orton].
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Chairman, my constituents and the American people have
voiced their priorities to cut spending and cut the deficit.
Rescissions are difficult. Cutting spending is difficult, hard-fought,
and often painful. But the American people are willing to cut spending,
even their own benefits, if those spending cuts reduce the deficit.
The American people become upset when they find out a cut really does
not reduce spending but it is simply shifted to other types of spending
or to tax cuts.
In hearings in the Committee on the Budget we asked the people,
``What would you rather have, the tax cut or devote all of the spending
cuts to deficit reduction?'' Overwhelmingly they asked to reduce the
deficit.
This amendment sets up the mechanism to insure that a cut is a cut,
and it will reduce the deficit.
I urge adoption of the Brewster amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the lockbox Brewster
amendment. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and I have been
[[Page H3257]] working on this concept for 2 years, and it is
gratifying to see it come finally to the floor.
In my judgment the lockbox amendment makes a very bad bill a little
bit less worse. At the very least, the lockbox will guarantee that the
spending cuts go to deficit reduction, not corporate tax breaks.
I will bet most Americans would be shocked to learn that without this
amendment that the gentleman from Oklahoma and his colleagues deserve
great credit for in persevering, not one dime of this rescission bill
would have gone to deficit reduction, not a single dime.
The original intent of this bill was to guarantee such things like
General Dynamics and Mobil and other billion-dollar, profit-making
corporations pay no taxes to pay for the repeal of the alternative
minimum tax.
Thanks to the gentleman from Oklahoma, thanks to the lockbox, that is
not happening, and this, my colleagues, is what the lockbox was devised
for.
When we get on the floor and say we are cutting, we should not find
that money being used to spend for something else or, more importantly,
to reduce taxes. This amendment will make sure that happens. It will
make sure that the promise that has been made by so many to the
American people that we are serious about deficit reduction does not
just become words but it becomes actions.
I, for my part, still think the cuts in this bill are unfair and
skewed against the poor, against the elderly, against the working
people, and against urban areas.
It is small consolation, but some consolation at least, that the
money that we are using for these cuts will go to deficit reduction,
not tax breaks.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Harman].
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have said many times that this bill, this
amendment, and this concept have many fathers and one mother. As its
mother, I was proud to help the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]
and others attach it to the 1993 budget bill, and I was happy to stand
with the gentleman from Idaho [Mr. Crapo] and others last week to
propose it as a mechanism to use in our appropriations process.
I trust, as we did before, we will again work together in the future
to adapt it to more spending cuts in this House. I support it here
because it means that the cuts we will make through this bill will be
devoted to deficit reduction. That is right. It is fair.
With the failure of the balanced budget amendment, the lockbox
concept becomes all the more crucial, and spending cuts in the 104th
Congress that are devoted to deficit reduction, start today.
I urge support for the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I hear the gentleman on the other side of the
aisle shouting ``Vote, vote.'' They are the ones who imposed this rule.
I think we have a right to use the time granted under it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Cardin].
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I support the Brewster amendment, but I
want to make it clear it does not correct the irresponsibility in the
provisions of the Contract With America on deficit reduction, because
of the way that the proposal for the tax cut will be coming to the
floor, and there is still going to be pressure on programs on our most
vulnerable in order to finance a tax cut for the most wealthy.
In the next 5 years all of us hope we will be doing a lot more than
deficit reduction that would be in this lockbox. If we do not cut $188
billion more, which is that the tax cut will take out of the Treasury,
if we do not get $188 billion despite the fact we might have some money
in the lockbox, the deficit will continue to grow. So this lockbox will
not protect us from making sure that our programs that affect our
children that we are cutting, that those dollars will, the fact, go to
reducing the deficit if we do not address how we are going to finance
the $188 billion.
This tax cut goes to the most wealthy.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes, the remainder of my time,
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Wynn]
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this a good amendment that makes a bad bill better.
I am appalled at these cuts. I understand we have tough decisions to
make, but I find it ironic that the people that say we need more people
working and people need to pull themselves by their bootstraps want to
cut off the bootstraps. They cut adult job training. They cut summer
jobs. They cut job training programs.
But what made it so appalling was that they would make these cuts
affecting the disadvantaged only to give to the rich. Under this bill,
the wealthiest 2 percent of this country would get 30 percent of the
tax breaks. The wealthiest, the people with over $100,000, would get 50
percent of the tax breaks.
This amendment corrects that. At least we see money going into
deficit reduction, as it should be.
Perhaps the poor will benefit from lower interest rates. Perhaps the
poor will benefit from not having to pay as much in debt service, and
we can put some of that money back, but clearly we should not be making
these draconian cuts to give money to the wealthy.
They say, well, they will find that money elsewhere to do the tax
cut. Maybe so, but I submit that now the average American can ask the
question, ``Who is getting the tax break?'' I think when they see who
is getting the tax break, they will reject this approach.
I am pleased to support this amendment. I think it is moving in the
right direction. It makes a bad bill better.
Mr. DURBIN. I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma and his
friends for offering this amendment, because it brings some sanity to
what we are trying to do this evening.
The chairman from Louisiana has been speaking to us in subcommittee
for the last several weeks about what we are going to do with all the
money we are saving tonight, all the money we are saving by cutting
these programs. The chairman has given several different explanations.
I think tonight finally we are down to one simple explanation: About
$5 billion or so is going to disaster relief, primarily in California.
The remainder is going to go to deficit reduction.
This is a new development. All of you who are following the contract,
punching out the holes, there is a question tonight about the
Republican tax plan. All of a sudden this tax plan that they love so
much they are walking away from. Why would they walk away from a tax
cut? Could it be the publicity that they have been getting, as
Americans take a closer look at the Republican tax cut and find out
that the benefits are, once again, under the Republican plan going to a
privileged few?
Take a look at the capital gains tax cuts. If you happened to be
making less than $100,000, the Republicans have in store for you 26
dollars and 5 cents. But if you happen to be one of those families
making over $100,000, guess what the Republicans have to offer you,
$1,223, too much money for the people who do not need it.
But where do they come up with this money? They come up with it by
cutting critical programs, absolutely critical programs that are
important for people all around America.
{time} 2030
Mr. DURBIN. We are talking about education dollars, money that should
be going for safe and drug-free schools. Instead, they would cut the
program to give tax breaks to wealthy people.
What else do they do with their tax cut plan? They end up saying that
a lot of corporations in America, who otherwise would pay nothing, are
going to continue to pay nothing, go back to the 1986 days before the
alternative minimum tax. The Republican tax cut plan says that wealthy,
profitable corporations should not pay their fair share.
Well, tonight, ladies and gentlemen, there has been a late breaking
story. The Republicans have been reading their own publicity. They have
been looking at the reaction across America and they are having second
thoughts about this tax cut plan.
[[Page H3258]] I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] and
his friends for bringing some sanity to this process. If we have to cut
critical programs, let us at least do it in the name of deficit
reduction. This lockbox amendment may stop a few of my Republican
friends, but not in lockstep.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 418,
noes 5, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No 243]
AYES--418
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--5
Miller (CA)
Nadler
Rahall
Waters
Williams
NOT VOTING--11
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Davis
Dooley
Gibbons
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (GA)
Moran
Talent
Torkildsen
Yates
{time} 2047
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. rogers
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 6.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Page 8, line 24, strike
``$19,500,000'' and insert ``$9,500,000''.
Page 9, line 11, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert
``$30,000,000''.
modification of amendment offered by mr. rogers
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, at the behest of the original offeror of
the amendment, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified
by the form the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] has placed at
the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification of amendment offered by Mr. Rogers: Strike
``$9,500,000'' and insert ``$16,500,000''; and strike
``$30,000,000'' and insert ``$23,000,000''.
Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.
There was no objection.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rogers, as modified:
Page 8, line 24, strike ``$19,500,000'' and insert
``$16,500,000''.
Page 9, line 11, strike ``$20,000,000'' and insert
``$23,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] will be
recognized for 15 minutes. Does a Member rise in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not rise in opposition. I doubt that
there is any Member in opposition, but I would again like to work out
an understanding on the sharing of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to ask unanimous consent to
take the 15 minutes in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey] will be recognized for 15 minutes.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 15 minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is offered by the
gentlewoman from Maryland.
I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] to
explain the amendment and its modification.
Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering would
reprogram some of the cuts in chapter 2 of H.R. 1159. The amendment
would restore $3 million that would otherwise be rescinded from the
research budget of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology,
an equal offset of $3 million is made against the State Department
account for acquisition and maintenance of buildings abroad. This
[[Page H3259]] $3 million amendment would partially restore the
proposed 19.5 billion that would be rescinded from the NIST laboratory
funding account.
This represents the lab's core functions, including its basic science
and mission-related research.
I first of all wanted to thank the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
Rogers] for working closely with me on this issue. We are all operating
under severe budgetary constraints at the current time. I know that the
gentleman from Kentucky is very appreciative of the role that NIST
plays in the Nation's overall competitiveness.
I look forward to working with him and the ranking member in the
future on these issues. He has always been a good friend both to me and
to NIST.
NIST, Mr. Chairman, is one of the premier research and technical
agencies of the Federal Government. It is a nonregulatory agency whose
one overriding mission is to promote economic growth by working with
industry.
NIST's mission is to develop and apply technology, measurements and
technical standards. The benefits of NIST activities are enjoyed
throughout the country, wherever quality and competitiveness in
manufacturing are valued.
For over 100 years, governments have recognized the importance of
measurement standards for economic growth. That is why virtually every
industrial nation has the equivalent of a NIST.
Even in the Middle Ages, commerce within a city or town depended upon
having a standard pint, a standard yard and standard bushel. Today,
manufacture of world-competitive computer chips and memory devices
requires the use of measuring techniques accurate to less than a ten-
thousandth of an inch. Measurements this precise require the
development of whole new measuring technologies, and that is where NIST
research comes into play.
NIST laboratory programs receive $265 million in funding for fiscal
year 1995. This level of funding reflected a careful weighing of
proprieties by Congress and the administration, taking account of the
evolving needs of our manufacturing industries.
NIST laboratories still account for less than one half of 1 percent
of the Federal R&D budget. These recent increases in the NIST budget
come after decades of neglect, decades during which, as we all know,
American industry suffered and an almost fatal decline in its
manufacturing competitiveness.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that there is no other place in the
Government than NIST where dollars invested will reap such large gains
for the economy. NIST creates and nurtures the measurement
infrastructure that allows industry to speak the same language. Without
measurement standards, industry would be doomed like the proverbial
Tower of Babel to fall down in disarray.
Let me offer one example of how NIST laboratory programs benefit all
of our constituents. Every year in America, doctors perform over 7
million diagnostic procedures using radiopharmaceuticals. In fact,
these procedures are given to fully one fourth of all hospital
patients. Heart patients, for example, often receive a thallium-201
stress test which allows doctors to actually see damaged portions of
the heart muscle without ever breaking the skin.
The market for radio pharmaceutical preparations now approaches $1
billion annually. Patients and care-givers alike have a right to expect
that these radioactive materials have been properly measured and
standardized. It is a matter of safety, foremost, but also good
medicine and good business practice.
NIST services are essential in each step of the process that I have
outlined. It provides first the measurement standards that everyone can
use; second, the protocol, so that instruments can be properly adjusted
and calibrated; and third, the crucial standard reference materials for
instrument testing.
I want to make one point very clear. The functions that NIST performs
are not optional for the government. It is not a matter that if we drop
these programs the private sector will take up the slack. Development
of measurement standards is costly and research intensive, but most
importantly, development of these standards is not in the economic
interest of any one company. That is why we critically need NIST and
why NIST programs need to be fully funded.
Furthermore, it is not a matter that we can develop these standards,
place them gingerly under a bell jar, as it were, leave them there for
an eternity. We are approaching a very difficult budgetary environment.
I do not undertake a further offset against the State Department
buildings account in a light or cavalier fashion, but I think that the
$3 million is not going to hurt them that much.
The proposed rescissions to NIST programs this year are quite
significant. I know that my good friend, in restoring this $3 million,
will look to the future NIST budget for fiscal year 1996. I look
forward to working with him, and I wanted this body to hear something
about how important NIST is.
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
(Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's
amendment. I rise not to debate the merits of moving several million
dollars from the State Department construction account to the NIST
program, which I support, but more so to talk about the limited rule
that we have here for us to make this decision in a host of other
areas.
Abraham Lincoln once said, ``As the times are new, we must think anew
and act anew.''
This is certainly a new idea, to pay for a natural disaster with
offsets in the budget. I support that. But when you do that, I think
you have to provide equity and judiciousness and the opportunity to
restore programs that are important to many Members in Congress with
offsets from other cuts.
Take, for instance, WIC, Women, Infants and Children. It is cut $25
million in this bill.
{time} 2100
That is a program that President Reagan and President Bush supported.
That should not be cut. We should have the opportunity to offer
amendments to restore that.
Mr. Chairman, I offered five amendments in the Committee on Rules.
Only one was ruled in order. Drug-free schools to keep our children out
of harm's way and off drugs, where in every one of our newspapers we
are reading about children in the first grade in my district bringing a
gun to school. Drug-free schools money was $482 million. We have cut
that by $472 million in this bill.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, heating for senior citizens, heating for
senior citizens in the cold Northwest and in the Midwest, we have cut
that by $1.3 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I am all for making cuts. I offer amendments to cut the
space station each year however, let us have the opportunity under a
fair rule to cut these programs like the CIA, with $28 billion a year;
like Section 936, that allows us to send money down to Puerto Rico, to
move jobs out of this contiguous United States.
They debated the A to Z bill when they were in the minority. Let us
debate cuts A to Z. This bill is A to B. We are not given the
opportunity to get into half the cuts we want to get into.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, my friend, the gentleman from Indiana, is
right in saying that our colleague, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs.
Morella], has come up with a creative way to save a program she cares
about. We were not given a similar opportunity to offer alternatives to
spending cuts that we care about.
I want to repeat something my friend, the gentleman from Indiana
said, Mr. Chairman. This rescission bill in front of us will totally
eliminate grants to senior citizens that help them pay their heating
bills.
Mr. Chairman, many of us would like to have put that money back in
the budget and pay for it by taking money away from the S&L bailout for
the Resolution Trust Corporation. We cannot do that. We would have
liked to have
[[Page H3260]] put money back in the budget and paid for it by
considering something under another bill, the cancellation of a $50
million loan from the United States to the Kingdom of Jordan. We cannot
do that under this bill.
Some of us would have liked to have put that senior citizen money
back into the budget and paid for it by cutting some of the money to
the power administrations, the TVA and some of the other subsidies
around the country. We are denied the opportunity to do that by the
procedure under which we are operating here.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Maryland is to be congratulated
for her creativity, but all the creativity in the world would not have
given us a chance to vote on the changes I just made.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we did not get the chance because the
leadership on the other side knows that we would win if we got a chance
to offer those amendments.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Vermont.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about waste and
bureaucracy. Let us talk about waste. Do Members know what waste is?
$10 billion on the space station. Helping senior citizens heat their
homes in Vermont in the winter time is not waste. Do you know what
waste is? Corporate welfare and subsidies for large corporations and
wealthy individuals, that is waste. Drug prevention programs for high
schools and elementary schools in this country, that is not waste. That
makes good sense.
Do people really think it is waste to put money into the WIC program
so we can provide decent nutrition for pregnant women and their
children? Is that waste? That is not waste. Keeping the CIA funded at
almost the same level as in the cold war, that is waste.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would continue along this path that we
are debating here and say that it is equally shameful, not only not to
provide us the opportunity to cut some of this waste and some of this
pork, but to then pit great programs one against the other.
First of all, the opportunity for us to support our veterans, which I
just did, and restore $206 million to make sure our veterans get access
to outpatient care is a great expenditure of money.
However, then to turn around and say the only way you can do that is
to cut AmeriCorps and tell 18- and 19- and 20-year-olds that they
cannot teach in schools in the South, or they cannot help in terms of
cleaning up the environment in the West, or they cannot help in terms
of great programs where they volunteer and serve and get into careers
to help different Americans throughout the country, is a real travesty
in this country.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROEMER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman making that
point. As the gentleman knows, that amendment was supported
overwhelmingly. It was supported by many of us who feel very, very
strongly, as the gentleman has just articulated, the importance of
AmeriCorps. That vote had nothing to do with AmeriCorps, although under
the rule, as the gentleman points out, that was the way they found to
fund that particular restoration. I think the gentleman makes a good
point. We are certainly going to revisit that.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
[Mr. Andrews].
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the unwritten clauses with
the Contract With America is that there will be free, open, and honest
debate, regardless of party affiliation. Tonight is the night the
Contract With America was breached. We are all watching it tonight.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment of the
gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella]. I am delighted she was able
to work it out with the chairman of the subcommittee, because I think
what she is doing here is something which does advance the cause of
science and technology in the country, because she is helping to fund a
core program that increases U.S. competitiveness in those areas.
I could not help but be somewhat amused by what we just heard form
the fear caucus and the look-back caucus here a couple of minutes ago.
The gentlewoman has done exactly what the rule permits, and the rule
permits under all circumstances out here on the floor, that she found a
way to bring her amendment to the floor, to fund it within the right
account.
Some people on the other side call that clever. Fine. That is part of
what the legislative process is about. She has done a very good job of
it. She deserves to be congratulated for doing that.
Others could have done exactly the same thing. They just do not like
the idea that they have to obey the rules. What they want to do is to
be able to reach into all kinds of areas and pull out, and what do we
hear that they want to pull out, they want exactly the opposite
direction from the gentlewoman. They want to kill and cut science and
technology programs in order to fund social welfare programs.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that that is something that the American
people might want to think a little bit about, whether or not we ought
to cut the science and technology efforts of this country in order to
increase the amounts of money going for largely social welfare
programs.
Mr. Chairman, in the past few weeks what we have seen happening in
this country is an understanding developing among the American people
that what has gone on in Washington over the last several years is
absolutely immoral; that we have brought about a situation where our
children and our grandchildren are going to pay massive bills of debt
that we are racking up because we want to feel good, because we want to
be politically correct, because we want to be able to say that ``we
care for you'' and we are going to dish out government money that we do
not have and pile it on the debt of our kids.
Mr. Chairman, I simply suggest that if we are going to spend some of
this money, it ought to be spent as the gentlewoman wants to spend it,
increasing American competitiveness, advancing the cause of science and
technology, so that in fact in the future our kids have something solid
that we have created, so that they have some new economy, some new
kinds of jobs that we have created out of the competitiveness that we
brought about.
Mr. Chairman, what I hear from the other side is that that is not
what they want to do. They want to cut these programs so we can make
people more dependent, create more social welfare, and do it in the
wrong way. I think that is a very, very disturbing trend, and it is
probably the reason why the rules of the House are the way they are.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to the gentleman two
things. One, I will give the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]
an opportunity not to re-spend the cut from the space station later
this year on social welfare programs, but to put it to the deficit.
That is a program that is tens of billions of dollars over budget.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I have debated.
Reclaiming my time----
Mr. ROEMER. Could I just make my second point, Mr. Chairman? The
gentleman yielded.
Mr. WALKER. Sure.
Mr. ROEMER. The second point is that the gentleman used the rules in
this Chamber as a member of the minority, or objected to those rules
when they were not fair, in instances like A to Z.
I assume the gentleman signed the discharge petition for A to Z to
get a full debate on cuts.
Mr. WALKER. Sure.
Mr. ROEMER. Now we do not have the opportunity on the floor.
Mr. WALKER. We are having a full debate now.
Mr. ROEMER. We are restricted by the rule as to what we can cut.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, it is a much fuller debate then we usually
got out of appropriations bills brought out of the committee.
[[Page H3261]] Mr. ROEMER. First, it was a restrictive rule brought
to the floor.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, under the rules, it is my time.
I would say to the gentleman that the fact is that when supplementals
were brought out in the past, we did not even pay for them. We were not
given an opportunity on the floor to find a way to pay for them.
What we have here is a rather unique new procedure under the
contract, where we are actually saying ``Maybe we ought not fund our
emergencies by piling it on as debt.'' We have a rather remarkable new
thing out here on the floor, right here, where we are stopping the
piling on of debt.
I know the gentleman is complaining about that. The gentleman would
prefer----
Mr. ROEMER. I am not complaining about that.
Mr. WALKER. That what we do is come out here and kill space station,
so he gets his social welfare money. I think that probably is a major
mistake.
The gentleman never has liked space station because he does not think
that space station creates new technology. I happen to believe it does.
In fact, the President and his administration, Mr. Gore today, I talked
to him on the phone, he was against those NASA cuts, because he feels
as though that is a contributor.
The gentleman is out of touch with his own party and out of touch
with, I think, the direction of the Congress.
Mr. ROEMER. That is helpful in some degree.
Mr. WALKER. That may be.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking minority Member for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, back on the ranch, with regard to the amendment offered
by the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], I rise in strong
support of the amendment. It would restore $3 million of the $19.5
million in cuts for the internal laboratory research programs at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
For the record, Mr. Chairman, I would support a full restoration of
that funding. I know the gentlewoman from Maryland was very interested
in doing that also, and worked very hard on it. This was the compromise
she was successful in achieving. I congratulate her for that.
Before going on to talk a little bit about these programs and why we
should support the Morella amendment, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
note that I deeply regret that the offsets in this amendment are coming
from the State Department's Foreign Buildings account.
This is a big account, there is no question about it, but this
account provides funds for over 12,000 facilities valued at over $10
billion. Right now, we have a $400 million plus backlog of facility
maintenance and repair projects for our decaying facilities overseas.
Mr. Chairman, this account has already taken two cuts as a result of
the rescission process. It is a big account, an easy account to cut.
However, it would really be penny-wise and pound foolish, because we
are building up a great liability that we are going to have to address.
And we have already cut $20 million in this bill and $28 million as a
result of the Senate's action on the defense supplemental.
I simply want my colleagues to know that continued hits in this
account jeopardize our foreign buildings, as well as our new embassies.
Mr. Chairman, I hope we would refrain from the temptation to cut this
account simply because of its size, and slow outlay rate. While I
regret this account is where we are getting the money to offset this
amendment, I do support very strongly the NIST laboratories. They
develop measurement techniques, testing methods, standards, and other
types of infrastructural technologies and services that provide a
common language needed by industry in all stages of commerce.
They respond to the present and anticipated needs of U.S. industry
and set priorities based on close consultation with industry.
Mr. Chairman, to this end, this $19.5 million cut proposed in the
rescission package would have a profound impact on U.S. industry's
ability to compete in the worldwide high technology markets.
There are two reasons why this cut would be particularly devastating.
First, historically, up until a couple of years ago, the NIST labs were
getting about half of their budget from other agencies in contract
services. In other words, they were contracting out their services and
those contracts were supporting NIST employees.
The increases we see in the budget requests, and it has rightly been
pointed out that NIST's internal laboratories have received increases,
since that time represent a shift from this type of funding to a
straight appropriation. They was a good reason for this.
Mr. Chairman, this change gives the labs more stability to plan their
activities from year to year. This has become increasingly important as
industries become more sophisticated and technology changes more
quickly. It is important for NIST to be able to set its own agenda, to
have a budget which supports its FTEs.
Second, it allows NIST to target resources to high priority areas,
like advanced manufacturing and biotechnology and information
technology.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Colorado, a
distinguished member of the subcommittee.
{time} 2115
Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to
reinforce what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has been
saying. We debate something that comes to us, and I appreciate the
gentlewoman's bringing this to the floor, under the bureaucratic
sounding title of Internal Laboratory Research and Members' eyes gloss
over.
It is important to understand the real consequences of the work being
done under this particular part of the National Institutes. We are
talking about semiconductor microcircuitry research, materials, science
research, a whole range of things that constitute a critical ingredient
in any well-informed and sensible national competitiveness strategy. It
is a vital part of the administration's efforts to really boost
civilian research and secure an economic future for this country.
Mr. MOLLOHAN. We are supportive of the gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. ROGERS. I only have one speaker remaining, and I think it is our
right to close; is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, that simply gives me an opportunity while
we are on this subject to take my remarks one step further.
I would like to speak more broadly to all the proposed rescissions in
the commerce technology programs, both in this bill and in the
rescission package accompanying the defense supplemental. I want to go
on record as strongly opposing these proposed cuts in the advanced
technology program, in the manufacturing extension program, and in the
Office of Technology Policy. Of course it is relevant to comment on
these cuts because the NIST internal labs support the other commerce
technology programs.. This is part of the reason why we desperately
need this funding.
According to the charts contained in the World Competitiveness Report
of 1994, the United States ranks 28th, behind Japan, Germany and all of
our other major competitors in the percentage of government funding
allocated to non-defense research and development. We rank fifth in
total expenditure of R&D as a percentage of our GDP, and 19th in real
growth of private sector R&D investment.
Let's face it. Our competitors are heavily investing in programs
similar to the commerce civilian technology initiatives. They are
pouring funding into research and development of precompetitive generic
technologies. They are funding programs similar to MEP, and we are just
beginning to understand the importance of that.
[[Page H3262]] Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I particularly regret the
cuts in the rescission packages to those external civilian technology
programs.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time allocated and urge the
support of the Morella amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have one other request for time. How much
time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, under the general rules of
germaneness here and since I will not get a chance to talk about this
elsewhere, I want to say a little bit about HUD.
We are hearing a lot and a lot in this bill beats up on HUD, and I
want to acknowledge, HUD has been badly run, because from 1981 to 1989
under Ronald Reagan, the Secretary of HUD was Samuel Pierce, and rarely
in the history of America under that Republican administration has any
Federal department been run so incompetently and corruptly at the same
time. They rarely did anything at all and when they did anything, it
was likely to be crooked. The problem we now have is that the poor
people in this country are going to be penalized by savage cuts in HUD
which are a consequence in part of mismanagement of that Republican
rule.
With Samuel Pierce having presided under Ronald Reagan over the most
corrupt administration and the most inept in recent memory, it is a
very cruel thing now to penalize the poor people today, and so these
cuts in HUD which are being justified by HUD mismanagement are a clear
case on the part of the Republican Party of killing your parents and
claiming justification because you are an orphan.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] is recognized
for 4\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, let me explain simply what the
gentlewoman's amendment does. The 1995 appropriations act out of our
subcommittee included $265 million for the National Institute of
Standards and Technology's internal laboratory research programs. That
amount was $40 million over the fiscal 1994 figure, an 18 percent
increase, and deservedly so, because these labs do a wonderful job.
The committee rescission in this bill that is pending before us would
rescind $19.5 million from that amount and reduce the 1995 figure to
$245.5 million for fiscal 1995. That is still a 9.5 percent increase
over the 1994 level, even after the rescission is taken.
The NIST internal program will not lose money. They will just simply
get as much of an increase as the 1995 bill had given them. They will
still be able to employ more people, even with this rescission.
The gentlewoman from Maryland has made a very powerful case to this
gentleman and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the
ranking minority member on our subcommittee, of the importance of the
NIST program over and again to us.
I have to compliment the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] for
her tremendous persuasiveness about the effectiveness of NIST and its
programs. She has convinced us that it would be wise to cut back on the
rescission in a fairly modest way but a significant way.
This amendment she offers would restore $3 million to the NIST
internal research program to enable them to continue the build-up that
was started a few years ago to bolster our Nation's ability to compete
by transferring technology to our Nation's industries and businesses.
I do not think anyone in this room needs to be convinced of the
efficacy of the NIST programs. This is one of the government's good
programs. These are dedicated scientists and economists and people who
understand business and exports. These laboratories at NIST already
have a 90-plus-year history of working closely with small and large
companies coupled with a reputation for neutrality and technical
excellence.
That is why NIST was selected by the Congress in 1987 and 1988 to
tackle added assignments. Today we provide services through four major
programs that make up a portfolio of technology-based tools:
One is the competitive advanced technology program which provides
cost-shared awards to industry to develop high-risk technologies.
Two, a grassroots manufacturing extension partnership helping small
and medium size companies to adopt new technologies.
Three, a strong laboratory effort planned and implemented in
cooperation with industry and focused on infrastructural technologies.
And, four, a quality improvement program associated with the Malcolm
Baldridge National Quality Award.
The NIST laboratories are an invaluable asset of our government in
assisting American companies to be more competitive in the world
market.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we do not have enough money in our bill
to do all we would like to do. The monies that we restore tonight we
will have to find in 1996 in order to keep these added employees on the
line. None of us can guarantee that. We have got a tough year coming up
in 1996. But for the moment, the gentlewoman from Maryland's amendment
has been persuasive.
I want to again congratulate her on being able to convince a number
of us to restore this amount of money to the NIST program.
I reluctantly have agreed to the amendment, and I will be voting for
the Morella amendment and urge our colleagues to do the same.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], as modified.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was
ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 419,
noes 8, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 244]
AYES--419
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
[[Page H3263]] Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanders
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--8
Abercrombie
DeFazio
Hefley
Hostettler
Johnston
Manzullo
Rohrabacher
Scarborough
NOT VOTING--7
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Foglietta
Gibbons
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (GA)
Yates
{time} 2143
Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2145
amendment offered by mr. crane
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Has the amendment been printed in the RECORD?
Mr. CRANE. Yes, it has, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Crane: page 33, line 20, strike
``$47,000,000'' and insert ``$112,000,000''.
Page 33, line 22, strike ``$94,000,000'' and insert
``$215,000,000''.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Is there any Member standing in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, Speaker Gingrich has indicated that he would not
recognize further funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
after 1998, and as a result, we are on a course that is designed to
totally defund the public contribution to public broadcasting. It is a,
relatively speaking, minimal contribution right now, and it will be
zeroed out.
But in the interim, what I am arguing is that my amendment would do
this in a way that enables those people to make adjustments as they
face that final decline of Government money involvement in public
broadcasting. They would do this in a more rational way.
The proposal in the legislation before us is mild up front. In 1995,
it is a 15-percent cut, a 30-percent cut in 1996, but then they are
faced with a 70-percent reduction in their funding the year that it is
terminated. My proposal, Mr. Chairman, would, instead, make it 33
percent, 33 percent, and 33 percent, and I would argue, Mr. Chairman,
that that is a better way to approach the resolution to this problem
than is currently contemplated.
The CPB funding, one must recognize, is a very small percentage of
total funding for public broadcasting. As I indicated earlier, it is
roughly 15 percent that comes from Federal appropriations to fund
public broadcasting. We are talking about the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, not public broadcasting. Public broadcasting will
continue, and my argument is there are ways in which it can be assured
of a continuation for those programs that those people who are constant
viewers, say, of public broadcasting, they can be assured that they
will still continue to receive those services.
There will be some adjustments, however, and those adjustments are
dictated in part by economic reasons, and that has been a part of the
argument advanced by Speaker Gingrich when he says by 1998 the
Government taxpayers will no longer be involved in this process.
I think it is important for our colleagues to understand that from
1975 until the present the funding for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, the public funding, has risen by 500 percent, 500 percent
since 1975. And even if you are looking at constant dollars, the fiscal
year 1995 appropriation is more than three times higher than 20 years
ago.
Telecommunications is very different than it was in 1967 when CPB was
created. The functions of public broadcasting, namely, education,
entertainment, diversity, access, and so forth are now duplicated in
other entities such as cable, direct satellite, VCR's, public-access
shows. CPB provides only one block of programming, while cable provides
hundreds.
Some say that we need CPB because many do not get cable, the main
source of diversity. However, the answer to that problem is to
encourage access to cable, not to subsidize public broadcasters. Many
public TV stations themselves are now redundant. CPB estimates that 58
percent of Americans receive at least two or more public TV stations.
In the greater Chicago area, for example, my hometown, there are as
many as four access stations, and New York has four. Washington, DC,
has three; Kansas City, for example, has two.
Public broadcasting funds should go to rural stations where the need
for access and diversity is most acute. If the CPB were truly the
philanthropic organization it claims to be, cuts in its budget would
not lead to the end of small stations. Instead, it would end big
stations where consumers have a number of choices.
Barney was created by the Lyons group. Founder Sheryl Leach and her
partner were listed as one of Forbes magazine's highest-paid
entertainers with 1993 to 1994 earnings of $84 million. The Lyons group
has the licensing agreement with Hasbro and a theme park at Universal
Studios theme park in Orlando.
Barney avoided extinction with the help of a $2 million grant from
the CPB and public broadcasting. ``What we didn't realize is that
exposure is so important,'' said Barney creator Sheryl Leach. After
public broadcasters provided exposure, Barney became an institution.
The Wall Street Journal reported that despite Barney's $1 billion in
gross revenues and Leach's $84 million earnings, almost nothing goes to
CPB. In total, according to the Wall Street Journal, the CPB earned
$317,000 from product licensing fees in 1991.
Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to recognize that we are not
talking about ending public broadcasting. What we are talking about is
ending that minimal Federal Government involvement in this process that
is not necessary, not in any way, shape, or
[[Page H3264]] form, to guarantee that public broadcasting continues.
And we know, for example, that there are alternative ways to meet
that marginal void of the 15-percent taxpayer contribution to the
process that has perpetuated this with escalating costs to the
taxpayers and minimal return.
I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to that noted defender
of Big Bird, the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 50 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to the
Crane amendment to impose further cuts on the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting.
In fact, had the rule not be so restrictive, I would have offered my
own amendment to cut those cuts even further rather than increasing
them.
The House Republican leadership has launched an all-out attack
against the Corporation for Public Broadcasting as wasteful government
spending and as culturally elite. This amendment hastens the planned
demise of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and reveals very
clearly the extremist agenda of the Republican majority.
If you oppose violence in the media, you will oppose this amendment.
Public broadcasting, Sesame Street, Prairie Home Companion, and other
public programming provide an alternative for preschoolers, families,
elderly Americans who want to avoid the violence of too much of
commercial broadcasting. If you disagree with the Republican leadership
claim that public broadcasting represents a subsidy for the culturally
elite, you will oppose this amendment.
Nearly half of public broadcasting's audience are middle-income-
family individuals. Calling public broadcasting culturally elite is an
insult to the millions of hard-working, middle-class Americans who
watch public television or listen to public radio. If you oppose the
commercialization of public broadcasting, you will oppose this
amendment.
You will oppose this amendment, because opponents of public
broadcasting seek to privatize public broadcasting and allow commercial
interests to take it over. The fact is public broadcasting could not
support itself solely through revenues from its successful shows and
should not support itself through commercials.
I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the Crane amendment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I have not suggested the content. What I
have suggested is that we are going to terminate public financing of
public broadcasting by the year 1998, and all that my amendment does is
to do that in a staggered way where those people can make easier
adjustments than to take a 70-percent hit in their total budget in
1997. Mine is 33, 33, 33, so they can make the adjustments to the
cutbacks. And the other point is it is not cultural elitism that I have
argued about.
Mrs. LOWEY. I would just like to thank the gentleman for clarifying
my statement even further. In fact, what this amendment does do, as you
suggest, is hasten the demise of public broadcasting, because, in fact,
you are increasing from 15 to 36 percent the cuts in 1996 and from 30
percent to 68 percent the cuts in the following year. So you are
hastening the demise of public broadcasting, and I thank you for your
clarification.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
for one final rebuttal. My point is that is a gentler adjustment time
frame than what is proposed under the legislation, because if you make
marginal cuts this year and marginal cuts next year, and then you come
in and you savage them totally in that final year, that is a bigger
adjustment than my proposal offers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter], the distinguished subcommittee chairman.
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, as well-intentioned as this amendment might be, I
believe that it would very much undermine the efforts of the
subcommittee and the committee to graduate public broadcasting off the
Federal subsidy, and we believe that we are making great progress in
that regard.
{time} 2200
Mr. Fields of Texas, the chairman of the authorizing subcommittee,
and I met with officials of CPB, NPR, and PBS within the last 2 weeks,
and we had I think a very, very productive meeting and understanding
that our intention was that CPB become independent of the Federal
subsidy, that they work on a plan that would provide for alternative
revenue streams, and that they work also to incorporate a concept of
graduation from subsidy for member stations who do not need it within
their plans and to reduce or eliminate station overlap, of which there
is some involved, particularly on the television side.
We believe that the cuts that we proposed are very substantial, 15
percent next year and 30 percent the following year. We believe that it
allows them adequate time to adjust to the concept of coming off the
Federal subsidy, and we believe very strongly that the Crane amendment
would undermine these efforts.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, rise in strong opposition to
the Crane amendment to increase the cut in the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. But do not let the Crane amendment distract us from what
is really happening here today, because this rescission bill advanced
by the Republican majority has huge cuts in the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting: $47 million for this next year, and $94 million the year
beyond.
So any words of support for CPB in opposition to Mr. Crane, Members
should demonstrate their support for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting by voting against this bill in final passage to eliminate
these huge cuts that are already there.
Mr. Crane in his remarks said people who do not have cable should get
it. We should increase access to cable. What will that do? Increase
access for our children to more sex and violence on television. Cable
television, even if people can afford it, which they cannot, is no
substitute for educational TV, which reaches 99 percent of our
households. Our society benefits immensely from the unique educational
services CPB provides that stretch across age, sex, gender, and ethnic
boundaries.
Make no mistake, this rescission bill has serious cuts in the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If you support it, you will vote
against this whole bill in the end, because then you will be truly
standing up for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Another point our colleague has made is that if you eliminate public
funds, it is still public. That cannot possibly be true.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, 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. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Crane
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it strikes me as a bit odd, at a time when we are
concerned about universal access to the internet, to laptop computers,
to an array of educational technologies, to be talking about
eliminating access to the one educational technology that is available
to everyone already: public broadcasting.
I am old enough to remember in the 1950s, when broadcast television
was hailed as the Nation's salvation, offering endless educational and
entertainment possibilities--possibilities that did not seem outlandish
in the medium's ``golden age.'' And yet by the 1960s, Newton B. Minow
famously surveyed the broadcasting landscape and saw nothing but a
``vast wasteland.''
So in the 1990's, as the commercial media become ever more
competitive, they reach reflexively for the lowest common denominator
of flashy, empty programming, often laden
[[Page H3265]] with violence and sex. It is in the public interest
that quality alternatives be offered that the market is slow to
provide. The Federal funding in public broadcasting is minimal, and I
see no reason we should poor mouth our way into an impoverished
culture.
Public broadcasting survives, and must survive, to meet real,
legitimate, unmet public needs. It is a resource we need more than
ever, and I urge my colleagues to vote against rescinding
appropriations for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is part of the Republican
campaign for the dumbing down of America. First, they killed the
fairness doctrine so Americans no longer hear both sides of an issue.
Then the Republicans invested heavily in right wing radio and TV, so
that Americans get a steady diet of Rush Limbaugh and the world
according to Professor Gingrich. Now they wanted to kill public
broadcasting.
My Republican colleagues live in fear that Americans will hear more
than their narrow side of the political debate. It is ironic that my
Illinois colleague, who railed against the freedoms destroyed by
communism, is anxious to silence the free exchange of ideas on public
broadcasting.
The Republicans should not be afraid of information and balanced
debate. In many foreign nations, this kind of exchange of ideas is
called the American way of doing things.
Now, let me reinforce what the gentlewoman from California said.
Voting against Mr. Crane's amendment does not make you a friend of
public broadcasting. Keep in mind that the underlying bill, this
rescission bill, cuts the heart out of public support for public
broadcasting.
Those who are standing here opposing his amendment, to say that they
are friends of public broadcasting I think a lot of us know better. The
bottom line is this: If we are going to keep a free and open exchange
of ideas in this country, we have to be subscribing to, supporting
personally, and providing some Government support, yes, for public
broadcasting, both radio and TV. Oppose the Crane amendment and oppose
this bill.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I assume that free exchange is on Barney and Sesame
Street that he is talking about, and that is characteristic of the
other side of the aisle. But let me tell you something: Lyon's Group
and Children's TV Workshop are grossing about $2 billion a year through
the exposure of Barney and Sesame Street. Now, why do they not, because
of that free advertising, permit a little flow-back to replace any
component part of national public broadcasting that is coming from the
taxpayers.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRANE. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. The gentleman knows, of course, what somebody grosses is
not necessarily----
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, to be sure. I said gross
income. But my point is that when you are looking at $2 billion a year
in gross income, for goodness' sake, our contribution that we are
talking about is inconsequential by comparison.
Ms. PELOSI. If the gentleman will further yield, the gentleman is on
the Committee on Ways and Means, a great leader on that committee.
Could the gentleman give us some idea of how much of tax write-offs the
commercial television stations get each year, how much the taxpayer
subsidizes their operations.
Mr. CRANE. Infinitely preferable to do it in the private sector than
the public sector.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr.
Istook].
Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I am
amazed from what I just heard from this other side of the aisle. They
said we have to have Government-subsidized broadcasting at taxpayers'
expense to counter what you are hearing from the free enterprise
system; that you have to have Government to get out a public propaganda
message instead of listening to what is on news programs or public
information programs from free enterprise.
That is a socialist approach. I reject it. If you want education
programming, you have got that in private sector already. Look at the
Learning Channel, the Discovery Channel, the Arts and Entertainment
Channel, C-SPAN, Spanish Network, Weather Channel, Headline News, CNN;
then the other commercial stations. You do not need Government to give
your side of the story whenever the free enterprise system says
something.
I reject that notion. That shows what is really going on. Public
broadcasting should be paid for by voluntary members of the public that
want to contribute, not tax money.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the free enterprise system does not work to
serve the children of our country. ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox combined have
on 8 hours of children's television per week, total. PBS, starting at
6:30 each morning with Sesame Street through 6:30 every night with Bill
Nye, the Science Guy, puts on 10 to 12 hours a day, 60 or so hours a
week, of children's television.
Now, just so you will know the facts, ladies and gentlemen of the
other side of the aisle, there are 70 million children in the United
States. Of those 70 million, 33 million of them live in homes without
any cable. The only channels they can turn to are ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox,
or the other independent stations. There is no children's television on
it.
Now, if you want these children to be able to compete in a post-GATT,
post-NAFTA world the way I do, I voted for it, we have a big deal with
these kids. We are letting the low-end jobs go and are going to try to
target the information-age jobs.
If you take off the only channel on television that provides mothers
of children that come from the low income areas with the informational
and educational skills which they need, then you are dooming our
country to a society where all the welfare reform in the world will
never make it possible for these children to have the skills that make
it possible for them to hold the jobs in your so sacred private sector
that you cut their one link to it that the public is providing them.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has 4 minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 7\1/4\ minutes
remaining, and is entitled to the right to close since he is defending
the committee position.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, as a father of a 5-year-old and a 3-year-
old, I got to tell you that when you rely only upon the commercial
sector to produce programming that is in their interest, you do
sacrifice quality and content.
I doubt any of you have the opportunity to watch the kinds of shows
that are put on on Saturday mornings or during the morning on weekdays.
But the reality is that the only quality is that which you get on
public broadcasting. What you get on the commercial networks is full of
gratuitous violence, it has no qualitative content to it. There is a
reason why the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been maintained.
It is because there is a vast difference between what it produces and
what the commercial networks produce. And it all comes down to where
the motivation is. The motivation for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting is to produce the highest quality programming, to appeal
to our best instincts, and that is what we got and that is what we
should keep.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, this rescissions package is a joke,
worse than what you see on the various cable TV networks. This
rescissions package guts public corporation television. It guts summer
jobs, it guts housing for people who need it. And let me say this: I
resent the Members of the other side of the aisle calling us
socialists. We simply stand here for working Americans. Public
television is free television, and it is television for our children.
What you are asking us to do is take from the Old Testament Solomon's
rule
[[Page H3266]] where he asked the mothers who gave birth to two babies
how they would resolve who would get the one baby that lived. When they
could not resolve it, one mother said cut the baby in half. The other
mother said no, let the other mother take the baby because I love the
baby too much.
We love our children. We will not let you put us in the Solomon's
choice. Republicans can cut the baby in half. Democrats want to keep
the baby alive because we love our children. Support the Public
Broadcasting Corporation.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to those of you who find
more sense in being reasonable than to be idealogues. You know, there
is a place for public television and a place for public radio, and it
is indeed both in the urban and rural areas. I represent rural America,
and it is refreshing to know there is a source of information that is
not only qualitatively and quantitatively superior, but also is
subjective and has an opportunity to advance learning.
This is in the American interest that we support it. It is not to
suggest that we are any less caring about free enterprise, but it is to
suggest we see value in having the Americans support it because it
enhances not only the education advancement, but it enhances the
American way. It makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, I appeal to the other side to not only defeat this
amendment, but to know that you must defeat the whole bill itself.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
gentleman, but I think I heard something that was false. It is not
free. My five grandkids are going to get the bill. We are spending $200
million a year. It is not free. You are charging to each of my
grandkids every month a debt they cannot pay, and it is not free. And
if we do not pay attention right now, you are taking away their future,
because you think it is free.
{time} 2215
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Engel].
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
This is once again another instance of mean-spirited Republican
budget cuts. It really never ceases to amaze me how mean-spirited and
radical the Republican party has become. When I left this morning, my
16-month-old son was watching Barney. My kids have grown up on Sesame
Street. I said this morning, Don't kill big bird.
Let me tell you something: 40 percent of American families do not get
cable television. So if we lose public broadcasting, 40 percent of
America cannot see public broadcasting and these kinds of shows. Do we
want our kids to be exposed to the sex and violence in commercial
television? Do we really want our kids to be exposed to all these
commercials?
For $1 every $1 that is put in of public funds, $6 in the private
sector are generated. This is an example of the public/private
partnership that works. This money that the Federal Government puts
forth is less than $1 for every American person.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It ain't broke. Public TV works.
Vote against this mean-spirited amendment and vote against the mean-
spirited rescission package.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, we heard the previous speaker equate
public broadcasting with socialism. I think that kind of laid it bare.
There is no secret out here anymore. This is an amendment from the far
right wing of the Republican party, this doubling of cut for the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting really goes by name. It is called
extremism.
Look, the mainspring of your party and the mainspring in the middle
of your party, neither want to see the cuts doubled to the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting, and neither your middle or ours or the middle
of America believe the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is akin to
socialism.
This amendment represents the far extreme right wing of your party.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I have to explain again to my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the
public taxpayer-financed component of public broadcasting, will be gone
by 1998. All my amendment does is phase that cut in in a way where they
can make the adjustment easier than is otherwise prescribed under the
legislation before us.
It is a 33, 33, 33 percent cut instead of waiting until 1997 and
taking a 70 percent hit on their whole budget.
It is history, guys. Open your eyes up. We are talking about letting
the private sector run it as it always should have.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleagues, the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. With all due respect, we have a
gentleman's disagreement.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Illinois for yielding time to me, because I rise in reluctant
opposition to the amendment at this time.
I think our position as Republicans first of all should be in support
of public broadcasting. I think there is a niche for public
broadcasting on the information superhighway. I do not believe there
should be $1 of Federal money spent in the future when it comes to
authorization or when we get to the next round of appropriations, I
will support the gentleman from Illinois.
But I am now in a gentleman's agreement with CPB, with PBS, and with
NPR, trying to find a solution to this problem, because I honestly
believe there is a need for public broadcasting. But again, do not
misunderstand me, particularly on this side of the aisle, in the
future, we should not spend Federal money.
We can have a transitional time of commercial advertising. Then we
can use the spectrum and through new technology allow compression that
allows them to move into a new era.
So reluctantly, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
My colleagues, the hour is late. The fact is the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the members of the subcommittee have done a
good job. They called for a 15 percent cut in 1996 for CPB and a 30
percent cut in 1997. I think that is adequate. That gets us on the
right track.
Next year we can deal with this matter in the appropriations process
in the normal time sequence. But I think that we ought to leave this
bill intact as it is.
I sympathize with my friend from Illinois. I share his goals as one
who has been personally attacked, practically, and caused hardship by
my own public TV station. But I believe that we should deal with this
at the proper time.
I urge the committee, the whole committee to support the work of the
Committee on Appropriations. Vote against the Crane amendment and
sustain the work of the committee.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen] who has a gentleman's disagreement with
me.
Mr. TORKILDSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for
graciously yielding time to me.
I, too, disagree with the amendment. I think public broadcasting does
have a role in our country. Commercial broadcasting is fine for what it
does, but it does not have the educational component that public
broadcasting has.
So I would ask members of my party to please vote against this
amendment. I think we need public broadcasting to continue that
education for preschoolers, but also for adults, programs that we would
not see otherwise.
I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time to me and ask
that the amendment be voted down.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Further
cuts in public broadcasting will not only devastate public television
and radio systems, but it will also severely
[[Page H3267]] hamper the discussion already taking place about the
future of public broadcasting.
Faced with the current $141 million reduction, about 30 stations
would merge or go dark by 1998 and another 30 stations would have to
shut down local operations by 2000.
This debate is about the value we place on public education. Public
broadcasting is education for preschoolers; it's hands-on classroom
materials for teachers; it's a way to earn a GED or college credits
from home. The guiding principle of commercial broadcasting is clearly
profit. For public television, the guiding principle is education.
Cable has certainly added to the television menu, but only for those
who can afford its high prices. Basic cable costs around $25 per month.
That is simply too high a price for millions of Americans, and as a
result nearly 40 percent continue to go without. Public
television reaches 99 percent of the nation.
The public broadcasting industry and Congress are currently
discussing the future role of public broadcasting for America.
Draconian cuts would hamper these talks and prevent any thoughtful
resolution for this issue. I urge my colleagues--even those who would
like to end Federal funding for public broadcasting--to vote against
this amendment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, Government ought to do what it has to do, not
what it would like to do. We would all like to play Walter Annenberg or
Lorenzo de Medici and be patrons of the arts. If we are serious about
getting the deficit down, we can no longer do the things that are
luxuries, that are nice and pleasant.
Let us go to the foundations. Let us go to the wealthy people who
subsidize the arts, museums. Let them subsidize public broadcasting. It
is good. It is worthwhile, but we have to borrow money to pay our
bills. We can get by without this. We ought to fund it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] has \1/2\
minute remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 1\1/
4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Let me just say in conclusion, we are not talking about ending public
broadcasting. Eighty-five percent of public broadcasting is privately
funded. We are talking about a minuscule contribution from our
grandchildren who are going to inherit the debt that we are running up
right now.
I say it is time to get Government out of public broadcasting. It can
survive and it can continue to provide the worthwhile services it has
in the past.
I urge support for my amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is irrelevant. The Republicans have
already decided to kill public broadcasting. This is simply a late-
night sideshow to enable the reluctant dragons of the GOP Gingrich gang
to get off the hook. That is all it is.
I never want to hear another lecture about family values from the
Republicans in this House. I just heard someone on that side of the
aisle, on the Republican side of aisle say our kids could not afford
the money we are spending on public broadcasting. What our kids cannot
afford is the garbage that passes for entertainment on commercial
television. That is what our kids cannot afford.
This is a debate between family values and commercial values. And
when you kill the only kind of television that gives young kids a
decent opportunity to see something other than the garbage that passes
for national network television, what you do is abandon them to the
commercial marketplace. You abandon them to the commercial market
forces. You say, ``Values out the window, dollars come first.'' I do
not think this country wants that.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this bill indiscriminately cuts
programs of great importance to millions of elderly, poor, and young
Americans.
This bill reduces funding for important services like the Corporation
for Public Broadcasting.
Now we are considering an amendment which further cuts funding for
CPB.
CPB plays an important role in educating our young and keeping a vast
part of our society informed.
This bill, already cutting CPB's funding by 15 percent, will have
direct and negative consequences for children, rural areas, and
minorities. This amendment will devastate public broadcasting.
My colleagues on the other side argue that CPB can be privatized,
that the proliferation of cable has surpassed public television, or
that CPB can survive through advertising, or from the profits from
Barney and Sesame Street.
CPB cannot be privatized because there is nothing to privatize. CPB
has no assets, it is not a business.
CPB is a grant making organization whose constituents are not-for-
profit TV or radio stations.
Cable does not replace public broadcasting. Ninety-nine percent of
Americans have access to public broadcasting. Only about 60 percent of
Americans receive cable programming.
Public broadcasting is free and all Americans have access. Cable is
expensive and it does not serve all homes.
By law public broadcasters are prohibited from advertising. Public
broadcasters cannot sell air time for products or services.
Finally, public broadcasters receive only royalties from Barney the
Dinosaur and Sesame Street. Last year these royalties were $20 million
and most of that went back into expensive educational programming.
America's children, rural citizens, and minorities stand to lose the
most. Urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Chairman, while I find many aspects
of this rescission bill cold-hearted and callous, particularly where
the children of this country are concerned, I rise today on behalf of
all my constituents in South Dakota--young and old--to express my
strong opposition to the Rohrabacher and Crane Amendments which further
gut funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I simply
cannot stand by and watch this heartless trouncing of an entity that
has brought laughter, insight, and thought into the homes of countless
South Dakotans and people all across this country.
This rescission bill already strips CPB of much needed funding. Given
these new funding limitations, CPB must now make decisions about which
programs will remain, what staff must be cut, and which stations will
receive less funding. Any additional funding cuts to this invaluable
resource will dramatically and negatively affect millions of people in
this country. At a time when commercial broadcasting is bringing an
excess of sex, violence, and just plain schlock into our homes, we
simply cannot afford to lose public broadcasting--the one source of
quality programming that we have.
Pulling the plug on public broadcasting hurts all of us, from those
living in small rural communities to those surviving in inner city high
rises to those residing in senior centers. For many people in South
Dakota and across this country, public broadcasting is the only source
of quality television and radio programming.
Nearly 40 percent of American households do not have cable
television. In my home state of South Dakota, nearly 60 percent do not
have cable. Public television and radio are often the only source of
world and national news to millions of Americans. It plays a vital role
in thousands of communities. Rural States such as South Dakota will be
particularly hard hit by the proposed cuts and any additional cuts--25
percent of South Dakota Public Broadcasting funds come from CPB. Don't
kid yourself or the American people. Our states will not be able to
pick up the slack when the gutting process begins.
No one is opposed to having CPB look more aggressively for ways to
profit from their occasional commercial success or to find ways to trim
the fat from their overhead. But any attempt to make public
broadcasting survive solely on its ability to the commercially
successful should be thrown out the window.
I intend to do what it takes to ensure this senseless slashing ends.
Enough is enough. No more endangering Big Bird. No more silencing
Lawrence Welk. No more gutting.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, this week, House Republicans are pushing
for cuts in many of our most crucial commitments to children, the
elderly, pregnant women, and veterans, largely to pay for a capital
gains tax cut that benefits those at the very top of the economic
ladder. I believe these cuts are a grave mistake, because they punish
those who are truly in need to help those who have few needs at all.
But there is one proposed cut that truly strikes at every single
American, and that is the wrong-headed proposal to slash funding for
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--wounding public television and
radio out of sheer partisan enmity.
Public television and radio perform a crucial public service, because
they bring extremely high-quality, educational and informational
programming into the homes of countless millions of Americans. These
programs help young children to learn and to grow, and offer thought-
provoking analyses of the world around us--programs that enrigh the
minds and enhance the debate of the country at
[[Page H3268]] large. I am proud to consider myself a viewer and
listener--as are so many Americans.
Perhaps that is why I have been flooded with letters from the people
of St. Louis, beseeching me to defend the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and especially KWMU and KETC, from these draconian cuts.
Educators, psychologists, doctors, parents, and teachers, concerned
community members from the 3rd Congressional District have all joined
together in this cause. They know that public television and radio
offer a depth and perspective that commercial outlets simply do not and
cannot.
In the most fundamental sense, the airwaves belong to the American
people. A handful of partisan Republicans may not like P.B.S., but the
vast majority of American families do. I urge my colleagues to defeat
any and all efforts to weaken this cultural source of thought, opinion,
and entertainment in America.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 72,
noes 350, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No 245]
AYES--72
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Boehner
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Canady
Chabot
Christensen
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
DeLay
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Emerson
Flanagan
Funderburk
Hancock
Herger
Hilleary
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Kasich
Kingston
Largent
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Manzullo
McIntosh
Neumann
Norwood
Paxon
Pombo
Rohrabacher
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shuster
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Tate
Thornberry
Vucanovich
Walker
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Zimmer
NOES--350
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--12
Chrysler
Clay
Collins (MI)
Cremeans
Cubin
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
Rangel
Yates
{time} 2243
Mr. HEFNER and Mr. GOSS changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. LARGENT and Mr. KASICH changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2245
amendment offered by mr. rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher: Page 20, line 5,
strike ``$18,650,000'' and insert ``$23,450,000.''
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] will be
recognized for up to 15 minutes.
Is there a Member standing in opposition? Is the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] in opposition?
Mr. OBEY. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin will also be recognized
for up to 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize to some Members to
whom earlier I stated that I would probably not be introducing this
particular amendment, realizing that after the full discussion that we
had on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting because of the last
amendment, that this body did not need to spend another half-hour
debating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, I decided not to
introduce my amendment on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting but
instead decided to offer an amendment dealing with a piece of waste in
the budget which I feel that would probably be more worth our time to
talk about, rather than having another half an hour debate on the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Earlier in the day that was not my intent but, Mr. Chairman, the
purpose of this amendment is to endorse the original decision made by
the Interior subcommittee to include $4.8 million for the mild
gasification plant in Illinois in this rescission package, a decision
that was reversed in full committee.
The subcommittee had many sound reasons for not wanting this project
financed. First, this is a program that the Department of Energy has
left out of its budget requests since fiscal year 1993. The DOE
requested this project be terminated in fiscal year 1994. Nevertheless,
earmarked appropriations were made in 1994 and 1995. Arguments to the
contrary, scientific justification be damned, the earmarks were made.
[[Page H3269]] I am now chairman of the authorizing subcommittee, and
I can tell Members, although coal gasification as a substitute for oil
may have made sense in an era of high oil prices, both the Department
of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences now agree that it has no
practical value at the level of projected oil prices through the year
2010.
In addition, this project will duplicate other gasification projects
already undertaken by the Department of Energy in West Virginia and
Wyoming.
Furthermore, we are likely to come to the day when our other advanced
technologies will replace the need for traditional coke-making
altogether. As for power generation, this program has no value. Both
the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Science agree that
advanced gasification systems for
power generation should have a higher priority than this mild
gasification project which is aimed at producing a coal-based
substitute for oil.
Mr. Chairman, when even the bureaucrats are saying that a project
like this is unneeded, you know that what we are talking about is
wasteful Government spending.
The timing on this rescission is also important. These are
unobligated funds. Although construction is imminent at this moment, I
am assured that the Department of Energy can stop this project now at
no additional cost, saving the taxpayers almost $9 million over the
life of the project.
If we act now, we will be saving $9 million over the life of this
project. If we wait instead and do not include this in the rescission
bill, and we wait for the fiscal year 1996 budget process, we will have
lost our opportunity for real savings, construction will have started,
and we will not be able to recoup millions of dollars.
I can assure Members of this, being the chairman of the authorizing
subcommittee. We have no intention of authorizing this project for
1996, but if we wait for that, we have waited too long and millions of
dollars will have been wasted.
I know that some people may argue, ``We're not talking about a lot of
money when we are talking about $4 million to $10 million.'' But that
is the problem. For far too long, we have let these pet projects slip
through while decrying the budget deficit and waste in Government. Here
is our chance to show that in the 104th Congress, it is not business as
usual. This project is pure pork, it is not justified by science, it is
not justified by economics, it is not justified by need. What got it
through the system was politics.
Today is a new day and there are different powers in place, political
powers in place in Washington who will not put up with the type of
decisionmaking that was made during the last session. Earmarking
projects that even bureaucrats say is wasteful spending will not cut it
anymore.
And, yes, a ``yes'' vote on this amendment is a vote against earmarks
and a small but important step towards fiscal sanity and a balanced
budget.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to at least clarify a few
facts here. Could I have the attention of the gentleman from
California.
Is the gentleman from California aware of the fact that this project
was the result of a competitive solicitation by the Department of
Energy and not a congressional earmark?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield, the Department of
Energy has requested that we terminate this project. Let me make that
very clear. This is officially a request of the Department of Energy.
Mr. DURBIN. Let me reclaim my time. The gentleman has said repeatedly
this is an earmark, this is pork. In fact it is not. It is the result
of a competitive solicitation by the Department of Energy. It is not in
my district but it is in my State and it is not only important to my
State, it is important to a number of Midwestern States. We are talking
about the use of high-sulfur coal which is becoming less popular and
less commercial because of the Clean Air Act. The effort being made
here is to find an environmentally safe way to use this coal.
Could I ask the gentleman from California another question. Does the
gentleman know how much the total project costs?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. $19 million.
Mr. DURBIN. I believe it is $21 million. I would like to ask the
gentleman, does he know how much the Federal Government has already put
into this project before this year?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. I am told by the Department of Energy that the funds
have not been expended and that $9 million has been spent and that we
can save $10 million by acting now.
Mr. DURBIN. I think the gentleman's information is incorrect. It is a
$21 million project. We have put in $12 million. It will take roughly
$9 million to finish. Twenty percent is being provided by the State of
Illinois and by private sources. I am sure the gentleman is not aware
of the fact, but if we close down the project, if we stop now, if we do
not spend another penny to finish it, the $8 million or $9 million to
finish it, it will cost us $3.1 million to close down the project.
Here is what we are faced with. We either spend $8 million to finish
the project, do the research and see if it helps, or we spend $3
million to close it down.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentleman from California faces his own
challenges in his State and we will be addressing some of those. We
face a challenge in the Midwest because of the Clean Air Act. We have
abundant coal resources which cannot be used under the Clean Air Act.
We are desperately, desperately trying to find ways to use these coal
resources to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. This research
project, the result of a competitive bid through the Department of
Energy, is an effort to find an environmentally safe way to produce
form coke to help the steel industry. We have seen the coal industry in
my home State of Illinois decline dramatically in the last few years.
We have gone from 20,000 plus coal miners to 7,000 or 8,000. We are
trying to find responsible ways to use this resource.
In the committee, the gentleman is correct, I restored the funds for
this project by cutting other funds. There were setoffs made for every
dollar that we are putting in this project. I hope the gentleman will
reconsider his amendment. I hope he understands that to stop now and
not move forward with the $8 million necessary to complete this project
will still cost the taxpayers $3 million to close it down. It makes a
lot more sense to finish the research, move forward, find new energy
resources and reduce our dependence on foreign energy.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot that we have to decide to do on the
basis not just of whether things have merit but whether or not they
have priority given the situation that we are in. This is a project
that has some merit to it. It is a decent project, but it is of lower
priority than other ongoing gasification efforts. This is not the only
place that we are looking at how to gasify coal. There is a project in
West Virginia. There are a number of places where we are looking at how
to do this.
The question we have to ask ourselves in the House tonight is whether
or not we want to go ahead spending money on what is a project of lower
priority. The information I have is that the $12 million referred to by
the gentleman in fact is $9 million, about $9.2 million of money that
was invested by the Federal Government and another $3.7 million that
was invested by industry, but we have some ongoing spending that has to
go forward and that is the question that the gentleman from California
has raised, as to whether or not we ought to continue to spend money
for this project which with the merit that it has is of low priority.
These are the kinds of projects that we have to begin to think about
in the Congress as we consider science. Science in the Federal
Government's priorities ought to be toward a lot of those basic science
missions that only some of the Federal research labs can do. This is
the kind of thing that industry ought to be doing if industry wants to
survive. Industry is contributing to this but industry is also
expecting us
[[Page H3270]] to come up with the bulk of the funding. The gentleman
from California who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy who is in
charge of these research programs is bringing to you an amendment that
suggests that maybe this is a lower priority effort that we ought not
continue to fund. I support the gentleman's amendment. I think he is on
the right track.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
Mr. POSHARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment from the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. I know it is getting late
and I will try to keep my remarks short. But I do want to give Members
a little bit of the history behind this mild gas conversion project.
{time} 2300
I live about 4 miles from where the research is taking place on this
project. It is a DOE bid solicitation from 1991 because of this fact:
When we passed another Federal regulation in this body, the Clean Air
Act, the entire high-sulfur coal industry in this country, which I
represent a great part in the State of Illinois, others here from
Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, and other places represent
other coal fields, suddenly came under attack from our inability to
come into compliance with these new clean air regulations.
Folks, try to understand this. The most plentiful energy supply
source that we have in this entire country is not oil, it is certainly
not solar, it is coal, and in particular high-sulfur coal.
In these eight or nine respective States of which I speak, we have
the most plentiful energy resource in this country, enough high-sulfur
coal to run the entire energy needs of this Nation for 300 solid years.
With all of the known oil reserves in the entire world we have barely
30 years of those reserves left. If we truly want to provide a low-cost
energy resource for the future of this country, then what we
need to do is put the money into the technology to help us find a way
to desulfurize the coal. That is what the mild gas conversion project
will help us do. It was solicited by the Department of Energy, not by
any Member in this body. It is barely into its third year now and we
need to complete it.
We just ask for the money to go forward in making this project
prosperous.
Ladies and gentlemen, let me point out one other significant fact
here: This research goes to clean up an energy source that is mined by
some of the poorest people in this country. Sixty-Five percent of the
mines in my district are closed now as a result of the Clean Air Act.
Unless we can develop the appropriate technology to serve these people,
people who are working in those mine fields and who now are unemployed,
their children have nothing left for the future, they do not have a job
left. Are Members telling me we cannot invest another $2 million in a
$1,600 billion budget to help poor people find a way to go back to work
in the mines? Is this that important?
Help us out here; help the miners who go down into the belly of the
Earth every day and serve the needs of this Nation. We need this
project. Help us out.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, that was a very emotional appeal but the fact is there
are many facts that were incorrect in the presentation.
Yes indeed, the Department of Energy did solicit on this project in
1991. Shortly thereafter, within a few years after that, it was
determined that this was a totally worthless project. The Department of
Energy solicited my office, solicited this Member to come here and
prevent this money from being wasted.
The fact is, yes, there is some experimentation that needs to be done
on coal gasification. The Department of Energy's position is this is
not that project. This is a wasteful project that if we terminate right
now, which we have the chance to do, we will be able to save $9 million
dollars.
The experts, the scientific experts, Bob Walker, the chairman of the
Committee on Science, myself who is the chairman of the authorizations
subcommittee, are telling Members this will not be authorized next
year, if we do not eliminate the spending now we will have committed,
it will have already been committed, as the process goes on the money
will have been wasted.
The Department of Energy, let me note this, says whatever comes out
of this project will not be worth the investment because of low oil
prices until the year 2010. This money is a total waste, it is going
down one big black hole.
the gentleman may be very well intended, he may love his
constituents, but the money is wasted; it is not a good expenditure.
We have to make priority decisions here. When we have all of the
experts telling us it is not a good project, we should cut our losses
and save the taxpayers $9 million dollars.
That is what this is about. I ask my colleagues to join me.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman how much time do I have remaining?
Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, just in response to the gentleman from
California, I can only tell the gentleman that we have letters here
from the Department of Energy going back to the very beginning of this
project and so on. To my knowledge, the Department of Energy has not
told us at this point in time that they do not any longer want this
project.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is he
sure he is aware of the Department of Energy' position?
Mr. POSHARD. We have a letter here from the Governor of the State of
Illinois, Governor Jim Edgar who is a Republican governor and form the
leadership in the Republican governor and from the leadership in the
Republican governor and from the leadership in the Republican State
legislature, both Senate and House, who do not want this project
terminated because they know what it means to the high-sulfur coal
industry and the future of this industry.
So we are not speaking here in a partisan way. That is a very
bipartisan concern of the people back in Illinois to help this country
with respect to the high-sulfur coal industry.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I remember 2 years ago when
we were arguing over the superconducting super collider and you guys
gave the same argument against Texas. We had the same research from the
departments that this was the greatest project in the world, and it
definitely had and would produce results. And you know what, we stopped
it, and it has 3 billion Federal dollars in it and a billion Texas
dollars in it to close it down.
This is a little project. I do not see any reason that we should keep
trying to find out how to fix coal.
And I also remember in Texas a few years back when the Department of
Energy made us switch from gas, natural gas, clean-burning natural gas
to coal, and we now see coal going from Montana to Texas in 100 train
carloads every day.
You know what, it is not clean. We need to stop this pork.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has the right
to close.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Ney].
Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I want to
talk about fixing coal. Coal was fix, high-sulfur coal was fixed by
this Congress and the White House with the passage of the Clean Air
Act. They fixed it all right, because a half a billion dollar study
commissioned for 10 years by this government showed that what the Clean
Air Act was going to do to coal was not going to solve the problems of
[[Page H3271]] the rings in Los Angeles, but did anybody pay attention,
at least the majority of the votes on both sides of the aisle? No.
So what we are trying to do is hold on to what we have, which is very
little in the Ohio coal fields or in the Midwestern coal fields or
Pennsylvania coal fields. We have very little left.
If Members want to debate whether it is $3 million spent to keep the
project, or whatever the economic figure, coal jobs produce 6 to 1, for
every coal miner that works, we have 6 spinoffs. So we are going to
pay, if we want to look at economics, one way or another as more people
lose their jobs, good paying jobs, we are going to pay in welfare, in
unemployment and in reduction of monies to schools. But these projects
have merit because we are not going to try to recreate the coal
industry. What is out there, that is shot, is shot. We are trying to
just simply hang on to the very little bit that we have.
{time} 2310
And I want to also tell you, to mention the factor of oil. If we want
to count on oil, and oil is great for the country, our production of
oil, remember past embargoes of oil? Remember upheavals in the Mideast?
Those types of situations can mean the price of oil, and I thank my
colleague who reminds me we fought a war over oil. We had an embargo
years ago in this country over oil.
Tomorrow morning the Strait of Hormuz can be shut off, and 90 percent
of the Western World's oil is gone.
So we have got to preserve what we have. That is all we are asking
through the coal fields is to simply preserve what we have left.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Costello].
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. I am sure that all of
the Members, realizing this is the last vote, we want to go home, but
let me just reiterate a few points that were made earlier by some of my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in particular the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
You know, we are always talking about partnerships as opposed to the
Federal Government putting up all the money for projects. This is truly
a partnership between the private sector, the State of Illinois, and
the Federal Government. Let me also say that I think the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Poshard] referred to the fact that the Governor of
Illinois, a Republican Governor, sent a letter to our delegation saying
that he realizes that we need to cut the Federal budget, but this is a
priority project for the State of Illinois.
The State is willing to put up the money and do their part.
Let me also say that if this rescission goes through this evening, we
are not talking about rescinding $4.8 million, we are talking about
killing this project. This is a project that is under construction
right now.
I am sure that the gentleman from California, in fact, very few of
the Members who spoke on this issue, other than me and the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Poshard] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Durbin], have been actually to the coal park, to the construction site.
I can tell you the project is under construction.
If you rescind this money this evening, the project is dead. If, in
fact, the project is not rescinded and we go forward with this
appropriation, it will be completed.
Let me close by saying that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]
referred to the fact that it would take $3 million to close the project
down, and I would ask Members to keep that point in mind.
The State of Illinois is willing to do their part. The Republican
Governor and the Republican legislature, they are willing to put the
money up. It is a good project.
I rise in opposition to the amendment, and ask my colleagues to vote
against the Rohrabacher amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have a chance tonight, ladies and gentlemen, to save
$9 million. That is what this is all about. I am sorry for keeping us
all here for this small sum of $9 million.
I will tell you this much: These choices, and you have heard lots of
great arguments of why we should spend money on this mild coal
gasification program, I will tell you that in the next 6 months we will
be hearing lots of arguments about why this or that program should be
financed out of our budget. There will be many, many decisions that we
will face that will be much tougher than this.
This is a very easy decision. In 1994 the administration, the
Department of Energy, and the official position of this administration
was that this program was not worth the money and that it should be
terminated. That was the official budget request of the administration,
and the fact is that this has got through; the reason why it got
through at all this far is because last year the chairman of the
subcommittee that made the decision came from Illinois, and we passed
on to a program that is duplicative. The same type of research is being
done elsewhere in Wyoming. It is being done in Wyoming and West
Virginia, and the Department of Energy is adamant in that it will never
come up with an energy source that is economical.
Thus, all the money will be a waste, and they have asked us to
terminate it.
I ask you to join me in saving $9 million.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time, 3 minutes, to
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, as a member of this side of the aisle
that supported the superconducting super collider, I thought it might
be appropriate to answer the gentleman from Texas who asked the
question why we should not support the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California.
I think the real answer is that this program, clean coal technology
program and the incredible investment we have in it over the years
producing good results, allows us to burn coal cleanly. He rightly
notes that natural gas is a clean-burning fuel.
We are the Saudi Arabia of coal, if you will. We have coal reserves
in the ground that can guarantee energy independence into the future.
I support multiple fuel use; I support multiple, flexible, fuel use
policy in this country, and I think that is the best way for us to
achieve energy independence around the world in whatever circumstances.
Keeping using that incredible reserve of coal is to keep going to
fruition with the clean coal technology program, a program in which we
have invested, as the gentleman rightly points out, considerable
amounts of money. I hope he would see the advantage of supporting coal,
as I see the advantage to supporting oil and gas and always have, and
lament the fact that the superconducting super collider was terminated,
as a matter of fact.
I would also say to my friend from California that in a piece of
legislation where California is benefiting mightily, it is a bit
disconcerting to have a cut targeted so regionally when under this bill
domestic discretionary is being hit, domestic discretionary being used
from across the country and gathered up and targeted to help our
friends in California.
I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 142,
noes 274, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 246]
AYES--142
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bono
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Camp
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Cunningham
[[Page H3272]] Danner
Davis
DeLay
Doggett
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ensign
Forbes
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Hostettler
Hunter
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kingston
Klug
Latham
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
LoBiondo
Longley
Luther
Martini
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Meehan
Metcalf
Minge
Moorhead
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Quillen
Ramstad
Riggs
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Smith (MI)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Thornberry
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
White
Wolf
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--274
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachus
Baesler
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Chenoweth
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crapo
Cremeans
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hutchinson
Hyde
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
Livingston
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Pryce
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waldholtz
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Clay
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Dixon
Ford
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Johnson, E. B.
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Martinez
Rose
Solomon
Stark
Waxman
Williams
Yates
{time} 2335
Mr. MANZULLO, Ms. McKINNEY, and Messrs. KIM, MANTON, and REYNOLDS
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GANSKE and Mr. STUPAK changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the chairman for an
outstanding job.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the aisle would also like
to congratulate the Chair on his fairness and firmness today.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Kim) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1158) making
emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster
assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1995, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.
____________________