[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3529-H3530]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            WELFARE REFORM IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS

  (Mr. SKAGGS asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous 
matter.)
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, the welfare reform debate that we are 
engaged in is not about politics, and it is not about abstract policy; 
it is about people, about human beings.
  And one person in my hometown of Boulder, Colorado recently had this 
to tell me: Five years ago I was pregnant and abandoned by my husband. 
I had no home, no job, no money but I had a goal in my life--to be an 
education specialist. Today I have reached my goal. I have a happy 4-
year-old daughter. I have a job that I love, teaching young children. 
If it weren't for government programs such as Self-Sufficiency, WIC, 
section 8, immunizations, Medicaid, food stamps and LIHEAP I would not 
have reached my goal.
  ``We can't know,'' she goes on, ``we can't know the individual 
circumstances of all who ask for assistance. I don't think anyone plans 
to or wants to beg for help. Thanks for not giving up on me.''
  We have got to reform welfare but as we do it, we cannot give up on 
decent young women like this.
  Mr. speaker, here is the full text of what this young woman told me:

       Five years ago, I was pregnant and abandoned by my husband 
     who was, in his own words, ``not ready'' for the 
     responsibility of parenthood. I had no home, no job, no 
     money, and no insurance. And I was worried. I had a goal for 
     my life--to be an environmental education teacher. How was I 
     going to do this and be a single parent? I still had to 
     complete my education!
       Today, I have reached my goal. I have a happy 4-year-old 
     daughter who, contrary to an article in U.S. News and World 
     Report which states that fatherless children were more likely 
     to have learning disabilities and behavioral problems, is 
     well-adjusted and has been tested as having an above average 
     IQ. I have a job that I love, teaching young children about 
     our environment and how to take care of it. These are 
     children of taxpaying citizens who, through their taxes, 
     supported me during hard time. I feel that, by educating 
     their children, I am helping to repay that debt. If it 
     weren't for State and local government programs such as 
     Project Self-Sufficiency, WIC, Section 8 Housing, Free 
     Immunizations, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and LIHEAP, (low-income 
     energy assistance program), all of which I have received 
     benefits from, I would not have been able to reach my goal. I 
     qualified for and received these benefits while working full 
     time and taking a full course load at the University of 
     Colorado.
       Today I am happy to know that some of my taxes are going to 
     help others like myself who are trying to reach their life 
     goals, in spite of difficulties, obstacles, and hardships 
     which are beyond their control.
       We can't know the individual circumstances of all who ask 
     for assistance. I don't think anyone plans to or wants to beg 
     for help. I also don't believe that two years of assistance 
     is long enough for most people to complete education or job 
     training and find a job that is going to pay all their bills. 
     I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the 
     taxpayers, friends and family who have helped me over the 
     past five years to reach my goal. Thanks for not giving up on 
     me.
                             special orders

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, and under a previous order of the House, the following 
Members will be recognized for 5 minutes each.


             western commercial space center lease signing

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. SEASTRAND. Mr. Speaker, last Friday the 25-year lease agreement 
between the Department of the Air Force and the Western Commercial 
Space Center--better known as the California Spaceport Authority--was 
finally signed. It was an arduous process that tested the commitment to 
commercial space development on all sides.
  Although this agreement had been agreed upon in principle for months, 
it was nearly derailed by an overzealous civilian bureaucracy within 
the Department of the Air Force. In essence, what would have taken less 
than 30 days in the private sector took several months because of the 
arcane manner in which the federal government tends to operate.
  There were two key issues at work: first, the release of $3 million 
in previously awarded Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Defense grants to 
the Space Center; and second, signing the lease itself which would then 
allow construction to begin on the first polar orbit commercial 
spaceport in America.
  The DoD grants were awarded in Fiscal Year 1994. They were awarded 
independently of the 25-year lease with the Air Force. On October 28, 
1994, when Secretary Widnall announced the Air Force's intention to 
negotiate a lease with the Space Center, no mention was made of a link 
between releasing the grants and signing the lease. Yet, for some 
reason, release of grant funds because tied to the lease signing.
  This lease had been agreed upon in principle for more than four 
months. During a December 15, 1994, meeting between the Air Force 
general counsel's office and the Space Center, the Space Center was 
told they would have a draft of the lease by January 1, 1995--and that 
the lease would be signed by January 15, 1995.
  On January 30, 1995--30 days after it was promised by the Air Force 
general counsel's office--a 76-page lease with 26 conditions wa 
submitted to the Space Center.
  For weeks, the lease was traded back and forth. Signing was set to 
take place twice, yet both deadlines passed because civilian 
bureaucrats kept adding new conditions. For example, condition 15 of 
the original lease addressed liability and stated that damages were 
[[Page H3530]] not to exceed $10 million. But the bureaucrats decided 
to add environmental language to the lease--despite the fact that the 
environmental issues had been addressed and resolved during three 
review processes and the fact that no launches would take place for two 
years thus eliminating the possibility of an environmental problem.
  Then the civilian bureaucrats decided that the Space Center would 
have 60 days to submit a certified insurance policy. Clearly 
unreasonable because insurance companies rarely, if ever, issue 
certification of policies within 60 days.
  Then, the bureaucrats decided that there should be no cap on the 
amount that could be sought and awarded in a liability suit--then 
Spaceport could be sued for any amount of money. Obviously no 
reasonable insurance company would issue a policy where they would be 
required to pay unlimited damages.
  In the end, due in large part to bipartisan support and 
participation, the primary lease between the Space Center and the Air 
Force was signed.
  Mr. Speaker, the process by which this lease agreement came to be 
signed should not be a model for future negotiations. It should have 
never reached an 11th hour deadline. It should have never reached a 
point where the Space Center was in danger of shutting its doors. It 
should never have reached a point where hundreds, and ultimately 
thousands of jobs, could have been lost. It should never have put tens 
of millions of dollars in private sector investment in jeopardy. It 
should never have put the future of commercial space development in 
California on the line.
  One of the reasons the voters of America responded as they did during 
the 1994 elections was because of problems such as this. The American 
people have demanded a smaller and more efficient federal government 
that puts the interests of its people ahead of everything else. This 
ladies and gentleman, is the essence of the Contract with America.
  While spaceport development and commercial space are not part of the 
100-day agenda, they are very much in line with the goals and spirit of 
the 104th Congress. Our government must be willing to make America a 
strong and vibrant competitor in the international commercial space 
market. Further, the government must demonstrate to private industry 
that they are committed to making America a leader in the international 
commercial space market.
  Mr. Speaker, the time for action is now. All of our international 
competitors--France, China, Russia, Canada, Japan, Australia--are 
moving forward in the commercial space arena. We cannot fall behind. 
Spaceport development must go forward in conjunction with an aggressive 
U.S. commercial space policy.
  And who stands to benefit from this approach? Certainly space states 
such as Alaska, California, Florida, Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, 
Texas, Hawaii and others. But, more importantly, our nation stands to 
benefit. There is enormous economic potential if we are willing to do 
what is necessary to successfully compete.
  As we saw at crunch time on the Vandenberg lease, commercial space is 
not a partisan issue--it is an American issue. It is an issue where 
Republicans and Democrats can come together and unite behind a cause 
that ultimately benefits all Americans.

                          ____________________