[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 194 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H14212-H14213]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      SUPPORT VOICED FOR PRESIDENTIAL VETO OF RECONCILIATION BILL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I seek this time today to voice my support 
for the President's veto of the reconciliation measure that was 
returned to the House with a long message yesterday that was read into 
the Record.
  In that message, of course, the President touched on, I think, the 
elemental points of equity, of fairness, of the Congress' 
responsibility to try to achieve laws that in fact provide for the 
needs of the people that we represent. That in doing so in terms of 
attempting to achieve a balance in the budget that we also balance the 
responsibilities and the sacrifices that are expected in a fair way to 
provide for our success as a Nation today and into the future.
  In fact, of course, today as we look at the economy and the progress 
that has been made in this administration, it is, I think, encouraging, 
that since 1993 there are 6 million new jobs that have been created, 
the deficit on an annual basis is on a glidepath, that does not mean 
that we can stop in terms of our work, that in fact we must continue to 
deal with attempting to achieve savings.
  There are, of course, today 150,000 fewer Federal employees than 
there were when the President took office. So we are making some 
success.
  But the President pointed out in that deficit message specifically 
the type of inordinate cuts that are being proposed in Medicare. The 
President, of course, has been foremost in his responsibility and 
advocacy for health care reform. In fact I think the first 2 years one 
of the major shortcomings that occurred was the future, of course, of a 
health care reform proposal, an effort to rationalize the system.
  Today I think the President, too, would not argue that his plan was 
the only plan in terms of health care reform but that it was necessary 
to rationalize that system to bring these costs into control and the 
services in a way that would inure to the benefit of the people that we 
represent.
  So that similarly when the President points out the types of cuts in 
Medicare, I think he does it, in a sense, standing on the high ground 
because of the work that he has done. Similarly the significant cuts 
in Medicare. In fact, half the cuts in the budget proposed by this new 
Congress, this Republican Congress, have been in the area of Medicare 
and Medicaid cuts.

  Furthermore, of course, the President indicated his opposition and 
concern to many other elements in terms of the welfare reform.

[[Page H 14213]]

  But one of the other areas that I thought needed special attention is 
the issue dealing with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This area 
is a very important area. Obviously in trying to achieve a balanced 
budget, a fiscal budget, we also need to maintain an environmental 
balance.
  I think what has been lost in the enthusiasm and the controversy that 
surrounds many of the policies with the environment has really been a 
lack of understanding and a recognition of what the consequence of many 
of these actions are.
  It is as if, Mr. Speaker, that we have moved back to the 19th century 
era of the robber barons and we are trying to put into place policies 
that maybe were right, and I do not even think they were right in the 
19th century, in the latter part of the 20th century.
  The Arctic Plain, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, really 
represents an area that is a window on the Ice Age. Since the retreat 
of the great Ice Age, this area has been the home of the caribou 
calving ground of 160,000 herd caribou, the porcupine caribou herd 
today.
  What is being proposed here is to take it out of that protected 
status that it has enjoyed, to permit it to be open to oil and gas 
exploration.
  In order to understand the impact of this, this is not just any piece 
of land. It really is an arctic desert. It is an area that has very 
little water on it. The vegetative mat is about as deep as the podium 
that I am standing in front of today speaking and it has taken 20,000 
years of accumulated growth for that organic mat to form over the polar 
ice area.
  Of course, while the oil development and gas development may not 
occupy much of the surface, it would in essence, of course, have a 
profound impact on this 1.5 million-acre area. Incidentally, it is the 
only part of the arctic plain on the Beaufort Sea that is in fact not 
open to development today, and that is the irony, because there are so 
many areas of Alaska, so many areas of that plain that are already open 
to oil development. And so just feeding this, or letting the 
speculators bid on it, would not deliver us a great change in terms of 
our deficit but it would I think destroy forever a pristine area and 
create an environmental deficit.
  As my colleagues tonight are noting, the Republican budget 
reconciliation bill decimates programs for people such as Medicaid and 
Medicare and replaces them with a new type of welfare--aid to dependent 
industries and special interests. This is especially evident where 
environment issues are concerned. Over and over again, the interests of 
the mining, timber, oil, and gas industries take precedence over public 
health and the rights of future generations to inherit a healthy planet 
are adversely affected by the provisions of the Republican 
reconciliation measure especially as it impacts the environment.
  I'll make just a few points to illustrate my point. First, the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge is destroyed.
  The bill permits oil and gas exploration supposedly to secure $1.3 
billion in Federal revenue and in my view the Treasury will never 
receive that much because the economic assumptions are faulty and the 
bill assumes a 50-50 split between the Federal Government and Alaska, 
even though Alaska can and probably will sue for 90 percent under the 
Alaska Statehood Act.
  The best the Nation would get is enough oil to fuel the America's 
energy needs for 200 days--That's the most optimistic forecast. But 
most importantly the unique and fragile Arctic ecosystem would be 
destroyed. ANWR is home to more than 200 species of conspicuous and 
many more inconspicuous species of fauna and flora. The porcupine 
caribou herd uses the northern coastal plain for calving and post-
calving activities. It is the biological heart of this arctic 
wilderness The Native American Gwich'in people who rely on the caribou 
for subsistence would of course be adversely affected. Public opinion 
opposes oil drilling in ANWR in fact 70 percent favor the preservation 
of this area. Furthermore, this new policy of using asset sales for 
deficit reduction sets a bad precedent. The loss of resources offsets 
potential gains in terms of dollars.
  Second the mining provisions of this measure enshrine the rights of 
speculators in law at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer. The mining law 
of 1872 permits mining companies to acquire public land and mineral 
rights for a fraction of their value, this so-called reform remains 
blind to the mineral value of the land. The mining industry now buys 
mineral rich land for as little as $5 per acre. And we should not be 
blackmailed in the reform process to give away the minerals to the 
mining interests. Within the past week, the Secretary of the Interior 
was forced to turn over 3 billion dollars' worth of copper and silver 
for under $2,000 because of the 1872 Mining law.
  Meaningful reform of this budget-busting 19th century mining law is 
needed today. The Republican budget fails to provide real reform. 
Federal mineral rights will be sold at their market value, which means 
the value of the surface land, not the minerals underneath. This would 
be like selling Fort Knox for the price of the parking lot and 
building. The American taxpayers are getting ripped off again under the 
Rubric of reform--some reform; Republican reform.
  Third, other provisions in the Republican budget continue the special 
interest benefit under a mantra of budget balancing such as Park 
concessions change that gives incumbent concessionaires huge advantages 
over the competition. Grazing provisions that further reduce the 
already scandalously low fees paid by ranchers. Continuation of below 
cost timber sales--as the taxpayer pays the cost and loses in American 
legacy and congressional mandates the transfer of a Ward Valley, CA 
site for a low level radioactive waste dump with no public or 
scientific safeguards.
  In conclusion, this budget bill regards land and conservation policy 
will revive the era of the great robber barons, who exploited and 
degraded America's natural resources during the nineteenth century and 
into the 20th century. Isn't it time to correct such policy for the 
21st century. This Republican budget bill would destroy natural 
monuments like ANWR and in essence build new monuments to greed and the 
special interests. This budget bill fails in terms of politics and 
public opinion, science, economics, and morality.
  President Clinton was right to veto this budget reconciliation 
(``wreckonciliation'') bill--we owe it to future generations to protect 
their rightful legacy and uphold this veto and more importantly balance 
the budget without creating a massive environmental deficit or a human 
deficit.

                          ____________________