[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 59 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4411-H4414]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Upton). The Chair would remind the 
gentleman from Florida that he is not to use any personally derogatory 
terms in relation to the President.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Speaker, are they permissible if they are not my 
terms?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rules of the House do not allow the 
gentleman to quote from anyone, from any source, that may give some 
derogatory term to the President which would be improper if spoken in 
the Member's own words.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Needless to say, many people have been concerned with the behavior of 
elected officials on this issue. Why do I bring it up? Why do I not 
just leave this issue alone? It is not a good issue, right?
  Well, let me tell you something. I have got two parents that are 
about to go on Medicare. I have got a 93-year-old grandmother who is on 
Medicare right now. The fact of the matter is that the President of the 
United States had his own Medicare trustees come before him and tell 
him that Medicare was going bankrupt.
  Unfortunately, the news got worse. This past fall they were aware of 
the fact that Medicare was going bankrupt even quicker than the April 
1995 report stated. In fact, instead of Medicare going bankrupt in 7 
years, the new reports that the White House got was that Medicare is 
going bankrupt in 5 years. And the CBO just came out with a new report 
that says it is even worse than we ever imagined. Medicare is going 
down the drain quickly, and something better be done about it fast.
  I think it is time for us to put the demagoguery behind us. It is 
time to make a difference, and it is time to save Medicare for my 
grandmother and for my parents. I personally, if telling the truth 
costs me my seat, I really do not care.
  The President came before this Chamber and talked about the era of 
big Government being over. I do not know how many of you saw the State 
of the Union Address, but he came before us and talked about the era of 
big Government being over. He said Government should not be involved in 
everything. Of course, 2 days ago he thought gas prices were getting 
too high, so he decided I am going to kind of interfere in the economy 
and sell off some oil reserves and we will try to cut gas prices that 
way, instead of course cutting the 4.56-cent per gallon tax he 
increased on us.
  The next day the Washington Post ran an article, ``Clinton Acts to 
Halt Drop in Beef Prices.''
  Well, apparently the President and his administration thought that 
beef prices were becoming too low for consumers, that they could 
actually afford to buy beef more, so they decided that they were going 
to do what they could to increase beef prices. And the Post says, ``One 
day after intervening to hold down gasoline prices he said were getting 
too high, President Clinton yesterday announced steps to help cattle 
producers rally from prices they say are too low.

  Clinton's action left White House aides laboring to explain the 
apparent contradiction of a President who says he supports free 
markets, but who is also launching initiatives aimed at fine-tuning 
prices in different industries on consecutive days.
  Ladies and gentlemen, either you believe that Government is too big, 
that it spends too much money, and that the era of big Government is 
over, or you do not. We need consistency from our leaders, not only at 
the White House, but also in conference.
  Now, we have been hearing Democrats talking for some time also this 
past week or two about the minimum wage. This is another one of those 
issues. You do not talk about Medicare, you do not talk about the 
minimum wage. It is a loser, right? A lot of Democrats think that they 
have found the Holy Grail. After being intellectually bankrupt for a 
year or so, now they think they have found the issue, and it is the 
minimum wage.
  Well, facts are stubborn things. In 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton, running 
for President, was asked if he supported an increase in the minimum 
wage. The President said, then Governor, said that he opposed an 
increase in the minimum wage. Governor Clinton said he opposed an 
increase in the minimum wage. He said it would hurt too many working 
class Americans, it would cost too much money, and it would cause too 
much unemployment.
  In fact, his chief economist wrote a scathing indictment of those 
people who would suggest that we would help the working class by 
raising the minimum wage.
  There has been a study by a recent Nobel Prize winning economist who 
says that it could cost us up to 400,000 jobs, of not only high school 
students and college students, but also working class Americans that 
are holding down different jobs, that if we act this way we are going 
to lose 400,000 jobs.
  Unfortunately, with every study showing that, with every single 
reputable study showing the same thing, that minimum wage increases 
cost jobs, we still have people advocating it.
  It goes back to Medicare. If it costs me my job here to just simply 
speak the truth and to tell people what the facts are, fine. But facts 
are stubborn things. We have to tear through the emotionalism, the 
demagoguery, the politics of it all, and talk about what really 
matters, and that is figuring out a way to help working class 
Americans,

[[Page H4412]]

and we do that by getting the Government off their backs, by cutting 
taxes, the way we attempted to cut taxes before the President vetoed 
them, by balancing the budget the way we attempted to balance the 
budget for the first time in a generation before the President vetoed 
those balanced budgets, to try to cut regulations to allow 
entrepreneurs to expand and grow, and to end welfare as we know it.

                              {time}  1200

  The President in 1992, when he was campaigning, said he was going to 
end welfare as we know it. Well, in his first 2 years here, when he had 
Democrats controlling both Houses, he refused to bring up a bill on 
welfare reform. He also, by the way, and I think it is quite ironic 
that everybody has sort of had this last-minute conversion to raising 
the minimum wage when they know it is going to cost jobs; it is also 
ironic that in the 2 years that the Democrats controlled Congress and 
the White House, they did not try to raise the minimum wage.
  Why did they not try to raise the minimum wage? Because it would have 
caused an increase in unemployment figures. That would have been bad 
politically. You see, you raise the minimum wage now, there is going to 
be a lull before those rates go up, which probably will be after the 
election.
  So we have got to ask, how do we help the working class? I have to 
tell you, I understand it very well. I remember back in the early 
1970's my father went to college, worked hard, got a job at Lockheed in 
Atlanta, worked there for many years, and when Lockheed fell on hard 
times, he got laid off and was unemployed. And I remember driving 
around the South with my father over a summer. We were looking for a 
job, any job, to keep the family going.
  But during that time, during that extremely difficult time for my 
family, and I remember the Christmases, I remember how difficult it was 
at Christmas, I remember how difficult birthdays were for my parents. 
Not for the kids, because we really did not know any different, but it 
was tough for my parents. I never once remember my parents saying, hey, 
you know, it is all that doctor's fault down the road; or it is that 
businesswoman's fault down the road that started up her own business. 
They did not try to incite class warfare, they did not try to blame 
anybody else or say, oh, it is the CEO's at Lockheed. They recognized 
that these things happen and it is a difficult economy that we live in.
  Unfortunately, the economy continues to get worse and worse. We are 
in the middle of what many are now calling the Clinton crunch, because 
the rate of growth in this economy continues to stagger at about 1.2 
percent.
  Now, you may remember in 1992, then Governor Clinton was talking 
about how the economy was terrible and how it was the economy, Stupid, 
and that is why George Bush needed to be voted out. What they are not 
telling you now is the economy is staggering along at a slower clip 
today than it was back in 1992. In the last quarter we had 4 percent 
growth in the economy. When the election was being held in November 
1992, the economy was growing at 4 percent, a healthy, healthy clip. 
Unfortunately, right now it is staggering at about 1 percent. Facts, my 
friends, are very, very stubborn things.
  As I go to town hall meetings I hear middle-class Americans telling 
me, you guys in Washington are killing us. You have got to get off our 
backs. You have to cut taxes. It is not people making $100,000, 
$200,000, that are asking for tax breaks. They are not saying, gee, I 
need another boat. It is working-class Americans. A lot of single 
parents coming up to me in town hall meetings and saying I am working 
two jobs, by the time I pay my taxes, I do not even have money for 
health care insurance or for day care.
  I do not know how many of you saw last night an episode, I believe it 
was of ``Prime Time Live,'' but they interviewed a family that was 
falling further and further behind and they broke the bad news to the 
wife in the family that she was actually losing money holding down a 
second job because of high taxes, because of child care, because of all 
the other expenses. And that is something Americans need to know. Facts 
are stubborn things. We have many people including the President and 
many in this Chamber, that have raised taxes and that have fought us 
trying to cut taxes. Women of America, working women of America, if you 
are in a two-income family, you are averaging about $29,000 a year, on 
average. The facts clearly show that you are not bringing a cent home 
for yourself. All of your money is going toward taxes. All of your 
money. It is shameful.
  I figure if God gets 10 percent, I do not think Congress and Bill 
Clinton should get 28, 29, 30 percent. Just does not make sense. But 
people still ask themselves, and others last night on the TV show, they 
are saying, we look at our parents and we see the way our parents lived 
in the 1950's, when mom would stay home, dad would go out to work, and 
this is not a sexist thing, you could have it opposite, dad stays home 
and mom goes out to work, I do not care, but somebody is staying home 
with the children.
  They say, we remember back the way it was in the 1950's and we ask 
ourselves what is happening to us? Are we failures? Why are both of us 
working, leaving our children home and working harder and harder every 
year and falling further and further behind? This is a societal tide.

  When I was running for office in 1994, I could not afford to pay the 
filing fee. I did not have the money. So I went door to door and 
knocked on doors in neighborhoods because I had to get petitions 
signed. Nobody was home. Walk through your neighborhoods, they are 
vacant. They are ghost towns in the middle of the day. The 
neighborhoods of the 1950's and 1960's and 1970's that we know are 
gone. They are ghost towns.
  When I coached football and taught school, most of the kids I coached 
and taught went home after school without a parent at home to ask them 
how their day was, to see if they could help them with their homework, 
to keep them out of trouble. That is when most of the kids I taught got 
in trouble, whether it was with drugs, or with sex, or whatever it was, 
it was after they got home from school, when no parents were there to 
say, hey, how was your day, what was going on?
  It is a societal tide and people ask, why is this happening to us? 
Unfortunately, it goes back to taxes. Believe it or not, it goes back 
to taxes. In the 1950's that family was paying about 5 or 6 percent in 
taxes to Washington, DC, in income taxes. Today, that average American 
family pays about 26, 27 percent.
  So, you see, if they wanted to keep up with their parents in real 
dollars, in current dollars, they would have to make about six times as 
much as their parents made in the 1950's.
  We have to get Washington off the backs of working-class Americans. 
We have got to cut taxes, we have to balance the budget to lower 
interest rates, we have to cut regulations, we have to make a 
difference. And, unfortunately, the facts have not been getting out.
  They will get out, they will get out every day from now until 
November, because people need to know where we stand on the issues. 
They need to know where the President stands on the issues. He needs to 
tell Americans once and for all and then act on his words. Is he for 
tax cuts? If so, he needs to pass our tax cuts.
  He needs to cut taxes not only in gasoline, which we are going to do 
because he raised taxes on it; we are going to cut taxes for senior 
citizens that he raised in 1993; we are going to give working-class 
families a $500 per child tax credit; we are going to cut capital gains 
to stimulate investment, because let us face it, people do not like 
saying it these days, but there is a direct correlation between how 
much a small business makes and how many people they can hire.
  We have to do all of these things, and we have to continue to fight. 
Now is not the time to back down. And it is a fight that all of America 
is going to have to fight. It is a fight our senior citizens are going 
to have to get engaged in if they want to save Medicare and if they 
want to save this country for future generations.
  And I have to tell you, I have confidence that they will, because 
those who are seniors now, like my grandparents and parents, not only 
made it through the Great Depression in the 1930's and had incredible 
sacrifices, but also fought through World War II,

[[Page H4413]]

fought back the tyranny of Nazi Germany and Hitler, fought back the 
tyranny of Japan, and made this country and, in fact, made Western 
civilization safe for democracy.
  That is what we have to do in the 21st century. I am firmly 
committed, and I know my other Republican colleagues and some 
conservative Democrats are also firmly committed, to making sure that 
the 21st century, like the 20th eventually, will be remembered as the 
American century. And to do that we have to turn back to the basic 
truths our Founding Fathers left us.
  You know, James Madison said that the government that governs least 
governs best. Actually, that was Thomas Jefferson. James Madison, who 
was really the father of the Constitution, said we have staked the 
entire future of the American civilization not upon the power of 
government but upon the capacity of the individual to govern himself, 
control himself, and sustain himself according to the Ten Commandments 
of God.
  We have turned away from those basic truths, and that is why we find 
ourselves $5 trillion in debt in a country that is rapidly going 
bankrupt and that steals from future generations to pay off current 
political promises, that misleads senior citizens into believing they 
are their friends when they are allowing the coffers to run dry in 
Medicare, that tries to figure out how to cut gas prices in every way 
but repealing the gas tax that they passed just 2 years ago.
  You see, we have to refocus our efforts. We have to reclaim the 
revolution that we wanted to start in 1994, and we have to retake 
America, and that is what this fight is about, and it is a fight that 
we will win.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point, I want to yield to the gentleman from 
Utah.
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's Parks for Tomorrow plan 
represents an act of plagiarism. Of the 18 proposals contained in the 
President's plan, not a single one represents a new idea or concept. 
Rather, these are responses by the administration to acts of Congress, 
bipartisan proposals which have been circulating on Capitol Hill, in 
some cases for years, and even concepts which the administration has 
opposed, outright until recently.
  However, this is National Parks Week, and the administration wants to 
look like it is active, even if it has no parks agenda. So it has 
stolen other persons' ideas. In fact, over the last 3\1/2\ years, the 
Clinton administration has sent a grand total of seven legislative 
proposals to Capitol Hill for action. Most of these proposals were for 
minor ministerial duties, such as increasing the development ceilings 
at a handful of parks, and authorizing the location of memorials to 
Thomas Paine and World War II on The Mall. Only one of these proposals 
previously submitted to Congress is even mentioned in the President's 
18-point plan.
  In February 1995, the General Accounting Office testified before my 
subcommittee that the National Park Service was in a crisis. Drastic 
action was needed now to solve critical funding and other problems 
facing the agency. According to the Interior Inspector General, the 
National Park Service hadn't balanced its books in three years. The 
National Park Service has no way to ensure its existing funds are spent 
on the highest priority projects, said the GAO. The response from the 
Clinton administration has been, and is, deafening silence.
  Really, it is not too surprising. Secretary Babbitt has inserted more 
political appointees into the NPS in key slots than any administration 
in recent memory, more than the last three administrations combined. 
Most of these persons came from extreme environmental groups, never 
worked in a park a day in their life and were ill-equipped for their 
new jobs.
  Instead of focusing on the real problems of the agency, the National 
Park Service has been consumed with a re-organization plan. This is a 
plan which has cost uncounted millions to develop, and produced 
literally no benefits to the parks. After unending task forces, 
meetings and travel, we are left with a plan which merely shifts the 
organizational blocks on a piece of paper, but provides no new 
personnel or resources to parks.
  Secretary Babbitt himself has shown little interest in addressing 
park issues, except as they represent a photo-op or press story for 
himself. In fact, he has largely ignored management of the entire 
Interior Department, choosing instead to spend tens of thousands of 
dollars and a good chunk of his time on fishing trips around the 
country, while bashing Republicans in their districts for attempting to 
constructively resolve environmental issues.
  I would like to examine the proposals in President Clinton's plan on 
a one-by-one basis.


                      section i. executive actions

  Aircraft overflights: President Clinton says he will address 
overflight problems at national parks. In 1987, Congress passed Public 
Law 89-249 directing the President to take action to address any 
impacts to parks resulting from aircraft overflights. I'm glad the 
President plans to implement the law, even if it means taking action 6 
years after the legislative deadline. As a postscript, 2 weeks ago, the 
Resources Committee adopted an amendment to the recreation fee bill 
which provides for economic incentives for the use of quiet aircraft 
technology over national parks to address aircraft overflight impacts.
  Historic preservation: The President promises to do a study of the 
funding backlog of historic preservation projects in parks. So what? 
What's he been doing to address this problem the last 3\1/2\ years 
while it's been growing under his watch?
  Roads and transportation: Hey. Another study. In 1991, Congress 
passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 102-
240, which authorized and funded an identical study. In fact, one of 
the parks studied then--Yosemite--is now proposed for restudy.

  National Park Foundation: Congress authorized the National Park 
Foundation in 1967 to help raise money for parks. If it can be made 
more effective, we will support that.
  Cooperative agreement authority: Sure let us cooperate, whatever this 
means.
  Five Executive actions which amount to nothing.


                  SECTION II. NEW LEGISLATION ACTIONS

  Wilderness in parks: This new legislative proposal is as much as 24 
years old. President Clinton proposes to designate portions of parks as 
wilderness areas. This is really a meaningless proposal. Land in the 
major national parks in the West is already managed as if it were 
designated wilderness. This proposal would change nothing on the 
ground, and protect nothing that is not already protected. However, 
since the administration has not consulted with the affected 
delegations, this proposal is a nonstarter.
  Point of Reyes seashore expansion: This is one of the most 
troublesome proposals of all. Under this proposal, Congress would spend 
tens of millions of dollars to buy up the viewshed from the existing 
park. Never mind that Marin County, where the proposal is located, is 
the wealthiest per-capita county in the country. Never mind that the 
National Park Service is already $1 to 2 billion in the hole to acquire 
land at existing parks. Never mind that all the public would get for 
the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars is a chance to look at 
the land, there would not even be public access. This is a purely 
political proposal in a must-win State for President Clinton's re-
election. We need better reasons to spend scarce tax dollars.
  Reauthorization of the Historic Preservation Fund: The Historic 
Preservation Fund, authorized in 1966 is scheduled to expire in 1997. 
It is a pretty good program and should be reauthorized. Changing a date 
in an existing law from ``1997'' to ``2005'' hardly qualifies as a new 
legislative proposal.


            SECTiON III. ACTION PLAN FOR PENDING LEGISLATION

  National Park Service 1997 budget: The fact that the administration 
submitted a 1997 budget for the NPS as required by law is noted.
  Fee reform: As part of the 1997 budget, the President suggests 
Congress should enact recreation fee reform. While he has submitted no 
specific language with the budget, in fairness he has submitted other 
legislative fee proposals to the Hill. The budget describes two key 
provisions of the administration's proposal. First, the administration 
estimates their proposal would

[[Page H4414]]

raise $12 million for parks. Second the administration supports 
siphoning 20 percent off the top from recreation fees collected for 
deposit in the Treasury for deficit reduction. The administration 
proposal is inadequate in scope, and unacceptable in sending user fee 
revenue to the Treasury.
  The administration's recreation fee proposals provides for minor 
tinkers to existing law, to the benefit of National Park Service 
visitors only. This is unacceptable to me. We need a complete overhaul 
of existing law. We need a proposal which addresses the needs of the 
hundreds of millions of visitors who choose to recreate on other 
Federal lands not managed by the National Park Service. We need to 
return all recreation fees to the benefit of visitors. We need to make 
sure that increases in funding due to recreation fees are not offset 
through reduced appropriations. Recreation fee legislation reported 
from the Resources Committee several weeks ago on a bipartisan basis 
meets all these test. I hope the administration supports my fee 
legislation, H.R. 2107 when it comes to the floor in the near future. 
The Interior Inspector General estimated that legislation similar to 
mine could generate over $200 million per year for parks. This is the 
type of positive recreation fee legislation we need.
  Concession reform: The administration has never submitted a 
legislative proposal for concession reform. However, the 
administration has supported legislation which would exclude over 80 
percent of existing National Park Service concession contracts from 
fair and open competition; and which CBO estimates would lose $79 
million in existing fees to the Treasury over 5 years. By comparison, 
H.R. 2028, concession reform legislation which I have introduced, will 
open not only all 660 National Park Service concession contracts to 
competition, but over 7,000 other agency concession contracts as well. 
Further, my legislation would increase deposits to the Treasury by $84 
million over 7 years. My bill has already been marked up by the House 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands. Simply put, my 
legislation raises more funds for our parks and increases competition 
for these Federal contracts.

  National Heritage Area System: The administration has never submitted 
heritage area legislation to Congress; however, Mr. Hefley has 
introduced this legislation. My subcommittee held a hearing on that 
bill over a year ago and marked it up last fall. This proposal has been 
developed in recent years on a bipartisan basis by Congress. Welcome 
aboard, Mr. President.
  Presidio: After a long struggle, the administration is not supporting 
establishment of the Presidio Trust to manage the developed lands at 
the Presidio. Last Congress, the administration led the effort to 
address the issue. Their legislative proposal in the 103d Congress was 
perpetual management by the National Park Service, which would have 
cost the taxpayer about $1.2 billion over 15 years. The current 
proposal, H.R. 1296, developed on a bi-partisan basis between myself 
and Ms. Pelosi, will protect the critical natural lands while saving 
the taxpayers hundreds of million of dollars. We are glad to have the 
administration as overdue supporters of this effort.
  Sterling forest: This proposal does not even need legislation. The 
proposal to provide funding for a State park in New York is already 
authorized under section 6(b) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act. If the administration was really serious about this effort, they 
would have requested the funds for it in their fiscal year 1997 budget 
request.
  Old Faithful Protection Act: Protecting the irreplaceable geothermal 
resources of this world class park is a high congressional priority. 
However, according to exhaustive study conducted by the U.S. Geological 
Survey, this legislation is unnecessary. The State of Montana has 
already passed legislation modifying State water law to protect the 
park. The States of Wyoming and Idaho remain adamantly opposed to 
making their State water laws subject to Federal control, as proposed 
in this bill, just as they have for the last several years.
  Minor boundary adjustment: I agree we need flexibility to 
administratively make minor park boundary adjustments at parks. I 
introduced legislation to accomplish just that last year. The number of 
my legislation is H.R. 2067, and I am flattered you are trying to make 
my legislation part of your plan, Mr. President, but I am ahead of you 
again and I welcome your signature when the bill gets to your desk.
  Management of museum properties: This bipartisan legislative proposal 
has been kicking around in Congress for over 4 years, carried 
alternatively by Republican and Democratic chairmen of the House 
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Lands. In this Congress, 
it is my bill, and again I ask the President, Where have you been?
  Housing: This is another critical topic which Congress has been 
working on for several years. In the last two sessions, it has passed 
the Senate twice and the House once. The involvement of the Clinton 
administration on this effort is illustrative of how they do business. 
About 2 years ago, Secretary Babbitt announced a new housing initiative 
for the National Park Service in the Interior Department. He was going 
to bring in extensive outside expertise and solve this housing crisis. 
Press releases were issued and the Secretary showed up for a photo-op 
at Great Smokey Mountains National Park to help build a house being 
donated to the park. The sum total of that effort after 2 years has 
been the donation of three new housing units. Today, no one in the 
Secretary's office is even assigned to this program. It is dead as far 
as Secretary Babbitt is concerned.
  So, Mr. President, you have had your press release and photo-op on 
your plan. Your plan even made it onto the front page of the Washington 
Post, above the fold. Now that you have accomplished your political 
goal, why do you not finally sit down and engage yourself in the work 
of real reform? The protection of our national parks is too important 
to use as a political ploy and, Mr. President, you have an obligation 
to start working for our national parks.

                          ____________________