[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.
____________________