|
|
|
|
Current EventsAgriculture Normal Trade Relations with China (H.J.Res. 57) - I did not support this resolution disapproving the extension of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. By the year 2003, 37 percent of world food demand will come from China, providing Idaho the opportunity to gain market shares through exports with China. All together, Idahoans earned almost $32 million from exports to China in 1995, a significant amount for a rural state that would be lost if NTR were not renewed. Ending trade with China, which is a major agricultural market for Idaho farmers, would reduce the prices for many agricultural commodities, lead to severe economic loss, and threaten the ability of numerous Idaho farmers to retain their livelihood. Recovering markets lost to competitors during non-NTR years would be nearly impossible. Idaho Leaders Develop Trade with China - I joined Idaho’s Congressional Delegation and Governor Kempthorne to speak directly with members of a Chinese state trading agency in Washington, D.C., to encourage the purchase of more wheat from China. The Idaho Congressional Delegation, Governor Kempthorne, and more than a dozen representatives from the Chinese Embassy met to discuss the deal. The Chinese called the wheat sale a “good first step,” and the Idaho delegation responded by acknowledging grain sales will help China’s case in obtaining permanent normalized trade relations (PNTR) with the U.S. and admission to the World Trade Organization (WTO). This meeting demonstrated the importance of the bilateral agreement we signed with the Chinese and the wheat sale that was announced thereafter. It is very important to Idaho wheat farmers and to Idaho agriculture to extend PNTR to China. It is a huge market and Idaho’s farmers will undoubtedly benefit from this bilateral agreement. The United States should deal with China as an equal, insisting that the Chinese government live up to its obligations as a member of the international community. One way to do this is to bring the Chinese into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and bind them to rules for free and fair international trade. While China has made advances in terms of providing increase market access, more remains to be done. Under the terms of WTO accession, China has agreed to reduce tariffs an average of 17% for agriculture, eliminate export subsidies for agricultural commodities, and effectively enhance US efforts to curb European subsidies. By the year 2003, 37 percent of world food demand will come from China, providing Idaho the opportunity to gain market shares through exports to China. As of 1995, nearly $20 million worth of paper and allied products were exported to China. Other important export products included electronics, $964,000; food products, nearly $727,522; machinery, nearly $678,000; and agricultural products totaled nearly $487,000. Idahoans earned almost $32 million from exports to China in 1995, a significant amount for a rural state that would be lost if NTR were not renewed. Trade policy developments with significant detrimental effects to the agricultural industry have developed in recent months. The role Chinese markets play for Idaho’s agricultural products has increased as a result of the serious problems the industry is facing as additional sanctions are imposed around the world. Ending trade with China, which is a major agricultural market for Idaho farmers, would reduce the prices for many agricultural commodities, lead to severe economic loss, and threaten the ability of numerous Idaho farmers to retain their livelihood. Not to mention that recovering markets lost to competitors during non-NTR years would be nearly impossible. This is another reason I have strong concerns about the wisdom of ending trade relations with China. I also believe trade with China has the added benefit of addressing human rights abuses. Engagement through trade allows the U.S. to more effectively alter human rights practices than does the imposition of trade barriers and tariffs which ultimately minimize our influence with the people of China. In fact, there is concern that such actions only lead to retaliatory policies and increase the difficulties experienced by American missionaries and church officials seeking to expand religious freedom. Without contact facilitated by trade, such gains might not otherwise occur and human rights abuses would continue. Like many other Members of Congress, I support efforts to send a strong message to China. Chinese leaders must deal with long-standing issues of disagreement between our two countries, such as human rights, weapons proliferation, and copyright infringement. However, I believe these issues are most effectively dealt with through targeted actions and “de-linking” from NTR. The Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 1999 (H.R. 2559) - This
act amends the Federal Crop Insurance Act to strengthen the safety net for
agricultural producers by providing greater access to more affordable risk
management tools, improving protection from production and income loss,
and enhancing the efficiency and integrity of the Federal crop insurance
program. "Signed into law on June 22, 2000, Public Law 106-224. Campaign Finance Reform Back to Current Events page Defense I will continue to support measures that enhance and improve the quality of life for service personnel. It is important that we attract and retain the best and brightest men and women to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. This can only be achieved by addressing the financial and personal needs of members of the uniformed services and their families. National Missile Defense Act - This act allows the U.S. to develop and deploy a missile defense system (currently non-existent) to respond to terrorist threats from around the globe. (Signed into law on July 22, 1999.) National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1401) - This act authorizes $288.8 billion for defense spending in FY2000. Veterans’ provisions included special compensation for severely disabled retirees that increases military retirement payments to seriously disabled veterans barred from receiving retirement without offsets for VA disability compensation payments. (Signed by the President on October 5, 1999.) Veterans Affairs Keep Our Promise to America's Military Retirees Act (H.R. 2966 and H.R. 3573) - Representative Ronnie Shows (D-Mississippi) introduced H.R. 2966, on September 28, 1999; and H.R. 3573 on February 2, 2000. Both measures have been referred to the House Government Reform and Armed Services Committees for further review. H.R. 2966 extends coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) to Medicare-eligible military retirees, including surviving spouses. H.R. 3573 provides coverage for military retirees and dependents under the FEBHP. Both H.R. 2966 and H.R. 3573 provide free coverage for members of the armed services who entered the uniformed services prior to June 7, 1956. Furthermore, both bills allow retirees and dependents over age 65 to participate in TRICARE. It is my deeply held belief that military retirees should receive adequate medical care. Retired members of the Armed Forces made a commitment to this country; in turn, we should strive to provide an appropriate level of medical benefits. I recognize that many retirees encounter significant hardships when trying to gain access to health care through TRICARE. Additionally, I appreciate the resistance among retirees over age 65 to solely depend on Medicare for their medical benefits. For these reasons, I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 2966. Veterans’ Millennium Health Care Act (H.R. 2116) - This is a comprehensive bill to make improvements in health care programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Provisions in the bill include long-term care reform, improved access through facility realignment, eligibility reform, and other program improvements. Additionally, the bill authorizes compensation payments to surviving spouses of former prisoners who died with 100 percent service-connected disabilities and restores eligibility to surviving spouses who lost eligibility for these benefits as the result of remarriage. Furthermore, it accelerates construction of the national World War II Memorial and directs the VA Secretary to establish six additional national cemeteries for veterans. (Signed by the President on November 30, 1999.) Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act (H.R. 2280) - This act provides a 2.4 percent cost-of-living adjustment in rates of compensation paid for service-connected disabilities and for dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of such veterans. (Signed by the President on November 30, 1999.) Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act (H.R. 1568) - This act helps America’s veterans by creating the National Veterans Business Development Center to promote public and private sector assistance to veteran-owned businesses through small business networks. (Signed by the President, August 17, 1999.) The Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act (H.R. 2280) - This act is
a comprehensive veterans’ benefits bill that provides a cost-of-living
Adjustment for disability compensation and pensions, authorizes
compensation payments to surviving spouses of former prisoners who died
with 100 percent service-connected disabilities, restores eligibility to
surviving spouses who lost eligibility for these benefits as the result of
remarriage, accelerates construction of the national World War II
Memorial, and directs the VA Secretary to start planning four new national
veterans’ cemeteries to help accommodate the demand for burial space.
(Passed the House on June 29, 1999.) Education I am in favor of reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and have supported several pieces of legislation improving this and other aspects of federal involvement in education: The Teacher Empowerment Act (TEA), H.R. 1995: raises student achievement and increases teacher quality by giving public school teachers greater opportunities for training and professional development. It consolidates and streamlines multiple teacher training programs, giving schools more flexibility in using federal funds to improve the quality of their teachers and hire new teachers to reduce class size. (Passed the House on July 22, 1999 and is awaiting action in the Senate). The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-Flex), H.R. 800: provides states greater flexibility in using federal funds in exchange for increased accountability of student achievement. (Signed into law on April 29, 1999). The Student Results Act (H.R. 2): reauthorizes Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), implements new teacher quality standards in Title I schools, and rewards outstanding school performance while increasing funding for the program overall. (Passed the House on October 21, 1999 and is awaiting action in the Senate). Impact Aid Reauthorization, H.R. 3616: extends funding authorization for federal Impact Aid programs designed to assist school districts, like many in Idaho, that have lost property tax revenue due to the presence of tax-exempt federal property. I will continue to advocate increased funding for Impact Aid as a means for the federal government to fulfill its obligations to the communities affected by its presence. (Passed the House on May 15, 2000 and is awaiting action in the Senate). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Reauthorization,
H.R. 4055: authorizes full funding to fulfill the federal government's
promise to provide 40% of the national average per pupil cost of educating
children with disabilities. (Passed the House on May 3, 2000 and is
awaiting action in the Senate). Environment/ Natural
Resources As your Representative in Congress, I am working to promote these values. While some think we should be locked out of our public lands and denied access to our natural resources, I believe the need to protect our environment can be balanced with the need for multiple land use and public access. As a public land user and a legislator, I remain committed to allowing all Idahoans access to public lands. Salmon Recovery - The topic of salmon recovery has become a significant issue in Idaho and the Pacific Northwest. One proposal that is gaining popularity is removing four dams on the lower Snake River. For many reasons, removing the dams is not a proposal that I support. Some suggest the biological opinion, scheduled to be completed this year, will clearly state the option with the greatest possibility for salmon recovery is the “natural river” option, i.e. remove the dams. While the biological science may be accurate, there are many other factors which will affect the final decision. The economic and social impacts of dam removal will be a high priority for me. The loss of generating capacity is another important issue. I believe we should take all reasonable steps to restore Salmon runs; however, the steps must be reasonable. Dam removal does not meet this test. There seems to be a concerted effort to drive a wedge between North and South Idaho on this issue. The argument is that either we remove the four dams on the lower Snake River or we will have to augment flows with two to three million acre feet of water from southern Idaho. Both of these proposals are unacceptable. We cannot allow North and South Idaho to become opponents in this debate. You may be interested to know I am an original cosponsor of H.Con.Res.63 sponsored by Representative Doc Hastings (R-Washington). This resolution expresses the sense of Congress in opposing removal of the four dams on the lower Snake and Columbia Rivers for fishery restoration purposes. I will continue to work with members of the Idaho Congressional Delegation, as well as other representatives from the Pacific Northwest, to find a solution that will accommodate the needs of all stakeholders. Wolf Reintroduction - I support measures that allow for state management of the Gray Wolf. I believe that Idaho knows best how to manage our natural resources, not the federal government. I am concerned with the effects of wolf reintroduction on Idaho’s livestock and wild game. Wolf depredation is a major problem associated with reintroduction. A number of ranchers in central Idaho are experiencing calf mortality rates significantly higher than historical levels. While this spike in mortality rates has not been definitively attributed to any single factor, it is clear that growing wolf populations will lead to increased wolf-livestock interactions that require active management based on sound science. In an effort to create a base of sound science from which to plan future wolf management practices, the Nez Perce Tribe, Wildlife Services, Diamond Moose Association, and the Lemhi County Cooperation Extension Office have proposed a study to assess predation by wolves on livestock. This study will provide scientific information on causes of cattle loss, quantify the extent of wolf-caused cattle losses, and add to an understanding of mechanisms that predispose wolves to prey on livestock. I would also support Fish & Wildlife Service studies to address the effects of wolf depredation on wild game. Ultimately, this and others studies will be necessary to devise proactive, scientifically-based approaches to address the concerns of livestock producers and contribute to informed wolf management in Idaho. I will continue to monitor the wolf reintroduction issue, and will actively seek to have the Gray Wolf population de-listed as soon as possible. I introduced legislation that would reintroduce the Eastern Timberwolf into the Catskill Mountains in New York. "Protecting America's Wolves Act" (PAWS) would direct the Secretary of Interior to reintroduce the Eastern Timber Wolf from packs in Canada. Under the legislation, the wolves would be considered fully endangered, not experimental populations, under the Endangered Species Act. The Secretary of the Interior would be required to designate critical habitat in the Catskill Mountains within six months of release and develop a recovery plan. The plan would include a study on reducing road densities in New York to provide wolf dispersal corridors and compensate residents for livestock depredation. I believe if the federal government is serious about enforcing the Endangered Species Act, it must apply to all areas of the country, not just the Western United States. Grizzly Reintroduction - I am concerned about the effects Grizzly Bears have on our local communities. Presently, Grizzly Bears are listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently declined to reclassify the Grizzly Bear population from threatened to endangered. While there has been some discussion regarding the reintroduction of Grizzly Bears, I do not support such extreme actions. My position on the House Resources Committee gives me a role in developing a policy to reform the ESA. Endangered Species Act - : We should preserve species of plants and animals, but the methods currently employed through the ESA are not effective. The program does not provide individual states and localities enough control over the recovery plan or listing. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has little or no regard for communities and families that may suffer as a result of the ESA program. Those affected must be given more oversight over a listing that will have a major impact on their lives. It is possible to protect endangered and threatened species without jeopardizing the welfare of a state or local community by implementing the ESA. The ESA has not been successful in accomplishing this goal. In spite of over 1,200 listings by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, arguably not one endangered species has actually been recovered. Not only have these species suffered under implementation of the Act, but jobs have been lost, the economic livelihood of thousands of families have been jeopardized, private property rights have eroded, and cities and states have been unnecessarily exposed to increased costs. In response to the need to reform the ESA, you may be interested to know that I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 3160, the Common Sense Protections for Endangered Species Act, introduced by Representative Don Young (R-Alaska). H.R. 3160 will use sound science in determining which species should be listed. Additionally, economic hardships on an area will be taken into account. Residents in affected areas will also have more input in the process as opposed to the current system of dictates by federal agencies. My position on the House Resources Committee gives me a role in developing a policy to reform or restructure the ESA. I am committed to doing this and reversing the "cart before the horse" policy currently used by federal agencies. Superfund - Superfund has been in existence for approximately two decades, yet many of the problems it was designed to fix still exist. Some sites that have been on the National Priority List for over ten years have yet to be cleaned up. The only way to address the problems plaguing Superfund is to reform the statute in both a meaningful and comprehensive way. Current legislation before Congress does not address the most fundamental flaws of the Superfund Program. These flaws are:
If Congress passes limited reform, the incentive for parties to craft legislation that adequately addresses the major problems with the current program is lost. I cannot support legislation that removes the incentive to pass meaningful reform. Energy Deregulation - The issue of energy deregulation is a complicated one with many stakeholders who have varying interests. The most important consideration, however, is that while electricity deregulation may be good for states with expensive power rates, it is not good for Idaho. Idaho has one of, if not the least expensive power rates in the nation at approximately 3.8 cents per kilowatt/hour. Plans proposed before Congress tout savings for consumers. While this may be true for states with high power costs, it would raise rates for Idahoans. States should not be told by the federal government to deregulate their electrical industry. There is no “one size fits all” plan that will work for every state. States like Idaho should not suffer the loss of inexpensive power to satisfy the desires of states with higher rates. I will actively work to keep Idaho’s power rates among the lowest in the nation. Roadless Initiative - On October 13, 1999, President Clinton announced his plan “to provide appropriate long-term protection for most or all of these currently inventoried ‘roadless’ areas, and to determine whether such protection is warranted for any smaller ‘roadless’ areas not yet inventoried.” Due to Clinton’s direction, the Forest Service proposes to restrict certain activities such as commercial timber harvest and road construction and reconstruction into unroaded portions of inventoried roadless areas and to establish a process for evaluating possible limitations on activities in other uninventoried unroaded areas through forest planning at the local level. The President’s action creates additional de facto wilderness by declaring lands to be “primitive” or “roadless,” despite Congress’s sole authority to designate wilderness lands. This action closes these lands to public use, including most recreational uses and resource development. Essentially, Clinton’s actions amount to an end-run around Congress. This top-down, one-size-fits-all directive cancels years of research, scientific analysis, and compromise. The Administration has again circumvented Congress to accomplish his extreme environmental agenda. It is important to care for our public lands. However, Clinton’s goal is not preservation, but public exclusion. His announcement creates a “King’s Forest,” where lands are locked-up from any public use. Forest management should not mean that the public becomes a trespasser. Furthermore, this announcement does not address the ever-important issue of forest health. According to the Forest Service, 39 million acres of national forest land are at high risk of catastrophic wildfires. Our forests must be actively managed in order to fight insect infestation, invasive species, and susceptibility to catastrophic fires. Leaving our national forest lands unmanaged will only result in massive forest mortality. Although some think we should be locked out of our public lands and denied access to our natural resources, I believe the desire to protect our environment must be balanced with the need to provide for multiple use and public access. As a public land user and a legislator, I remain committed to allowing all Idahoans access to public lands. Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) - The House passed the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) and the legislation is now embroiled in the Senate. I support many of the provisions contained within CARA, including state Land and Water Conservation Funding, wildlife restoration and conservation, Payment In Leu of Taxes, the National Historic Preservation Fund, and conservation easements. The state portion of the LWCF is especially important to me. Stateside LWCF allocations have been a major source of funding for recreational facilities in Idaho. These facilities include greenbelts, neighborhood parks, swimming pools, state parks, boating facilities, golf courses, campgrounds, zoos, and multi-use sports fields. I am sympathetic to the plight of Idaho's cities and counties and understand their need for additional funding. However, the bill does not adequately address concerns of states containing high percentages of federal lands such as Idaho, where the federal government already owns over 65 percent of the state. In order to address the major concern of states with high percentages of federal land ownership - giving the federal government $450 million annually to purchase private land - I sponsored an amendment promoting States' rights. My amendment would not preclude federal land acquisition, but would have required the federal government, when acquiring land in a state in which 50 percent or more of the land in the state is owned by the federal government, to either dispose of an equal amount of land, or obtain the approval of the state, via a specific state law, before acquiring additional land. States with high concentrations of federal land should be able to exercise more control over future federal land acquisitions. Unfortunately, my amendment failed. Several other amendments were offered that would have addressed my concerns and strengthened the rights of states and private property owners. Regrettably, every one of these amendments failed. For these reasons, I, along with other Western members, voted against H.R. 701, which passed the House on May 11, 2000, by a vote of 315 to 102. Total Daily Maximum Loads - Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to identify waters impaired by pollution, even after application of pollution controls. For those waters, states must establish a TMDL of pollutants to ensure water quality standards can be attained. Implementation of this statute was dormant until recently, when states and the EPA were forced into action by numerous lawsuits. The EPA's new standards will affect approximately 21,000 bodies of water and 700 (one third) of the watersheds in the United States. The TMDL issue has become controversial, in part because of requirements and costs now facing states to implement this provision. Industries, cities, farmers, and others may be required to use new pollution controls to meet TMDL requirements. America's waterbodies cannot be improved from Washington, D.C. The individual states need to play the primary role in making decisions for land use and its impacts on rivers and streams. The state and local officials most familiar with these impacts already have the incentive to follow best management practices and to ensure that "bad actors" are not allowed to ruin land use for those who follow these practices. The EPA must be required to use factually sound data when making policy decisions. This is another example of the EPA trying to put the cart before the horse. I oppose these proposed regulations and my committee assignments will provide me with more influence in pushing for reform within the EPA. You may be interested to know, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3625, the Timber and Agriculture Environmental Fairness Act, introduced by Representative Jay Dickey (R-Arkansas). H.R. 3625 amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit the Administrator of the EPA from requiring a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit for discharges composed entirely of agricultural stormwater discharges or for discharges from silviculture operations. The bill excludes discharges of stormwater runoff from silvicultural operations from the definition of "point source." To further my efforts in stopping this abuse of EPA's rulemaking authority, I have co-sponsored H.R. 4502, the Water Pollution Program Improvement Act (WPPIA), sponsored by Representative Larry Combest (R-Texas). The WPPIA would require the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the scientific basis of the development and implementation of TMDLs and the availability of alternative programs to address point and non-point source pollution control. The study would then be peer reviewed by appropriate federal, state, and private sector interests. Furthermore, H.R. 4502 forbids the EPA Administrator from changing the
definition of or distinction between point and non-point source pollution.
The Administrator is also required take into account the NAS' findings
when making a final decision on TMDL rules. Foreign Affairs/Trade In July 1996, the Panamanian government awarded a private contract to a Hong Kong company for operation of the ports on both sides of the Panama Canal, Balboa and Cristobal. The Hutchison Port Holdings Company, a subsidiary of the Hutchison Whampoa Group, one of the world’s largest terminal operators, will be operating the ports. Concern has been expressed about the bidding process, in which several U.S. companies competed. A number of Senators charged in a letter to the Federal Maritime Commission that there were irregularities in the bidding process that denied U.S. companies an equal opportunity to operate the terminals in Panama. However, a May 1997 Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff report concluded that while the bidding process was unorthodox, no evidence of illegal activity was uncovered. Concern about the connection between the Hutchison Port Holdings Company and the Chinese government were raised in 1997 press reports. Many expressed fear that China would gain control of the canal and thereby control international commerce and pose a threat to U.S. security interests. Various reports, such as one produced by Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff, indicated Hutchison’s operation of the ports does not pose a threat to the operation of the Panama Canal because of the existence of legal safeguards in the Panama Canal Treaties and Panamanian law. Nonetheless, the relationship between the company and the Chinese government cannot be ignored and must continue to be closely monitored. The security of the U.S. has been placed at risk by the reversion of the Canal to Panamanian control because the Clinton Administration failed to negotiate terms for an on-going military presence in Panama after the reversion of the Canal. Such an agreement would have allowed for the continued presence of a U.S. base for strategic, counter-narcotics, and intelligence-gathering purposes. Nonetheless, the Neutrality Treaty provides allowances for a U.S. military presence in the Canal zone. The Treaty stipulates that both Panama and the United States, in exercising their responsibilities to maintain the regime of neutrality (keeping the Canal secure and open to all nations on equal terms), will each independently have the right to use military force to re-open the Canal or restore its operations should the need arise. While I do not believe there is an imminent threat to the United States, we must continue to carefully monitor the operations of the Panama Canal. For these reasons, I am a co-sponsor of H.Con.Res. 186, sponsored by Representative Dana Rohrbacher (R-California). The resolution expresses the sense of the Congress regarding a continued United States security presence in the Panama Canal Zone and the need for a review of the contract bidding process for the operation of the Balboa and Cristobal canal ports. Most importantly, the resolution calls for the U.S. government to negotiate security arrangements with the government of Panama that will protect the canal and ensure the territorial integrity of the Republic of Panama. United Nations - I oppose relinquishing U.S. sovereignty to any foreign entity, whether it is through a specific UN program or any other organization. Debate about whether UN treaties are fundamentally at odds with our Constitutional rights has arisen in recent years. The UN Charter and many of its conventions have been criticized for operating under the philosophy that rights are conditional and bestowed upon people by the government. Our Declaration of Independence, however, states, “Men are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Our Founding Fathers formulated our laws to make government the servant and not the master of the people. While I am in favor of cooperation and good relations between nations, I oppose treaties and other agreements that bind America to values that conflict with our own. H.R. 1146 was introduced on March 17, 1999, by Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas). The bill, which currently has seventeen co-sponsors, was referred to the House International Relations Committee. This bill provides for the complete withdrawal of the United States from the UN. You might be interested to know I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 346, the United Nations Debt Reduction Act of 1999. This legislation was introduced on January 19, 1999, by Representative Roscoe Bartlett (R-Maryland). The bill seeks to prohibit the payment of American dues to the UN until the U.S. has been credited or reimbursed for overpayments to the organization. I share the desire to see much-needed reform at the UN. The UN views the U.S. as a deep pocket that will supply endless funding for various activities. This legislation would make it clear the U.S. cannot provide limitless amounts of money to the UN without being properly credited for those funds or reimbursed for past expenditures. Executive Orders - Article II of the Constitution states that “the executive power shall be vested in the President of the United States,” “the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,” and “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” The Constitution, however, has nothing specific to say about how the President is supposed to carry out these responsibilities. As a result of this ambiguity, the instruments of executive authority have multiplied from the simple Presidential Proclamations issued by President Washington to a confusing list of Executive Orders, Presidential Decision Directives, Administrative Orders, and so on. All these executive instruments, if issued under a valid claim of authority, have the force and effect of law, and courts are required to take judicial note of their existence. When judging the legitimacy of executive orders, it is useful to look at the issue from an historical perspective. In his eight years in office, President Washington issued eight executive orders. The President who relied most heavily on these orders was Franklin Roosevelt, who re-made the Federal government through 3,522 executive orders, an average of 286 per year. President Clinton has averaged approximately 46 executive orders per year. I am a co-sponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 30 (H.Con.Res. 30), which expresses the sense of Congress that any executive order which infringes on Congressional duties or requires the expenditure of Federal funds is advisory only and has no force or effect unless enacted by Congress as law. I will oppose any attempts by the Administration to expand its power at the expense of the citizens of the United States and their representatives in Congress. Second Amendment - I do not support gun control. We must protect and preserve our Constitutional right to bear arms. I will not support any legislation that requires a waiting period for the purchase of a firearm, bans the ownership of firearms, or promotes or requires the rationing or taxation of firearms or ammunition. As you may know, the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” I firmly believe this provision prohibits the federal government from denying citizens this right. Gun ownership is not the source of our crime problem. Our ‘revolving door’ justice system should be reformed. Criminals must understand that their outrageous behavior will not be tolerated. If a person uses a gun while committing a crime, he or she should get a stiff sentence. We need to get tough on crime and I will continue to support legislation to do just that. I have always been and continue to be a strong defender of the Second Amendment. Currently, I am co-sponsoring several pieces of legislation to preserve Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. These include: The Firearms Heritage Protection Act (H.R. 1032) - Recently, there have been a number of lawsuits filed by various cities against firearm manufacturers, claiming the gunmakers are responsible for criminal acts involving firearms. These suits threaten the Second Amendment and establish grounds for lawsuits against manufacturers of other non-defective products, thus threatening every manufacturing industry in America. I believe these lawsuits are being used by anti-gun groups to change tort law and promote firearm restrictions that are not approved by Congress. H.R. 1032 will prevent these suits from being filed in state and federal court. The Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 1999 (H.R. 1178) - This legislation permanently bans the imposition of a federal “guntax” on buyers who undergo a National Instant Check System (NICS) check when buying firearms from a dealer. This is a clear attempt by the Administration to circumvent language in the Brady Act that prohibits the establishment of a federal gun registration system. I will actively oppose any effort by the Administration to circumvent the law by implementing a registry of gun owners through NICS. Citizens Self Defense Act of 1999 (H.R. 347) - This bill provides that persons not excluded under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act shall have the right to obtain a firearm for self-defense. This legislation strengthens the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home. Community Protection Act of 1999, (H.R. 218) - 218 amends the Federal criminal code to authorize qualified, current and former, law enforcement officers, notwithstanding State or local laws, to carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This legislation passed the House on June 18, 1999, as an amendment to H.R. 2122, the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act. The amendment passed by a vote of 372-53. You will be pleased to know I voted in favor of this amendment. However, H.R. 2122 failed on final passage. Please rest assured I will support H.R. 218 if it comes before the House for a vote. States' Rights and Second and Tenth Amendment Restoration Act of 1999, (H.R. 3444) - I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 3444, sponsored by Representative Helen Chenoweth-Hage (R-Idaho). It is designed to repeal section 658 of Public Law 104-208, commonly referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment. During the 104th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) sponsored an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations bill. This amendment bans any person ever convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from owning a firearm. This law is retroactive. Any person (male or female) convicted of a past incident of domestic violence before the law was enacted is not allowed to possess a gun, even if the convicted person has faced justice and fulfilled the requirements of their sentence. This is unacceptable. Although domestic violence is a very serious issue, Congress should not
make laws to hand down federal punishment for state misdemeanors. States
already have the right and ability to disarm criminals, convicted of
felony or misdemeanor crimes. The Lautenberg amendment also violates
constitutionally protected due process because it retroactively imposes
criminal penalties via "ex post facto" law. This law can and has had the
effect of disarming women in abusive relationships. In some instances,
this has resulted in the death of the battered spouse because they were
not able to defend themselves with a firearm. I am working to fulfill the promises made to all Americans in the current Social Security system, and will continue to evaluate all proposals to overhaul Social Security. It is my goal to insure that Social Security is available to current beneficiaries as well as future generations without increasing taxes or reducing benefits. Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act (H.R. 1259) - This act establishes a “lock box” mechanism to ensure Social Security surpluses are not spent on other government programs-or for tax cuts-by creating parliamentary obstacles and establishing new budget procedures. In doing so, the measure protects the Social Security trust fund by setting aside $1.8 trillion in cumulative budget surpluses over the next 10 years for Social Security and Medicare. (Passed by House May 26, 1999.) In 2000, Social Security beneficiaries between the ages of 65 and 69 can only earn up to $17,000 without losing benefits. Once their earnings reach this limit they lose $1 of Social Security benefits for every $3 of earnings above the limit. The earnings limit affects 3,300 Idahoans. It is not fair to punish seniors that choose to stay in the workforce during their golden years. Furthermore, the present earnings limit hurts older Americans who need to work in order to supplement their Social Security benefits. In a time when unemployment is at historic lows, seniors have vast opportunities to remain in or re-enter the workforce. As the need for quality employees grows, businesses can benefit from the experience and skills older workers provide. For these reasons, I support the Senior Citizens’ Freedom to Work Act of 2000 (H.R. 5), which passed the House by a vote of 422 to 0, on March 1, 2000. H.R. 5 repeals the Social Security earnings limit, which affects approximately 800,000 Social Security recipients between the ages of 65 and 69. I'm please that on April, 2000 President Clinton signed H.R. 5 into law
so all seniors can work without fear of losing their Social Security.
I am working to bring meaningful tax relief to the citizens of Idaho. There are several proposals to curtail the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) intrusion into the American family home, including a flat tax and a national sales tax. While I have not endorsed any of these proposals, I do support comprehensive tax reform and relief. Several measures have also been introduced to provide targeted tax relief. They include reducing the capital gains tax, eliminating the marriage penalty, and repealing the death tax. However, I believe the most effective course of action is to sunset the current complex and unfair federal tax code, and replace it with a simple and fair alternative. For these reasons, I am a co-sponsor of H.R. 1401, the Date Certain Tax Code Replacement Act, which was introduced in the House by Representative Steve Largent (R-Oklahoma). The bill was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee for further review. The measure abolishes the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and mandates the implementation of a new federal tax system no later than July 4, 2002. The new tax system should be a simple and fair system that provides tax relief for working Americans, protects the rights of taxpayers, reduces tax collection abuses, and eliminates the bias against savings and investment. H.R. 4199 passed the House of Representatives on April 13, 2000, by a vote of 229 to 187. I have also co-sponsored several other measures to provide tax relief. These include: The Marriage Tax Elimination Act of 1999 (H.R. 86 ) - This act eliminates the marriage penalty by providing that the income tax rate bracket amounts and the amount of the standard deduction for joint returns shall be twice the amounts applicable to unmarried individuals (Passed the House on February 10, 2000, by a vote of 268 to 158). The Capital Gains Tax Reduction Act of 1999 (H.R. 14 ) - This act reduces the capital gains rate and index the value of assets so families will not be taxed on purely inflationary gains. The Death Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 86) - This act, also know as the Family Heritage Preservation Act, will eliminate the estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes. On June 9, 2000, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Death Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 8) by a vote of 279 to 136. The bill repeals the estate, gift, and generation-skipping taxes over a ten-year period. I supported passage of H.R. 8 and repeal of the unfair death tax. The Tax Limitation Amendment (H.J.Res. 37) - This measure amends the Constitution by requiring that any bill to raise taxes would require a two-thirds vote (Failed to receive two-thirds majority April 12, 2000 by a vote of 234 to 192). In 1999, Congress passed the Financial Freedom Act (H.R. 2488). The measure provided for approximately $792 billion in broad-based tax relief, the highlight of which is a one percentage point reduction in each individual income tax bracket. In addition, the legislation:
Refunding taxes along with reducing the national public debt will ensure continued economic growth and financial freedom for future generations. For these reasons, I voted in favor of H.R. 2488. Unfortunately, the President vetoed H.R. 2488 on September 23, 1999.
However, I will continue to monitor and evaluate all proposals that
provide tax relief and reform. Congress needs to put money back into the
pockets of working Americans. I will support legislative proposals that
fulfill these goals. Satellite Home Viewers - As a result of a successful legal action taken by CBS and FOX against Primetime 24 in Miami, Florida in 1998, many customers who had illegally received distant network signals via satellite providers were in jeopardy of losing all network service secured through satellite service. Negotiations between satellite providers and the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) delayed immediate disconnection of network signals for those customers in “Grade B” or better coverage areas until February 28, 1999. A long-term agreement between broadcasters and satellite providers to address the problems raised by the legal challenge and the outdated provisions of the Satellite Home Viewers Act (SHVA) has finally been reached. Legislation (H.R. 1554) codifying the agreement was recently included in H.R. 3194, the Fiscal Year 2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act. H.R. 3194 was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President on November 29, 1999. The law now allows for satellite television companies to carry the same local broadcast affiliates (i.e. AMC, CBS, FOX, and NBC) that are routinely provided by their cable rivals. Thus, for the first time, satellite companies will be permitted to carry the signals of local network stations to customers within that market. The measure allows satellite companies to carry local stations in isolated areas and cities, where they can compete with local broadcasters and cable television. Satellite companies will have the legal authority to offer customers local broadcast signals from network affiliates in addition to other channels. The conference report prohibits satellite companies from being charged a copyright fee for local channel compulsory licenses. Secondly, the conference report allows customers who do not receive local broadcast signals to request and receive satellite television waivers quickly. The bill applies the same rules that govern the cable TV industry regarding network non-duplication, syndicated exclusivity, and sports blackouts to the satellite industry. The measure requires satellite companies to carry all local stations in all markets they choose to serve by January 1, 2002 - the so-called ‘must carry’ requirement. The bill also allows those subscribers who currently receive distant network signals that may be shut off at the end of the year to keep those signals. Finally, it allows C-band customers to keep their service as well. The measure establishes a more accurate and fair process to determine which people living in rural areas are eligible to receive distant network signals. Specifically, it requires that broadcasters and satellite companies split the cost of testing homes to see whether consumers are eligible to receive signals from distant network affiliates. The bill requires the FCC to study whether it needs to update its signal standard for satellite service to more accurately determine who should be eligible for distant network signals. The measure also lowers the signal fees that satellite providers pay for distant network signals. I am pleased a long-term solution to the shortcomings of the SHVA has been achieved. The changes will protect the interests of Idaho’s satellite customers, provide for enhanced cable competition, and ultimately update the SHVA to make it consistent with technological advancements. Internet Access Charges - A false rumor concerning the United States Postal Service (USPS) is being circulated on Internet e-mail. The rumors often allege that the USPS intends to implement a surcharge on e-mail to compensate for losses due to the Internet. One rendition claims that a ‘Congressman Schnell’ has introduced ‘Bill 602P’ allowing the federal government to impose a 5-cent surcharge on each e-mail message delivered over the Internet. The money would be collected by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and then turned over to the Postal Service. No such legislation exists. In fact, no ‘Congressman Schnell’ exists. Moreover, “Bill 602P” is not even a proper label for proposed legislation in the House. The U.S. Postal Service has no authority to surcharge e-mail messages sent over the Internet, nor would it support such legislation. Another rumor alleges Congress will be voting in the near future on legislation to impose fees on Internet e-mail. This rumor apparently stems from a 1997 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposal, which was overwhelmingly rejected. The proposal sought to require ISPs to pay local telephone companies for their equipment and facilities when providing Internet service. While the FCC requested public comment on this issue in December 1996, the FCC is not pursuing any action to impose per-minute usage charges on consumer access to ISPs. On May 7, 1997, the FCC decided to leave the existing rate structure in place and not establish rules allowing local telephone companies to impose per-minute charges on ISPs. Such rumors about legislative and administrative proposals being considered by the US government are false. I share your concern for the negative impact any type of charges would have on the ability of Americans to communicate and access valuable information. In a rural state like Idaho, access to the Internet ensures that people are able to secure information in a cost-effective manner. It is for these reasons I strongly oppose imposing surcharges or adding
taxes for using e-mail or the Internet and have taken actions to ensure
against any such practices by co-sponsoring H.R. 1291, the Internet Access
Charge Prohibition Act of 1999. This legislation passed the House on June
16, 2000 and is now pending in the Senate. The measure seeks to prohibit
the FCC from creating access charges for Internet customers. Rest assured,
I will continue to oppose any regulations that seek to change the way
customers obtain and pay for Internet services. As a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I have a special responsibility to ensure the safety, efficiency, and fairness of our nation's transportation system. Access to safe and efficient transportation is one of the most important prerequisites for any community's economic development. I am committed to ensuring that the federal government fulfills its responsibility to maintain our nation's transportation infrastructure. Aviation In Idaho, we have a huge backlog in aviation projects because the airport taxes you've paid have not gone to improve airports. The money has been spent on other programs. The bill ensures the Aviation Trust Fund can only be used for what it was intended - improving the safety of air travelers. This legislation gives airport managers the means to improve local airports, and will provide air travelers better service, safer travel, and friendlier skies. Rail Gas Prices In the absence of clear evidence of anti-competitive behavior, Congress has been reluctant to interfere in the workings of the fuel market. One area in which Congress should act to mitigate the effects of the price spikes is by providing relief for those who have been most severely affected: the small trucking companies and independent owner-operators and the shippers who depend on trucking to get their products to market. These are the people whose livelihoods are threatened by increasing fuel prices. Several legislative proposals are pending before Congress to offer
relief from the price hikes. Simply cutting fuel taxes would not
accomplish this goal and would have severe negative effects on our
nation's transportation infrastructure. I have heard from many Idahoans on
this issue, and am considering several alternatives with their comments in
mind.
|
