THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

Florida Governor Jeb Bush wrote to Attorney General Janet Reno following our most recent tragedy requesting additional efforts. We need, and I would ask this House to consider in the future, and I specifically ask the administration to listen: greater interdiction efforts along the U.S. coast; increased Federal resources to make the prevention of illegal smuggling a top priority with an increased focus on south Florida; expanded hold capacity for the Krome detention facility located in Miami, County so that officials will be able to retain larger numbers of illegal aliens after the raids. Even one of my own counties, Glades County, Florida has offered to construct the facility for

[Page: H6979]  GPO's PDF

   Again, let us think about the human tragedy here. People are smuggling innocent people to this country and oftentimes throwing them overboard miles offshore so they will not get caught, yet they have taken the money from the person hoping to come to America.

   Mr. Speaker, we must support increased funding for Border Patrol. I recognize that, and that is why the base bill I support. But I want everybody to listen here today, because I believe Florida has been shortchanged. I have repeatedly asked the administration, I have repeatedly asked my colleagues in the House, and I would hope that the rest of the Florida delegation will support us in our effort for several things: Coast Guard, Border Patrol, INS and Customs.

   Florida is a growing State with growing tourism, growing needs, and we would certainly hope that this Congress would be receptive to assisting us in meeting those needs and demands, and let not one more person perish on Florida seas or on Florida's coast without this being addressed.

   Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. ROEMER).

   (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding me this time.

   If one is in a school and one is seen carrying around a host of books and one uses those books, and one's arguments are reflective of the study of those books, one is probably seen as an academician and scholarly. But if one is an accountant and one has two books, one is kind of known as cooking the books, keeping two sets of accounting on one's budget. And that is not known as a particularly good practice.

   Now, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule because this bill includes $4.5 billion of money that is in the second book. It is not accounted for. It is declared emergency funding that breaks the budget caps, that is not accounted for in the way that we should be accounting for the money as fiscally responsible Democrats and fiscally responsible Republicans.

[Time: 12:00]

   Now, many Republicans came here in 1994 under the Republican revolution to revolutionize the way we did the budget around here, not to cook the books and keep two sets of books for a routine measure of spending. We are talking about $4.5 billion. That is as much as many States have for their entire yearly budget. Yet, it is okay in this practice to declare this emergency spending.

   Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, knew about it. We knew in 1991, in 1992, 1993, we were going to have to spend this money. Our American families know before they go on a vacation that they have to sit down and plan out what they are going to do with that budget, and plan backwards; if it is going to take them $1,500 for their vacation, that they may not have the opportunity to do other things. But in this budget, we go forward and spend $4.5 billion on census funding that we have known for years was coming that is routine spending, and we declare it emergency spending.

   My second argument, other than fiscal responsibility for encouraging defeating the rule, is a fairness argument.

   In addition to the fiscal responsibility argument, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. SCARBOROUGH), the gentleman from New York (Mr. QUINN), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. LEWIS), and myself, a Democrat from Indiana, went before the Committee on Rules to ask for a rule to simply give us the waiver, the same waiver they have given three Republican amendments, no Democratic amendment; to simply rename the Justice Department building after Robert Kennedy.

   This is, of course, the Commerce-State-Justice bill. It is not major legislation. It is not redoing U.N. funding. It is not major legislation on a new policy. Three Republican amendments were in order, no Democratic amendments in order.

   So for fiscal responsibility and $4.5 billion being cooked in two sets of books on this bill, and for a rule that reflects a six-vote difference in the majority and minority for fairness for rules, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and send it back. Let us get a fair rule.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. KASICH).

   Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to just take a moment, because as many in the House know, I have been, along with a number of my colleagues, fighting a battle against corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is defined as those governmental programs that cost the taxpayers more than the benefits they derive from the subsidies.

   The fact is that we have a breakthrough today in corporate welfare, and we need to celebrate the victories that we have. The chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS) should receive large praise for his elimination of the advanced technology program. That is a program where government uses taxpayers' dollars to pick winners and losers without any relationship at all to the marketplace.

   It is not the job in a free market system for the government to engage in the picking of winners and losers, particularly when the picking of winners and losers results in a bigger cost to the taxpayer than the benefit it brings to society.

   No one should be confused about what this term ``corporate welfare'' is all about. Many of my friends on the other side do not like the notion of tax cuts. Frankly, lowering the corporate tax burden works to the benefit of job creation. The creation and extension of making permanent the research and development tax credit is a system that will allow businesses to have the incentives to do the research that they should do for themselves that exists in the real world.

   Legal reform, a system that would set businesses free from the entanglements of lawsuits that in many cases make no rhyme nor reason to the kind of justice system that we all hope for, or simple regulatory reform that my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. ROEMER) who just spoke has supported, the efforts to try to make more common sense as it applies to business.

   Those are the answers in terms of the way in which our businesses should be expanded, not through a government program that costs taxpayers more and provides very little benefit to the taxpayers who pay the bill.

   The picking of winners and losers by government should end, and frankly, I think this is a very good day when it comes to the effort to try to reduce the level of corporate welfare that we find in the budget of the United States.

   I want to praise the chairman for his good work, and hope we can hold this all the way through conference.

   Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. UDALL).

   (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

   Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and have many serious concerns about the bill itself. For one thing, as it stands, the bill will hurt, not help, our efforts to make our communities safer and to afford equal justice to all of our citizens.

   Let me give a few examples. Terminating the COPS program will be bad for communities like those that I represent, where residents are struggling to cope with the increased crime that too often comes with population growth.

   Secondly, cutting funding for the Legal Services Corporation calls into question our commitment to assuring that lower-income citizens can have access to our courts.

   Finally, number three, failing to adequately fund the enforcement of our civil rights laws will make it harder to protect the rights of all of our American citizens.

   The bill is also very bad for small business. In fact, it would cut back the Small Business Administration by forcing the SBA to lay off over 75 percent of its work force. It provides no funding for the new markets initiative, which will promote business investment in underserved areas like our urban centers and our Indian reservations.

[Page: H6980]  GPO's PDF

   Just as troubling is the way the bill would affect the Commerce Department's National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, two agencies that have important research facilities in Colorado.

   The bill does provide for funds for some important NOAA projects, including the hyperaircraft. However, cuts in other NOAA funding are still troublesome, particularly as they affect the oceanic and atmospheric research programs.

   These programs support vital research, both in NOAA's own labs and through cooperation with universities like the University of Colorado. The bill's cuts in their funding are counterproductive to our efforts to understand and respond to climate change and global warming, and would set back needed progress in the ability of the Weather Service to predict severe events that threaten lives and property, like the destructive tornadoes in the State of Oklahoma this spring.

   As for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, I asked that agency how the bill would affect them. To sum it up, the effects would be terrible. The bill would delay construction of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory, which is essential to allow NIST to conduct research that is sorely needed by American science and American industry, and would require NIST to continue to cope with deteriorating physical facilities that are a serious impediment to its ability to carry out its mission.

   Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD a more detailed explanation of how the bill would affect NIST, which was provided to me at my request. I do not want to read it all, but I will sum it up. In short, the bill threatens to make it impossible for NIST to properly carry out its job of promoting technological progress and helping American industry to compete effectively.

   These are just a few of the serious problems with the bill, Mr. Speaker, so I cannot support the bill. We can do better. We must do better.

   The material referred to is as follows:

   Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology

   House Appropriations Bill impacts on NIST's Construction of Research Facilities:

   The House Committee allowance bill freezes funding at the FY 1999 level and delays construction of the Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML). The AML is the major step in a long-term plan to remedy the technical obsolescence of the NIST facilities.

   NIST's mission requires it to perform world-class research, which requires world-class laboratories. NIST's outdated and deteriorating laboratory facilities are undermining its ability to promote U.S. economic growth and international competitiveness.

   Delay will move the estimated completion of the AML to 2005 and could add as much as $6M to the cost. A delay in construction also means a delay in the planned renovations of our current facilities, which are in a state of continuous deterioration.

   Below are just a few examples of how NIST's deteriorating physical facilities are hampering its mission.

   The semiconductor and chemical processing industries need subnanometer level reference materials for measuring silicon wafer contamination and for studying catalytic surface reactions. NIST has the instrumentation available to make these measurements but cannot develop them due to poor temperature, vibration, and air quality control in its laboratories.

   Nuclear facilities, pharmaceutical companies, aerospace industries, and others are pressing NIST to improve the accuracy of its mass calibrations. The lack of good environmental controls in NIST's current General Purpose Laboratories causes NIST's precision mass calibrations to be four to 10 times less accurate than they should be.

   The aerospace, semiconductor, pharmaceutical, and other high tech industries need high quality pressure calibrations from NIST. Many of these measurements are delayed in delivery due to poor temperature and vibration control that prevent NIST's best calibration instrument from being used about one third of the time.

   NIST's research on ferroelectric oxide thin films important in lightwave communications networks and next generation optical computing is frequently set back by dust particles that ruin delicate samples and is limited by temperature and vibration control problems.

   As these examples illustrate, many NIST researchers in advanced technology areas currently must throw out or delay 10 to 30 percent of their measurements due to unacceptably large variations environmental conditions.

   Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. HAYWORTH).

   Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

   I listened with great interest, Mr. Speaker, to several comments from the other side. Let us begin with my good friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. UDALL), an Arizona native whose subsequent life's journey took him to another State. We welcome him in this body.

   He mentioned his concern about the elimination of the new markets initiative as a reason why he would oppose the rule, and I surmise, the general bill. I think it is important to actually take a look at what the President proposed in his so-called new markets initiative.

   Like many programs that come from the administration, it was heavy on overhead. Indeed, the new markets initiative, posturing as a program to help Indian reservations and those who live in the inner city who are economically disadvantaged, only worked to the advantage of government bureaucrats.

   Indeed, what the President asked to happen was to have the taxpayers underwrite some $100 million in loans, or actually provide some $45 million in cash for a modest loan program, when instead, in our tax bill that passed on this floor in the proper jurisdiction, the Committee on Ways and Means, we incorporated a bipartisan plan that did more through tax relief for the inner cities and distressed areas than the new markets initiative could ever hope to do.

   To my friend, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. ROEMER) who talked about keeping two sets of books, I would simply commend the rest of the story. Part of it goes back to the wise words of our good friend, the committee chairman, who will offer his appropriations legislation.

   We need to understand this, Mr. Speaker, that sadly, when it comes to the analogy of two sets of books, we would do well to look at the policy of the director of the Census, who, in apparent irreverence for existing law and the Constitution, this administration and this Census Bureau says that actual enumeration is not good enough when it comes to the Census, that we need to project.

   We should oppose the rule. Not two sets of books, one set of facts. Support the rule and support the underlying legislation.

   Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. STENHOLM).

   (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear, I have only the highest respect for my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. ROGERS), the chairman of the committee. I rise against this rule but not against my colleague and the untenable situation that he and the chairman of the full committee have been put in.

   I rise in opposition to the rule because it is not a fair rule. If they had allowed three Democratic votes to have waivers of the rules, then it would be a fair rule and open, and I would be supporting the rule. But someone chose not to do that.

   The primary reason that I rise against the rule and against the bill is this continued charade that my friends on this side of the aisle are using regarding the caps. Everyone knows this bill, by declaring $4.5 billion as an emergency for the Census, breaks the caps. Everyone in this body knows that. If someone here does not know that, please stand up and challenge me at this time. Everyone knows we are breaking the caps.

   We are spending social security trust funds for purposes of declaring an emergency on a Census that everyone has known for 220-plus years we do every 10 years.

   The gentleman from Arizona was making a point a moment ago, and I could get into that, too, because I happen to believe that we do better in this country when we allow sound science to determine our policies. We could have saved $1.7 billion, $1.7 billion, had we chosen to use sound science instead of political rhetoric.

   Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

   Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, does my friend, the gentleman from Texas, actually favor sampling over actual enumeration and counting?

[Page: H6981]  GPO's PDF

   Mr. STENHOLM. I absolutely do. I take back my time. I absolutely do, because based on sound science, as I argue in the Committee on Agriculture every day, including yesterday, when we had a ruling by EPA that chose not to follow sound science, it hurts consumers, it hurts producers in Arizona, and I find myself consistent in that.

   Let me just say again in closing, my reason for opposing this today is, as Members heard, no one challenged me when I said that we are spending $4.5 billion out of social security trust funds. That is why we all should oppose this rule and send it back until we can get bipartisanly accurate.

   Let us start shooting straight with the American public. If we are going to spend their social security dollars, let us tell them. If they are going to break the caps, let us tell them. If we are going to give a tax cut from a fictitious surplus that is not there, let us tell them.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents