Wayne Allard

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Lowey amendment and rise in support of the Istook language guaranteeing States the right to determine appropriate restrictions on the use of Medicaid funds for abortion. Recently, the State of Colorado was denied this right in Federal court, presenting a substantial problem for our State. The Colorado Constitution prohibits the use of public funds for abortions, unless the life of the mother is threatened. Therefore, the State is put in the position of violating our State constitution or discontinuing the use of Medicaid funds. At a time when we are shifting power back to the States, we should guarantee States the right to place restrictions on the use of Medicaid funds for abortion. This is particularly appropriate in light of the Federal-State matching grant nature of Medicaid. The Istook language simply reiterates Congress' intent in the Hyde amendment. Colorado is not the only State that challenges the Clinton administration's interpretation of the Hyde amendment. The States of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah also prohibit the use of Medicaid funds for abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is endangered. The funds involved are taxpayer dollars, and the people of Colorado and other States should determine whether Federal abortion funding restrictions are adequate or need to be strengthened.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my chairman for yielding time to me. I would like to congratulate him on his hard work and success in trying to create a better future for our farmers. I came into this Congress with the demand that is being made on agriculture, and that is that the American people wanted to drop off subsidies. American farmers were sick and tired of rules and regulations that kept them from being able to produce the crops that they wanted, and they were getting bogged down in paperwork. They wanted to have some tax relief. This farm bill, we need to keep in mind, had the goal of beginning to reduce subsidies, giving farmers regulatory relief and tax relief. This is the most market-oriented, the most pro-environment, and most fiscally responsible farm bill in recent history that has been reported out of the House of Representatives. I believe it will pass today off the floor of the House of Representatives, because there has been so much hard work. We all realize we have to get legislation passed so farmers can move ahead, get their own lives in order, and get their farms prepared to get ready for production. We cannot continue to hold this up. Mr. Chairman, on rural economic development, right now we are spending $5.1 billion for rural economic development. We are calling for another $3.5 billion. There are a lot of things that need to be done to improve rural economic development. For example, we are spending a lot of dollars on recreation facilities. We need to be focusing those dollars on what is going to help rural America be more productive. There is a lack of specification, specifics, in this particular amendment. Obviously, we have some real needs on rural economic development, but they are not laid out for us on this particular amendment; so I am urging a no vote on this amendment because of the lack of specifics. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the Members of the House to join me in defeating this amendment.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, we are where the road forks in this country's history. We are talking about business as usual or whether we really want to bring some change to this place. I have a lot of empathy and support, or concern, about Federal employees who may not be having an opportunity to work, and I think we need to look at our policy as a way we handle these kinds of public discussions and we ought to set a policy that allows them to go back to work if they wanted to. But we are talking about whether we are going to balance the budget in 7 years using real figures, or whether we are going to go over here and do business as usual, as we have been doing for the last 40 years. That is where this crossroad is. The President simply is not sitting down and looking at what we can do with real numbers in 7 years to balance the budget. We have to do that if we are going to have any kind of future for our children and grandchildren. It is imperative. It is important.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 2029, the Farm Credit System Regulatory Relief Act of 1995. H.R. 2029 provides regulatory relief for the Farm Credit System and gives further flexibility for the Farm Credit Administration, the regulator of the System. This legislation has the bipartisan support of the House Agriculture Committee and was reported out of subcommittee and committee on a voice vote. H.R. 2029 cuts back on paperwork on the System and, according to the FCA, saves between $18 and $20 million over the next 5 years by eliminating an unnecessary board of directors and eliminating unnecessary regulations. I would like to enter into the Record a letter from the FCA outlining the savings. The CBO has also scored this and they indicate that implementation of H.R. 2029 would not have any pay-go implications. This legislation will also provide greater flexibility to the FCA should a problem rise at a System bank. It will allow them to review management at a trouble bank and make changes in management if necessary. It will also allow them to nullify golden parachutes at troubled institutions if they are being paid to bank management who are responsible for the troubled condition of the bank. None of these changes will result in expanded authorities for the System and none of these changes will place the safety and soundness of the System at risk. These changes only reflect the better financial condition of the System in 1995. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following letter: Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA, August 11, 1995. Hon. Pat Roberts, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for providing the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) with the opportunity to communicate our support for H.R. 2029, a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971. It was a pleasure for me to testify before Chairman Allard and Members of the Subcommittee on Resource Conservation, Research, and Forestry on this legislation. You have asked that FCA provide an estimate of the cost of enacting H.R. 209. After careful review, it has been determined that significant savings could be realized were this bill to be adopted by Congress. Estimated savings of as much as $4 million annually could be achieved under two provisions of H.R. 2029, the 18-month examination schedule extension and retention of the current three member Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation (FCSIC) Board. The Agency estimates that adoption of an 18 month examination schedule for many of our institutions, in lieu of the current 12 month examination schedule, could save as much as $2 million annually. This change would further streamline RCA without compromising the safety and soundness of the institutions it regulates. If the statutory requirement for establishment of an independent FCSIC Board is repealed, as proposed by H.R. 2029, additional costs can be avoided. The implementation of an independent, full time three member Board of Directors would increase FCSIC administrative costs by approximately $2.0 million annually. Under H.R. 2029, FCSIC would continue to benefit from access to FCA professional and administrative resources under the same operating procedures that have been in place since 1990. Were H.R. 2029 enacted with the extended examination schedule and the repeal of an independent FCSIC Board, a cost savings of $18 to $20 million could be realized over the next five years. Should you have additional questions regarding H.R. 2029, please let me know. Sincerely, Marsha Martin, Chairman. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. de la GARZA asked was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2029, and a statement on behalf of the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson] will be submitted to appear at the appropriate place in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for moving this bill through the Committee on Agriculture in an expeditious manner, and I also would like to commend the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard], and the ranking member, the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], for their hard work in guiding the regulatory relief through their subcommittee. Mr. Speaker I rise today in support of H.R. 2029. I would like to thank Chairman Roberts for moving this bill through the Committee on Agriculture in an expeditious manner. I would also like to commend Subcommittee Chairman Allard and the ranking member, Mr. Johnson, for their hard work in guiding the regulatory relief bill through their subcommittee. The bill before the House today reflects the hard work of Members from both sides of the aisle. It is the product of a careful review of current regulations, and it targets those regulations that have become outdated. For example, the legislation removes an outdated certification procedure for certain Banks for Cooperatives lending activities, without changing eligibility requirements in current law. Other changes will give the system more flexibility, and provide farmers and ranchers with better loan rates. Section 4 will give the Farm Credit Administration more flexibility in carrying out its examinations of Farm Credit System institutions. Section 5 of the bill authorizes the Insurance Corporation to reduce premiums it receives from System banks and to distribute to System Institutions amounts in the insurance fund [Fund] that are in excess of the secure base amount. Section 10 authorizes associations to jointly form administrative service entities, which will reduce operating expenses. These changes will result in lower costs to the System and lower interest rates for farmers, ranchers, and rural homeowners. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the bill, H.R. 2029, as amended, and I look forward to continuing work with Chairman Roberts toward enactment of this legislation.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2029) to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to provide regulatory relief, as amended.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the President's budget proposal. It does not balance the budget. By contrast, the Congress has repeatedly demonstrated its determination to balance the budget with real deficit reduction, not phoney numbers. As a member of the Budget Committee and the Resources and Agriculture Committees, I know first hand that all of the Committees have worked hard to carry out their mandate for deficit reduction. The Resources Committee has worked on the difficult task of ensuring the wise use and protection of our nation's natural resources. Strong environmental protections are critical. There is no question here. Those of us who represent the West know first hand how important it is to protect our nation's resources. We have grown up amidst those resources and we understand the principle of ``wise use.'' The goal of the Resources Committee has been to restore some balance to the equation. In many of our states, the federal government owns over a third or more of the land. We are simply asking that our citizens have some say over the manner in which those lands and resources are maintained and protected. We are also working to protect the interests of the working families whose wise use of our resources is critical to their livelihood and to our nation's future. The Resources Committee has produced over $2.3 billion in savings through 2002. This will help us balance the budget and ensure a better future for our children. All our opponents have done is complain about our plan. My question is, where is their plan? The President's budget never gets to balance. Mr. Speaker, if we do not balance the budget, our children will pay the price. Already, a child born today will pay $187,000 in taxes just to pay for their share of interest on the debt. The Congress has not balanced the budget since 1969. We cannot wait any longer. Our children are depending on us to finally do the responsible thing, and end these endless deficits. This is not easy work, it involves tough choices and tough votes. Unfortunately, the President has declined to join with us in the heavy lifting. Last month, the President gave the Congress and the American people his word that he would submit a budget that achieves balance in seven years with real numbers. So far, he has not fulfilled his commitment. Mr. Speaker, the reason there is conflict this week in our government is because this Congress is different. We promised the American people a balanced budget, and we are going to deliver. The easy course would be to postpone the tough choices to a future Congress. After all, Congress has been doing this since 1969. Mr. Speaker, this time we are not going to pass the buck. We are here, we are ready to negotiate, and we are ready to work with the President to produce the balanced budget he has promised.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, when I ran for Congress in 1990, I made one principle commitment to the people of Colorado, I would do everything I could to balance the Federal budget. That is why I am so proud to stand here today. The process of balancing the budget began last fall with the Contract With America. Despite intense criticism from the media and the liberals, the voters liked our contract, and they elected the first Republican Congress in 40 years. After we won our majority, we did something really shocking: we kept our contract. The pundits said we never would. They said we couldn't actually balance the budget. They were wrong. Immediately after the election, those of us on the Budget Committee set to work on a massive 6-year plan to restore fiscal discipline to our Government. We worked through the spring under the enthusiastic leadership of our Chairman John Kasich. We never gave up. This plan was then endorsed by our full conference and implemented by the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committees. It was a monumental achievement. It is the proudest achievement that I have been part of in my 5 years in Congress. Today, we will make history, we will balance the Federal budget for the first time in 33 years. This new Congress has kept its commitment to our children and grandchildren. We said we would balance the budget, and we did it. The only remaining obstacle to a balanced budget is President Clinton. He has stated time and time again that he supports a balanced budget. Again, the truth will come out this weekend when he is presented with this plan. He has no intention of balancing the budget. Judging by the rhetoric of those who oppose this plan one might get the impression that it contains devastating cuts. This charge indicates how far removed from reality the defenders of deficits have drifted. This budget does not cut spending at all, it simply slows the rate of increase. Let me review some very important numbers. Over the last 7 years Federal spending totaled $9.5 trillion. Over the 7 years of this balanced budget plan, 1996-2002, the Federal Government will spend a total of over $12 trillion. Where I come from that is an increase, and it is a very substantial one. Even the Washington Post has recognized the courage of our budget, particularly in the area of Medicare. We have made very modest changes in Medicare, and in the process we have saved the program from bankruptcy. Spending per beneficiary will rise from the current $4,800 to $6,700 per year. Let me quote from today's Post editorial: If the Democrats play the Medicare card and win, they will have set back for years, for the worst of political reasons, the very cause of rational government in behalf of which they profess to be behaving. Mr. Speaker, we know the Democrats have already played the Medicare card, let's just hope they don't win. We want to save Medicare, our opponents want to postpone the tough choices for another day. By then it may be too late. It is important to keep in mind why we must balance the budget. This endeavor is about much more than numbers. It is about the future standard of living for our children. I have been particularly gratified by the large number of letters I have received from constituents who say ``just do it.'' They realize that some sacrifice will be required of them, but they want the budget balanced. Last year, we made a Contract With America. This balanced budget represents the very essence of that contract--a Federal Government that will be smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient. We have kept our contract, and this has restored faith in our form of government. It proves that Promises Made--Promises Kept was much more than just another campaign slogan. Mr. DOYLE, Mr. Speaker, when I came to Congress last January the people sent me here with instructions to stop the partisan bickering and work toward solutions. The people of western Pennsylvania continue to tell me that they want a balanced Federal budget. Well this Democrat supported a Balanced Budget Amendment which the other body did not pass. This Democrat supported a plan to balance the budget in 7 years which did not include a $245 billion tax cut when we can least afford one. The Gingrich budget is not fair and is not one I can support. People in western Pennsylvania do not understand why one-half of the burden is placed on senior citizens and students, while one-half of those who benefit from the tax cuts have annual incomes or more than $100,000. The American people are willing to share the sacrifice for as many years as it takes to balance the budget, but they will not support a budget that unfairly targets senior citizens, students, and low- income families, to award a tax cut for those with upper incomes. Let's stop the partisan grandstanding and work together to find a fair budget that can win the long-term support of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Gingrich budget.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in opposition to this rule. It is not often that I rise in opposition to a rule, as I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Rules Committee. I rise in opposition to the rule not because I do not favor gift reform, but rather, I believe in the need for effective gift reform. I have always been a strong advocate for congressional reform and believe strongly in the concept of a citizen legislature. If we are to achieve these goals we must pass gift reform legislation that is truly effective. The gentlelady from Utah has proposed such legislation. Unfortunately, if this rule passes, the opportunity to vote on this truly historic piece of legislation will be greatly limited. This rule, as presented, favors the substitute. If we wish to arrive at a real solution to the gift reform equation, we must be allowed to weigh each measure on its own merits, without the limits of this rule. Any limits placed on debate should allow each of these measures to be brought to the floor individually. This way, the U.S. House of Representatives can begin the process of removing many of the perks Congress has enjoyed over the last 40 years. I will support the Burton substitute if it is the only piece of gift reform legislation brought to the floor, even though I believe House Resolution 250, the Congressional Gift Reform Act, to be the strongest piece of gift reform legislation presented to date.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Mr. W.D. ``Bill'' Farr for his 40 years of service on the board of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District [NCWCD]. Mr. Farr was a true pioneer in the development of water for Colorado's front range. During the drought years of the 1930's, the importance of water to farmers, fishermen, and other users on the front range became all too clear. In response, a friend of Mr. Farr's established the Northern Colorado Water Users Association, which would later become the NCWCD. One of the association's first projects, with which Mr. Farr was intimately involved, was to push for the construction of the Colorado- Big Thompson project [C-BT]. In 1954, the C-BT became fully operational and brought a supplemental supply of water from the western slope to seven northeast Colorado counties. Mr. Farr was certainly correct when he said that the ``C-BT is like a second Poudre River. Without it, we would not have the front range we see today.'' In 1955, Mr. Farr became a board member of the NCWCD. In the 1970's, Mr. Farr was instrumental in planning the C-BT's windy gap project and headed the municipal subdistrict of the NCWCD that built facilities below Granby Lake. As such, he is known as the father of the windy gap project. Mr. Speaker, so that the House may fully appreciate W.D. Farr's unrivaled contribution to water development in Colorado, let me run through a brief chronology of his involvement with this issue: 1931-- became board director with the Town-Boyd Lateral Co. of Eaton; 1942-- named president of the board of the Sweet Jessup Canal of Carbondale; 1947--became board director of the Greeley-Loveland Irrigation Co.; 1955--became board director with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; 1970--named first chairman of the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; 1971-- became president of the National Cattlemen's Association; 1973-- appointed to the Water Pollution Control Advisory Board of the U.S. Department of the Interior by President Richard Nixon; 1974--named chairman of the Region 208 Areawide Planning Commission of the Larimer- Weld Council of Governments; 1975--became first chairman of the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority; 1975--became member of the Colorado Water Congress; 1985--named the Wayne Aspinall Water Leader of the Year by the Colorado Water Congress; 1994-- represented the Farr Family at the dedication of the Farr pumping plant at Granby reservoir. The plant is part of the Colorado-Big Thompson project. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, W.D. Farr's service to the State of Colorado cannot be overstated, and I thank you for joining me in recognizing his 40 years of service with the NCWCD. As the Representative for the mostly rural and agricultural Fourth Congressional District of Colorado, I have a deep appreciation for the lifetime commitment W.D. Farr has made to ensuring that the front range has an adequate water supply year after year. Thank you, W.D. Farr.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, only in Washington do they describe an increase as a cut. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to balance the budget and finally regain control of the ever expanding deficit. Not only have Republicans put forth a plan to balance the budget in 7 years but we have passed it through the House and the Senate. Now the President wants to veto the Republican plan. Well I just have one question. Where are his counter proposals? President Clinton supports the Republican goals--a 7-year balanced budget, real welfare reform, middle class tax relief, and a sound Medicare system. The administration is trying to have it both ways. They agree with our principles but are unwilling to make the hard decisions necessary to achieve these goals. Americans are tired of the Washington gimmicks and political excuses--if the White House is serious about what they say, it is time to lay their plans on the table.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton says he thinks we can balance the budget in 7 years. Republicans have passed a bill that balances the budget in 7 years. President Clinton says he wants to cut taxes. Republicans have passed a bill that cuts taxes for families and promotes economic growth. President Clinton says he wants to save Medicare from bankruptcy. Republicans have passed a bill that saves Medicare for this generation and sets the stage for the baby boomers. President Clinton says he wants to end welfare as we know it. Republicans have passed a plan to revolutionize the failed welfare system. Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap. If the President is going to veto our balanced budget bill, then he is obligated to show us specifically what he would do differently. Balancing the budget is about more than just press conferences and talking points, it is about specific plans. And right now Republicans are the only ones with a legitimate plan.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize a frightening performance by the Nebraska Cornhusker football team this past Saturday, October 28, against the University of Colorado Golden Buffaloes. Nebraska quarterback Tommie Frazier and his Cornhuskers bedeviled and bewitched the CU team, proving to the Nation why Nebraska was the national champion last year, and why the team is ranked No. 1 this week. The Buffs are still haunted by a fumble that was ruled dead, and which cost them a touchdown. And although the Buffs fought a hard battle, they jinxed themselves with untold penalties. I will be doing my Halloween bit today by wearing a Nebraska football cap, as I promised my good friend, Congressman Bill Barrett of Nebraska. And I am giving that Cornhusker a sack of candy corn, in the hopes of sweetening Nebraska's chances to repeat as national champs.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, today, the 104th Congress will make history. We will enact a 7-year program that will balance the Federal budget for the first time in 33 years. For far too long, the Federal Government has lived too well. It has done so at the expense of hard-working Americans. Deficits became a way of life for the Federal Government in the 1960's, 1970's, and 1980's. Unfortunately, they have continued into the 1990's. This plan marks a fundamental departure from the past by finally putting Uncle Sam on a diet. This new Congress has kept its commitment to our children and grandchildren. We said we would balance the budget, and we will do it. Last spring, defenders of the status quo defeated a balanced budget constitutional amendment. This was a setback, and many observers felt that Republicans would then simply abandon the hard work of actually balancing the budget. The skeptics were wrong. They misjudged our resolve. Those of us elected to Congress in recent years have been particularly committed to changing the way the Federal Government does business. For years, as a veterinarian, small business owner, and State legislator, I watched one Congress after another squander our children's economic future. I grew sick of it. Even when the American people elected Ronald Reagan as President in two successive landslides, the Congress ignored his desire to slow the growth of Federal spending. President Reagan was fond of saying that ``we could say they [Congress] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors.'' At least ``the sailors are spending their own money.'' When I ran for Congress in 1990, I made one principle commitment to the people of Colorado, I would do everything I could to balance the Federal budget. That is why I am so proud to stand here today and cast what will surely be one of the most important votes I will ever cast. Judging by the rhetoric of those who oppose this plan one might get the impression that it contains devastating cuts. This charge indicates how far removed from reality the defenders of deficits have drifted. This budget does not cut spending at all, it simply slows the rate of increase. Let me review some very important numbers. Over the last 7 years Federal spending totaled $9.5 trillion. Over the 7 years of this balanced budget plan, 1996-2002, the Federal Government will spend a total of over $12 trillion. Where I come from that is an increase, and it is a very substantial one. Similarly, for those who seem to think the family and business tax cuts are excessive, I point out that over the last 7 years total Federal tax receipts were just under $8 trillion, while over the next 7 years Federal tax receipts will total $11.2 trillion. That also is an increase. In fact, our tax cut reduces projected tax receipts over the next 7 years by only 2 percent. That's right, 2 percent less revenue. And we give the money back to the hard-working families who earned it in the first place. The modest tax cut makes particular sense in light of President Clinton's revelation that even he believes the 1993 tax hike was excessive. It is important to keep in mind why we must balance the budget. This endeavor is about much more than numbers. It is about the future standard of living for our children. Much focus has been placed on the supposed pain of the budget restraint in our plan. This ignores the vast benefits of balancing the budget. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated repeatedly that balancing the budget will have a dramatic positive impact on the confidence of American families. He has also made clear his belief that interest rates would drop significantly. This view is confirmed by a recent DRI/McGraw-Hill analysis for the National Association of Realtors. According to their data, the average 30-year mortgage will drop 2.7 percentage points. On a 30-year $50,000 mortgage at 8\1/4\- percent interest, families would save over $1,000 a year in interest payments. Now that is a real difference in people's lives. Similarly, college loans would be much more manageable. A college student who borrows $11,000 at 8-percent interest will pay more than $2,000 less in total interest payments if rates drop just 2 percent. Another example comes with the farm sector. While this budget reduces farm payments by $13 billion over 7 years, the Agriculture Committee estimates that a 1.5-percent reduction in interest rates will save farmers over $15 billion in payments on the outstanding farm debt over the next 7 years. And under our Freedom to Farm plan those farmers will have much more freedom to plant the crops they wish. They will also run their farms with fewer Agriculture Department bureaucrats lending a helping hand. These are just a few examples of how lower interest rates will help families and our economy. Younger generations will benefit from lower rates for decades to come. But it is not just the young who benefit from this budget, it is also seniors. This is a senior friendly budget. We do not touch Social Security, and we still increase Medicare spending by 6.5 percent a year. In the process we give seniors much greater freedom and control over the expenditure of their health care dollars. I have been particularly gratified by the large number of letters I have received from seniors who say ``just do it!'' They realize that some sacrifice will be required of them, but they want the budget balanced, an they know that we strengthen Social Security and Medicare by getting our fiscal house in order. Last year, we made a contract with America. This balanced budget represents the very essence of that contract--a Federal Government that will be smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient. We have kept our contract, and in so doing we have done more to restore faith in our form of government than has been done in many years.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, today I am introducing legislation designed to reduce the regulatory burden on America's farmers and ranchers. This Congress has for too long cut commodity programs while not providing any regulatory relief. This year agriculture is once again taking spending reductions, but for a good purpose--balancing the budget and reducing the tax burden on rural America. But this year we are going to provide relief from rules regulations, and mandates that have grown while Government benefits have shrunk. This legislation will continue to protect the environment, but will provide the necessary flexibility to meet environmental goals. This legislation will not rely upon one size fits all mandates that stifle a producers ability to wisely use the land to earn a living. Specifically, in this legislation we will reform the current highly erodible land provisions created in the 1985 Food Security Act. While these provisions were well intended they have not manifested themselves in a farmer friendly manner. All of us who have districts that include rural areas have heard the stories of how this has become a law spinning out of control. In some areas practices required to reduce erosion on the land are more expensive than the land itself. The law itself did not require the Department to take into account local resource conditions, the economic or technical feasibility of practices they require. The legislation I am introducing today recognizes that these are realities in the real world. They should be requirements placed on the Department in the law and in the field guides NRCS employees use when assisting a farmer. In this legislation I would also like to ease back on requirements because we are reducing Government benefits. Acres that are designated nonpayment will not be subject to Government mandates. When these programs were created there was a clear linkage, payments for compliance. However, in subsequent years when payments were reduced, regulations were not. This legislation would also create a new cost share program aimed at water quality. This program would assist livestock operations that are facing Federal and State mandates that are very expensive. This program would attempt to assist them in meeting those mandates and other practices to improve water quality. In order to pay for this program we are changing the Wetland Reserve Program to 15 year contracts from permanent easements. I would also like to consolidate various cost share programs that have been authorized and appropriated for separately over the years. Most of these programs have been cut dramatically recently. It's my hope that by consolidating and refocusing we can have one program to support in appropriations. This will also reduce paperwork on those who apply. Instead of filling out two sets of application forms if they want money from two different programs, they will only have to fill out one form to receive assistance. I would also like to consolidate the Natural Resource Conservation Service into the consolidated farm service agency. This move will streamline the policy making process and return NRCS to its main function, providing voluntary technical assistance to farmers. As many will notice this legislation does not deal with swampbuster. It is not included because reaching agreement with interested parties has been difficult. I feel that repealing swampbuster is a better alternative than many of the ``reforms'' that have been placed before me. Between now and subcommittee markup I will continue to try and work with all interested parties. However, they need to understand that it must be a common sense proposal for me to take it seriously. Finally, this legislation would protect the interests of private water users from the extortion of Federal agencies. This legislation outlines that Federal agencies cannot, as condition of permitting, require water users to give up a right in their property. It's my belief this will end a long standing controversy. While all of these proposals are important to me, I am willing to work with everyone to make them better. They are my best attempts at reform. However, I am willing to listen and adopt better ideas.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to show my support for H.R. 1595, the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Improvement Act. Jerusalem is a city of great historical significance for Jews, Christians, and Moslems. Since the 1950's, Jerusalem has been the capital city of Israel. However, the United States has never maintained its Embassy in Jerusalem. We have located it instead in Tel Aviv. This is inconsistent with every other U.S. Embassy which is located in the host country's capital city. Our policy is particularly inappropriate since Israel has been one of our strongest allies. I strongly believe it is time for the United States to fully recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Some critics say that the moving of the Embassy to Jerusalem would upset the tense peace negotiations. I do not believe this to be the case. In fact, I believe this change shows that the United States strongly supports the peace process and wants to see a peace which includes a unified Jerusalem. I believe this matter to be one of principle and priority for the Jewish people. Jerusalem is the seat of government. The President, Parliament, Prime Minister, the supreme court, and most of the government agencies are located there. As one of Israel's closest allies and friends, the United States should lead the [[Page H 10689]] way in showing its support for the unity of Jerusalem and its permanent status as the capital of Israel. H.R. 1595 is the most direct and strongest statement the United States can make concerning a unified Jerusalem. That is why I am proud to be a cosponsor and supporter of this legislation.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, as a veterinarian, I am well aware of the importance of animal health products for maintaining the health and well-being of companion animals and food-producing animals. Unfortunately, during the past two decades, the drug-approval process at the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Veterinary Medicine has become increasingly prolonged and complicated. In fact, the FDA has approved only eight new drugs for food producing animals over the past 5 years. The drug approval process needs to be streamlined so that useful health products are made readily available on the market while essential safety standards are preserved. Animal drug regulations exist to ensure that our family pets are safe and the integrity of our food supply is maintained. Any part of the regulatory process which does not promote these ends, but merely serves as a needless hurdle that delays the approval of beneficial drugs should be reformed. That is exactly what we aim to do with the Allard-Klug-Stenholm-Ganske Animal Drug Availability Act of 1995. This measure would maintain what is right about the current system while it would modify those portions that serve to lengthen the approval process while providing negligible offsetting benefits for safety. The Animal Drug Availability Act would expedite the animal drug approval process by expanding the list of studies that FDA can use to prove a new drug's effectiveness and by allowing FDA more flexibility in determining whether a field investigation is necessary to prove drug's efficacy. In addition, the act would provide flexible effectiveness requirements for previously approved animal drugs for use in minor species and for minor uses. In order to ensure more predictability in the approval process for drug applicants, FDA officials would be required to convene a presubmission conference with an applicant for the purpose of outlining what types of studies will be necessary in order to achieve final approval. This agreement would be binding upon both parties unless a subsequent scientific development conclusively demonstrates that an additional study is essential to proving the safety and effectiveness of the drug. I am pleased that this bill is a bipartisan approach which enjoys the support of over seventy other members of the House. In addition, it has the broad support of producer groups and feed groups and is endorsed by the Animal Health Institute and the American Veterinary Medical Association. I urge my colleagues to join us in improving the health of family pets and food-producing animals by supporting this commonsense reform to the animal drug approval process.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, this year Medicare turned 30, and while it has served the country well, it is still running on a 1965 engine. In the last 30 years, medical procedures and technology have made tremendous advances. Medicare has not. It is out of touch with today's health care system. Medicare is like a 1965 car--it looks nice and elicits nostalgia, but it gets terrible gas mileage and you're never sure how long it will run. Without any reforms, Medicare can run cruise control only until the year 2002 before sputtering out of gas. Major reforms are needed if Medicare is going to last. First, we have to slow the rate of growth in Medicare spending from 10.5 to 6.5 percent a year. Even with these changes, the average Medicare yearly benefits per person will increase from $4,800 this year to $6,700 by 2002. The second step calls for major changes that gives senior Americans more flexibility and choices of medical plans to replace the outdated, bureaucratic one-size-fits-all plan designed by Congress 30 years ago. Medicare recipients should have the same opportunities as other Americans to select the health care options that are best for them. The Federal Government should stop interfering with the relationship between patients and their doctors. Unlike President Clinton's 1994 health care reform plan, the Medicare Preservation Act will not force anyone to leave the current system, nor will it force seniors into mandatory health alliances. Proposed reforms will offer Medicare beneficiaries more choices and better benefits than they enjoy now. Let me review carefully the proposed reforms. First, Medicare would continue to be available to any beneficiary, and seniors could keep their current coverage. There would be no change in copayments or deductibles. Premium rates for Medicare part B would remain at 31.5 percent of total costs, which would mean an increase of only $4 a month above what is scheduled to occur under current law. The only exception would be for wealthy seniors: single seniors making $75,000 a year or senior couples making $125,000 a year would be asked to pay higher part B premiums. Average spending per beneficiary would increase by $1,900 over the next 7 years. If seniors don't like their current plan, or if they are unable to change plans, they would have options. Seniors who do not make a choice would be enrolled automatically in the traditional Medicare system. Second, the Medicare Preservation Act would allow beneficiaries to choose several private sector options in a new Medicare Plus plan. Every year, beneficiaries would receive information about the approved plans available in their area. All they would have to do is check off their plan of choice. Health plans under this MediChoice option would be selected by the seniors, not the Government. Seniors would choose a complete plan with its medical providers in return for more benefits. Unlike the traditional Medicare, they could choose less out-of-pocket expenses for coinsurance and deductibles, outpatient prescriptions drugs, eyeglasses and hearing aids. A third option would allow seniors to take complete control of their health care with MediSave, a kind of medical savings account. The Government would pay for a catastrophic illness policy. Seniors would draw the remaining balance of their benefits from an account to pay a significant portion of their deductible. The high deductible policy would have no copayments, limiting seniors' out-of-pocket costs. No one would be denied coverage due to illness or preexisting conditions. Every plan participating in Medicare must take all applicants and allow everyone to stay in a plan as long as they want. Seniors would not only keep their health care, but it would be better and stable for years. I've heard countless horror stories about waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare system. The act would remedy that in part by rewarding recipients who report misuse of traditional Medicare. It also would require private Medicare plans to set up a toll-free phoneline to receive billing complaints. And it would impose strict penalties on anyone who defrauds Medicare. Furthermore, it would compel facilities to give patients cost estimates to guard against later bill padding. Giving seniors more flexibility and control of their health care is critical. Our seniors' future should be controlled by them, not the Federal Government. Simply fretting about the system [[Page H 10374]] will not help Medicare survive into the next century. When we are engaged in the predictable political wrangling over this important issue, we must never lose sight of our ultimate goal: A health care system that delivers the best possible service to our seniors.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought before the Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Lands last year but could not be moved forward because of concerns raised during the planning process. I am happy to report that all of those concerns have now been addressed and the proposal was approved by the Larimer County Planning Commission in January. The Larimer County Commissioners approved the plan in March. Finally, last year the Park Service suggested a technical change to the bill language which was incorporated into this year's bill. This legislation is a fine example of how the Government and private sector can work together and I appreciate the opportunity to bring the bill before the House today. This bill is a simple piece of legislation, but one that will have a noticeable impact on the people who enjoy [[Page H 10110]] the beauty and recreational opportunities at Rocky Mountain National Park. The legislation simply allows the National Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement to operate and maintain a visitor center at the Fall River entrance to the park. The bill gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to collect and expend donated funds and expend appropriated funds for the operation and maintenance of the visitor center, which will be located outside the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park. I introduced this legislation on January 23, 1995, and Senator Hank Brown introduced a companion bill in the Senate on February 7, 1995. Mr. Speaker, this is a unique project that deserves our attention and utmost consideration. For some time now there has been tremendous support to construct a visitor center at the Fall River entrance of Rocky Mountain National Park. With 1 million tourists entering the park at this entrance every year, the need to provide an orientation and interpretation facility is well known. As you can imagine, park visitation through this entrance is expected to increase in coming years, not decrease. The need and desire for a visitor center at the Fall River site is not new. It was first documented in a plan prepared by the Park Service in 1976, and again in 1989. However, due to budget pressures and fiscal constraints this plan was never set into motion. It was not until early 1993 that the prospect for constructing a new visitor center actually became possible. It was then that Mr. Bill Carle, owner of H.W. Stewart, Inc., approached the park superintendent with his idea for the creation of the Fall River Visitor Center. Under the Fall River proposal, the visitor center would be built with private funds on land that will remain privately owned. The National Park Service, with assistance from the Shirley S. Scrogin Charitable Trust, the Rocky Mountain Nature Association, and the Rocky Mountain National Park Associates, would operate and maintain the visitor center. The park will use existing staff and operational funds to operate the center. Besides covering the cost of construction, the Shirley S. Scrogin Trust would also contribute funds annually for the maintenance of the center. The Rocky Mountain Nature Association, a friends of the park group, will provide a book sales operation and staff support for the center. Revenue generated from book sales will assist in defraying costs associated with the visitor center's operation. The Rocky Mountain National Park Associates, another friends of the park group, will assume the financial expenses for exhibit planning, design, and construction. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Budget Committee, I can attest to the difficulty the committee faces all the time when trying to stay within the budget requirements and utilize taxpayer's money judiciously. We are constantly looking for ways to reduce spending, cut duplicative programs, and put Congress on a path toward fiscal responsibility. I believe H.R. 629 fulfills these goals and will yield savings for the Federal Government, as well as produce rewards. I am sure you understand the financial constraints that face our National Park Service today. Due to the scarcity of dollars, it is doubtful that Rocky Mountain National Park will be appropriated--at any time in the near future--the funds necessary to construct a new visitor center from start to finish. Thus, the opportunity before us today is unique and one that we must not let fall through the cracks. The idea of a private-public partnership is one that I know many in Congress and the administration support. It makes sense from both a fiscal and practical point of view. As I have tried to note, the benefits of this proposal are numerous: Visitors who come to Rocky Mountain National Park can enjoy the new visitor center; the Park Service will be allowed to collect fees at the Fall River entrance; and the developer will be able to reopen his businesses that were lost during a fire. In summary, this proposal brings together the best qualities in both the public and private sectors. It combines the strengths and visions of both entities and provides a blueprint for similar joint ventures in the future. Whenever Congress has the opportunity to provide the public with the services it needs, while at the same time saving taxpayer's money, it must seize that opportunity. By passing this legislation today, we will have taken the first important step on the road to similar public-private partnerships in the future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. ALLARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 629) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the operation of certain visitor facilities associated with, but outside the boundaries of, Rocky Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 629, the bill just passed.

Mr. ALLARD

Mr. ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me time. I commend the gentleman for his hard work in bringing about reform in the Congress. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 230 and House Joint Resolution 108. In August I introduced H.R. 2197, the Continuing Resolution Reform Act. It was clear to me that a continuing resolution was very likely and that it would be necessary to ensure that any continuing resolution immediately begin to cut spending. The Allard rule would amend the rules of the House to require that a continuing resolution would find programs at the lower of the House- recommended level or the Senate-recommended level at, and in no case would funding exceed 95 percent of the prior year's level. This proposal would mandate a minimum of 5 percent real cut in any continuing resolution. Mr. Speaker, I intend to continue the fight to get this proposal enacted into our House rules so it can provide a guideline for any future continuing resolutions. Today we have before us a continuing resolution that will temporarily fund most programs at the average of the House recommended level and the Senate recommended level with an additional 5-percent cut below that level. I want to commend my colleague from Louisiana for working on such a strong agreement with the administration. This continuing resolution is consistent with the overall discretionary spending target established by the budget resolution. It would result in $24.5 billion in discretionary spending cuts if calculated on an annualized basis. This represents real spending cuts. In addition, it will act as a catalyst to get the regular appropriations bills enacted into law as soon as possible. It is not a painless alternative for those who wish to preserve the status quo and block budget cuts. This is a credible agreement and a good start to our 7-year balanced budget plan. It will let the American people know that we are serious about keeping our promises. It will let them know we are serious about eliminating deficit spending by 2002. Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this continuing resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.