Roscoe Bartlett

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from Idaho for her remarks because they were my concerns about this bill. I was the only member of the Committee on National Security to vote against this bill when it came to our committee, and the reasons I voted against it were those that were expressed by my colleague. I had a problem with the wording that said that the President should consult closely with Congress regarding any United Nations peace operation that could involve U.S. combat forces. More than consulting is required. The U.N. Participation Act of 1945, as amended in 1949, says very clearly that in any U.N. Chapter 7 operation that the approval of the Congress is involved. Essentially every one of the U.N. operations has been Chapter 7. There has never been a Chapter 6. I want to express my thanks to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Longley, and particularly to chairman Spence for helping to work out this problem. The concerns of my colleague from Idaho have been addressed in the manager's amendment which will come shortly, which addresses my problems with this part of the bill. I had a second problem with the bill, and that is that all that was required for our young men and women to be required to wear the insignia of the United Nations was a certification by the President. I thought that this was a violation of article 1, section 9 of the Constitution, and I have an amendment which will subsequently come to the floor which will address this problem. So both of the problems that I originally had with this bill, which were similar to those that my friend from Idaho had, are addressed in the manager's amendment which will come up next and with my amendment which will follow that, so I now am in full support of the bill, and I hope that, having corrected these defects in the original bill, that my colleague from Idaho will also be in full support of these bills after these amendments have been passed.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] and I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, it's been a 2-year struggle, but I welcome President Clinton's support for the bipartisan effort by the 104th Congress to save generations of Americans from the poverty trap of the failed welfare system. These commonsense welfare reforms will end welfare as a way of life. These commonsense welfare reforms will ensure that able-bodied citizens between the ages of 18 and 50 without children must work in order to get welfare benefits. These commonsense welfare reforms will help preserve families and give them a helping hand to self-sufficiency instead of discouraging marriage and encouraging illegitimacy. These commonsense welfare reforms will end the tyranny of Washington bureaucrats preventing our State Governors from instituting innovative programs to help their neediest citizens become self-sufficient. Most important, these commonsense welfare reforms will help save children, communities, and cities from the horrific cycle of poverty and violence which has destroyed so many lives. Welfare reform is a victory for all Americans.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, how much longer should America wait before we rescue the millions of children who are trapped in poverty by the current welfare system? Shouldn't we be encouraging work, marriage, and family instead of discouraging them? How many more children, communities, and cities must we lose to poverty and violence before we say enough is enough? When it comes to welfare reform, President Clinton has become the maybe man. Maybe he'll end welfare as we know it and maybe he won't. Should we trust what the President has said? Or should we judge the President by what he's done? The President's record on welfare is two vetoes and delays and denials of waivers for States to pursue innovative solutions. This week Congress will pass welfare reform for the third time. Will the third time prove the charm . . . or will the President strike out? The children are waiting.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, both the White House and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been patting themselves on the back so hard they've been wrenching their shoulders, all to claim credit for deficit reduction which wasn't their doing. The facts are these: The deficit would be at least $56 billion higher today if we had followed the President's budget, but instead, we Republicans did the hard work of finding the savings the Democrats didn't have the guts to make. The rest of the deficit reduction came from three places: First, cuts in defense as a result of the peace dividend which occurred because Ronald Reagan killed communism; second, sales of assets from the S&L cleanup already in place before Clinton took office; and third, the one thing that was the Democrats' doing; namely, tax hikes on gasoline, social security recipients, and small businessmen. Republicans want to cut those Democratic taxes and create jobs as a result. More jobs would mean a stronger economy, which would mean a smaller deficit--no thanks at all to the Democrats.

Mr. BARTLETT

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my concern for the future of our Nation's fusion program. First of all, I am disappointed with the funding level for fusion research in H.R. 3816. This cut from last year's funding level is significantly below the recommendation of the Fusion Energy Advisory Committee's for a strong U.S. fusion program. The FEAC report warned that any sustained funding level below $250 million would adversely impact the productivity of the U.S. fusion facilities and severely strain our relationship with our international partners. What concerns me most about the fusion funding level is the language in the committee's report to H.R. 3816. On pages 82 and 83 of the report, the committee recommends that 90 percent of the $225 million for fusion research be allocated for specific programs of the fusion research program. While each of these specific projects are important aspects to a comprehensive U.S. fusion program, this language does not include key elements of the program plan outlined by the FEAC report and is inconsistent with the guidelines Congress provided the fusion community when ordering a restructuring of the program. The FEAC report's key component for the new domestic fusion program plan is the pursuit of new innovative approaches to fusion through small scale experiments at universities and laboratories throughout the country. This program element was explicitly mandated by Congress and was given top priority by FEAC even at budget levels below $250 million. The committee report cannot support this priority area because there is simply not enough unspecified funding remaining in the fusion budget. The unfortunate consequence is that university experimental fusion research would be virtually eliminated from the fusion program. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope and expectation that members of the House-Senate conference for this appropriation bill will take another look at the congressional guidelines to the fusion community as well as the FEAC report. This earmarking language must be reconsidered to ensure that the fusion community continues its peer review process and that vital small-scale university programs are maintained.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, one way to improve health care and lower costs is by taking power and influence out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington and returning it to the American people. A bipartisan majority in the Congress is poised to give the American people more power and control over their medical care by passing the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act to make health insurance portable and affordable. This bill will free workers from the worry that if they lose or change their job they will lose their health insurance. It will provide millions of small business employees, many who now have no insurance, the option to choose innovative, affordable medical savings accounts or MSA's. It will allow tax deductions for long-term health care and it will restore dignity to dying by allowing terminally ill patients and their families to receive tax-free accelerated death benefits. The White House and one legislator should not stand in the way and deny millions of Americans commonsense reforms including MSA's that will make health insurance more portable and affordable.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, taking power and influence out of the hands of bureaucrats in Washington and returning it to the America people is something the American people want and that the Congress is trying to provide. Medical savings accounts, MSA's, are one way to return power and influence over health insurance to individuals. With an MSA, you do not need anyone's permission to spend money on health care. It is your money to spend or save as you see fit. With an MSA, you do not have to worry about losing your health care insurance if you switch jobs or lose your job--your MSA is yours and it goes with you. That is true portability. With an MSA, you do not have to worry about the potential for ruinous out-of-pocket costs. Out-of-pocket costs are limited to the amount of the deductible; and catastrophic insurance kicks in with full coverage after that. With an MSA, the power and influence over health care spending is in the hands of the individual Americans who choose to have an MSA to pay for their health care. Why is this power and influence for individuals so threatening? One person should not deny millions of Americans reform, including MSA's, that will make health insurance more portable and affordable.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, the American people have two major concerns about their health care insurance. One is can they afford it; and, second, will they be able to take it with them when they have to move from one job to another? First, the good news. A bipartisan majority in the House and the Senate supports passage of the Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act, which addresses both of these problems. Now the bad news. One Member from the other side of the aisle in the other body is standing in the way because of his opposition to providing more Americans the option of choosing a medical savings account, or MSA, for their health insurance. Dozens of companies and thousands of employees around the country have MSAs. They love MSA's for three reasons. MSA's give employees control over how their health care dollars are spent and make them careful but satisfied shoppers. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned no specific Member of the other body. Mr. Speaker, dozens of companies and thousands of employees around the country have MSA's. They love MSA's for three reasons: MSA's give employees control over how their health care dollars are spent and make them careful but satisfied shoppers. They provide them freedom from worry by eliminating out-of-pocket costs for those with chronic or catastrophic illnesses. MSA's save money for employees and for the companies. Americans want this kind of health care coverage. We should move to make it possible for them.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to enter into a colloquy with Chairman Young. Mr. Chairman, on page 214 of the report accompanying H.R. 3610 is language that says that the committee expects the President to notify and consult with Congress prior to any such deployment of peace enforcement, peacekeeping or international humanitarian assistance operations; is that correct?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I thank the gentleman for this clarification.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to clarify and make absolutely sure that this language in no way is an attempt to broaden the President's warmaking powers by contravening existing law. Under the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, as amended in 1949, Congress must give prior approval before the President may deploy any troops to peacekeeping operations. His advising us is not adequate. This law says that he must get prior approval from Congress before he deploys any troops to peacekeeping operations in response to chapter VII U.N. resolutions. I just want to make very sure that the report language in this bill is not designed in any way to change the requirement of this existing law.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has become the maybe man. Maybe he will end welfare as we know it, and maybe he will not. Maybe he will sign the waiver for Wisconsin's welfare reforms and maybe he will not. Should we trust what Clinton says or should we judge Clinton by what he does: Delay, waffle, and when inaction is not an option, veto. The President has vetoed national welfare reform not once but twice. Congress has introduced new welfare reforms based on the unanimous recommendations of the National Governors' Association. These reforms have tough work requirements, have real time limits and end Washington's grip on the power, money and influence to block innovative reforms by the States. Considering welfare reform and President Clinton, will the third time prove the charm or will the President strike out?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, yes, I think it will confuse people. And if we need a National Science Foundation, I will be very happy to join the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] in supporting that National Engineering Foundation. I think that would be appropriate. But the National Science Foundation is the National Science Foundation. Science is not engineering. Engineering is not science. They are separate disciplines, and I would strongly urge support to the Ehlers amendment. 1930

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. The National Institute of Science and Technology.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise very reluctantly to support the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers], because I have such great respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton]. Mr. Chairman, I am a scientist. I have about 100 papers in the literature; probably 50 of them are basic science. I worked as an engineer. I was called engineer in several places. I was called engineer for 8 years, at IBM for one of them. I have been awarded 20 patents, which is certainly in the engineering area. Our youngest son of 10 children has just gotten his degree in chemical engineering, so I am very, very supportive of engineering, having worked as one and been awarded patents and having a son who is an engineer. And I also have been in the scientific area. I just think that this name change is not in the best interest of either scientists or engineers. NSF has a long history. It is known worldwide. I think it would be very confusing to people to change the name. I agree with the comment that was made that changing the name of the National Bureau of Standards did not do much good. There is now a lot of confusion. I still tend to refer to it as NBS because it was that for a number of years. We need to be careful when changing names because we may do more than change the name.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues can see from the CBO position, increasing the minimum wage by 90 cents is a monstrous unfunded mandate, more than a billion dollars to the public sector, which clearly much exceeds our $50 million threshold and more than $12 billion to the private sector. When 100 percent of the Republicans and 85 percent of the Democrats in the House agreed on the unfunded mandates issue, the American people had good reason to believe that Washington was changing the way it does business. Now, this Memorial Day weekend, do I have to go home and explain to local officials why Congress ignored the unfunded mandates law? This Memorial Day weekend, do I have to go home and try to reassure my constituents that even though Congress broke its promise, the American people should still believe that Washington is being reformed? I urge the 394 Members who supported the Unfunded Mandates Act, Public Law 104-4, to support our point of order. Increasing the minimum wage is an unfunded mandate. Vote ``no'' on the consideration of this unfunded mandate.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap; like many Americans are not confused about where our President stands because it seems that he changes his opinions dramatically during election years. In his radio address this past Saturday the President said, 4 years ago I challenged America to end welfare as we know it. Of course 4 years ago President Clinton was campaigning to be President. Once President, Clinton waited 18 months to propose welfare reform that was rejected by his own Democratic Congress. In his address the President bragged that he has approved 38 waivers for State welfare reforms. However, in the last year the President has twice vetoed comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform that would have ended Washington's ability to veto State reforms. There is no good reason why 50 State Governors should have to go on their hands and knees to get President Clinton's permission to implement welfare reforms for their own citizens.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, May 8 was a high day. I do not know how many people recognized it. It was tax freedom day. It was the last day that Americans, the average American, worked to pay their taxes. Ever since January 1, all Americans worked through May 8 to pay their taxes. But one could not breathe a sigh of relief on May 9 thinking that they could then work for themself to buy a car or pay for their home or put their children through school because they still had about 9 weeks to go to pay for the cost of unfunded Federal mandates. Government-free day last year was on July 9. We will see what it is this year. Clearly, clearly, with Americans spending 52 percent of their time working to pay for the cost of government, we have got to reverse that trend and turn it around. The budget under discussion here moves us in the wrong direction. People will be working more than 52 percent of their time to pay for the cost of government. Americans are demanding that we turn that trend around and move back toward sanity where they work inconspicuously less than 52 percent of their time to support government. Please reject this Black Caucus budget and vote for a budget that moves us in the right direction.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, the committee is concerned that the limited number of ALQ-165 systems in the Navy's inventory could prevent the Navy from providing adequate self-protection for its F-18-C/D aircraft in future contingencies. For this reason, the committee added $50 million to the budget request for common ECM equipment in the aircraft procurement Navy account to be used to purchase ALQ-165 jammers. Is that correct?

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, during the committee's markup of this defense authorization bill we discussed the urgent requirements facing the Navy's FA-18C/D aircraft to prove their self-detection capability. Following the shootdown of the F-16 over Bosnia last June, Secretary Perry directed the installation of the limited numbers of the ALQ-165 jammer on Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18-C/D's operating in the Bosnia theater. It is my understanding that without this jammer, the Navy and Marine Corps' F/A-18-C/D aircraft have no electronic self-detection against pulse doppler or continuous wave radar threats which characterize the most widely deployed air-to-air and surface-to-air threats to tactical aircraft.

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my friend and fellow committee member, Ms. DeLauro. Last year, H.R. 1530, the defense authorization bill, returned us to the policy that stood during the Reagan-Bush years that prohibited abortions from being performed at military hospitals. Today's amendment would strike this section of existing law and restore the radical change to this policy by Bill Clinton when he became President. Mr. Chairman, it boggles my mind that we are even here today debating such an amendment. The purpose of our military is to save lives, not to take them. Most military doctors believe this so strongly it is next to impossible to find a military doctor who will perform an abortion. But to get around this policy, the pro-abortion forces are attempting to bring civilians into military facilities, who they will pay large sums of money, to perform abortions. Most members of the military medical corps are so outraged by this procedure that they do not feel comfortable being on the same base where abortions are being performed. Bill Clinton tried social experimentation with the military once before and lost. Let us not make a similar mistake. Let us save innocent life, not take it. Let us abort the DeLauro amendmenmt. Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].