Henry Bonilla

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a Member who has worked very hard on this amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], a cosponsor and a Member who was really behind this cause for some time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes]. (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It is being led on the other side by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes], as well as getting a tremendous amount of assistance and hard work on this amendment by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]. Mr. Chairman, this is a bipartisan amendment that would allow the District of Columbia to collect an additional $1.6 million in badly needed revenue for their operations. My amendment would eliminate the special exemption, the special privilege currently granted under a congressional charter to the National Education Association. This is an amendment that would reserve a special privilege that has been on the books for a long time. Mr. Chairman, the NEA was officially judged to be a union by the Internal Revenue Service, but nonetheless it is put in a special category aside from other unions that all pay taxes in the District of Columbia. So, we are trying to simply give the District of Columbia the privilege of levying local property taxes on the National Education Association. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we are not in any way singling out the NEA for any kind of special target or treatment. Other unions like the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, they all pay taxes. The American Federation of Teachers pays taxes. We would not want these groups to have a local special-privilege exemption like the NEA any more than we would want the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to have an exemption or the NFIB or any group that would currently exist for similar purposes that is advocating positions here and in neighborhoods across the country. There is no other group currently on the list of congressionally chartered organizations that is not a charity that falls under this exemption. In other words, the NEA is the only noncharity congressionally chartered organization that receives this special treatment. Mr. Chairman, the NEA has also violated its original congressional charter by no longer just limiting itself to educational issues. Back in the early part of the century when it was chartered, it was originally set up to work on the basics: Reading, writing, and arithmetic. Now, we have the NEA working on issues from arms control to the NAFTA controversy, Medicare, human rights, defense issues. My colleagues can name it, they are involved in it; none of which has to do with education in our schools across this country. Mr. Chairman, for that reason, setting it aside from the other congressionally chartered groups in this country, they have violated their charter, and we strongly are urging Members on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way to support this amendment that would allow the District to have an opportunity to levy the badly needed $1.5 million needed for its budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for this time, and I rise in strong support of the District of Columbia appropriations bill. And in the spirit of David Letterman, I have a top 10 list of reasons why Republicans and Democrats should support this in a bipartisan way. Reason No. 10. It continues the process of restoring discipline and accountability in D.C. government. Reason No. 9. It is the responsibility of Congress to pass a bill that provides for the operation and maintenance of the Federal city, our Nation's capital. Reason No. 8. Prohibits the use of taxpayer dollars to implement the Domestic Partners Act. Reason No. 7. Empowers control board to enforce the budget cap, allocate spending cuts and reprogram funds. Reason No. 6. Eliminates over 5,000 full time city positions. Reason No. 5. Places a spending cap at $4.87 billion. Reason No. 4. Appropriates $346 million less than the Mayor originally requested. Reason No. 3. Appropriates fewer Federal funds than last year. Reason No. 2. Appropriates $84 million less than last year. And reason No. 1. It is this bill or, more than likely, no bill. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to put in a word for an amendment I will be offering on this bill that will make it even better. Those who support adding additional funding and making it available to the District of Columbia for educational purposes will hopefully support my amendment to eliminate the special privilege allotted to the National Education Association of a property tax exemption, a privilege that is not granted to any other labor union in the District of Columbia and a privilege that should be revoked because we need to eliminate this privilege that has been on the books for a long time, granted by congressional charter. [[Page H 11641]] We are not picking on the National Education Association. The IRS has already deemed it a union and it is only protected by the congressional charter that was written in the early part of the century. We need this money to be available for the District of Columbia and we hope that people will vote for this amendment on both sides of the aisle and support the District of Columbia's opportunity to garner $1.6 million in property taxes from a very rich union in D.C.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, this is a great day for America. We have a real chance to vote on a balanced budget today using real money, real numbers, and real cuts. It is wrong to live beyond our means. We do not do it in our homes. We do not do it in our small businesses. We do not do it in our churches. It is wrong to continue to indebt future generations. Most of all, it is wrong and dead wrong to reject this one best opportunity to reverse the growth of Government, restore individual freedom, and lower the present and future tax burden for all Americans. This budget bill puts America on track to a balanced budget and higher standard of living for all Americans in years ahead. This bill saves Medicare and the earned income tax credit, which is very important, while reforming welfare and providing American families with a much needed tax credit. My colleagues, this is not a perfect bill. The agriculture section of this bill must be improved, and I am hopeful that it will be. It is a bill that must better address reimbursement for federally mandated Medicaid treatment. Also lost will be an opportunity to repeal a big boondoggle, the Davis-Bacon Act. But we can make these improvements. I urge Members to vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to repeal one of the dumbest rules we have on the books today. Going back to the 1950's when this rule was written with good intent at the time, how could they have seen back then in the 1950's and foreseen that in the 1990's we would have good machines, good balers that worked very effectively and are perfectly safe? I speak from firsthand knowledge of having put my arms, put my head and shoulders in these machines to examine the safety precautions that are now part of these balers, and they are perfectly safe. I would allow my child to operate one of these balers, if properly employed at a supermarket, and would feel perfectly fine with them doing so. What has happened is the Labor Department, taking this ancient law, is now using it as a punitive measure to fine grocery stores, in many cases small grocery stores but big employers in communities, $10,000 a pop when they are having teenagers throw these boxes into the balers, and in most cases they are not even putting their hands or their arms into the balers. They are just taking the box and throwing it in the baler. The baler, then the safety mechanism, if operating properly, will smash the cardboard boxes and dispose of them. The old machines not covered under these safety standards would not be affected in any way by this law. This is an important piece of legislation. It is also very important for those who believe we need to put teenagers to work in neighborhoods across this country. It is an effort that we have been working on for a long time. Labor Secretary Reich has told us he is going to try to get rid of this dumb old law. He has not done a thing about it. Here today we have an opportunity to correct a wrong that has been in existence for too long. I am proud to be a strong supporter of this effort to repeal this cardboard baler law.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Murtha], the ranking member, and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], our fine chairman, for I do not think there are any two Members that are more committed and focused to getting a job done. When we have 1700 disagreements in conference and can work through those in a matter of 3 or 4 days, that is highly commendable. This bill ensures our military men and women will remain ready, prepared and second to none on this planet. I would strongly urge each and every one of my colleagues to vote for this very important bill. Unfortunately, the fog of misinformation has obscured the benefits of this bill and led some to consider opposing it. Let me lift the fog and make clear what is fact and what is fiction. It has been alleged that this bill provides for taxpayer funding of abortions. That is not true. That is not true. The fact is that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions at DOD facilities. The fact is the bill reaffirms the role of authorizing committees in determining policy and prohibits abortions at DOD facilities if the authorizing committees endorse that action. Folks, if we care about a person's right to life, we will care about the lives of our fighting men and women stationed all over the world because we will care about the weapons and the training and all of the things that are provided for in this bill that helps our people stay alive in military installations around this world. It has been alleged that this bill provides a green light for American military intervention in Bosnia. Once again, not true. Congress will vote on any deployment of our military and voting against this bill will only ensure that If Americans come under fire they may not be prepared and they may in fact be at risk. These are the facts. It has been alleged that this bill contains pork barrel projects. This is also not true. Members may argue with some of the policy choices made in this bill, but these choices are not pork. This bill contains funding to ensure America's military remains second to none. Every dollar in this bill can be justified by military need. Although some may disagree on the need for a strong military, that is a policy disagreement, not an issue of pork barrel spending. These are the facts, let us put aside arguments based on fiction. The facts are simple. The Federal Government has one obligation for which it is solely responsible, defending the shores and territory of the United States and opposing our enemies on foreign soil. As elected representatives, our primary responsibility must always be our Nation's security. A no vote against this bill abdicates the responsibility and fails the American people. That is a fact. Any other view is fiction. Our decision should be simple, support the facts, ensure a secure America, vote yes and in support of the defense appropriations bill.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule. The Committee on Banking and Financial Services; the Committee on Commerce; the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; the Committee on International Relations; the Committee on the Judiciary; and the Committee on Resources. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. As the chairman knows, this particular project is in my congressional district and I cannot emphasize strongly enough, after Members look into the people's eyes and listen to their message in Hudspeth County and the west [[Page H 9108]] Texas area and surrounding communities of the Hudspeth County area, this is strongly going to impact their property rights and their lives and disrupt their communities to the degree that I think it is difficult for Members here to understand unless they can actually hear it from them firsthand. Therefore, I strongly am opposed to this bill, and I believe that this act should be amended, actually to include the input from local constituents like that when their lives can be disrupted. My constituents should never be forced to accept the low- level radioactive waste generated outside of Texas without first having their wishes considered at the Federal level, nor should any American community, for that matter. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to think of this vote as if it was their constituents being affected and whose voices were being silenced. All of our constituents have a right to be heard on such matters. In 1986, 7 years before I was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, Congress passed legislation granting each individual State the authority to make a disposal agreement with other States. This measure is in keeping with the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It was designed to be fair and mutually beneficial to all participants; and it is, for the most part, except for the one party which is directly impacted--the people who live at the selected disposal sites. This fact makes all the difference as to why H.R. 558 is not good legislation. Although the States have control in determining site selection, today, we in Congress can give my constituents a voice by voting ``no'' on this measure and demanding that the process be amended to consider local rights. I am aware of a Federal circuit court ruling, based on interstate commerce law, which requires States to accept the low-level waste of other States. However, radioactive waste commerce cannot be considered in the same light as other interstate commerce. This was recognized by Congress when the House passed the 1986 legislation which provided a means for restricting this form of commerce between States. The Texas-Vermont-Maine compact has the benefit of limiting waste shipments to those three States. However, there remain serious problems with this compact. The language of the compact is not completely clear as to whether the Commission established under the compact could open the Hudspeth site to waste from even more. In addition, the people of Hudspeth County are compelled to accept this waste without recourse. It is vital that everyone understand the facts and what is involved. Lastly, given the earthquake which recently struck the heart of rural west Texas, I had asked for a detailed geological study to be done on the effects that this and future earthquakes would have on the proposed site and just what consequences this would have on water quality and other health-threatening concerns. This legislation has come to the floor today without a study and without knowledge of the potential harm caused by placing the compact in Hudspeth County. We are talking about private property rights here, real people, real lives. Again, I ask that the Congress oppose the compact.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I think as the gentleman is speaking reminds me of a point made that perhaps no other Member in Congress can testify firsthand to the beauty and the pristine of the wide open spaces of the part of the country we are talking about, that are unspoiled and untouched by any outside influence or contamination or toxic substance. It would be a real tragedy to have this suddenly introduced into an area like that.

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

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise my point that I made earlier and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a strong national defense, a vigilant America, and a secure, peaceful future. I support this resolution, of which I am an original sponsor, to disapprove the misguided recommendations of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. Closing vital military facilities, like Kelly Air Force Base, leaves America weaker. Ask my colleagues to put aside parochial interests and vote for a strong Armed Forces. Reject the BRAC proposals. Ronald Reagan clearly understood the necessity of a policy of peace through strength. That policy brought us triumph in the cold war. In contrast, policies of unilateral disarmament in the past only served to embolden aggressors and set the stage for World War II. I am afraid these BRAC recommendations reflect a pattern of disarmament which threatens our future security. Our military leaders and the Commander-in-Chief have recognized the serious negative implications of the BRAC recommendations for our military security. However, President Clinton failed to reject these dangerous proposals. I urge my colleagues to reject these proposals and please vote for a strong defense and for this resolution. I would be remiss if I failed to note that the BRAC did get some things right. This BRAC recognized the importance and quality of Laughlin Air Force Base. Its facilities remain second to none and the BRAC Commissioners had no choice but to recognize that fact. Brooks Air Force Base's excellence was recognized as well. However, the recommendation to close Kelly remains irresponsible and dangerous. I also want to take a moment to comment on the human dimension of this recommendation. The BRAC proposal will have a devastating impact on affected communities costing tens of thousands of jobs and hurting tens of thousands of families. Closing Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio will slam the door on thousands of hard working patriotic Americans. It will ignore their sacrifices. I know that the spirit and the dedication of the Kelly worker cannot be crushed and that ultimately San Antonio will overcome this setback. But our military will clearly be weakened and the lives of Kelly's workers will be disrupted and their financial security jeopardized. Please vote for this resolution and let Kelly's workers know we are in their corner. If you support the visions of Ronald Reagan's peace through strength, if you support our U.S. Air Force, if you support the plan of preserving freedom and liberty going into the next century, please vote for this resolution.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the F-22 is about preserving our freedom and liberty well into the next century, this is about air-supremacy. My colleagues we must never forget that the price of freedom is not cheap. Americans have paid the price on the beaches of Normandy and Okinawa, in the desert heat of North Africa and the frigid cold of Korea, in the jungles of New Guinea and Vietnam. The price we have paid has been very high. Let no one say we cannot afford the F-22. We cannot afford not to have the F-22. An unwise and ill-conceived budget cut today will be paid for with American blood tomorrow. This is a cost none of us should be willing to pay. The F-22 is a revolutionary weapon. It will guarantee our future security and deter aggression. It will save American lives. The choice should be crystal clear. Air superiority will play a role in America's future security. Air superiority is essential to project American power and minimize casualties. Air superiority will keep the peace. The F-22 is needed. The F-22 is our fighter of the future. We need it. The amendment's supporters have done a good job presenting their case. They have chosen the right words, the correct arguments, and the proper phrases to demonstrate why we should stop funding the F-22. However, ultimately their words, their arguments, and their phrases fail. We cannot win wars with words, we cannot deter aggression with arguments, and we cannot live securely protected by phrases. We need a strong military; we need the best weapons. We need the F-22. My colleagues please join me in voting for peace, in voting for America's future, please join me in rejecting this amendment.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1555, The Communications Act of 1995. This legislation benefits all Americans including those living in rural America. Those living on the ranches, farms and small towns of south and west Texas will benefit along with those living in San Antonio and other big cities. It is essential that our rural residents continue to have equal and affordable phone service. This bill protects universal service while promoting technological advances--rural Americans should share in the benefits of these technologies. I believe that this bill gives proper consideration to providing protection for rural communities where our consumers are spread thinner and the cost for providing services can be much higher. I'm pleased that this bill recognizes that our rural communities operate under unique service conditions which must be addressed. This bill broadly deregulates and opens markets to fair competition, while providing protections to rural local telephone companies. Low cost and availability of service have always been the concerns of rural telecommunications customers in communities like Alpine and Del City, TX. H.R. 1555 contains important protection for these communities including universal service principles that provide for comparable rural/urban rates and service, as well as a contribution to the support of universal service by all providers of telecommunications services. This bill establishes a Federal-State joint board to recommend actions that the Federal Communications Commission and States should take to preserve universal service. This joint board will evaluate universal service as our telecommunications market changes from one characterized by monopoly to one of competition. The board will base its policies for preservation of universal service on the concept that any plan adopted must maintain just and reasonable rates. It will work with a broad recommendation to define the nature and extent of services which comprise universal service. The board will also plan to provide adequate and sustainable support mechanisms and require equitable and non-discriminatory contributions from all providers to support the plan. The plan seeks to promote access for rural areas to receive advanced telecommunications services and reasonably comparable services. The board will also base its policies on recommendations to ensure access to advanced telecommunications services for students in elementary and secondary schools in our rural areas. The purpose of H.R. 1555 is to promote competition and reduce burdensome regulations in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for all American consumers, including those that live in rural areas. Without the policy and direction provided in this bill, the transition for our rural communities into the information age would be restricted. The residents of all rural areas of our country, including the 23d District of Texas deserve nothing less than the chance to participate in the new technologies, services and market conditions that will affect us well into the next century. This bill gives them that opportunity. Let's not deny our rural residents this chance. I respectively urge you join me and vote for H.R. 1555, The Communications Act of 1995.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk for just a minute about the hypocrisy of those who are standing up to oppose our bill this morning. We have fully funded the TRIO program, for example. We have fully funded the community and migrant health care center program. We are supporting the 190 percent increase over 5 years of the Head Start Program. We are increasing funding for the Ryan White Program. We are increasing funding for the National Institute of Health. Anyone who supports these programs on the other side of the aisle ought to stand up proudly and say these are good programs, that we need to support the increased funding for, and vote for this bill. They have taken a handful of items out of over 400 items that this bill addresses, taken a handful and turned it into a huge propaganda machine to try to act like we do not care about TRIO, we do not care about community and migrant health care centers or Head Start or Ryan White or the National Institutes of Health. So let us stop this hypocrisy that we are hearing on the floor today of those who say that we are not interested in preserving and supporting and increasing funding for these programs. What do you want us to do, take money out of TRIO to fund an increase for OSHA? Do you want us to take money out of community and migrant health care centers to give it to the Labor Department, to attorneys at the Labor Department? Do you want us to cut funding for Head Start to give it to phony, duplicative job training programs? Do you want us to cut Ryan White money to support Goals 2000? Do you want us to cut the National Institutes of Health to support some of these other boondoggles in the program? If not, stand up and vote for the bill and stop being hypocritical. The former chairman of this committee, Mr. Natcher, who I worked very closely with, and for whom we all had tremendous respect, always said, ``If I had my way, we'd double everything in this bill.'' He did not have the money to do it either. We do not have it either. We are doing the best we can. I encourage all of my friends on the other side of the aisle to stand up for these good programs that we are trying to support and vote for the bill.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I think those who oppose this bill should be ashamed of themselves for working off of a fallacy and a myth in this country that somehow throwing money at an educational problem is going to solve it. I do not need a lecture from anyone in this Chamber about what it is like to grow up in a low-income neighborhood. I did such a thing. I went to a high school that had a 50-percent dropout rate where, when I started high school in south San Antonio, all of the teachers quit because of the mess that the school board was involved in at the time. And you know what made a difference in me finishing school? It was not a government program. It was the fact that my parents cared enough to get involved in my education, to show up at the after-school projects and some of the events that we held in the evenings to promote education. It was not because someone threw a bunch of money at us and suddenly decided that they were going to help me graduate. [[Page H 8341]] The problem with education in this country is that the parental responsibility is broken down in neighborhoods. We need to work at a grass-roots level, at a civic level like I do, trying to talk to parents at schools, trying to organize efforts and support efforts in our local neighborhoods to get parents to be involved in a person's education. We only have to look right here in our own backyard, in Washington, DC, where we spend over $9,000 per capita for each student to put them through the D.C. school system. What good has that done? They have a terrible success rate. It is unfortunate that that has occurred, but it is because adults in this country have not taken the responsibility upon themselves to get involved and be responsible for their child's education. It is not going to matter what we do up here with Federal programs. There are some that work. We are supporting Head Start. The 190- percent increase over 5 years, we are for that because it is a program that works. We are going to help the TRIO program because that works as well. We are fully funding that this year. We are funding bilingual education programs to the point where they can be administered in a transitional way and not allow students to exist on a bilingual program forever and they never learn to adapt to the English-speaking society that we have and succeed. We are also supporting the greatest increase, to refer to this chart, the greatest increase in history, the greatest increase that is allowed by law in Pell grants, because this is a program that has helped kids as well that want to go to college. So we are trying to preserve the good programs that work in this country, but do not stand up here and give me a lecture and give us lectures about what it takes to help people in low-income neighborhoods. We understand that very well on this side of the aisle, and we want to continue to support these good programs. Do not stand up and give us a lecture about what it is like to grow up in a low-income neighborhood. We understand that very well. So do not act like you understand it any better than we do.

Mr. BONILLA

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, in our subcommittee I have been asking questions of the AHCPR for more than 3 years now. For 3 years, I have tried to question whether or not this Agency was duplicative and questioned some of the researchers motives and biases. Each year I was told this Agency was doing wonderful work and I should support it. However, I keep questioning what it does. In the 5 years AHCPR has been around it has released 15 guidelines, an average of 3 per year. The AHCPR has spent over $775 million during that same time. Anyone who produced so little in the private sector would be fired. In fact the private sector during the same time published 1,800 guidelines. This year the Physician Payment Review Commission reported to Congress and stated that the guidelines produced by AHCPR are having little impact on clinical practice, are difficult to implement, and are used infrequently by the private sector. With budgets tight, Congress should consider the Texas example. Under the authority of the Texas Workers Compensation Commission, a committee comprised of representatives of the general public, medical professionals, and representatives of the insurance industry generated clinical practice guidelines that are user friendly, practical, and expected to improve the quality of patient care at a reduced cost. The participants involved in this process donated their time, and even paid their own expenses. All this was undertaken against a backdrop of major reform of the Texas workman's compensation laws, reforms which reduced the number of lawsuits, raised the amount of compensation available to injured workers, and transformed a budget deficit into a budget surplus. Unfortunately for the AHCPR, the new Congress is beginning to treat do-nothing agencies the same way the free market treats do-nothing businesses. Vote ``yes'' on the Johnson amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.