Leonard Boswell

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, during the initial stages of the drafting of the Budget Enforcement Act I was supportive of the concept. Unfortunately, today I cannot support the final version of the act. I do however continue my strong support to the concept of enforcing the parameters agreed to in the budget reconciliation. I regret that I cannot support this legislation I had signed as a cosponsor. Sometimes in the legislative process the devil is in the details. Careful examination of the bill's language revealed the potential of severe reductions to vital programs for Iowans. Tax reductions and spending cuts to programs such as veterans benefits, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid could be mandated without the matter being brought to a vote in Congress. In this case as the details of the bill came to the surface and were not allowed to be corrected, it became apparent I could not support this legislation in its final form. The people of Iowa sent me here to Washington to bring our Nation's fiscal house in order and I am working toward that end everyday. One of my first acts in Congress was to cosponsor the balanced budget amendment. I have also supported the reconciliation bill and both the spending and tax reduction bills. However I cannot support today's enforcement bill. The Rules Committee passed a rule baring any amendments to the bill, forcing a vote on a bill which even many of its supporters including myself desired to amend when we discovered the need to improve the bill. Under the current version of the bill, if spending reduction and tax revenue targets are not met, any necessary revisions would be either mandatorily and arbitrarily imposed without a vote by Congress, or the Budget Committee would have jurisdiction over legislation designed to make any corrections to reach these targets. Neither of these processes are appropriate. Months of hearings were held by the appropriate committees in an effort to fine tune the intricate details of the spending and taxation provisions of the budget. To throw out the knowledge and expertise of these committee members and place the entire burden on the Budget Committee or arbitrary across the board cuts is an abrogation of our legislative responsibility and squanders this knowledge base. The House's committee system exists for a purpose, to allow for thoughtful debate over policy considerations by members who know the most about that particular area. To subrogate these policy decision to the rushed, politically charged judgment of one committee is a misguided approach. Additionally, the final version of the bill lacked sufficient incentives to force Congress to make the appropriate charges if spending and revenue targets are not met. The targets could be adjusted by a simple majority vote and therefore avoid the difficult decisions required to reach the end result of a balance budget in 2002. Although I strongly support efforts to help ensure we do reach a balanced budget in 2002, I cannot support this enforcement bill in its current form.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a moment before I go to that if I could. Mr. Chairman, as I have reviewed the goings on here, I first want to compliment the chairman and the ranking member for the things that they have done to try to bring some sense to it and some of the amendments; I appreciate that. Some of my colleagues may not know, but I come from a State that has a lot of diverse situations. I have got some rural area and some urban area, got some rural area that is very sparse, very poor, and I am very concerned about does this really cover the things that are needed, does this really provide those much-needed things? Some of my colleagues may not be familiar with what we term as the farm crisis that took place in the 1980's, but I can tell my colleagues that a lot of the small schools are very poor but are trying to offer equal opportunity in a State that is known for its education, particularly the K-12. In fact, all of its education. And so I have some concerns that we look out for these folks. So I have offered an amendment that would in fact add some resources to the process we are doing here today. But I am told after I have dropped it that maybe this is all being taken care of. I understand that the 10 percent has been divided 5 and 5. What I was trying to do, Mr. Chairman, was to say in a permissive manner that the States could add another 5 percent if they chose to do so. I am informed that this is provided for in the process. I wonder if I could engage the honorable gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] in a short, wing-it colloquy, if I could.

Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank both Members for their response. I feel reassured, and I will not offer the amendment. I look forward to us pressing on. Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BOSWELL. I thank both gentlemen from California for their hard, conscientious work. I think they have met my concern. Therefore, I will not offer the amendment. I thank them for this exchange.

Mr. BOSWELL. I think it has. Mr. Chairman, I just want to want the gentleman, by nodding or even commenting, to assure me that the flexibility is there in what is being offered for the States to do the very thing that I was suggesting in this amendment that is in place, and if they choose to have need to put more into it, they can go through this process the gentleman has outlined and have that opportunity.

Mr. BOSWELL. They can add to that, the vehicle that is in place, they can add to that if they go through the process the gentleman has described.

Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. BOSWELL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief. I think it is safe to say I have a long history in support of the women and children program, that program and others of that nature, in my other life, in another place. I also would like to take the Members for a little walk, if I could, about some of the things I think we ought to be thinking about. I wonder if we have forgotten that in many places of the world, in the modern world, that nearly all of disposable income is spent for the food and fiber we subsist on. In this Nation we enjoy like 14 percent or 15 percent of our disposable income being used for that purpose. I have no quarrel with the WIC program. I support it. But I do suggest to the Members that to take it from this area is wrong. The spin on that is not something that we would anticipate. We do not want to do this. Yes, a bill was passed before I got here, the Family Farm Act. I would have supported it if I had been here. I think the time had come. But for that to work we have to have the opportunity for them to have some coverage, some insurance to stay in business. I come from a farm community. That is what I do. I have been known to have had a lot of dirt under my fingernails, as some of the other Members. But I can tell the Members, why, I know of nobody, I never been invited to any sky box, and I do not know anybody who has. I do not think that is the issue. I think that horse has been ridden to death this evening. I think it is OK to try to increase the WIC program, but not from this source. I would guess in this great House of Representatives here, that if we really care about those things that have been talked about, that we can bring our minds together and do something to enhance that. I say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], I do not think this is the place to get it. I regret to have to go against the gentleman on this, but I must do that, because I feel that at least I come from the sense that we have to work together if we are going to produce the food and fiber that this country needs, and not be dependent on it from somewhere else. So I oppose it, and I hope that we can find some other source to address this problem.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak against this amendment and to second the things I have just heard from the last couple of speakers. It seems like that we forget in this time and age, when we are working so hard, to be sure and bring up equal opportunity to everybody, the electronic age and fiber optic networks and all these things, and then we decide to take a program that enhances and reaches out to everybody and start picking it apart. And I am a little bit appalled that this would take place. So I rise opposed to my colleague's amendment to eliminate the funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities. This, modest by most government standards, program over the past 20 years has been able to provide literally opportunities for thousands of teachers through its training seminars and other programs, and these teachers have in turn been able to touch the lives of millions of our children. The NEH supports scholarly research, education, public programs in the humanities through grants to individuals, institutions, and organizations for projects and programs. NEH provides many small grants for speakers and purchasing books for reading discussion groups. It reaches across the land in sparse and low-populated areas, poor areas, provides opportunities for people to have an equal opportunity to have part of those things being discussed so well. In Iowa many of these small grants are barely over $1,000 each, but it touches a lot of lives. A vote for this amendment is a vote to remain in the past. Our country depends on our teachers' ability to train our young people to continually look forward. So let us move to the light, not to the darkness. Do not support this amendment.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. I thank the honorable leader for yielding. I appreciate that very much. First of all, I like the tone of what the gentleman is trying to share with us. I know the gentleman has had a difficult day. I personally am willing to stay here until the cows come home if we can deal with this tonight, tomorrow or whatever. In 1993 we had a similar situation. We came to you folks for help and you helped. I greatly appreciate it, but it kind of looks to me like I can see where this is going. I think as I have walked around these halls the last several days that there is a toll-free number in Grand Forks that our friend from Grand Forks established, which I think is 1- 888-74-FLOOD, is what I understand, where people if they are tuned into this, they can call there and offer their assistance. I would guess it would be greatly appreciated. I just wanted to make that remark to all of us. If we have folks out there who would like to help, let us let them help. But if it takes us staying here to get the job done, count me in.

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

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am very impressed by the bold leadership that is being taken with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] on this subject. Just stop and think about it, my colleagues. I think about some of the products come out of the Midwest, out of our part of the country, farm products and so on. It has got to travel on a system, and that system is broken down at times when we cannot move grain from Iowa and we have got sales to go to the Ukraine or wherever, and this is unacceptable. We can make many, many examples of that, and a time has come to realize that we are collecting this for the purpose, we have a need, that the needs of the country are at stake. The competition with the Pacific rim and the European Union are real. They are going on, and they are making the investment. We have got to do no less, and I hope that my colleagues are paying attention tonight.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this emergency supplemental appropriations bill. As many of my colleagues have done, I, too, have been an appropriations person in another life. I realize there is a temptation for Members on supplementals to want to do other things. But I want to remind my colleagues that the intended target of this funding would be the people affected by the flooding which has devastated parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and California. We need to help our neighbors in their time of need, and it is the right thing to do. Nearly 4 years ago my State of Iowa suffered from the great flood of 1993, a 500-year flood. I remember the assistance the Federal Government provided us in our communities in our time of great need. There may be provisions in this massive funding bill that we may find objectionable; that will always be the case. But please do not derail this because of wanting to attach to a supplemental something that would actually delay the needed relief. I ask my colleagues to join me in extending a neighborly helping hand to the affected States and provide them with the help they need to improve their situation. Anyone who has been through a devastational flood can attest it takes time, money, and a lot of sweat and hard work to get back to some semblance of normalcy. Let us provide one part of that equation by adopting this emergency funding bill. It only makes sense. Hopefully, no amendments will be adopted that will cause a veto or delay this much needed assistance. We owe it to our neighbors. Let us pass this and get this help to them right away.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the people from the majority for at least addressing this bill. I thank them for taking it on. We need to do that. But times have changed. Single parents, both parents working, somewhat different than my time. When I got home after school, I knew what I was going to be doing for the next 2 or 3 or 4 hours, whatever it took, as we went home to the farm. But times have changed. We have got to have balance and we have got to realize that is going to take the whole community, the whole block, whatever we are talking about, to reach out to these kids. I believe that any debate regarding juvenile crime must also take into account prevention measures. We simply cannot write off a generation of young people, still in their teens, without making an investment in their future productivity to our society. We can agree that young people who commit violent crime must be held accountable and punished accordingly. I understand there are certain incorrigible young people who must and should be incarcerated. But let us be smart about juvenile crime. We need a balanced approach. Locking them up and throwing away the key is not always the solution. That approach is just closing the barn door after the horses are out, as we say down on the farm. I do not believe that we should abandon our attempts to put in place programs designed to prevent wayward youths from pursuing a path of crime and despair. We all have responsibility to see that our kids are provided with the guidance, opportunity and support for becoming successful and productive adults. Today's youth will serve as the backbone of tomorrow's workforce. They are our future leaders, workers and parents. To only look toward the criminal justice system as the key to combating juvenile crime is short-sighted. More prisons at a cost of $25,000 to $30,000 per bed annually is not the single solution. I would just like to leave this thought with my colleagues: They are our kids. They are not the next town over. They are our kids. They are our future. To educate and early intervene is something we can surely do better so that they do not move into that population of 14 or 15, and we have to go ahead and do the things suggested. Let us give it careful thought. Let us do it for the future of our kids.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think that we are kind of on the same frequency around here, but I am not too sure we understand. Today I voice my opposition to this resolution, House Resolution 93. It is merely a directive for change. Pressuring changes in the CPI does nothing more than politicize the entire CPI calculation in an attempt to avoid the hard choices required to balance our Nation's budget. This calculation should not be used as a political tool. If the CPI needs to be adjusted, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is already charged with that responsibility. There is no need to politicize this topic. I am committed to balancing the budget but not by forcing cutbacks on our seniors and our veterans, nor by placing hidden tax hikes on the middle class. Our seniors have already been subjected to large cuts in an effort to balance the budget and should not be singled out again with this politically motivated ploy. Hidden in all of the debate to change the CPI is a tax hike for every American. The CPI is used to calculate the index for the standard deductions for income tax purposes. The end result of a politically motivated decrease in the CPI is especially damaging to our seniors and veterans, and that is unacceptable. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this misguided attempt to inject politics into the calculation of the CPI.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation which when enacted will modify the treatment of certain benefits received by veterans who reside in State veterans homes and whose health care and treatment is paid for by the Medicaid Program. It is because of my deep concern for the stability of these veterans homes and for the long-term care of my fellow veterans that I introduce this legislation. The situation was first brought to my attention by Jack Dack, commandant of the Iowa Veteran's Home in Marshalltown, IA. I have personally toured the Marshalltown State veterans home. This facility is a source of pride to me and other Iowa veterans. The Marshalltown home provides an outstanding level of service for Iowa's veterans who have carried our Nation's flag and are in need of health services. Without this reform, and all of my colleagues should take note, the ability of 33 State veterans homes in 17 States will be placed in jeopardy. So I submit this legislation because of my commitment to maintaining the long-term health care to our Nation's veterans, and I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this important legislation designed to maintain our commitment to quality health care for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. BOSWELL

Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 42) and ask for its immediate consideration.