Allen Boyd

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 5 minutes, but I think it is wonderful that we can be in this position. When I was running for Congress in 1996, the major theme was that the Congress ought to live within its own means, it ought not to spend more money than it takes in. And I am proud of the U.S. Congress for what they have done in the past few years to get us there. I know the gentleman from Oklahoma played an integral role in that, and I respect his right to bring these amendments. But I want to tell the gentleman that we have to live within these budget caps that we have imposed upon ourselves, or we are going to have a train wreck. Now, I did not happen to vote for the budget that we are operating under right now. Like the gentleman from Texas, I voted for the Blue Dog budget, as did the gentleman from Oklahoma. And I think the major difference between the two was that we recognized, as Blue Dogs, that we could not do the cuts quite as deeply as were shown in the budget that came out of the majority of this House. So, obviously, that Blue Dog budget went down, and now we are living within the constraints of the one that we have. And as my colleagues know, the main difference in those was the depth of the tax cuts. So I just wanted to remind the gentleman from Oklahoma that, as I have listened to this discussion today, much of it has focused on senior citizens and the issue of Social Security. What has not been mentioned today is the fact that much of this bill that we are debating right now is of direct benefit to senior citizens. Actually, only 12 or 13 billion goes directly into the farm programs, the balance goes into WIC and some other programs that are directed at senior citizens. Our rural housing programs, particularly the multifamily housing and rental assistance programs are heavily oriented towards seniors. We have housing repair loans and grants that help senior citizens fix their homes and rentals and repair handicapped access. Our community facility loans and grants build community centers that are used by all age groups in rural America. A significant part of our research in this bill has gone for the elderly nutrition. This bill supports several feeding programs for senior citizens in urban and rural areas. This bill also supports people, the computers, the buildings and all other things necessary to make these programs work. Now, I have spent most of my life in agriculture, and I go in and out of the FSA office regularly; and we have cut the staff in those offices, we have consolidated those offices to the point where we are doing a disservice to our farmers now all across this Nation. And the only way for us to be able to continue to sustain that is with technology. I am embarrassed when I go in and see some of the computers that they are using. So I strongly urge the defeat of this amendment, and I certainly am thankful to the gentleman from Oklahoma for continuing this debate.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of Law Enforcement Appreciation Month to pay tribute to our nation's more than 700,000 men and women who serve our communities as law enforcement officers. We owe these individuals a tremendous debt of gratitude for the many sacrifices they make so that we might enjoy safer places to live and work. Each day, America's law enforcement officers put their lives on the line as our first defense from violent crime. But these public servants do so much more than apprehend criminals: law enforcement officers are community activists, role models for our nation's young people and defenders of law and order. This month, in honor of Law Enforcement Appreciation Month, I hope that Americans will take time to thank their local law enforcement officers for their dedication and hard work. We should also take this moment to remember the ultimate sacrifice made by the many officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty and pay our respects to the families these individuals have left behind. Most importantly, as this month comes to a close, we should strive to honor these brave officers each day and give them our support so that together we might make our communities an even better place to live.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that the Year 2000 computer problem could generate up to $1 trillion in litigation costs. This figure is staggering, particularly when we consider the billions of dollars that companies have already invested in trying to correct the crisis before it strikes. While we certainly want to guarantee the court system is open to small businesses who have genuine claims as a result of Y2K failures, we must ensure the Y2K crisis does not lead to a flood of frivolous lawsuits which will only tie up our courts, hampering the timely consideration of legitimate cases, and inhibit our Nation's economic prosperity. For these reasons, I support Congress' consideration of legislation to lessen the economic impact of the Y2K problem and encourage businesses to correct the problem before January 1 arrives so the court system is not bogged down with unmeritorious claims. I believe H.R. 775, the Year 2000 Fairness and Responsibility Act, addresses many of these problems, and I support this legislation because I believe it is critical for this Congress to pass legislation dealing with Y2K problems before they occur. However, I do have concerns about certain provisions included in H.R. 775, and I hope these problems with the bill will be addressed during the amendment process in the House and in conference committee negotiations. Most notably, I do not support the Committee passed ``loser pays'' provision which would require a litigant who was offered a settlement before trial to pay the other parties' attorney fees if the trial verdict is less favorable to the litigant than the settlement conditions. In such a case, a small business who actually wins a suit against a large software provider would be forced to pay that provider's attorney fees if the final award is $1 less than the proposed settlement figure. In addition, I feel the ``reasonable efforts'' defense which the bill establishes for the defendant goes too far in overriding current contract and tort law. It is my hope that as Congress continues to consider this important legislation, we can develop a workable compromise which addresses these legislative problems and ensures both the plaintiffs and defendants in Y2K cases are treated fairly and guaranteed their day in court.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as cosponsor of H.R. 979. My name was inadvertently added to the bill.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the House, and I will not use the full 5 minutes. There is a group of us that wanted to speak earlier, but because of the way the rule was constructed we were unable to obtain time. So we have chosen to use this procedure to make our statements. There is also a group of us in this House who want to be productive and not engage in partisan and political fights on this floor even on ordinary issues, but especially not on emergency supplemental appropriations issues where so many millions of lives are at stake. Unfortunately, a partisan political battle is what this process has turned into today. This group of Members who feel this way is also reminded that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), is the Speaker of the whole House, not just the minority Members. We are also reminded that the Commander in Chief is the Commander in Chief of the whole Nation, not just of the members of his party. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, my dear friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), is a person I have a great deal of admiration and respect for. I know he is operating under some very, very difficult circumstances beyond his control, created within his own conference and by his own leadership. But this has turned into a very partisan politicized battle over three emergency disasters. Number one, our farm economy; number two, Hurricane Mitch relief; and thirdly, our involvement in NATO's efforts in Kosovo. This is evidenced by the fact that last week the majority voted not to support the air strikes in Kosovo and against allowing the President to use any ground elements. Then today we hear the same Members who will vote to double the President's request for funds to execute the NATO actions in Kosovo. How can my colleagues in good conscience say they do not support the action but they want to double the funds available to take those actions? The only answer is that partisan politics and political considerations are driving this vote. These three emergencies, in the meantime, are tightening the noose for millions of people. Our farmers are languishing under a national agricultural policy adopted by Republican Congress in 1996 that has been a complete failure. My farmers call it the ``Freedom to Fail'' policy. Planting dates have come and gone for most parts of our farm country, and still this Congress, under the majority's leadership, cannot come to grips with a simple emergency package which provides credit for our farmers to put their crops in the field for 1999. Hurricane Mitch happened over 6 months ago. And this Congress, under the present leadership, cannot deliver a package to the President for his signature in spite of the fact that most everybody agrees we should. And lastly, on the defense issue, many Members of this body today have blamed President Clinton for cutting back the military. I have in my possession a CRS report which shows that the fiscal year 1999 request for defense from the President was $270.9 billion, and this House passed and sent to the President for his signature a bill which contained $270.4 billion, $500 million short of what President Clinton requested. I would like to remind all Americans that it is the responsibility of this House, this Congress, to pass the appropriations bill. And I am sure that most Members who will vote for the supplemental package today voted for the lower than requested defense appropriations bill last year. Do not be hypocritical. Do not play partisan political games with the millions of lives affected by the passage of these supplemental appropriations bills. Amendment Offered by Mr. Istook

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduced a bill to honor World War II's first hero, and fellow Floridian, by designating the post office building in Madison, Florida the Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Post Office. Colin Kelly was born in Monticello, Florida on July 11, 1915. Raised in Madison, Florida he attended Madison High School until his graduation in 1932. In the summer of 1933, Kelly entered West Point, and after graduation in 1937 he was assigned to flight school and a B- 17 group. At the outbreak of WWII, Capt. Kelly, along with other B-17 crews, was ordered to Clark Field, the Philippines. Shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Capt. Kelly and his crew were ordered on a bombing mission to attack the Japanese fleet. After completing their bombing run, Capt. Kelly's plane was attacked by two Japanese fighters while returning to Clark Field. Kelly gave the order to abandon the aircraft but remained at the controls to maintain the plane's elevation so his crew could safely bail out. He did not have time to make his escape and was killed in the line of duty on December 10, 1941. According to Major Kenneth Gantz in a memo for General William Hall dated November 21, 1945, ``Kelly became a hero by circumstances at the time when his country desperately needed a hero.'' Indeed, Kelly was featured in many popular publications of the day and is often considered America's first hero of WWII. In addition, President Roosevelt awarded Capt. Kelly the Distinguished Service Cross posthumously for his actions. The designation of the post office in his hometown of Madison as the Capt. Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Post Office seems a fitting tribute to this patriot, his family, and his legacy. I am proud to honor this American hero.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, crop protection tools are necessary for family farmers to provide a safe and reliable food supply to the consumer and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must use sound science to evaluate and determine which products are dependable and safe. If this is not accomplished, safe and useful crop protection products will be unavailable for use by the family farmer and the quality and affordability of wholesome food supply will be jeopardized. For this reason, I joined several of my colleagues today in introducing the Regulatory Fairness and Openness and Act of 1999. This bipartisan legislation will give EPA the ability to address potential problems with the registration and re-registration processes for crop protection tools during the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. This bill ensures that the EPA has the capability to adequately evaluate and analyze all available, accessible data and information and to use the best science to determine which crop protection tools will be available for the family farmer. This Act does not change the FQPA standards for pesticide evaluations, it clarifies the processes employed for evaluation in order to allow for full and scientifically correct compliance with the requirements of the FQPA. Without the Regulatory and Openness Act of 1999, many crop protection tools will be eliminated for use by agriculture, putting the farmers in the United States at a competitive disadvantage with foreign imports. These imports do not have to meet the strict regulatory requirements that our farmers must follow. Further, if the EPA eliminates crop protection tools without allowing time for the development of new alternatives, family farmers will lose crops to pest infestations and the consumer will lose the quality and quantity of food available to them. This bill encourages and supports research into expanded information gathering on the use of crop protection tools and research into the development of new alternatives for managing pests in agriculture. I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation. The Regulatory Fairness and Openness Act of 1999 is important not only for agricultural America, but for all Americans. Through complete and thorough risk assessments of crop protection tools using actual and relevant data and sound science, the EPA and family farmers can continue to provide our country's citizens with the safest, most abundant food supply in the world.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding me this time. First of all, I want to thank Speaker Hastert and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for allowing us to have this open debate. We did not get that last year. Most of the speakers that are opponents of the Blue Dog bill, the budget, have spent their time addressing a budget which received two votes about an hour and a half ago. The reason they do not talk about this budget is because they cannot. They cannot in good conscience compare it to their own. There are three good reasons. Number one is that this budget, contrary to what the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Kasich) said, spends $11 billion more in defense over the next 5 years. Secondly, it spends $6 billion more in agricultural outlays over the next 5 years. Thirdly, it spends $10 billion more in veterans spending over the next 5 years. I would implore my colleagues to take a good, close look at the tricks and the smoke and the mirrors and vote for the Blue Dog budget.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Taylor County Fire Rescue Department, for their courage and devotion in the face of disaster. This past summer, the Florida Gas Transmission Company's Perry Gas Compressor exploded. Flames raged for nearly seven hours, injuring five people and leveling six homes in the area. Taylor County Fire Rescue responded first, with firefighters from other areas offering assistance. Taylor County Rescue Chief Ashley Newell, firefighter Lt. Peter Bishop, firefighter Danny Hunter and volunteer Sonny Buckhalter demonstrated considerable courage under pressure. While fighting the fire from the first explosion, a secondary explosion caught the men off guard, trapping them near advancing flames. Only hasty action on their part prevented injuries from becoming fatalities. Their quick decisions saved the lives of several citizens and averted extensive property damage. Mr. Speaker, It is with great honor that I pay tribute to Taylor County Fire Rescue Department. By placing their lives in danger, these firefighters have shown great courage and devotion to the protection of their community.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for yielding to me, and I can identify with that story that my friend from Arkansas told about making the circle with the harvesting machine and trying to figure out what the yield was and what kind of return his friend was going to have. I have done that a few times myself. I would tell the gentleman that I do not ever remember writing it on my pant leg, but I used to write it on the palm of my hand. That is something a lot of our Ag people do. I wanted to take this opportunity today to speak to the Congress and to the people of America about my notion about this country and where we are and where we should be going. I was listening this morning to one of the local talk shows. I guess it was the C-SPAN Washington Journal. I heard a caller call in and talk about our country and the fact that no major power had ever lasted 300 years. That may be true. The truth is also that no other democracy in this world has ever lasted as long as ours has. None has ever lasted 200 years. And this caller was saying that America is on the brink of demise. Well, I am here today to dispute that. I think our country is stronger than it has ever been in its history. If we just look at the numbers and look at the facts, we are the strongest and greatest country in the world. Militarily, we are the only true superpower left, with the demise of the Soviet Union. We are truly the greatest country in the world economically, at a time when many countries around the world, Asia, Russia, Central and South America, are going through some very difficult economic times. We are flourishing. Even our Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, says that the economy is doing great and the outlook is superb. I think that that does not come very easy, though. There has been a lot of hard work on the part of all the American people to make sure that we move forward, to make sure that our economy stays strong, to make sure that each generation has a better quality of life than their parents did. We are sort of at a crossroads now here in Congress, and I want to talk briefly about that. We are at a crossroads because, for the first time in 30 years, this Congress, after receiving the demand from the American people, has adopted a course of fiscal responsibility. We have come to an era where we are not spending more money than we take in. We have come to an era where we do not talk about $200 billion, $300 billion annual deficits any more. We talk about surpluses. Just 6 or 7 short years ago, in 1992, this country, or this government that runs this country, spent some $290 billion more than it took in. And last year, in 1998, this Federal Government took in about $60 billion more. So we went from a $290 billion deficit to a $60 billion surplus. Now, I have heard a lot of people argue about who is responsible for that; whether it was Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, or this Congress or that Congress. I think the American people probably had more to do with it. The American worker is more productive. The American capitalist is more ingenious in how he spends his money and uses his money around the world. And I am very proud of that. And I think the American people should be very proud of that. I think what I want to do today is bring a warning about the idea of surplus. The so-called $60 billion surplus that this government had last year, of that $60 billion, $100 billion came out of the Social Security Trust Fund. In other words, exclusive of the Social Security program, this government had about a $40 billion deficit last year. And so, we ought not to be talking about how we spend the surplus when we do not really have one. I know there are people on either side of that aisle over there, and I always wondered when I served in the State legislature where that term ``on the other side of the aisle'' or ``on this side of the aisle'' came from and I guess now, Madam Speaker, I know once I have arrived here in Congress, but we will find people on one side of the aisle who want to take the so-called surplus, which I submit to my colleagues is not really a surplus, and spend it on a new program. We find others who want to spend it maybe on tax cuts. Now, each of these ideas has some merit. But I would submit to my colleagues that with a $5.6 trillion debt that this country owes that we ought to do something else with that surplus. We ought to take it and pay down the debt. We ought to shore up the programs that we have in existence. We ought to make sure that we are able to fulfill the commitments that we have already made. And where are those commitments? A couple of them are in Social Security and Medicare. Now, I have heard a lot of talk in the last week or so about the President's budget and his plan for Social Security, and I think we all know that what the President has submitted to us is a starting point. He certainly has done a good job in saying to us, to Congress and the American people, in saying that we are not going to spend that money until we make some substantive reforms in Social Security and make sure that it is solid through the year 2075 or 2100. And I think this is a reasonable thing to do. Now, we all know the President did not make any recommendations on substantive reforms, and that is something that this Congress has to begin to deal with in concert with the President. So I look forward to getting busy on that task of making those substantive reforms. In the meantime, I think that the proposal to set that money aside is a reasonable proposal. After all, it did come into the Social Security Trust Fund to start with, so it certainly should not be used for something else. There is another up side to paying down the Federal debt, the public debt, and that is part of what the President has proposed. My colleagues, the money that it costs to service the debt of this Nation is about $215 billion annually, $215 billion. That is almost as much as our national defense budget on an annual basis. Think of the things that we can do with $215 billion if we had that and we did not have to pay it to our creditors. That money does not buy us one cop on the street, it does not put one new teacher in the classroom, and it does not put one new GI in the field to defend this country. All it does is pay for the excesses of the past. I wish that we had that $215 billion to do something else with, and then we could really have a lively debate about tax cuts or spending programs. So I think the first thing we ought to do is begin to pay down that debt and reduce that interest bill. It is what any prudent constituent that my colleagues have would do. It is what any prudent businessman would do. It is what any prudent local government, whether it be a county or a school board or a city, would do. If they had extra money and they owed a debt, they would go pay it off. So I think that is a reasonable approach. In the meantime, that works hand in glove with shoring up the Social Security system. My colleagues, we already have in law that commitment. We have a tremendous unfunded liability in the Social Security system into the 21st century. So there is nothing wrong with setting aside money to cover that unfunded liability. Now, if we want to change the law and take away that liability, that is a different issue. I do not think that is something the American people are going to stand for. We need to remember that the Social Security system is one of the programs that has enabled us to advance as a society and each generation become more affluent and live a better quality of life. I have one statistic that I like to quote from time to time when I speak to my Kiwanis clubs and Lions clubs and that is, in 1963, a year prior to the advent of the Medicare system, over 55 percent of the people in this Nation who reached retirement age, the age of 65, lived in poverty. That is just 36 years ago. Over 55 percent of the folks who reached retirement age lived below the poverty level. Do my colleagues know what that figure is today, 35 years after the advent of Medicare and 55 to 60 years after the advent of Social Security? That figure is less than 10 percent. Those two programs have been very important to us in our advancement as a society, and I think that they should be on the top of the list in terms of what we do budgetarily. I want to speak to one other issue before I yield back, if I might, and that is that I talked earlier about the economy and how well it is going. And we really are in a very unusual situation, with unemployment at 4\1/2\ percent, the lowest it has been in 25 years. We have got real domestic growth at about almost 4 percent. That is double the 25-year average. We have got inflation at less than 2 percent. There are some real special things going on in this country economically. But there is a sector of our economy that is not doing well, and that is our agricultural folks. I would like to remind my fellow Members of Congress that the agricultural economy, industry, is very critical to this Nation. It is critical to our food supply, and it is critical to our national security. We never want to put ourselves in a situation where we are totally dependent upon some other country for our food supply. I would implore this Congress to look seriously at our national agricultural policy. I do not think we have a good national agricultural policy. We had one, and we sort of undid it in 1996.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for allowing me this time to talk about this motion. First of all, I want to say to my friend from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) that I believe that his intentions are very good in trying to move this debate forward, in trying to develop something that serves this country better. I certainly do not question those intentions. I spent the last couple hours watching on television, though, as Member after Member came to the podium; and, basically, it was a partisan shouting match, and that somewhat disappointed me that we carried it to that level. My colleagues, we live in the greatest country in the world. Our economy is clicking at a rate that it has not clicked at for more than 50 years. Certainly, there is nothing perfect about our Tax Code, and I believe that it needs changing. But I think we ought to be very careful in the way that we change that. I agree that the Tax Code needs to be reformed. There are some parts of the Tax Code, however, which provide real benefits to millions of taxpayers that will be thrown out if this bill is enacted. Any business owner knows there are many important decisions which are made, at least in part, because of the tax treatment those investments receive. As a former State legislator, I am well aware of the important role municipal and State bonds play in funding new schools, roads, and other infrastructure construction. This bill could throw the bond market into chaos as municipal bondholders and State and local governments who offer those bonds will not know how the Tax Code will treat their investments after the year 2002. Every day business owners make decisions based on the tax treatment of certain investments. Hiring new employees, purchasing new equipment, those are decisions which are influenced by the Tax Code. Upsetting the Tax Code could paralyze investment in new plants and equipment because business owners will be unwilling to hire new employees or build new manufacturing facilities because of the uncertainty this bill would create. Under the current Tax Code, employers who provide insurance benefits to their employees receive 100 percent tax deduction. This bill would scrap that provision and cause many businesses to eliminate health insurance benefits for their employees. Yesterday, the National Association of Manufacturers announced their opposition to this bill because it does not allow businesses to plan for the future. Also, I heard earlier that the Chamber of Commerce had taken a position that they were going to score this in opposition to this but there may have been some calls from some very important Members of this body who have changed their mind. I am unclear at this point as we begin to take a vote on it whether that will be done. It is clear that the vast majority of business owners realize sunsetting the Tax Code is an irresponsible move that will jeopardize our country's remarkable economic growth. The motion to recommit before Members now seeks to address the problems in this bill and pushes the Committee on Ways and Means to do something it should have been doing for months, hold comprehensive hearings on reforming the Tax Code. H.R. 3097 states the obvious, that the current Tax Code needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, it leaves the hard work of developing a fair and understandable replacement to a future Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the Rangel-Boyd-Tanner-Stenholm motion to recommit and send this bill back to the Committee on Ways and Means so we can get a responsible piece of legislation that addresses the needs of business owners and taxpayers.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall votes 226 and 227 and 228 this morning. I ask that the Record reflect that had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 226; ``no'' on rollcall 227; and ``yes'' on rollcall 228.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, in honor of Small Business Week, I would like to commend a hard working group of dedicated men and women who own and operate the nearly 23 million small businesses in the United States. America's small busineses are the heart and soul of our Nation's marketplace and the life-blood of our communities. Small business owners constitute almost 98 percent of all employers and are the key to our economy's continued prosperity. Through their innovation and hard work, the United States has remained competitive in the world marketplace for the last 200 years. At the same time, the charity and civic leadership of America's small business owners have made our neighborhoods a better place to live. During Small Business Week, and throughout the year, Congress should take time to consider the contributions of small business owners to our society. As Members of Congress, we must ensure that our nation's small business owners and their employees are not choked by unnecessary government regulation, but rather free to grow and provide new jobs and opportunities for our communities.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I guess I just have not been here long enough to be callous to this sort of shenanigans that is going on this morning. But I have to say that I was shocked when I turned on the television and saw that my Committee on Rules chairman, yes, my Committee on Rules chairman, because he is the Committee on Rules chairman of the United States House of Representatives, was bringing to the floor a bill under his name that nobody would vote for, including myself. With leadership comes a certain amount of responsibility, and I do not understand why, last night, we debated after midnight a piece of legislation, a budget resolution brought to this floor that did not include the highway spending bill that we passed just 2 weeks ago. Now we have to find additional cuts. Mr. Speaker, also, we were not allowed to work on the Blue Dog budget. I am a Blue Dog, and I vote with the Republican majority on many occasions when I think they are right. But absolutely they are wrong on this case. They did not allow a reasonable Blue Dog budget to be brought to the floor of this House, but today we are bringing this piece of legislation, and I think it is wrong. I wish my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), who was born and raised in Florida, well in his retirement; and I know he has a very, very tough job running the floor of this House. I happened to chair the Rules committee in the Florida House, and I think he has failed on this account.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. I thank the gentleman very much, Mr. Speaker, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend my minute talking about the transportation issue, but I think at least after the weak attempt to explain why the transportation package that we passed here 2 weeks ago is not included in this budget, we all understand how bad this budget rule is. I would just tell the Speaker and my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader, that with the majority and with the power of the gavel comes a certain amount of responsibility. That responsibility is to bring to this body a budget which makes a lot of sense. There is not a budget here presented today that I can vote for, because I believe that we ought to stick with the balanced budget agreement which we passed last year. We ought not to go off on a wild goose chase with a bunch of new spending programs, and we ought not to go off on a wild goose chase with a bunch of tax cuts. We owe $5.5 trillion of debt in this Nation that we need to pay down. We need to take whatever dollars we have and preserve Social Security and pay down that debt. I would ask Members to vote against this rule.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, in a recent press conference, President Clinton said that ``the most principled compromise will leave both sides unhappy.'' Every person in this chamber knows the truth in that statement. Our colleagues, Mr. Goodling and Mr. Kildee, have produced such a principled compromise on the student loan interest rate issue in H.R. 6. This agreement is the result of a year of difficult negotiations, and I believe that we should respect and honor their efforts. As Mr. Kildee pointed out the other day on the floor, the compromise is based on the Administration's proposal to set the student interest rate at a point where it will be the lowest it has been in 17 years. We need to ensure that this compromise is written into law. There is no time left for political posturing as the July 1st deadline is just days away. I want to thank my colleagues on the Education and Workforce Committee for their fine work on this principled compromise and urge my colleagues in the House to encourage the Senate to ratify it at the earliest possible data.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I came into this Congress over a year ago as a part of a class of 73 Members, Democrats and Republicans, who had two mandates from our electorate. One was to stop the partisanship. Two was to reform the campaign finance laws of this Nation. Mistakenly and naively, most of us believed that we could do that. Today we learn the truth. There are several real campaign finance reform proposals the House should be debating today. Unfortunately, all we are allowed to vote on are four campaign finance deform bills, designed to promote a partisan advantage for the majority party, not real campaign finance reform. What is missing from the debate today? The sad truth is we are not even allowed to consider legislation developed by Members from both sides of the aisle. Why is not the House debating Shays-Meehan or the bipartisan freshman bill? Because the House Republican leadership is afraid one of those solutions might actually pass. Last year, Speaker Gingrich promised the American people and this House a fair and open debate on campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, the American people will see today what that promise really means. Debate limited to 20 minutes per side, no amendments allowed and a two- thirds majority for passage. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle also like to talk about how they have opened up the process by allowing open rules. That is simply not true. The charade we are witnessing today on campaign finance deform cheats the American people of the open, honest debate they have demanded and more importantly deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 2608, the worker gag act, and sign the discharge petition Number 3 so we can help the Speaker deliver on his promise.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to congratulate twelve outstanding young women from the Girl Scout Council of the Apalachee Bend who were honored with the Girl Scouts of the United States of America Gold Award. Linda F. Brown, Cheryl Leigh Collins, Katie Copeland, Lucy Donnellan, Elizabeth Fraser, Amber Lanier, Ashley Luten, Antonia McDonald, Francesca Simmons, Jessica Stewart, Patricia Welch, and Jennifer E. Weldon have now become a part of the elite few who have earned the highest achievement award in Girl Scouts, the Gold Award. This prestigious award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning, and personal development. I hope that they each will share with their communities the knowledge and experience they gained throughout their years as Girl Scouts. On behalf of the citizens of North Florida, I want to express my appreciation for the patriotism and dedication of these young women and confidence in their leadership and ability to guide our communities to a brighter tomorrow.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, since 1926, America has designated February as Black History Month, a time when we honor the achievements of African- American leaders and their contributions to our great nation. This month also provides us with an opportunity to reflect upon the progress that Americans have made as a nation in our struggle to promote the constitutional ideals of liberty, equality, and justice. In honor of Black History Month, I would like to take a moment to recognize Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University, a Historically Black College in my district that has been nationally recognized not only for the great African-American leaders that it has produced, but for also its success in fostering these sacred constitutional principles. At a time when there is an urgent need for greater access for minorities to higher education, FAMU has risen to meet the challenge. The school opened its doors on October 3, 1887, when segregation was required by law, with 15 students and one professor, but today, student enrollment is over 10,000. Even more impressive is the caliber of students that FAMU draws to its campus each year: the school competes with Harvard annually for the highest number of National Achievement Scholars. Recognizing FAMU's high quality education program, last year Time magazine and Princeton Review named FAMU The College of the Year. FAMU's recent successes can be attributed to its President, Dr. Frederick S. Humphries. Dr. Humphries has also received national recognition; last month, The Orlando Sentinel named him the Floridian of the Year, an award that the paper grants each year to a person who has made the most outstanding contribution to Florida. Dr. Humphries has tirelessly committed his time and energy to promoting the interests of FAMU and making the school and its community what it is today. Black History Month is a time to celebrate the achievements of African-Americans. Today, in honor of Black History Month, I hope that the citizens of North Florida will take a moment to recognize the work that FAMU and Dr. Humphries have done to make high-quality higher education available to the nation's African-American students. In addition, I would like to encourage my constituents to take time to participate in Black History Month. Last month, in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, I took part in several programs throughout North Florida to commemorate the legacy of Dr. King. I found these events to be a wonderful way to learn more about the history of our nation's African-American leaders, and also an opportunity to come together with other community members to share in celebration. I greatly enjoyed attending both FAMU and Florida State University's events honoring Dr. King and participating in Jackson County's Day of Service, among other events. I hope that the people of North Florida will use Black History Month as a chance to learn more about the great role that African- Americans play in every facet of our human society; for when we recognize the contributions of each individual to the whole, we can unify to build a more perfect America.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for yielding me this time. I also want to thank the sponsors of this resolution and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for including the honorable Pete Peterson as a part of this resolution. It is with a certain great amount of pride and humility that I am here today, not just as a Member of this distinguished body, but also as a fellow Vietnam veteran who has served alongside many brave men who did not have the fortune to return home to their family and friends, as I did. Today, on this 25th anniversary of Operation Homecoming, I would especially like to pay my respects to two men. One, a brave fallen soldier who served by my side as my radio telephone operator, the second of the 506 101st Airborne Division in the Republic of Vietnam, Gilbert Ruff, Jr., from St. Louis, Missouri; and the other, the honorable gentleman who served as a Member of this Chamber, a war hero and former POW, a man whose seat I now hold, a man who now, after so many years, returned to Vietnam to serve as our Ambassador to that country, the Honorable Pete Peterson. There is no doubt that this Nation owes a great debt of gratitude to those who sacrificed their lives, who fought and persevered, whose courage and service prevailed during this difficult conflict in Vietnam. It is men like Gilbert and Pete that truly represent all that is good and honorable and is the best in America.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, while I was not a Member of Congress when the 1996 Telecommunications Law was passed, it's easy to see that competitive business strategies from long distance companies and FCC's ever-changing interpretation of this legislation are responsible for telephone competition being stymied. I don't believe Congress anticipated major long distance companies concentrating on the more lucrative business customers while totally ignoring the local residential market. Congress also didn't foresee the FCC taking this law and changing it to the point where no Regional Bell Company has a chance of offering long distance service to their customers in the near future. On multiple occasions state utility commissions have submitted favorable recommendations to the FCC, stating the 14 point checklist has been met and that Regional Bell Holding Companies should be allowed into the long distance market. Each time the FCC has rejected the recommendation. It's time for the issue to get off the regulatory treadmill. We're long overdue for full scale telecommunications competition to begin.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, while November was National Hospice Month, I would like to take a moment now that the busy holiday season is over to recognize and thank several of the hospices which serve the communities in my district. Hospice of North Central Florida, Bay Medical Center Home Care and Florida Hospices, Inc., which is based in Tallahassee and serves all of Florida's hospices, make invaluable contributions to North Florida's families, all year round. Hospice care involves a team of professionals, including physicians, nurses, therapists, home care aides, counselors and volunteers who help terminally ill patients and their families share their final days at home in peace, comfort and dignity. These hospice caregivers help patients, as well as their family members, with one of the toughest transitions in life. The hospice program, primarily based in the home, treats the person, not the disease; focuses on the family, not the individual; and emphasizes the qualify of life. Hospice care ensures that the patient's life is as fulfilling and satisfying as possible, right up to the last moment. Last November, I was pleased to be personally invited by my friend Ron Wolf, to visit Bay Medical Center and participate in a breakfast honoring the many volunteers who give of their time to help North Florida's terminally ill patients and their families. Volunteers are the backbone of hospice care, and the multitude of volunteer positions available in hospice care serve as an opportunity for community members, old and young, to get involved in a service organization that provides critical care to those in need. Hospice care has played an important role in my life. Two years ago, I lost my father to cancer. I do not know what my mother and my family would have done without the care that our area hospice provided. The hospice allowed my father to die at home, in dignity, surrounded by the people who loved him. I want to thank the caregivers who helped my family through a very difficult time. My family and I will never forget their commitment and compassion.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, rarely in my lifetime have I come to know an individual with the character and qualities of my friend who recently passed away, Margaret Brock. My only regret is that I did not know her longer. She was quite a remarkable woman, headstrong and determined to succeed in every endeavor she chose to make her own. She was a self- made millionaire, not that money was what made her rich. It was her heart, her kindness, and her ability to make every stranger feel like family. Ms. Brock will probably be best remembered for giving an ailing hospital new life, in addition to building a much needed nursing home and reviving a children's clinic that had been abandoned by its original investors. Ms. Brock never let age get in the way of 16 hour days or numerous hours of volunteer service. Ms. Brock was a survivor and a shining example of what each of us should strive to become. She was loved by all in the community, whether they knew her personally or not. She was everything that was good in being human, not perfect but as close as I imagine most will come to while here on earth. My staff who knew her loved her as well. She was always offering her home as a place to stay and she never passed up an opportunity to make us all feel at home. I know we are all a little bit better off for knowing Ms. Brock, whether it was only for a few days or decades. May she take the heavens by storm as she did Calhoun and Liberty Counties, for I know she is smiling on us all.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today's vote is about the direction we want our economy to take, and there are three crucial issues which must be addressed if future trade agreements are going to be good for America. One, we must ensure our sovereignty is protected. Two, there must be a level playing field for American workers, and three, the promises made to garner support for trade agreements must be kept. As we enter the global market place, it is important that Congress ensures our sovereignty is protected. Since the World Trade Organization was created, over 20 U.S. laws have been challenged or are currently being challenged. Congress has already changed one law to avoid facing the massive tariffs the WTO can implement when they ruled a U.S. law was actually a barrier to trade. In my home State of Florida, we require foreign agricultural producers to ship crops into our State to pay for inspections when their produce enters our ports. These inspections protect locally grown crops from exposure to foreign- based infestations which could devastate a multibillion dollar agriculture industry. While this State law does not violate any Federal statute, it is being challenged in the WTO. In addition, this bill does not address the issue of the emerging global labor market. As we move toward the global economy, where our workers will compete with workers from every country in the world, it is important that we address this crucial issue. Given a level playing field, American workers are the most productive in the world and they can compete with any other country's work force. However, the fast track bill we are being asked to vote on today would force Americans to compete against people earning less than a dollar an hour and work 12 hour days. In many cases, our workers are being asked to compete with child and forced labor earning slave wages. It is important for Americans that trade agreements ensure a level playing field is cultivated by bringing foreign wages and worker safety provisions up to ours, not by allowing our standards to fall to theirs. The fast track bill we are voting on jeopardizes American wage and safety standards. Finally, I have serious reservations about the promises being made to try and force this agreement through Congress. While I was not in Congress when NAFTA was debated and voted on, I am well aware of the host of promises made to Florida agriculture growers to enlist their support. In reviewing those promises, I am sorry to say that vast majority of them were not kept. In 1993, the administration made specific promises to assist agriculture producers in my State. Today, we have half as many tomato growers as there were in 1992 and the industry has lost $500 million because Mexican tomatoes were dumped in the United States. Our citrus growers have not fared any better. They have not exported one orange to Mexico since NAFTA became law. In the last few days, the promises have started to flow again and I have some advice for my colleagues. Listen to the people of Florida who have paid the price for believing the promises in the past. Today, every major agricultural group in Florida opposes this agreement. In short, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. In all three cases, this fast track bill fails hardworking American families. I am a supporter of free trade, but not at the price of American jobs. I urge my colleagues to vote no on fast track and let's get a trade bill which respects American sovereignty, farmers, and workers.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today, November 9, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on H.R. 1129. Had I been present, I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``yes.''