Allen Boyd

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Stenholm substitute, better known as the Blue Dog budget. Mr. Chairman, the cornerstone of this budget is debt reduction, and the Republican budget guarantees only $8 billion of their own budget surplus for debt reduction over 5 years. The Blue Dog budget, in contrast, provides $85 billion of their own budget surplus for debt reduction. The Blue Dog budget pays down 30 percent of the publicly held debt over the next 5 years. The Republican budget, in contrast, has most of its debt reduction after 2005. Secondly, the Blue Dog budget provides realistic domestic discretionary spending levels. The Republican budget calls for a $20 billion inflation-adjusted cut in domestic spending. I say to my colleagues, the 5 years that the Republicans have been in control of this Congress, the average nondefense discretionary spending has increased by 2\1/2\ percent. We all know that a $20 billion inflation- adjusted cut is unreasonable. The Blue Dog budget recognizes this and provides for realistic budget-spending levels. Thirdly, the Blue Dog has five spending-priority areas. Number one is defense, and it provides $15 billion more than the Republican budget in defense. Fourthly, veterans. It provides over $3 billion more; agriculture, over $2 billion more; education, over $15 billion more; and health care, over $4 billion more than the Republican budget. In addition to all of this, the Blue Dog budget provides over $36 billion over the next 5 years in tax relief. I say to my colleagues to support the Blue Dog budget, support realistic spending levels that will not require gimmicks in the appropriations process later this year. This is a fiscally-responsible budget, and it provides responsible tax relief.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today, along with my Florida colleague Representative Joe Scarborough, I am introducing legislation that is intended to correct a boundary mistake made on a map in the Department of Interior's 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System. The map was subsequently adopted by Congress in the 1990 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. The St. Joe Company owns 45 acres east of the City of Mexico Beach, Florida. In 1988, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the ``Service'') proposed certain additions and modifications to the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). This proposal was accompanied by maps which depicted the existing boundaries of the CBRS as well as the proposed additions and modifications. However, while the maps expressly reported to show the existing CBRS boundaries, at least one of them instead contained a boundary line that erroneously included about 45 acres of St. Joe property. Because the boundary was unintentionally misdrawn neither the property owner nor Congress was given notice of this action. In 1990, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act. The CBRS maps adopted by Congress with the 1990 Act included the erroneous boundary line from the Service's proposed map. Several years after the Mexico Beach property was mistakenly included in the CBRS, St. Joe representatives discovered the mistake while examining maps at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Last year, representatives of St. Joe met with Department of Interior and Service officials to discuss the mistake. As a result of those discussions a letter was written to the Company from the Acting Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Gary Frazier, acknowledging that a boundary mistake had been made and stating that the Service would not object to legislation to correct the mistake. Specifically, Mr. Frazier sated: The Service recognizes that in the 1988 Report to Congress the inclusion of the property in question was not identified as a boundary change for this unit, either in the accompanying map or text of the Report. Regrettably, this meant that neither the property owner nor Congress was provided with adequate notice of the boundary change reflected in the revised map for P-31. Therefore, because of this error in the Report and the equities associated with this specific situation, the Service would not oppose future legislative action to remove the 45 acres owned by the St. Joe Company from the System. The St. Joe Company has taken the proper steps in approaching the Department of Interior and the Service about this problem. Representative Scarborough and I are taking the next step in this process by introducing legislation to correct this mistake. It has been over ten years since Congress enacted the legislation which adopted the new map misdrawing the boundary of the Mexico Beach property. Therefore, I urge the House to act expeditiously on this legislation.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah), my friend and the ranking member of the subcommittee; and I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for shepherding this legislation to the floor of the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, today I want to speak in support of this legislation, which I introduced to honor a fellow North Floridian who earned the distinction of becoming World War II's first hero. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1666 would designate the post office building in Madison, Florida, the Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Post Office. Colin Kelly was born in Monticello, Florida, my hometown, on July 11, 1915, as the chairman said. He was raised in Madison, Florida, where he attended Madison High School, receiving his diploma in 1932. The following summer, young Colin accepted an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. After graduating in 1937, he was assigned to the Army Air Corps flight school and became a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress pilot. At the outbreak of World War II, Captain Kelly, along with several other B-17 crews, was stationed at Clark Field in the Philippines. Once his unit was deployed to Clark Field, he became the first Army officer to fly the Boeing Flying Fortress in the Far East. Shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Captain Kelly and his crew received orders to attack the Japanese invasion fleet that was threatening the Philippines. After completing their bombing run, Captain Kelly's plane was attacked by two Japanese fighters and was badly damaged while returning to Clark Field. Realizing that his plane would not make it back to base, Captain Kelly gave the order to abandon the aircraft, but he remained at the controls to maintain the plane's altitude so his crew could safely bail out. Because of his heroic efforts, because of Captain Kelly's heroic efforts, six of his crewmen survived. Unfortunately, this courageous act meant that he did not have time to bail out himself, and he went down with his plane and was killed in the line of duty on December 10, 1941. At that time, America was experiencing the attack at Pearl Harbor and the outbreak of World War II and was in search of an American hero. Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr. became that first American hero of World War II. According to Major Kenneth Gantz in a memo to General William Hall dated November 21, 1945, Kelly became a hero by circumstances at a time when his country desperately needed a hero. In recognition of his bravery and honor, President Roosevelt awarded Captain Kelly the Distinguished Service Cross posthumously for his actions; and many popular publications of the day highlighted his heroism. Because of this, again, he is often considered America's first hero of World War II. Captain Kelly is survived by one son, Colin P. ``Corky'' Kelly, III. In 1956 Colin Kelly, III received an appointment to West Point, was finished there, became an Army officer, finished a stellar career in the Army and currently serves in the ministry in New Mexico. His sister, Captain Colin P. Kelly Jr.'s sister, is surviving in Madison today, and she and her children are personal friends of this Member. Captain Kelly's courage and sacrifice in the line of duty stands as a lasting example for the citizens of Madison County and for all Americans. He deserves both the respect and admiration of everyone for his dedication to our country. The naming of the post office in his hometown of Madison as the Captain Colin P. Kelly, Jr. Post Office will be a wonderful and lasting tribute to this patriot, his family, and his legacy. Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring this American hero, and I urge passage of H.R. 1666.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to the Boehlert substitute to H.R. 2372. The substitute strips the bill of its primary purpose, that is, ensuring that property owners can have their fair day in court. Today, property owners seeking just compensation for their takings claims face endless rounds of expensive, administrative, and judicial appeals. Certainly, local land-use decisions should be handled at the local level; but when those decisions infringe upon federally- constitutionally guaranteed rights, or when agencies leave land-use claims in regulatory limbo, property owners should be able to expeditiously defend their rights in Federal court. H.R. 2372 does not give Federal courts new authority over questions that should be handled in State courts. It simply provides a procedural method to ensure a decision is reached on the facts of the case without spending 10 years in litigation to get there. The Boehlert substitute on the other hand would codify the status quo. Even worse, the substitute establishes a dangerous precedent of requiring Federal courts to handle the same constitutional claim differently depending upon who the defendant is. I hope my colleagues will defeat the Boehlert substitute and pass a bill that opens the courthouse door to property owners seeking protection of their fifth amendment rights.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, March 15, 2000, I was unavoidably detained during rollcall votes 49 and 50. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 49 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 50.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, today more than one hundred of my colleagues and I celebrate the formation of the Congressional Rural Caucus. Our bipartisan group will serve as a unified voice on behalf of rural Americans. One in every four Americans, or 62 million people, reside in rural areas and an additional 15 million Americans live in small cities and towns. Unfortunately, too often the logistical difficulties rural residents face prevent their concerns on issues like education, healthcare and agriculture from being heard. Our caucus hopes to share with our colleagues in Congress the unique needs of rural citizens and remind them of the important contributions rural America makes. One of the most important concerns facing rural areas is the current agriculture crisis. While the majority of the United States has enjoyed a decade of unprecedented economic prosperity, our nation's family farmers have not benefited from this abundance. In the wake of NAFTA and the implementation of a national farm policy destined for failure, America's farmers have suffered, and many are on the verge of bankruptcy. This economic distress has impacted not just farmers, but the entire rural community. Ensuring our farmers have the opportunity to compete with international growers on a level playing field is more than an issue of protecting the way of life of rural Americans; it is an issue of national security. No one wants our country to be dependent on third world nations to supply our evening suppers, but if we fail to act now, when our farmers are in need, that scenario could become a reality. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Congressional Rural Caucus to develop a viable alternative to the 1996 Freedom to Farm Act. Now that we are united, our caucus has the strength in numbers to turn Congress's attention to this important issue.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, as I was walking over here a few minutes ago to speak, I passed the Triangle, and I saw all the props out there for the press conference after this vote on this piece of legislation today, with the valentine and the chart that said the majority party was going to give, or is going to give the American families a Valentine's present. It made me think about a friend back home who says there are two kinds of folks in this world, the show horses and there are work horses. I think in this particular instance, it is obvious which category the majority party is falling in. And why do I say that? I say that because we have a very closely balanced Congress here in terms of Democrat and Republican. We have a Democrat in the White House. There are ways to get things accomplished, and that is to sit down and work with the President and work with the minority party in the House. And you can accomplish something good for the American people. In this case, we have started a partisan fight. We all know how those end up. They will end up with nothing happening, and as a result, I think that what we have today is just an act by the show horse team for political purposes. Mr. Speaker, there are many Democrats that want tax relief. We all know that the marriage penalty exists. We need to deal with the deduction issue. We need to deal with bracket creep. We also have some other inequities in this country, the estate tax, the most unfair tax that exists in our code; the Social Security earnings limit needs to be dealt with. We also have some other issues that need to be addressed by this surplus, and that is Social Security and Medicare reform. Debt reduction should be the cornerstone of any plan that deals with our surplus, defense priorities, veterans and military retirees, a major, major problem that has to be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, we have budget rules in place. We have budget rules in place for good reasons, because we need to develop these kinds of legislation in context of the big picture, and that is why we should not be waiving these rules. We should develop a budget that we all can agree upon. We did in 1997, we can do it in again in the year 2000 and do something good for the American people.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Tennessee for yielding me this time, my colleague, who is a leader in our Blue Dog Coalition, in coordinating this hour so that we are able to talk a little bit about the surplus and debt reduction and some of the issues that are important to us. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to Congress 3 short years ago in 1997, I saw something happen that was truly miraculous I thought, having heard all of the bad things about Washington, the partisanship that exists here. But what I witnessed in 1997 was an agreement where the majority leadership, the Republicans in Congress sat down with the President, a Democrat, and actually negotiated in good faith, and those negotiations led to a budget agreement which has provided us fiscal discipline that has produced 2 consecutive years of budget surpluses. It also provided $250 billion in tax relief, and it extended the life of the Medicare program. We were able to do that because of bipartisan cooperation and people sitting down in good faith and negotiating from each side of the aisle. Fast forward a couple of years to 1999, and we will see that all of those lessons learned from bipartisan cooperation seemed to fly out the window. The majority leadership of the Congress rammed through a totally partisan budget without any input from the President or the Democratic side of the aisle. That partisan budget cornerstone was $800 billion in tax relief and very little for anything else. We all know that this was totally rejected by the American people and actually, this failure to construct a bipartisan budget resulted in that tax bill being vetoed and left Congress and the President haggling over the 13 annual appropriations bills that this Congress must pass. Actually, we ended up, as you know, rolling the last five or six into one omnibus appropriations bill, which is never the best way to do it. Unfortunately, it seems that my friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the majority leadership of this Congress, have not learned from last year's mistakes, and have not recalled the success that can be had when they act like we did in 1997. Instead of building on the 1997 balanced budget agreement and forging another compromise with the President, what we have this year is an attempt to pass major tax legislation before a budget is even written. How much of a surplus do we think ought to go to debt reduction? Well, nobody knows because we have not done a budget. How much should go to reforming the social security and Medicare systems that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), spoke so eloquently about? We know that is the major, major social problem for this country moving into the 21st century, the viability of the social security and Medicare system. How much of this surplus will be required to deal with those problems? We do not know. We do not have a budget. We have not written our budget plan. How much should go to our other priority programs that have been spoken of here, such as defense? Maybe the most important function of a Federal Government is defense of its borders and its people. Well, we do not know. We know that we have drawn down defense funding over the last decade, and in the last couple of cycles we have actually begun to increase that again. We know that we will continue to have to increase defense spending to keep up with modern weapons and readiness, and pay our men and women who are in the service like they should be paid. How about veterans and military retirees? Certainly that is one of the hot button issues now on the minds of everybody that is a Member of this Chamber. This country has gone back on its promise to provide lifetime medical benefits for those who have served their country and retired from the military. There are over 60 percent of the Members of this Chamber who are cosponsors of a bill which will deal with that issue, and we do not even know how much it will cost yet. It might cost $6 billion, $8 billion, $10 billion, but 60 percent of the Members of this Chamber are cosponsors of that bill. There is a major commitment to deal with that issue, but yet, we want to advance a tax bill before we write a budget dealing with military retirees and veterans' health care benefits. My colleagues in the majority on the other side of the aisle will tell us they are for paying down the debt. I believe many of them are. But the sad truth is that the Committee on the Budget had not even had its first hearing this year when the legislation was scheduled for a floor vote that would include a $182 billion tax bill for the marriage tax penalty. Where is the plan for debt relief? Us Blue Dogs, those of us who are Blue Dogs, believe that ought to be the cornerstone of any surplus plan. So Mr. Speaker, it is not too late to do the right thing. If we really want tax relief to become law, my suggestion is that the leadership on the majority side sit down with Democrats in Congress and the President and let us develop a bipartisan budget agreement. In that agreement, we will deal with the social security issues, the priority spending, we will deal with debt reduction, and we will deal with tax relief. Those of us who are Blue Dogs feel very strongly about that. I want to again thank my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee, for allowing us to have this time.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and work of Corporal Calvin Jerry Powell. Corporal Powell, a member of the Jasper Police Department in Northern Florida, was killed in the line of duty in late September of this year. He lost his life after being hit almost head on during a high-speed car chase. Needless to say, his death has grieved the entire Jasper community. Corporal Powell, 27, was a two year veteran of the department, and had been promoted to Corporal one month prior to his death. Jasper Police Chief Frank Osborn shared with me that Powell put himself through school to become an officer, and while he was only on the force for two years, he carried himself as though he was a ten year veteran. Corporal Powell loved his job and was very well liked by the entire force, he will be sorely missed. There are many lessons we can take from the tragic and senseless loss of Corporal Powell. Police officers put their lives at risk everyday in order to ensure our safety, security and peace of mind. When a death such as this occurs, particularly in a closely knit community like Jasper, it shakes us to the core. Each day, we need to reflect on the sacrifices made by our officers and truly appreciate just how vital the role of these brave men and women are to our own lives. Mr. Speaker, we mourn the loss of Corporal Powell along with his family and the Jasper Community. Our prayers are with his wife and two children during this difficult time. He will be missed beyond any expression of words.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding to me. Madam Chairman, I sense that we are about to wind up here. We have had a spirited debate. I think the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have best said it in the last two statements. I would be remiss at this point in time if I did not pause to again thank the Members, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), and also the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their role in making this happen. Also, I want to thank all of the staff. This is my first opportunity to be heavily involved in a bill like this on the floor. I want to tell my colleagues that we have some very professional staff here, Dave Tenny and Kevin Kramp from the House Committee on Agriculture, Doug Crandall from the House Committee on Resources, Jennifer Rich from the office of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), Penny Dodge from the office of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), David Goldston from the office of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), Chris Schloesser from my staff, and also Greg Kosta from Legislative Counsel. I want to give my thanks to all of those folks.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado. First of all, I think it is important to know that the numbers that he was quoting earlier in his presentation during the amendment would be numbers that that county might receive if the bill were written in a different way. It is not dollars that they are receiving now. He is assuming that it was written so that they would get 100 percent of the 3-year average rather than the 80 percent, so it is a little bit misleading to say they are going to be losing that money. They do not get it now under current law. The other thing that I want to say about the community projects is that this was an idea that was brought to us by some folks in the other body. We thought it was a good idea, because what has happened in our local communities as we have engaged in this bitter battle over forest management practices, and we have recognized the impact that it has had on our local economies and our local schools, is that many people in those local economies have engaged in a bitter and divisive battle with the local environmentalist community. They have created some real hard feelings in the communities. I think the intent of this community projects idea is to get everybody to come back to working together, to figure out how we can use this money in a way that benefits the whole community. I can see in some of the areas in the district that I represent in north Florida, that we have had a community that has been totally timber-dependent basically. That timber industry now is gone. We are trying to move to an ecotourism industry, for instance. We could use some of these dollars to help develop that, bike paths have been mentioned here, search and rescue missions, fire protection, those kinds of things that are needed in the national forest whose costs now are borne by the local governments. I would urge strongly that the House reject this amendment, because it would kick out of balance this very fine compromise that we have here and could cost the bill.

Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is a very good point. I want to again say this provision, title II, could go a long way toward restoring some cooperative spirit in our communities among some groups that have not liked each other very much. I would strongly oppose the amendment.

Mr. BOYD. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.

Mr. BOYD. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, I strongly oppose the amendment offered by my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), and encourage the other Members to vote against it.

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague and my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goodlatte substitute amendment to H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999. The issue of forest revenue payments by the Federal Government to local affected communities is very important to many communities across rural America and to a large portion of the Second Congressional District of Florida, which is a very rural district that encompasses 19 counties which has two national forests in it, the Apalachicola and the Osceola. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have been working on this issue for many years and even before I came to Congress when I was serving in the Florida State legislature. I am happy that this Congress is finally addressing and trying to solve this issue that affects so many communities across the Nation. As has been said before, in 1908, the Federal Government entered into a compact with rural communities in which the government was the dominant landowner. Under this compact, counties with National Forest lands received 25 percent of the revenue generated from the forest lands to compensate them for diminished local property tax base. By law, these revenues finance public schools and local road infrastructure. However, in recent years, in the last 10 years, the principal source of these revenues has sharply curtailed due to changes in Federal forest management policy. Those revenues, shared with States and counties, have declined significantly. As we know, payments to some counties have dropped to less than 10 percent of the historic levels under this compact, and the impact on rural communities and schools has been staggering. In fact, in the Apalachicola National Forest in North Florida the revenues have dropped 89 percent in the last 10 years. This decline in shared revenues has severely impacted or crippled educational funding and the quality of education provided and the services offered in the affected counties. I will not detail all the various painful cuts that have been incurred by our communities and our schools, but I want to emphasize the severity of the actions that has been required. The most far- reaching and devastating impact of the declining revenues is the adverse effect on the future of our children. An education system crippled by such funding cuts cannot train our young people in the skills needed to join tomorrow's society as contributing, productive, taxpaying citizens. It is clear to me and many others that the compact of 1908 is broken and needs to be fixed immediately. That is why the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and I introduced the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999. This legislation was based on principles that were part of a compromise agreement reached by the National Forest Counties and Schools Coalition. This bill is significant because it was developed not by a Washington-knows-best approach but from a bottom-up approach and based on a consensus of 800 groups from approximately 26 States, including school superintendents, county commissioners, educators, the National Education Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In an effort to improve the bill's chance of passage and to be as inclusive as possible, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and I began to work with key members of the Senate and with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). As many know, reaching a compromise with that group was no small accomplishment in itself. However, I honestly believe that we have come together and have improved this bill and in doing so have increased the chance of it becoming law. This substitute contains three main provisions. First, it would restore stability to the 25 percent payment compact by ensuring a predictable payment level to forest communities for an interim 7-year period. That payment would be 80 percent of the highest of the 3-year average since 1984. Secondly, counties would receive an additional 20 percent of the average amount described above for projects recommended by local community advisory committees, if approved by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. All projects would have to comply, as was said earlier, with all environmental laws and regulations, as well as all applicable forest plans. Finally, the bill requires the Federal Government to collaborate with local community and school representatives as part of the Forest Counties Payment Committee to develop a long-term permanent exclusion that will fix the 1908 compact for the long-term. I want to thank my four colleagues, my partner in writing this bill, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who has walked us through this maze, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has been wonderful in helping us reach a compromise, along with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), for their efforts to bring a piece of legislation that actually has a chance of becoming law. In closing, the Federal Government must fulfill the promise made to these communities in 1908. I urge support of the Goodlatte substitute and opposition to any amendments that would upset this fine balance that has been achieved. Together we can fix the compact and restore long-term stability to our rural schools.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to retiring University of Florida president John Lombardi. Dr. Lombardi is departing his post today after a decade of service to our university, its students and the surrounding community. Dr. Lombardi's tenure was marked by his dedication to a mission of shaping the University of Florida into the world-class institution it has become today. As a member of the Florida State Legislature, I had the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with Dr. Lombardi as he worked with the legislature to ensure the university obtained the resources it needed to serve Florida's students and develop its reputation as a quality research institution. I have always been impressed by his tireless efforts on behalf of the university to raise academic standards and student performance and expand opportunities for the entire university community. Dr. Lombardi's commitment, however, extended beyond the boundaries of his campus, as the entire State of Florida has benefited from his years of service. The constituents of the Second Congressional District, in particular, have profited from Dr. Lombardi's support of the land grant university's concept of a ``People's'' university through its Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Dr. Lombardi recognized the campus' critical role in developing research, teaching and extension programs to serve Florida's agricultural community. Most impressive, however, has been Dr. Lombardi's devotion to the University of Florida's most important resource--its students. At a time when higher education institutions are bursting at the seams, Lombardi has always put the needs of his students first, and as a result, he has earned the affection of the entire student body. On behalf of the Second Congressional District, I would like to thank Dr. Lombardi and send him best wishes for all his future endeavors. We will not forget the many ways he has made the University and the State of Florida a better place.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the fray behind my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw). I want to say that the rhetoric on social security has reached a new level for the time I have been here, a short 3 years. The gentleman from Florida is right, nothing that we will do here today or in the next month will change, and I think the American people know and I know every Member of this body knows, nothing will change the fact that every social security recipient will get their paycheck on time, with full benefits, at least until the year 2034. I want to remind Members, though, that what the Committee on Ways and Means has done over the last 8 months under the leadership of the Republican majority is focus on an $800 billion tax cut, rather than a structural reform for social security. I think many of us feel like we ought to set some money aside so when we address the structural reform, we will have that money to be able to pay for it. I want to talk to the Members about the cuts, if I might, the across- the- board cuts. I want to tell a very personal story. I got word earlier this week that last Thursday a young lieutenant commander in the Navy who happens to be a cousin of mine, Lieutenant Commander Raymond Worthington, flying off the U.S.S. Eisenhower, lost power on both engines as he began to take off, and the nose turned down into the water and he and his back seat ejected, and obviously were rescued and safe, but the plane was destroyed. I tell that story because his mother, for the 3 years I have been in Congress, has been hounding me about the age of F-14s and the availability of spare parts, and the shortage of mechanics and people who keep these F-14s running and in good shape. I want to tell the Members, this across-the-board cut will cut $1 billion out of the operations and maintenance account of the Department of Defense. It will make it harder for Lieutenant Commander Raymond Worthington and his cohorts to get the maintenance and spare parts they need. I want to tell the Members also what else these across-the-board cuts do. They take approximately $200 million out of veterans' health care, something that we all agree has been underfunded for many, many, many years. That is very wrong, and I would hope that this Congress, this House, would reject those across-the-board cuts.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding so that I might have an opportunity to address the Nation on this very important issue of Social Security. Madam Speaker, the district that I represent, which is like many other congressional districts across the Nation, has more than 76,000 people over the age of 65 who receive Social Security. Tens of millions of people across the country rely on this important program for their long-term retirement needs. This makes Social Security one of the most important programs administered by the Federal Government. Everybody in Washington has concluded that finally. Madam Speaker, I am very troubled by much of the rhetoric that we have been hearing on Social Security over the last few weeks. The rhetoric over Social Security basically has been over what we do with surplus dollars. It really has nothing to do with extending the life of the Social Security trust fund, and that is what we should be talking about. Now, Madam Speaker, the last time I checked, the law says that the only way we can spend surplus dollars or use the surplus dollars is invest them in treasury notes. And this Congress has made no attempt to change that, nor has that been suggested in any of the rhetoric that has been going on for the last several weeks. All of this fighting and rhetoric over the surplus tends to hide the fact that no action has been taken to extend the life of the Social Security trust fund. According to the Social Security trustees, beginning in the year 2014, the Social Security trust fund will take in less taxes than it pays out in benefits. This means that Social Security will need to redeem the treasury notes it holds starting in the year 2014. By the year 2034, all of those treasury notes will have been paid in full, with interest. Once those notes are repaid, the Social Security trust fund will not have any additional revenue coming in other than the payroll taxes paid in that year to pay the promised benefits, and this will result in a significant decrease in the benefit of about 25 percent. Again, that starts under current projections in the year 2034. This long-term crisis is what Congress should be addressing now, not arguing about the surplus dollars of today. Because the longer we wait, the harder it will be to financially address and solve this very serious long-term crisis. There have been several plans suggested by both Democrats and Republicans to address this crisis, and my Republican colleagues in the majority up to this point have not considered any of them. At the State of the Union address, President Clinton put forward his plan. The Kolbe-Stenholm plan, a Democrat and Republican, has been introduced. It is a bipartisan plan. The Archer-Shaw plan has been proposed, as well as other plans which Congress should be considering. While no action has been taken on any of these plans this year, at a minimum this congressional leadership and the President should work together to set aside funding to enact Social Security reform, meaningful, substantive Social Security reform. This idea was first proposed in the Blue Dog budget back in the spring as a way to provide the funds necessary to ensure the long-term fiscal viability of the Social Security trust fund. That budget, I might say, enjoyed bipartisan support. Under our plan, the Blue Dog plan, we would set aside $83 billion over the next 5 years of non-Social Security surplus to help pay for any reform proposal that Congress might adopt. Again, this does not exclude any reform option. All it does is ensure that we can pay for whatever plan that the Congress and the President ultimately agree upon. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to urge the congressional leadership and President Clinton to include these provisions which will fund substantive Social Security reform in any final budget agreement that they reach. After all of the rhetoric has ended, I believe that laying the groundwork for Social Security reform is the best thing that we can do this year to address the crisis facing the trust fund and ensure that Social Security and its benefits are there for our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the vote on H.R. 2910, the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 1999, I was unavoidably detained. If I had been present and voting, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 462.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, many of you have seen in the Washington Post today that Florida A&M University, a historically black college in Florida's Second Congressional District, has been targeted by a racist bomber. In the last month, the school has received several bomb threats and has suffered two random blasts in an administrative facility and an academic building. While we are grateful that none of the students or faculty have been injured in these horrible incidents, a caller to a local television station, using racial slurs and profanity, indicated that these two bomb blasts are ``just the beginning.'' This racial terrorism has brought classes at Florida A&M to a halt, frightened students and faculty, and stunned the surrounding Tallahassee community. Following this most recent bombing, I spoke with the President of Florida A&M, Dr. Frederick Humphries, about his efforts to avoid further tragedy. With the assistance of local and federal law enforcement officers, school officials have been working to improve security and identify suspects. Dr. Humphries has increased mechanical surveillance and the number of police officers patrolling campus. However, as with any large school, the challenge of scouring every inch of campus is monumental. Today, I ask for your prayers and support for my constituents whose lives have been turned upside down by this evil plot. Florida A&M has a history of excellence, and the school's efforts to provide superb educational opportunities to its students should not be hindered by the acts of one hateful individual. I pray that these terrorist acts will not only be brought to a quick demise, but they will also serve to unite the Tallahassee community against the racial hatred of a select few.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my opposition to the Hinchey amendment because of the impact it would have on veterans across the country and in my home state of Florida. The Hinchey amendment would prohibit the Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) that was implemented in 1997 from taking effect in fiscal year 2000. The intent of VERA was to guarantee that veterans who have similar economic status and eligibility receive the same medical services regardless of where they live. Prior to VERA, veterans health care was based on historic use patterns even though growing numbers of veterans are leaving the Northeast and moving to warmer parts of the country. This movement has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of veterans moving to Florida and seeking medical care there. This rising volume of patients was overwhelming veterans medical facilities in the district I represent and without VERA hundreds of veterans who sought care in my district would have been turned away without receiving it. Many of my colleagues oppose VERA because they believe it does not provide a fair distribution of veterans medical care. However, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has already studied this issue extensively. In a study released in 1998 the GAO determined, ``VERA has improved the equity of resource allocation to networks because, compared with the system it replaced, it provides more comparable levels of resources to each network for each high-priority veteran served.'' Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking a byproduct of the problem facing our veterans instead of focusing on the problem itself. The heart of the problem facing our nation's veterans is not VERA, it is the lack of funding provided by the Republican budget. VERA is a fair and equitable way to distribute funding for veterans medical care but there simply is not enough money to meet the growing need. Over the next ten years the Republican budget declines sharply from the fiscal year 2000 level while veterans health care costs will increase over 20 percent. These two facts are irreconcilable and if the veteran's budget is not adjusted fights like this will only intensify unless we all realize the Republican budget is simply inadequate. In closing, I urge my colleagues to reject the Hinchey amendment and address the real problem facing our nation's veterans, the inadequate funding allocation provided by the Republican budget.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, along with my colleague Representative Nathan Deal, I introduced H.R. 2389, the ``County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999.'' This legislation is based on principles that were part of a compromise agreement reached by the National Forest Counties & Schools Coalition. This bill is significant because it was developed not by a ``Washington knows best'', top-down approach, but rather through ``a home-grown'', bottom-up approach that has finally reached a consensus. This unique coalition includes over 500 groups from approximately 32 states including school superintendents (including Hal Summers, School Superintendent of Liberty County, Florida Schools), county commissioners (including the Columbia County, Florida Board of County Commissioners), educators, several labor groups, the National Educational Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 1908, the federal government recognized that counties with federal lands were at an economic disadvantage since the federal government was the dominant landowner in many of these communities and therefore these counties were powerless to tax these lands. Recognizing this, Congress entered into a compact with rural forest communities in which 25% of the revenues from National Forests would be paid to the states for impacted counties in compensation for their diminished local property tax base. By law, these revenues finance rural public schools and local road infrastructure. As one can imagine, these counties relied heavily on this revenue for education and infrastructure. However, in recent years, the principal source of these revenues, federal timber sales, has been sharply curtailed due to changes in federal forest management policy, and those revenues shared with states and counties have declined precipitously. Payments to many counties have dropped to less than 10% of their historic levels under this compact. This impact on rural communities and schools has been staggering. The decline in shared revenues has severely impacted or crippled educational funding, and the quality of education provided, in the affected counties. Many schools have been forced to lay off teachers, bus drivers, nurses, and other employees; postpone badly needed building repairs and other capital expenditures; eliminate lunch programs; and curtail extracurricular activities. Rural communities have also suffered from severe economic downturns causing high unemployment, domestic violence, substance abuse, and family dislocation. They are finding it difficult to recruit new business and to meet the demands of health and social issues associated with the displacement and unemployment. Finally, local county budgets have also been badly strained that communities have been forced to cut funding for social programs and local infrastructure to offset lost 25% payment revenues. This issue has had a significant impact on a large portion of the congressional district that I have the honor of representing in the House, which is the Second Congressional District of Florida. It is a largely rural district in Florida's panhandle that encompasses 19 counties and two national forests, the Apalachicola and the Osceola. On May 18, 1999, Hal Summers, Superintendent of Schools in Liberty County, Florida, testified before the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition, and Forestry about the various effects that the loss of timber revenue from the Apalachicola National Forest has had on the children of Liberty County. Liberty County is a rural county with a population of about 7,000 including 1,300 schoolchildren. That is the smallest county population of schoolchildren in the entire state of Florida. It has a total land area of 525,000 acres, 97% of which is forested, with half of that owned by the U.S. Forest Service within the Apalachicola. Until recently, the forest was the mainstay of a strong local forest product- based economy, and through sharing 25% of the revenue from timber sales, provided substantial support for the local schools and government. In 1989, the Forest Service began to manage its land in a different way, mostly to protect the habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. It is interesting to note that Liberty County has the only recovered population of this bird in the world. Perhaps the most significant thing about these changes is not the decline in harvest, but rather the fact that in 1998 the net annual growth of timber on the Apalachicola National Forest was about 800% greater than the volume harvested. The sawtimber growth is approximately 50 times greater than the volume harvested. The effects of timber harvest reduction on forest revenues to the 4 counties and schools districts within the Apalachicola is that the 25% payments have declined in value from a 1987-93, 5 year average (in 1998 dollars) of $1,905,000 to $220,000 in 1998; a loss of 89%. Due to this reduction, the Liberty County School District was forced to take several painful steps. These steps included reducing school staffing by 11 positions out of a total of 151; increasing the average class size from 23 to 28 students; discontinuing the enrichment programs in health, computer education, and humanities; discontinuing vocational programs in industrial arts, small engine repair, and electronics (80% of the graduates do not attend college); curtailing the school media center; eliminating certified art and music teachers from the elementary school staffs; reducing the Pre-K program, formerly the only program in the state to serve all four-year olds; and terminating a new program in technology acquisition, which would have placed the county on par with other Florida school districts. The impacts on county government have also been very significant. The County road crew was reduced from 23 to 18 positions. This staff reduction, plus equipment obsolescence and the inability to purchase needed supplied and materials, has resulted in the deterioration of the rural road system. In 1994, the County was forced to float a $1,780,000 bond issue in order to meet current road needs. It is unclear how the county will meet its future road responsibilities in the absence of a substantial increase in the 25% payments from timber sale receipts. County employees suffered a 10% salary cut, which was partially restored following the imposition of a 1% local option sales tax and 7 cents per gallon gas tax. Finally, the Sheriff's Office and Emergency Medical Service have been forced to curtail hours and reduce services. As a result of this action, Liberty County remains the only county in Florida without an advanced life support system as part of the county emergency response organization. However, the most far-reaching and devastating impact of these declining revenues is the adverse effect on the future of our children. An education system crippled by such funding cuts cannot train our young people in the skills needed to join tomorrow's society as contributing, functioning citizens. In 1993, the Congress enacted a law which provided an alternative annual safety net payment system for 72 counties in the northwest region of the country, where federal timber sales had been restricted or prohibited to protect the northern spotted owl. This authority for the 1993 safety net program will expire in 2003. No comparable protection has been provided for the other 730 counties across the nation which receive forest payments. An equitable system of payments for all forest counties nationwide is needed to protect the ability of these counties to provide quality schools and roads and to allow the federal government to uphold its part of the compact. It is clear to me that the compact of 1908 is broken and needs to be fixed immediately. That is why I have introduced the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act of 1999. H.R. 2389 contains two main provisions. First, it would restore stability to the 25% payment compact by ensuring a predictable payment level to federal forest communities for an interim 5-year period. This temporary five-year payment program would be based on the average of the three highest payments received by a state in fiscal years from 1985 until this bill is enacted. This is obviously a necessary step to arrest the current destructive downward spiral. Secondly, the bill requires the federal government to collaborate with local community and school representatives as part of the Forest Counties Payment Committee to develop a permanent solution that will fix the 1908 compact for the long term. There are other options that have been proposed to address this problem, from decoupling forest receipt payments from forest management activities to legislating or mandating timber harvest. My view is that the welfare of schools and county governments cannot be artificially disconnected from the economic stability and social vitality of rural counties. I do not feel that either one of those options is a starter in this Congress. However, I truly believe that the consensus compromise that H.R. 2389 represents is the one possibility that could be passed. We, the federal government, must fulfill the promise made to these communities in 1908. In the part of the country where I come from, a man's word is his bond. Together, we can fix the compact and restore long-term stability to our rural schools and governments and the families that depend on them.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the remarks of my friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett). Having listened to the last speaker, my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford), I want to reiterate the problem that we have here in many of us not understanding the issues. Just the instance that my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) talked about with the absentee owners of quotas, he should know that the 1996 farm bill that he voted for changed that system in the peanut program. It was wrong to have it that way, and it was changed. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say, I have been listening to the debate over the last couple of days of some of the amendments that we have before us. As I went home last night and began to think about the bigger picture, this thought came to my mind. This country is the greatest country in the world because of the technology that we have developed, the money we have spent on research, in every aspect of our lives, whatever it be. We are the greatest military power in the world because our research and development has developed technology that enables us to be that. We have the greatest medical community in the world because of the medical research that has been done in this country, mostly in our public universities with public money, to establish us as the greatest provider of medical services in the world. Our agricultural industry is the greatest in the world because of the research and development, and most all of it has been in our public universities over the years. Our industrial basis the same way. What we have seen in the last couple of days is an attack on our research and development to develop new technology to continue for us to advance into the 21st century. I would strongly urge that Members defeat the amendment which is before us as it is simply another attack on research dollars which will enable us to continue to advance and be the greatest Nation in the world.

Mr. BOYD

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) for yielding me this time and for his leadership in putting this appropriations bill together, and also to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for her leadership with the gentleman from New Mexico. As many of my colleagues know, Mr. Chairman, I have spent all of my productive life in agriculture and have followed these proceedings in Congress for many, many years as related to a national agricultural policy. In 1996, this Congress decided to write a new farm bill which my people back home called Freedom to Fail. Prior to that time, many of us came to Washington and asked the Congress to take a long, hard look before it changed national ag policy. We had a policy in this country that worked. Obviously there was a consolidation of farming over the years like there has been in every industry that weeded out some of the less efficient operators. But certainly if you were efficient and a good operator, under the policy that existed, you could make a living in agriculture. It established and kept a strong agricultural economy for our Nation. I stand today speaking in support of the bill that is brought to this floor by the gentleman from New Mexico and the gentlewoman from Ohio. They are working within the confines of the Balanced Budget Agreement that we put in place in 1997. Actually I think we were treated very well in these allocations, given the confines of the budget that we are working under. As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) said earlier, had we passed the Blue Dog budget which many of the folks on both sides of the aisle voted for, we would have a few more bucks to play with here. But I think really the debate today is not about whether this appropriations bill is good or bad, because it is absolutely the best that we can do under the circumstances that we have been presented with. But it has to do with a larger picture, and, that is, what is the national agricultural policy of this Nation? I just want to throw out a couple of things for Members' consideration. Number one is, in 1996 when that farm bill was written, the farmers were promised if they would give up their safety net, they were promised in exchange a loosening of regulations and, secondly, opening of world markets. Well, they gave up the safety net, but in both cases they did not get what they were promised. They did not get a loosening of regulations and they certainly have not gotten an opening of the world markets. Now many people want to blame the administration. I do not think the administration is to be blamed here. It was the Congress that wrote this piece of legislation, and it is the Congress that ought to go revisit it. I think, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to strongly encourage the Members to support this piece of legislation, and I want to thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) for their work.