Bud Cramer

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Rev. Lindsay G. Fields of Huntsville, Alabama, an extraordinary man whose one hundred and seven years were marked by a true sense of compassion and a dedication of God and his family. Rev. L.G. Fields was born in Harris, Alabama on February 6, 1892 and spent over fifty years in the United Methodist ministry. He spent sixteen years in Gadsden as pastor of Sweet Home Methodist Church and then led Village view Methodist Church in Athens until his retirement. The long and blessed life of Rev. Fields included a passion for education. He attended the American School of Correspondence in Chicago and then Gammon Theological Seminary in Atlanta. He continued his love of education by serving on the board of trustees for Clark and Rust Colleges. For Rev. Fields, community service was a way of life. He worked with the Madison County Council on Aging, the Mental Health Centers, the Madison County Senior Center and the Model Cities Program. I believe this tribute is only fitting for one who has given so much of himself for others. I commend the perseverance of Rev. Fields is the raising and educating of his twelve children with the late Rosa Perry Fields. With 24 grandchildren and 22 great-grandchildren, Rev. Fields has left a proud and beloved legacy. I offer my sympathy to the Fields family On behalf of the people of Alabama's fifth Congressional District, I join them in celbrating the extraordinary life and honoring the memory of a man who filled his one hundred and seven years with a love of God, country and family.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Mrs. Ernestine Elliott of Decatur, Alabama for her many years of outstanding service to our community. Mrs. Elliott's work as a HUD Housing Counselor has been essential in building the quality of life the people of Decatur enjoy today. She is retiring today after 32 years of service. Today the work and immeasurable contributions of Mrs. Elliott to the betterment of Decatur are being celebrated at a public reception at Decatur's City Hall. Mrs. Elliott has worked her way up in the Community Action and Community Development Agency (CACDA). Starting as an outreach worker, she spent some time as a financial officer before reaching her current post as a counselor. I believe this tribute is only fitting for one who has given so much of herself for others. She says he motto is ``Have I helped somebody who couldn't find their way?'' She has certainly succeeded in this and in fulfilling her goals of helping clients become self-sufficient. For Mrs. Elliott, community service is a way of life. In addition to her duties with the CACDA, she is Chairman of the Morgan County Alabama Democratic Conference and Vice Chairman of the Morgan County Democratic Executive Committee. Also, she is involved with Tennessee Valley Outreach, Connect Decatur, the Mental Health Association and serves as Chairman of Women Missionaries of Maccedonia Cumberland Presbyterian Church to name a few of her various affiliations. She attended Callhoun Community College and Alabama A&M University. She is a proud mother and grandmother with two sons and one grandson. Decatur is fortunate not to lose Mrs. Elliott to retirement all together. She will continue to serve the area starting July 6th as the Morgan County voter registrar. Since 1967, Mrs. Elliott has set a great example at the CACDA and for all Morgan County of how one person can make a huge difference by helping others. I want to congratulate her on her retirement and wish her well in her new position. Lastly, I want to commend her for her tireless efforts for the people of north Alabama.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my friend and colleague, Congressman Bill Lipinski to introduce the Railway Safety and Funding Equity Act of 1999, also known as RSAFE. This legislation addresses the dangerous lack of adequate safety infrastructure, such as crossing gates, at highway and railroad grade crossing across the country. At many grade crossings, the only safety infrastructure between motorists and oncoming trains is a stop sign or a crossbuck. In my state of Alabama, only about 30 percent of the grade crossings are signalized with gates, lights, or bells. All too often, the end result of this lack of adequate safety infrastructure is a tragic accident in which someone is horribly injured or killed. Last year alone, 428 people died in accidents at railroad grade crossings. Indeed, my home state of Alabama ranks ninth in the nation in terms of vehicle train crashes. These statistics are appalling and unacceptable, especially when we have the resources and know how to greatly reduce them. That's why I've joined with my colleagues, Bill Lipinski, in introducing RSAFE. This legislation would almost double the current federal grade crossing improvement program, thereby allowing states to invest heavily in constructing adequate safety infrastructure at railroad crossings. RSAFE does this by setting aside the 4.3-cent per gallon diesel fuel tax that railroads currently pay toward deficit reduction and transfers it into the Federal Highway Administration's Section 130 grade crossing safety program. This will increase the monies available through this program by approximately $125 million, raising the total level from $150 million to approximately $275 million for the next 5 years. Dedicating the monies derived from this fuel tax toward railroad safety infrastructure will have a real and tangible impact on countless communities across the country. However, while installing new crossing gates and lights will help decrease the number of tragic accidents we've seen so many times in the news, this alone is not enough. In addition to putting up more physical barriers at railroad crossings, we also need to put more money toward educating motorists. That's why RSAFE sets aside five percent of this new funding for education and awareness campaigns, such as those conducted by Operation Lifesaver. Operation Lifesaver is a unique, non-profit organization that works with local law enforcement officials and others to make pedestrians and motorists aware of the dangers of railroad crossings. It is through these combined efforts that we will have the most impact on communities and save the most lives. I know that my friends in the railroad industry will argue that even the imposition of the 4.3-cents tax is unfair and punitive. They will argue that they have already invested billions of dollars in maintaining and improving their infrastructure. Well, I applaud the investment the industry has put into improving grade crossing infrastructure. But, I say to my friends in the railroad industry, more needs to be done. RSAFE does more. Rather than using the revenue raised by this 4.3- cents tax on deficit reduction, RSAFE plows the money right back into railroads, making them safer for the public. Furthermore, after five years of increased investment in making our nation's railroad crossings safer, RSAFE repeals the 4.3-cents tax. Therefore, with this bill, my colleague and I are not trying to penalize or unfairly burden the railroad industry. On the contrary, through this bill we are simply trying to use the funds the railroad industry is already paying wiser. We believe it is far wiser and fairer to use these funds to improve railroad grade crossing safety over the next five years and then put in place a mechanism by which this tax is repealed, than to put it toward deficit reduction. The Railroad Safety and Funding Equity Act of 1999 is a good bill which strikes a good balance between industry and public safety. I urge my colleagues and my friends in the railroad industry to join Representative Lipinski and I in moving this legislation forward. Each day we wait, is another day a life is needlessly put at risk.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in strong opposition to this amendment by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). This is the third Space Station either wounding or killing amendment that the gentleman from Indiana will offer. My colleagues should oppose every one of those. This is the annual cancellation amendment that the gentleman from Indiana has offered. We came into Congress together, so he has offered it, I know, since 1991, both in the committee and on the floor at least once a year and sometimes twice a year as well. So to say the least, we have had a fair fight over this issue. But let us talk about how far we have come. My colleagues have said we are throwing good money after bad. Not so. We have invested $20 billion in this program. We have evaluated this program, we have redesigned this program, we have micromanaged the program almost to death, but we have come too far to turn our back on this very important program. Let us talk about the science that it will produce, the microgravity, scientific opportunities that are available there. There has been hearing after hearing in the Committee on Science over the opportunities that our scientists have for breakthroughs with diet research, with cancer research as well. So to say that the science is strictly testing the effects of gravity on human beings is to certainly oversimplify what we know many of those scientists and medical practitioners around the world are looking forward to pulling off on this experiment called Space Station. If we do not fund the space station, we might as well disassemble NASA, because the space station program is the heart of NASA's research and development program and the heart of NASA's science program. This is not a project that is supposed to be flown in space for a few weeks. Space station will reside continuously in space for more than a decade. So for years our scientists will have opportunities to carry out these important scientific experiments there in microgravity under circumstances that we do not have here on Earth. Five hundred thousand pounds of station components, half a million pounds of station components will have been built at factories around the world by the end of this year. Over 82 percent of the prime contractor's development work has been completed. And U.S. flight hardware sits at the launch site for the next six flights. So this amendment would waste all the hard work that the NASA employees have put in, this amendment would waste the billion dollars of investment that we have made, and also this amendment and other amendments offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) would cause us to turn our back on the resources and commitment of the 16 nations that are participating in this International Space Station, 11 of those nations and the European Space Agency community as well. So we have got international legal agreements that depend on the continuation of this funding, and I say let us do it, let us do it decisively, let us oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and all other Roemer amendments that attempt to mortally wound or kill this important space station program. Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong opposition to the amendment by Mr. Roemer and Mr. Sanford to cancel the International Space Station. This is a debate that we have had every year, and every year the House has reaffirmed its support for the Space Station program. While much has already been said in our previous annual debates, let me touch on a few brief points for our Freshman Members who may be hearing this debate for the first time. First, let's look at where we've been. Services and products ranging from satellite communications to internal pacemakers and cardiac defibrillators were either developed or significantly improved because of our past investments in space. Even until today, Microgravity research has been limited by scarce flight opportunities and sporadic access to space. Unlike the Shuttle experiments which are limited to about 2 weeks in space, the Space Station will reside continuously in space for more than a decade. The Space Station will give scientists, engineers, and businessmen an unprecedented opportunity to perform complex, long-duration experiments that will benefit the world for years to come. Next, let's look at how far we've come. At the end of last year, we took a significant step towards our ultimate destiny of establishing a permanent presence in space with the launch of the first International Space Station elements Zarya and Unity, which are now operating 250 miles above the Earth. Led by the United States, the Space Station draws upon the expertise and resources of 16 nations, including Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, and 11 nations of the European Space Agency. In addition to the $20 billion that we have invested in the Space Station, our international partners have contributed $5 billion to date. By the end of this year, 500,000 pounds of station components will have been built at factories around the world. Over 82 percent of the Prime Contractor's development work has been completed, with U.S. flight hardware for the next six flights at the launch site. This amendment would waste all the hard work and all the taxpayer dollars that have been spent to date on the program. We've come too far for Congress to turn its back on the American people now. Now, let's look at where we're going. Microgravity capabilities will be available in the spring of 2000, with the outfitting of the U.S. laboratory, Destiny. The Space Station will be good for science and good for America. Space Station research will complement ground-based research to generate tangible returns, improving the quality of life here on Earth as well as in space. Space is the ideal environment in which to study processes in fields such as combustion science, fluid physics, and materials science, which are normally masked by gravity-driven forces here on Earth. This research could help us decrease pollution, save billions of dollars in energy costs, construct buildings that are better prepared for earthquakes, and improve the structure and performance of materials used in everything from contact lenses to car engines. Space Station will enable the medical community to understand bone and muscle loss, and possibly lead to the design of countermeasures. NASA-developed telemedicine systems will be used to provide high- quality medical advice, instruction, and education to underserved parts of our Nation and our World. Growing and analyzing protein crystals in space will play a pivotal role in structure-based drug design. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing this bad amendment at a time when we should be thinking about the best ways to utilize this opportunity to enter into a new era in life and microgravity sciences research which will revolutionize the quality of life on Earth. R&D onboard Space Station will improve our knowledge of industrial processes, help us take substantial strides towards remarkable medical advances, and enable that pioneering spirit in all of us to take the next steps in the human exploration of the solar system. Our continued funding should be looked at as an investment in America's future, bringing us new and exciting discoveries that we haven't even yet imagined. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment, and I urge the Members to defeat it.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) as well, when I was on the Committee on Science for almost 8 years we struggled through NASA's issues and other Committee on Science issues together. I have enjoyed the give and take and opportunities to work with the Members, but I have to say with this Roemer amendment, I have to oppose the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) as well. The spring is here. The Space Station issue is here. We have the Roemer amendments. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) wants to kill the Space Station program. He wants to cap it, he wants to wound it, he wants to damage it any way he can. We have been through this process year after year after year in the committee, on the floor of the House. We have had a fair fight. The issues have been presented. Why do we not say, enough is enough? Why do we not get off the NASA employees' backs? Mr. Chairman, I urge especially the freshmen who have not been through this process before to listen to the debate today and look at the history of this House's involvement in this debate, and to recognize that the responsible thing to do is to get on with the enormous investment that we have made. Speaking to the Russian issue, and that issue is a troublesome issue, and I know many Members here have struggled with that issue, but the International Space Station is a multinational project. It was intended when it was first proposed in 1984 by President Reagan to involve the International community. We have legal agreements that we have to be concerned about that the Russians were involved in. If we today say that the House is going to decide that we do not want the Russians involved, then we are interfering with those legal agreements, as well. Again, make no mistake about it, if this amendment passes or is accepted this will damage or kill the Space Station program. So I feel like I have to rise today in strong opposition to this, one of three Roemer amendments, and especially to remind my colleagues that what we are talking about today is a responsible investment in NASA, a responsible investment in the International Space Station program. There is a way to end the Russian involvement and end it responsibly, but this is not the way to do it today. Do not fall for this amendment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and he is correct, I do wish to engage in a colloquy. It happens to be about Weather Service modernization issues and the process that we have been going through for years, those of us from vulnerable communities and those of us who have expressed concerns. I know the chairman has been aware of that for some time. NOAA, through the Modernization Transition Committee, is engaged in this process of independently reviewing the necessity of maintaining those Weather Service offices throughout the country, and in fact they have already rubber-stamped the closure of maybe more than 100 of those. Some of those closings, in my opinion, could result in the degradation of service, and that is of particular concern to me and why regularly I have monitored this bill and wanted to make sure that some of our more vulnerable communities had that review process in place. I wanted to inquire if the chairman would care to comment about where we are currently with that and with regard to those circumstances, whether the Weather Services Modernization Committee is trying to close some of those offices.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to add that I appreciate that attitude, and I am aware that the Modernization Transition Committee has its work cut out for it and that NOAA has had to look after closing a number of these offices. But I was also aware that a few of us were in perhaps an extraordinarily exceptional category. So I appreciate the committee's attitude in expressing this tough-love oversight, because I think NOAA needs that, and I think our citizens deserve that. So I thank the gentleman for that attitude.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the year 2000 is only a little over 7 months away. We've all heard the dire predictions--airplanes will fall out of the sky, or the nation's power grid will go down, or the world's financial markets will crash. Our nation's business community has heard these predictions as well. That's why as we get closer and closer to the year 2000, the business community is accelerating its already massive effort to bring their computer systems into Y2K compliance. And Mr. Chairman, it is a massive effort. It has been estimated that by the time all is said and done, American businesses will have spent $50 billion on addressing Y2K problems. However, Mr. Chairman, we must all admit that despite their best efforts, and despite the extraordinary amount of money invested in bringing their computer systems up to speed, something, somewhere will go wrong. It's inevitable. Today our world economy is so interdependent and tied to computers that a major Y2K failure almost anywhere in the world has the potential to result in minor or major disruptions everywhere. Mr. Chairman, when this day comes we must have in place an effective legal framework for dealing with all the litigation that will surely result from these expectant Y2K failures or disruptions. The Y2K special committee in the Senate has stated that litigation could cost as much as one trillion dollars. I don't know about my colleagues, but I would like to see our nation's business community spend their resources on fixing the problem rather than litigating it. Indeed, despite the fact that we are 7 months away from the year 2000, more than 80 Y2K lawsuits have already been filed. Can you imagine how many frivolous lawsuits will be filed once we've had the first failure or disruption? That is why I am supporting H.R. 775. This bill sets in place an effective legal framework that will sift through the frivolous lawsuits while allowing the meritorious lawsuits to precede. H.R. 775 encourages a fast, fair and predictable mechanism for resolving Y2K related disputes. It encourages resolutions outside of the courtroom so that problems can be fixed quickly. What this bill will not do, as some of my colleagues will argue it does, is encourage people not to fix the problem. In fact, there are no protections for people or businesses that act irresponsibly or negligently in preparing for the Y2K problem. This bill makes sure that businesses that attempt to fix their Y2K problems are not unfairly punished by being exposed to frivolous lawsuits. But, it still holds people accountable if they are negligent or irresponsible. If someone intends to sue a company for damages related to Y2K, the bill would give the company 90 days to fix the problem before a lawsuit could be filed. In addition, defendants would only be liable for their portion of the damages--if the court says a company is responsible for 10 percent of the problem, then the company pays 10 percent of the damages. I represent a high-tech district in the state of Alabama where the Y2K issue is at the forefront of a lot of people's minds. State officials in Alabama have recently announced that our state is behind schedule on the Y2K problem. Businesses in my District are concerned, not with the possibility of experiencing Y2K failures--because the large majority of these businesses have made the good-faith effort to commit the resources necessary to reach compliance--but rather these companies are concerned with the threat of frivolous lawsuits. In a recent letter to me, one company wrote, ``At very considerable expense to us, our company has gone to great lengths to make sure that we are Y2K compliant, but we do expect problems will be passed on to us. A mountain of litigation could create untold amounts of time and expense which could be the hole that `sinks the ship' ''. Mr. Chairman, the American people are looking for leadership on this issue--not just empty rhetoric. H.R. 775, is a responsible step in the right direction. It allows our legal system to work as it should-- meritorious lawsuits will precede and frivolous lawsuits will be stopped. Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the year 2000 is only a little over 7 months away. The clock is ticking and time is running out. It's time for this Congress to act and provide the protection that our business community needs. We need to create an environment where responsible firms can concentrate on solving their Y2K problems, rather than spending their time working on legal defense strategies. H.R. 775 does this. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support passage of H.R. 775.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this House Resolution to honor law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. This resolution is in recognition of National Peace Officers Memorial Day, which serves as a solemn reminder of the sacrifice and commitment to safety that law enforcement officers make on our behalf every day. Law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty sacrifice not only their own lives, but also the lives of their spouses, children, parents, and friends. In fact, the whole community suffers a profound loss when a law enforcement officer dies. Last year, in 1998, 155 of our country's brave law enforcement officers died protecting the citizens of this nation. This resolution serves as a tribute to those fallen officers and their families. This simple gesture will send a signal across the country that our law enforcement officers deserve our utmost respect for putting their lives on the line day-in and day-out. Every day, law enforcement officers are at war against criminals that threaten the security of this country. Passing this resolution to honor those officers is the least that we in Congress can do to thank them for their sacrifices. I am proud to support this resolution that is before us today.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my deepest sympathies to the people of Littleton, Colorado, in the wake of the shootings at Columbine High School that left 15 people dead. This tragedy stands as the worst case of school violence in the history of the United States. The people of Alabama share in the grief of all of those in Colorado who were touched by this horrific event. Our hope and prayers are with them. Over the course of Alabama's history, our state has developed a rich tradition of music and songwriting that have helped people cope during times of great loss and sadness. Carrying on this tradition are two Alabama songwriters named Eddie Martin and Susan Welborn. The two Shoals-area artists have collaborated on a song called ``Listen for the Wings.'' The song was written as a gift of hope for the people of Littleton as they work to rebuild their community and restore order to their lives. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Congressional Record the lyrics to the song ``Listen for the Wings'' so that others might have the opportunity to read these words and take solace in the song's message. Listen for the Wings (By Eddie Martin and Susan Welborn) Just a Tuesday morning At a school in the heartland `Til they walked in with bombs And guns in their hands It was all too familiar Another horrible mistake To see their future Explode in such rage We need some help to understand And lead us back to truth again Do you believe in angels? Well, I do I'm praying that the angels Wrap their arms around you If you could just believe in angels Like I do Then you'd know there's always hope for you No matter what life may bring Take time to listen for the wings If Moses needed angels What about you and me? In the middle of the violence And the crazy lives we lead Gotta bring some love back Gotta have a little faith Find some forgiveness 'Cause it's the only way So many times we pass right by The simple answers to our whys Do you believe in angels Well, I do I'm praying that the angels Wrap their arms around you If you could just believe in angels Like I do Then you'd know there's always Hope for you No matter what life may bring Take time to listen for the wings When everything goes wrong Seems all hope is gone Remember, you're not alone We're all gonna feel some pain And walk through the wind and rain But no matter what life may bring Take time, and listen for the wings

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 833, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. H.R. 833, is a common sense piece of legislation that reforms our deeply flawed bankruptcy system. Under our current bankruptcy system, we have seen an increase in bankruptcy filings by more than 400 percent since 1980. Last year alone, during booming economic times with historic lows in unemployment, more than 1.4 million Americans filed for bankruptcy. This is a 3.6 percent increase over the number of individuals filing for personal bankruptcy in 1997 and an increase of 94.7 percent over 1990 levels. Moreover, 70 percent of these 1.4 million bankruptcies were filed under Chapter 7, the most permissive and lenient form of bankruptcy. Under Chapter 7, individuals can simply erase most of their accumulated debt. In effect, the permissiveness of the current system, while allowing some consumers to escape their debts, ultimately harms all consumers by forcing industry to charge higher prices and impose tighter credit. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, something is wrong with our current bankruptcy system. Our current system makes it too easy for individuals to compile huge amounts of debt and then escape responsibility for repaying those debts. For far too many individuals, bankruptcy has become an easy and convenient way to skirt their financial obligations rather than an instrument of last resort. H.R. 833 reforms this flawed system. H.R. 833 simply says that those consumers who can afford to pay back their debt should be required to do so. This bill does this by instituting a means test that requires those individuals making more than the regional median income, and who can pay more than $6,000 in debts over five years to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, as opposed to Chapter 7. By doing this, the bill prevents individuals with high incomes from walking away from their debts. At the same time, the bill continues to provide those individuals in need of bankruptcy protection with the opportunity to file for the more lenient Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bill also attempts to discourage individuals from repeatedly filing for bankruptcy protection by terminating the automatic stay against collection of debts for an individual who files for bankruptcy within one year of clearing up an earlier bankruptcy. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 833 is a good bill that cuts down on the blatant abuse of the current system by instituting several much needed reforms. This bill restores balance, accountability, and common sense to our deeply flawed system. Some, I know will argue that the bill is extreme and will end up harming families who are in desperate need of bankruptcy relief. But, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill strikes the right balance between seeking to protect those in most dire need, while restoring personal responsibility to our bankruptcy system. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 833.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota, for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, let us return to the budget under debate here, the Blue Dog budget, no more phony debate about this other budget. If Members are serious about balancing the budget, if they are serious about debt reduction, if they are serious about focused tax cuts, if they want to support our veterans, if they want to give a commitment to the defense of this country, then this is the budget for all of us. We have been calling for a true balanced budget excluding the social security trust fund for years. There is no phony baloney here, this is the real thing. Members should wake up. They can take all day, and we have for years, but this is the budget for us. Finally, I want to compliment the leadership here. We have had a fair debate here today. We have had an opportunity to present this budget. I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) for giving us this opportunity. The Blue Dog's have been calling for a true balanced budget excluding the Social Security trust fund for several years. We are glad to see that we have finally reached a point where everyone is agreeing with us that we should balance the budget without counting the Social Security trust fund. The Blue Dog budget sets out a responsible budgetary policy that achieves and maintains a true balanced budget without counting the Social Security trust fund. Because the Republican budget uses virtually all of the non-Social Security surplus for tax cuts, we could have a return of deficits in the non-Social Security budget if future budget conditions are not quite as positive as currently projected. Even if the current projections are correct, the tax cuts in the Republican budget would cause a deficit after 2010, because the exploding tax cuts would continue to grow, while the non-Social Security surpluses will be smaller. responsible use of the projected on-budget surplus Republicans want to commit all of the projected surpluses for exploding tax cuts, whether or not the surpluses actually materialize. The Spratt budget is a little more prudent than the Republican budget by saving some of the on-budget surplus, but is uses most of the projected on-budget surpluses for new spending and some tax cuts. The Blue Dog budget takes the position that the conservative thing to do with projected on-budget is to be conservative. The Blue Dog budget makes paying off the national debt the first priority for any projected budget surplus, dedicating approximately half of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction. The Blue Dog budget divides the remaining half of the on-budget surplus between tax reduction and shoring up the nation's commitment to priorities such as agriculture, defense, education, health care and veterans' programs. If CBO increases surplus projections, there will be additional funds for tax cuts and spending priorities. The Blue Dog budget provides that any increase in surplus projections be divided with the same allocation of one-half for debt reduction, one-quarter for tax cuts and one- quarter for spending priorities. paying off the debt held by the public By saving the entire Social Security surplus and using half of on- budget surpluses for debt reduction, the Blue Dog budget will pay off nearly one-fourth ($857 billion) of the $3.6 trillion debt held by the public over the next five years. Saving non-Social Security surpluses for debt reduction will help make up for the years in which Social Security surpluses were borrowed for operating expenses instead of saving them for Social Security. The Blue Dog budget reduces the debt held by the public by $87 billion more than the Republican budget over the next five years. strengthening Social Security and Medicare The Blue Dog budget calls on Congress to enact reforms of Social Security and Medicare to strengthen these programs and reserves additional funds that could be used to help finance the short term costs of Medicare and Social Security reform. The Blue Dog budget reserves the savings from the lower interest payments that will occur as a result of reducing the debt to be used for Social Security and Medicare reform. Congress would have $85 billion over the next five years that could be used as part of Social Security reform and an additional $28 million over the next five years that could be used as part of Medicare reform. The combination of saving the Social Security surpluses for Social Security and reserving the debt reduction dividend for Social Security and Medicare, the Blue Dog budget saves a total of $937 billion for Social Security and Medicare--more than 90% of total projected unified budget surpluses over the next five years. The Blue Dog budget does not contain the cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals that were included in the President's budget. fiscally responsible tax cuts The Blue Dog budget allocates approximately 25% of on-budget surplus for tax relief providing room for a net tax cut of $41.7 billion over the next five years. Limiting tax cuts to 25% of the projected surplus is a prudent step to ensure that the tax cuts do not cause deficits in the non-Social Security budget if actual budget conditions are not as good as current projections. The tax cuts in the Republican budget will consume nearly 100% of the projected budget non-Social Security surplus over the next five years. If the current projections are too optimistic, the tax cuts in the Republican budget will result in on-budget deficits and a return to the practice of borrowing from the Social Security trust fund to meet operating expenses. The tax cuts in the Republican budget will continue to grow after 2009, while the projected surpluses will be smaller. By 2013 or 2014, the tax cuts in the Republican budget will cause deficits. a genuine increase in funding for national defense The Blue Dog budget equips our military commanders with the tools and resources necessary to continue to field the world's preeminent fighting force for years to come. It maintains a general funding mix ensuring our immediate military readiness and long-term defense procurement needs are not neglected. The Republican budget makes hollow promises for defense, but does not give the Department of Defense the real resources to follow through on these commitments. The Blue Dog budget includes $13 billion more in defense funding than Republicans. The Republican budget is $21 billion short in outlays (real expenditures) needed to support their budget authority (the amount which may be committed or obligated). The Blue Dog budget provides for a much-needed pay raise for our troops and addresses the current retention problems by adequately funding vital personnel and quality of life programs. The Republican budget does not accommodate the pay raise, and could force the Department of Defense to shift resources away from personnel and quality of life programs. meeting critical needs in american agriculture The Blue Dog budget contains $3 billion more mandatory funding for crop insurance than the Republican budget resolution. The increased funding for crop insurance in the Blue Dog budget is permanent, as opposed to the Republican budget which eliminates the increased funding for crop insurance after 2004. The Blue Dog budget provides $3.4 billion more budget authority for discretionary agricultural programs than the Republican budget. The Republican budget contains 10% cut in discretionary agriculture programs in fiscal year 2000, which could force a 1500 person reduction in Farm Service Agency funding, further slowing down the delivery of vital farm programs. The Blue Dog budget does not force cuts in discretionary agriculture programs in fiscal year 2000. meeting our promises to veterans The Blue Dog budget provides a total of $10 billion more budget authority and $5.1 billion more outlays than the Republican budget for discretionary veterans programs. The Blue Dog budget increases funding for veterans health care and GI bill benefits by $1.9 billion 2000, and continues this increased funding level with modest growth after 2000. The Republican budget provides a one-time $950 million increase in veterans programs in fiscal year 2000, but eliminates this increase after 2000 and cuts veterans programs below 1999 levels. increased funding for priority education and health care programs The Blue Dog budget provides $10 billion more total funding for education and $8.6 billion more for health care programs than the Republican budget does over the next five years. These higher funding levels will allow for increased funding for rural health care programs, health research, elementary and secondary education and other priority education and health care programs without making deep cuts in other programs within these functions. The Republican budget claims to provide increased funding for the National Institutes of Health and for some education programs, but cuts total discretionary spending for the health care and education functions below a freeze. Any promised increases for specific education or health care programs under the Republican budget would require deeper cuts in all other health care and education programs.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4 and urge its support by my colleagues. This is a simple resolution that above all else is a statement about the reality of the world in which we live. I was pleased to join the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), my colleague on the other side, in a very important trip to Russia this past weekend with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), who will speak on this issue as well. We delivered a message to the Russian Duma about ballistic missile defense and the fact that we will protect the shores of this country. This is not a violation of our treaty with Russia. The Cold War is over, but the threat is there. Listen to the words of the Rumsfeld Commission. We have invested billions of dollars in technology to try to protect the shores of this country. The only responsible thing to do is to now deploy. To vote for deployment is to begin to protect the shores of this country from missile threats from rogue nations. It is our responsibility to do so. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for their leadership, and I urge Members to support H.R. 4.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, regardless of how strongly some will argue to the contrary, there is a crisis occurring in the U.S. steel industry. As a result of continued and persistent ``dumping'' of foreign steel into the U.S.--specifically by Japan, Korea, Russia, and Brazil--domestic steel producers have been forced to decrease production or lay-off workers or even file for bankruptcy. Already, due to the continuation of illegal dumping, the steel industry has laid off 10,000 steelworkers across the country and three companies have filed for bankruptcy. Indeed, Mr. Speaker in my state of Alabama, Gulf State Steel has had to intermittently shut down its hot- strip mill and had laid off hundreds of workers. Mr. Speaker this is a crisis that we can no longer allow to fester. Unfortunately, while American workers have lost their jobs and American companies have been forced to file for bankruptcy, the Administration has waffled on its commitment to the steel industry and has only offered tepid, ineffective regulatory remedies. In pursuit of abstract geopolitical goals, the Administration has refused to aggressively enforce our nation's trade laws. The time for Congress to act is now. Today's steel industry is not the inefficient, noncompetitive, and unproductive industry of the past. Since the steel crisis in the 1970's, the steel industry has painstakingly reinvented itself, with over $60 billion of capital investments. Today, the American steel industry is among the most productive, the most efficient, the most innovative, and the cleanest in the world. In contrast, the foreign companies who are illegally dumping their steel in our market and threatening the continued vitality of our domestic steel industry, rely upon outdated, inefficient and environmentally unsafe technology. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 975 is simple, straightforward, and fair. It protects American jobs, saves American steel companies from bankruptcy, and ensures a domestic source of steel necessary to maintain our military hardware. I urge my colleagues to take a stand today to enforce our trade laws and to protect American jobs. I urge my colleagues to pass H.R. 975.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Louisiana for yielding. I want to take some time today to also make points about preserving Social Security. I am, as my colleague indicated, the administrative co-chair of this organization that we refer to as the Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats, along with my colleague from Louisiana, my colleague from Florida, from Arkansas, and the next speaker, expected to be the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). We have carried on this year already a vigorous internal debate over the issue of Social Security. We have identified this as a primary issue that we think deserves a lot more discussion. We think protecting Social Security is the most important thing that this 106th Congress could be engaged in. It is our top legislative priority for this session of Congress. The exploding cost of Social Security threatens to become the greatest financial crisis in American history, so we have got to do something. More than a financial crisis, the Social Security system is fast becoming the kind of dilemma that could force us to choose between economic opportunity for our children and retirement security for our parents. So we believe that this has got to be a central issue. Now, one of the ways that we are carrying on our internal debate is to have a series of what we call face-offs to make sure that we explore what is the smart thing to do, how do we really protect and preserve Social Security. A lot of us are talking about different approaches. We need some evaluation of what will work and what will not work. Because I do not want to leave this place having just window-dressed the issue. I want to have accomplished and I know the Blue Dogs want to have accomplished a comprehensive reform of the Social Security system that addresses the financial challenges of Social Security and improves retirement security for all Americans, without raising taxes, without cutting benefits for current retirees. I know my colleague from Louisiana has been involved with our group in this very valuable discussion, and it might be important for the Members to know that we have been meeting as a coalition of conservative Democrats once a week. We have established a task force. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) is heading that task force, who is making sure that we address together the issues that ought to be addressed. We want to do the fiscally responsible thing to do to take Social Security where it needs to do. If that means taking it off budget, then we want to consider taking it off budget. If that means legislation that requires revenues from Social Security payroll taxes to be used only to fund the retirement program, not to offset debt accumulated elsewhere in the Federal budget, then that is going to be a solution that we want to continue to discuss.

Mr. CRAMER. Well, we have got a dilemma in this Congress, and we have discussed this in other Congresses as well, and that is to make sure that we do not commingle over budget issues pools of money that we have available. We do not need to raid the Social Security Trust Fund and allow it to be used as a front for solving the debt situation of this country. On the other hand, we have got to preserve the integrity of the Social Security system as we know it for the future. We have got baby- boomers that are coming into the system. We have got a date certain when the system as we have known it cannot afford to fund itself the way we have been going. So I think the best thing that we can do now that we are making the significant progress that we are making and we are crawling out of our debt situation is to make sure that we do not use any surpluses at first for anything other than taking Social Security off budget. I know that that is an issue that we are debating internally, something that we feel like we can accomplish.

Mr. CRAMER. As my colleague points out, whatever reform measure is adopted, it has got to be fiscally responsible, if that means biting the bullet and coming up with legislation. And as my colleague also knows, this needs to be a bipartisan issue. Not one side of the aisle should lay claim to protecting Social Security. I think we are the kind of centrist group in this 106th Congress that can accomplish this. It can put the issues on the table and invite Members from both sides of the aisle to come to the table. Let us give and take and let us come up with something that makes sense. Let us not come up with some window dressing there.

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I am like him, I have conducted town meetings in my district and I think overwhelmingly, especially young people, they are afraid that Social Security is not going to exist when they reach that age where they would be eligible for the system. They do not trust us to guarantee that we can protect the Social Security system. How do your constituents react at town meetings to the issue of do you want to save Social Security or what about tax cuts? What about surpluses in the budget? How do they respond to that?

Mr. CRAMER. In 1940, 7 percent of America was over 65 years of age. In 2025, it is predicted that more than 20 percent of the population will be over the age of 65. So I think while your constituents and my constituents probably do not recognize those numbers, what they are saying to us is that this system is not likely to exist and they are very cynical, as the gentleman says, about our role in preserving it. I think we talk too much about it. We need to put something on the table. It needs to be a give-and-take process. It needs to be a bipartisan process. I know that my colleague has committed himself to participating with us to make sure that happens.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 350, the Mandates Information Act of 1999. This legislation is the result of a bipartisan effort between my fellow Blue Dog, Representative Gary Condit, and Representative Rob Portman. In 1995, Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). This bill, eventually signed into law, has successfully limited the imposition of unfunded Federal mandates on state and local governments. This legislation was uniformly hailed by elected officials in my District and across the country who, for too long, had to bear the brunt of unfunded mandates. H.R. 350 builds on the success of UMRA by requiring Congress to deal honestly with Federal mandates imposed on the private sector. The bill directs the Congressional Budget Office and congressional committees to assess the impact of private sector mandates contained in legislation reported to the House and Senate for consideration. For mandates that exceed $100 million, it allows any Member of Congress to force a separate debate and vote specifically on whether to consider legislation to impose such a mandate on the private sector. This legislation ensures that Members of Congress will have the most factual information possible on the effects of private sector mandates. Opponents of this legislation claim it will undermine important public safety and environmental laws. This is simply not true. This bill will, however, cause this body to carefully review the costs of legislation on employers, employees, and consumers. The intent of this bill is to promote compromise and to mitigate the effects of unintended costs on the private sector, not to undermine our important public safety laws. I commend my colleague from California and my colleague from Ohio for crafting this important piece of legislation and I look forward to supporting its passage.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, as members prepare for this historic vote, I would like to say that I take this matter as seriously as any issue I have ever voted on during my tenure here in Congress. I know that I will have to look back on this as one of the most critical votes I will ever cast. Out of thousands of votes over the past eight years, the two most important have been this vote and my very first vote in 1991 to commit our country to war in the Persian Gulf. I have carefully and thoroughly examined each of the articles of impeachment. I have reflected on this matter at great length and listened to every possible opinion through each step of this process. Having done that, I will not vote to impeach the president. Mr. Speaker, as deplorable and disgusting as the president's personal conduct has been, and as much as I condemn what he, through his own actions, has put this country through, I do not believe that it reaches the level that the framers of our Constitution set for impeachment. There are many pressing issues for this country to address, and we need to focus our energies on these issues as quickly and strongly as possible. I still believe the president should be punished. I had hoped that censure would be an option. I have done everything I could to create the momentum to put forth a strong censure motion that would condemn the president and penalize him with a considerable fine. I feel that this is a way to hold him accountable without damaging the Constitution or further punishing the nation. I believe that the president can be held accountable for his actions after he leaves office through the criminal justice system. After considering all of these factors. I will vote against impeachment.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Dr. and Mrs. John Collins Wright of Huntsville for their longtime service and dedication to our community at large. Since making the Huntsville community their home in 1978, John and Mac Wright have been a major force in the growth and success of our area, especially in the quality of education. At the age of 17, John Wright enlisted in the Navy Air corps, a decision that led him to an amazing career in science, education, and community development. Following the end of World War II, he earned bachelor's degrees in chemistry and mathematics from West Virginia Wesleyan College and a doctorate in chemistry from the University of Illinois. He later conducted postdoctoral studies at the University of Michigan and the University of London. Mr. Wright's professional career has included appointments at a long and impressive list of prestigious institutions, including research chemist with Hercules Research Center in Delaware, professor and chairman of the department of chemistry at his alma mater West Virginia Wesleyan College, assistant program director for undergraduate education at the National Science Foundation, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of chemistry at both Northern Arizona University and West Virginia University, and vice chancellor and director of academic affairs for the West Virginia Board of Regents. During the 10 years Dr. Wright served as president of UAH, the university grew from 400 to 6000 students, more than tripled its funding and gained national recognition as a leading school of science and technology. Major research thrusts were introduced in optics, microgravity, robotics, and space plasma research. The ``Space Initiative'' was adopted and groundwork was laid for UAH to become one of the first space grant universities in the United States. During Mr. Wright's last year of administration, UAH was ranked the South's top science and technology school by U.S. News and World Report. Upon his decision to leave the presidency in 1988, he was appointed a university professor in chemistry at UAH. Dr. Wright's international experience includes serving on higher education delegations to China, Israel, Italy, India, Korea and the Republic of China, as well as economic development delegations to China, Korea, Japan, England, France and Germany. In the Huntsville community, he has played important leadership roles in organizations such as the Huntsville-Cummings Research Park Board, Randolph School, the U.S. Army Science Board, the Huntsville-Madison County Chamber of Commerce, the Huntsville Rotary Club, and the American Chemical Society. His many honors include the Distinguished Service Medal from NASA, a Service Award from the Army Missile Command, and the Science and Technology Award from the Huntsville-Madison County Chamber of Commerce. For Margaret Ann Cyphers Wright, enhancing the quality of education has been the major force of her life since she earned her bachelor's degree in religious education at West Virginia Wesleyan College. She began work on her graduate degree at the University of Illinois and completed her master's degree in counseling and guidance at the West Virginia College of Graduate Studies. Her professional career has included positions as director of Christian education with churches in several states, a kindergarten teacher and a counselor for runaways. In our community she has served in leadership positions with the First United Methodist Church, Constitution Park Village, Volunteer Center, Huntsville Museum of Art, Madison County Mental Health Association, Huntsville Rotaryann, and the Ruth Hindman Foundation. Her involvement with UAH has included active participation in the University Women's Club and sponsorship of the Lancers, the UAH student ambassadors. She has been honored with the Distinguished Medal of Honor from the Mental Health Center, the Outstanding Service Award from the University Women's Club, named Volunteer of the Year by the Volunteer Center, presented a certificate of appreciation by the Madison County Commission, and received the UAH Medal from the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama system. In 1990 John and Mac shared a richly deserved Humanitarian Award from the Alabama Chapter of the Arthritis Foundation for their vital work on behalf of Huntsville and UAH. As the U.S. congressman for Alabama's Fifth Congressional District, I am proud to have this opportunity to recognize their tremendous talents and accomplishments, as well as thank them for their extraordinary contributions to Alabama.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of passage of the Senate Amendments to H.R. 3494, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act. As a former District Attorney and founder of the National Children's Advocacy Center, I can state, without a doubt, that this legislation will make a positive impact on the lives of children across this nation. This bill will protect children from Internet-based sex crimes and toughen punishments for sexual predators. It will crack down on the criminals who prey on our kids. The Internet has opened up new ways for sexual predators to get access to our children, and we have to take serious measures to stop these criminals and punish them. The bill makes it a federal crime to use the Internet to contact a minor for illegal sexual activities such as rape, child sexual abuse, child prostitution, or statutory rape. Under this legislation, using the Internet to contact a minor for these kinds of sex crimes would result in a punishment of up to 5 years in prison. The bill also makes it a federal offense to use the Internet to knowingly send obscene material to a minor. I am especially proud of the provision in the bill that would allow volunteer groups that serve children to perform background checks to make sure their volunteers have no record of crime against kids. The bill gives groups like the Boys and Girls Clubs and Big Brothers- Big Sisters access to fingerprint checks to make sure their volunteers haven't been convicted of crimes against children, like child sex abuse. Most states, including Alabama, don't have laws to let volunteer groups do these kinds of background checks. For the sake of our children's safety, we have to change that, and that's what this bill is designed to do. I appreciate the bipartisan approach to this legislation. In matters dealing with the safety of our children, it is important that we put politics aside and focus on solutions.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the chairman and say that we in Alabama appreciate the attention this issue has been given here in what we hope are the last few days of this session to make sure that the House bill, H.R. 1804, is merged with S. 1298 to make sure this legislation is passed and gets to the President. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would designate the United States Courthouse and Post Office Building in Florence, Alabama, which happens to be in my district, as the Justice John McKinley Federal Building. The chairman and ranking member have done an excellent job in making sure is that Justice John McKinley's background and legacy is well known. In my district, this particular piece of legislation enjoys a wide range of support within the State, the Lauderdale County Bar Association, the Florence Historical Board, the Tennessee Valley Historical Society, the Alabama State Bar, and Governor Fob James, in addition to the entire Alabama delegation. We have looked forward to this day for some time; and, Mr. Speaker, designating the United States Post Office after Justice John McKinley would be an honor befitting his contribution to Alabama, and, frankly, to this country. Mr. Speaker, I urge the passage of S. 1298.

Mr. CRAMER

Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to place in the Congressional Record a tribute to Mr. Tom Goodman Thrasher of Huntsville, Alabama, for his devotion to the advancement of our community and the well-being of our citizens. Mr. Thrasher is the co-recipient of this year's James Record Humanitarian Award presented by the Arthritis Foundation. In his work for economic, social, and cultural development, Mr. Thrasher has indeed embodied the virtues of a humanitarian. Born and raised in Alabama, Mr. Thrasher served our nation in the Army during the Second World War. After he returned stateside and received his discharge as a Lieutenant Colonel, he opened Thrasher Oil Company in Huntsville under a Shell Company franchise. He has been engaged in the business since its formation, with the exception of his call to active duty at Redstone Arsenal during the Korean War. Mr. Thrasher's community involvement spans an amazing range of civic organizations and important causes. He has served as president of the Huntsville City School Board, chairman of the Industrial Development Board of Huntsville, and director of the Huntsville-Madison County Chamber of Commerce, just to name a few. He is the recipient of the highest honor that the Army can give a civilian--the Distinguished Citizen Service Medal. He has also received an honorary Doctorate in Humanities from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, as well as Huntsville's Outstanding Citizen of the Year Award. Mr. Thrasher's outstanding contributions to the military are not limited to his service on active duty. As an original member and vice chairman of the Army Community Relations Committee, he has played a critical role in making Huntsville's defense community the pride of our state and our nation. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I pay tribute to Mr. Thrasher on the occasion of his receiving the Arthritis Foundation's Humanitarian Award, and I thank him for the leadership and vision that has helped make us the prosperous region we are today.