Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2879 directs the Secretary of the Interior to insert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial a plaque, a plaque that would commemorate the speech of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., known as the ``I Have A Dream'' speech. Several years ago, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who was present and was one of the speakers that famous day in 1963 along with Dr. King, was instrumental in a campaign by school children and others in establishing a permanent exhibit at the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the important civil rights events, including the ``I Have A Dream'' speech that occurred at the Memorial. It is our understanding that H.R. 2879 is noncontroversial and that it is consistent with what has been done previously at the Memorial to commemorate similar events. I strongly support passage of this legislation and this permanent commemoration of that historic speech in American history. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson). He has been a real force in helping to move this legislation forward, and particularly in making certain that his State and his district are included within the scope of the legislation. Without his perseverance, that would not have happened. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to thank a few staff who helped with the issue. Although this would seem kind of like a no- brainer since it is good for fish, the farmers, the economy and the Federal taxpayers, it was not easy working with the numerous agencies of jurisdiction and potential jurisdiction, and it took a while to wend our way through this maze. So Cynthia Suchman, Ben Grumbles, Bob Faber, Steve Lanich, and Kathie Eastman of my staff were all key with helping move this bill forward. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) for his assistance in drafting and moving this bill through the House. As he pointed out, the need is great. In fact, numbers I have seen estimate that we could spend more than twice the amount of money allocated for these five states in Oregon alone to take care of this problem. So this is not an ultimate solution, but it is a down payment and something that will help us move along in protecting these fish in the Pacific Northwest and in northern California. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this bill does have strong bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate. And shortly, we will hear from the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), my colleague. He and I are the original cosponsors of this legislation in the House. H.R. 1444 would set up a fish screen construction program for irrigation projects in Idaho, Washington, Montana, Oregon, and California. This is a bill that is good news for salmon, other fish species which are on the verge of being endangered or threatened, and good news for local economies, for farmers, and good news for the Federal taxpayers. It requires a local match share of 35 percent. But with the Federal Government investing these funds in the fish screens, ultimately we may avoid the endangerment of numerous species of fish and help promote the recovery of salmon. Today, many of these irrigation diversions are unscreened and salmon smolts do not do too well when they are pulled out of the main stem of the Columbia or one of its tributaries and deposited into an irrigation ditch or an irrigation project which does not return directly to the river or the tributary. Mr. Speaker, this simple step will prevent that in the future. We should be screening all the diversions on fish-bearing rivers in the Northwest and into California because we are investing hundreds of millions, ultimately billions of dollars elsewhere to help recover these species. But for the lack of a few dollars being spent at each of these diversions on both Federal lands and private lands, many of those dollars are not being spent as effectively as they could. So, this legislation is a win/win for both the fish and the farmers and the taxpayers, and I recommend it to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this important legislation. It is long past time to right a wrong done 70 years ago. I am particularly pleased that we in this Congress can act to do that. I have a longer statement which I would like entered in the Record, and I would just reflect in closing that it is always a good day when we can act to undo the wrongs done by a Republican President. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. While Congress generally should be very cautious when amending the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to change land allocations, in the case of Elim Native Corporation there are unique circumstances and special equities which justify this legislation. Without the knowledge or consent of the Eskimo village of Elim, President Hoover deleted 50,000 acres from the Norton Bay Reservation in 1929. Although the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act provided for the conveyance of 300,000 acres to Elim Native Corporation, reflecting the boundaries of the Norton Bay Reservation as it existed at that time, the residents of Elim have long been seeking to have the deleted lands restored. While the Department of the Interior has maintained that Elim does not have a legal entitlement to the additional 50,000 acres, it is my understanding that they, along with the State of Alaska, are now prepared to support this legislation as a matter of equity. And there does appear to be substantial equities in this case. According to Don Mitchell, a historian and former counsel to the Alaska Federation of Natives, the deletion of 50,000 acres from the Norton Bay Reservation is ``one of the most grievous cases of social and economic injustice'' in Alaska history. Because the original reservation lands are no longer available for selection, the bill provides for an alternative conveyance of 50,000 acres which are adjacent to the corporation's existing lands. As amended, the bill incorporates language which has been negotiated with the Department of the Interior and includes important conservation safeguards such as easements for public access, restrictions on commercial timber harvest, and non-development buffers on river corridors. Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss without recognizing the crucial role of Representative Don Young in developing this legislation. The villagers of Elim have a strong champion as the Chairman of the Committee on Resources and without his dedication to their cause we would not be here on the House floor today. I urge that my colleagues support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who preceded me, talked a little bit about the upcoming meeting of the World Trade Organization, and I would like to follow up on that. It was Renato Ruggiero, the former director general of the World Trade Organization, who said, and I quote, we are writing the Constitution of a new world government, end quote. Well, they left out a few things when they wrote that new constitution. They left out consumer rights and protections. They left out labor rights. They left out environmental rights and protections. The United States has a tremendous opportunity, in hosting the beginning of the next round of negotiations at the World Trade Organization, to initiate a major overhaul of this horribly flawed agreement and drag it kicking and screaming into at least the late 20th Century. Labor rights, well there seems to be agreement on labor rights. The President has admitted that perhaps the nonbinding, face-saving, political butt-covering side agreements on labor and the environment, which were not binding, which helped push NAFTA through this organization here, the House of Representatives, gave enough people political cover, will not be enough in the future for trade agreements and, if called, he and the vice president, for labor agreements to be core labor protections, to be core to any future agreement, the only problem is, their employee, the special trade representative, Charlene Barshefsky, does not seem to share their views. When pressed in a press conference last week to expand upon what is the United States talking about here, they cannot be serious about putting labor protections into an international trade agreement, by God, then what would capital do? How could it run around the world looking for the most exploited sources of labor? She said, quote, this is not a negotiating group. It is an analytic working group designed to draw upon the expertise of other multilateral institutions in order to answer a series of analytic points. Now, that does not sound an awful lot like labor protections. It does not sound like it will get us to the point made by the previous gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), stopping trafficking in goods produced by forced child labor around the world. No, that is a little too far for the World Trade Organization, and if Ms. Barshefsky has her way, it will be too far for the United States of America to go. That is pathetic. She goes on to say, the issue of sanctions is nowhere in this proposal and it is certainly not on the table, and then she goes on in another much longer quote I do not have time to give, to say that this analytical look at labor protections will lead everybody to the conclusion that the best way to bring up labor standards around the world is not to have any; sort of like the theory of the Republicans here in Congress. If we did not have a minimum wage the market would set one and it would be good for everybody. Well, maybe not the people who earn the minimum wage or just above it, but it would be good for the employers. The same thing with the World Trade Organization and Carlene Barshefsky. They want to say the market will bring about in the future some sort of labor protections without these horrible dictates. In fact, they are undermining our own laws here in the United States with the World Trade Organization, a little secretive body of 3 people who are exempt from conflict of interest, exempt from public disclosure, make binding decisions on trade disputes. The U.S. has lost a number of trade disputes on environmental issues over the last few years, but they have won one big one. We are going to force the Europeans to take hormone-laced beef. By God, that is a big victory for the U.S. and we should have more of this. We do not want to reform this organization. We do not want transparency and doing away with conflict of interest rules. We do not want any system of juris prudence the American people can understand. We do not want to allow environmental groups or labor groups to intervene and mess up the decision-making process of the World Trade Organization. We have a tremendous opportunity as the United States of America to lead, and maybe we have to get rid of Ms. Barshefsky to do that.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, from the beginning there are people on the poles of this issue who have wanted this to be a debate about forest policy and not a debate about schools, about vital county services. I have to say a few of the last speakers are succeeding in dragging us back to that point. Successfully, throughout the day, we have been addressing the needs of the schools, the needs of counties that are more than half owned by the Federal Government, with few alternatives, with depressed rural economies, with underfunded schools, with few sheriffs deputies and other tremendous needs going unmet. What we heard out of the last few speakers, they want to assassinate the administration here. Well, let us get it straight. Who proposed giving this money to the counties and schools to begin with? It was the President, in the budget a year ago. What did the Republican majority do in the last Congress on this issue? Nothing. They did not even hold a hearing. Now, this Congress there has been some action, but not through a regular process. It did not go through my committee where I sit, the Committee on Resources, which it should have by all rights. Now we are down on the floor and there are people here who would just as soon blow this up as opposed to get something done here today. This is an important issue. This is not a perfect bill. It is not the bill I would have written. It is probably not the bill that we would have had if it had gone through the regular process, but it is vitally important and it is the best we can do today here in the United States House of Representatives. The administration has not sent a veto threat. They have raised concerns about parts of this bill, concerns which can be worked out with the Senate if it is going to be signed into law, and it needs to be signed into law. For the sake of the kids and the counties, it must pass. So let us not go where the poles in this debate want us to go. Let us not drag this out into a debate of forest policy. We can debate that every day of the week and we can all disagree and we can come down here and just have a great time pounding on each other or we can do it in committee, we can do it in the hallways, in the cloakrooms, everywhere else. This is not about forest policy. It is about money. It is about vital funds for kids, for schools, for counties, for law enforcement, for roads and infrastructure. Please support passage of this bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. This is very important legislation before this body, and we are hearing from Members coast to coast on what this means to people in their home States and their counties, particularly to smaller rural school districts and rural counties where there is little other economic opportunity and where the county property tax bases are not sufficient. In my district it is doubly important. We have not only Forest Service lands, we have something called the O and C lands. More than half of my district is owned by the United States Government. And with the changes that have come about in forest management in the last few years, the revenues to those counties have dropped off dramatically, or would have dropped off dramatically, had we not gotten a guarantee in 1993 when the Clinton forest plan was put into place. That plan expires in the year 2003, and each year under that plan we get fewer revenues. If this legislation passes today and becomes law, those revenues will immediately increase, and that will mean more funding for schools, that will mean more funding for rural law enforcement, that will mean some additional funds to meet unmet road maintenance and repair needs across southwest Oregon. Those are important programs. This is legislation that has tremendous merit. As I mentioned earlier, for my colleagues who do not have these sorts of Federal lands, if they can think of it in the way we have dealt with base closings in this Congress; that when Federal bases are closed, payments are made into those communities for the conversion of their economies; and often, again, those bases revert to those local communities. Again, I am not, nor would I ever suggest, and I will adamantly oppose, any return of these lands to the States or local governments. I believe they are best managed in the Federal interest. But there is no option to raise revenues off of these lands. And some of the things that were mentioned earlier, in terms of recreation and all that, yes, in fact, the recreation can possibly be enhanced by some of these local projects, investments can be made. I have a bicycle path created between two formerly timber-dependent communities in the southern part of my district. It is beginning to attract additional tourism and economic development to that area. But much, much more can be done. The payments that were to be made for the transition under the President's forest plan were not adequate for many of these rural economies. Our rate of unemployment in Oregon is one of the highest in the United States. And in rural Oregon it is among the highest in the United States. We need a little bit more help, and this bill will provide that additional help. So I would recommend this bill to my colleagues, not just because it benefits the people of Oregon but because it benefits hundreds of counties all across America and from a wide breadth of folks on both sides of the aisle, whose voices I think we are hearing asking for their colleagues' support.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I wish that every day on the floor we had rules like this. This is an open rule. It will allow any Member of the House to offer an amendment, and I believe that is something that we should do much more often around here. So this will be a rare moment where I can support a rule for a bill. Too many times we are muzzled and not allowed to offer amendments that would improve or alter bills before us. The bill that is before us is very different and did not go through a regular committee process; and for that reason, some Members may be puzzled as to exactly what the bill does, as are advocacy groups on both sides of the issue among the public; and I would like to take a couple of minutes to explain that. I had a very different approach in mind when I introduced my legislation, which would be 100 percent guaranteed, very clean, complete decoupled. That bill garnered very, very little support; and a different bill passed in the Committee on Agriculture, the Boyd-Deal bill; and then, of course, we had a bill recommended on the Senate side by Senators who I do not think the rules of the House allow me to name. But, anyway, there were some Senators that introduced a bill over. This bill is different than all of those bills, but it combines some of the most important aspects of all. First and foremost, this bill requires that anything and everything done under this legislation follow and absolutely comply with every environmental law, every environmental rule, every forest plan, every resource management plan that is currently on the books in the United States, that it fully follow the Endangered Species Act, and allow appeals. All that is within the scope of this bill. Any projects which might occur under this bill, which are a small part of the bill, are subject to Secretarial discretion, in addition to having to follow all rules, laws, and regulations. There will be much controversy over the projects. The projects were not my preferred alternative, but they have been altered in a way that makes them environmentally neutral, and potentially they could be projects that would be beneficial to local communities and areas. They could be spent for road obliteration for problem roads, for watershed restoration, they could be spent for other revenue-generating activities on the forests that do not go to timber production. They could be spent on recreation. The gentleman from Minnesota objected to a provision I had added which would allow them to be used for work camps; that is, to be allowed for a correctional facility for nonviolent offenders to work on the forest lands. I do not find that to be objectionable. I think that is very desirable, better than having them sit in jail and watch television. So I do not understand why the gentleman would object to that. It could also be used at their initiative for reimbursing counties for the huge unmet costs of search and rescue on Federal lands. The bottom line is, my State is more than half owned by the Federal government. The Federal government has dramatically changed the laws and rules that pertain to timber harvests, as I believe many of those changes were necessary, because we were overharvesting. The question is, since no other productive use that generates revenues for those counties, we cannot levy taxes in those lands can go forward, should the government pay something to those counties for their ongoing obligations to provide a road network through those lands, and to provide law enforcement services and the other things? I believe the answer is yes. I hope that a majority of the body here today decides that the answer is yes. The gentleman before me, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) said this creates a bad precedent. He talked about offshore oil drilling. That is not analogous. The analogy would be base closings. When the Federal government closes a military base, it admits there are huge impacts on the communities, it dumps a whole bunch of money into that community, it does retraining, does a whole host of other things, and ultimately it turns the lands over to those communities for future purposes. I am not advocating these lands be turned back over to the States. I am absolutely and adamantly opposed to that. But in lieu of that, we are asking for a modest replacement of revenues that were formerly created off these lands, while there will be ongoing and perpetual obligations to the counties for law enforcement and infrastructure, roads and other activities on those lands. These are vital payments that go to schools, that go to vital county services; as I already mentioned, law enforcement, road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance. Those funds will not exist if this legislation does not pass. In the case of my counties, we have 3 more years of a guarantee under law, but after that, we fall off the cliff. For many other counties, they have already fallen off the cliff. They need this help to rebuild the social infrastructure of their communities and maintain vital county services. I would urge people to keep an open mind in the debate today and realize, unfortunately, having not followed a regular process, my committee having decided not to take jurisdiction, the Committee on Resources, that this has not been before Members in its final form for very long. It is very different than what was proposed. I urge the Members to read the bill and ask questions of any of us who were involved in the writing.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if you are for States rights, you will support this amendment. But even if you are not for States rights and you are not supportive of what Oregon has done, twice, the people of Oregon by initiative, if you do not want the Drug Enforcement Administration second guessing the intent of every physician providing end-of-life pain care to every American and chilling and destroying that relationship and the capability of people to get relief from pain, you will support this amendment. The other side is trying to scare people with all sorts of inaccurate statements. Taking someone else's life? The person has to be competent, judged by two doctors, a psychiatrist, and they can only do it by their own hand with a prescription. ``Hangman,'' we heard from the chairman of the committee. ``Euthanasia,'' we heard. Incredibly irresponsible statements by the other side, denigrating the people of Oregon, the 60 percent who supported this, and the people who are suffering horribly at the end of life. And, finally, the hypocrisy. The chairman of the committee proposed in the last Congress a bill, H.R. 1252, and what he said there is no single Federal judge should be able to overturn a state law adopted by referendum, and that they cannot grant any relief or anticipatory relief on the ground the a state law is repugnant of the Constitution, which they do not say here. It is repugnant to them and their moral structure. Treatises or laws of the United States, unless the application for anticipatory relief is heard and determined by a court of three judges. So he feels so strongly about state referenda that he wants to say a single Federal judge cannot find a violation of the Constitution. But, in this case, he feels so little about the will of the people of a state and for States rights and for individuals suffering horribly, horribly, at the end of life, that he would overturn it here in a curtailed debate in the House of Representatives, where we get 5 minutes on our side, where the proponents were given three-quarters of the time during the debate. It is a stacked deck. It is not fair. If you want to preempt the Oregon law, do it straight and honest and straight up and preempt the Oregon law on the floor, and see what the Supreme Court says about that.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. We have heard some extraordinary things from the other side. The people who are one day for States' rights today want to preempt it. The people who are for individual decisions want to preempt them. The people who want to sanctify the physician-patient relationship want to put a Drug Enforcement Administration agent in the room with the physician and the patient while they are making these critical decisions. They have talked about the word execute, euthanasia. Look at the Oregon law. It is something where a physician can only prescribe after there are two diagnoses, a psychological consultation, the person willingly asks, they have acceded in writing, they have informed their next of kin, there has been a waiting period and the person must self-administer. That is the key. It is not euthanasia. It is not physician-assisted suicide. They write a humane prescription for a person who is dying a horrible, horrible death and who might want relief. What has happened in Oregon? Fewer people have taken their lives with guns and other things because they just knew it was there if they needed it. They want to turn back the clock to the bad old days when my father is dying and I said, can he not have more pain medication, the doctor said, no, it might depress his breathing. In one line in the bill, they give the doctor that authority. But they take it away five lines later where they say if the doctor intentionally depresses that person's breathing. Who knows? How are we going to determine intent? Are the drug enforcement administration the best people to determine one's physician's intent and chill their desire to give relief from intractable pain? I would say no, and I do not think on any other day of the week the Republican party would advocate having the Drug Enforcement Administration involved in our personal legal lives.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it specified that three-quarters of the time would go to proponents and one-quarter, 15 minutes, would go to the opponents. Is that correct? Is that what the rule specified?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, is it not usual that the time is divided equally between proponents and opponents?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who preceded me in the well may well be a good physician, but he is not an attorney. The Department of Justice says, ``By denying authorization under the Controlled Substances Act, H.R. 2260 would make it a Federal crime for a physician to dispense a controlled substance to aid a suicide. However, a physician who prescribes the controlled substances most commonly used to aid a suicide would, because he or she necessarily intends death to result, or may have intended death to result, or should have known that death should have resulted, would face a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence in Federal prison.'' That is what we are talking about here, the Drug Enforcement Administration second-guessing the intention after the fact of every physician in America. Let us use a real-life example. This is a pain medication. If this were a barbiturate for end-of-life care and it was prescribed by my physician aggressively that I was to take one every 2 hours to relieve my excruciating pain, say from bone cancer, that would be legal. Now, if this prescription, a pain relief prescription, was prescribed by my doctor for aggressive pain relief management, one to be taken every 2 hours, and I took this entire vial all at once and died, the question would be what was my physician's intent in giving me this prescription? Was it that I would really take one every 2 hours, or did my physician know or should my physician have known that I might choose to take all of them at once? What this means ultimately, the absurdity of this, is any physician who does not want to risk being investigated by the Drug Enforcement Administration, and nobody wants that, is going to have to say they can have one pill every 2 hours, send their wife or kids down to the 24- hour pharmacy to pick them up for them, because he gives them more than one and they take them all at once and they die, the Drug Enforcement Administration is going to question his intent. That is the cover of law that is being ripped away by this well- sounding, theoretically well-meaning legislation. In their zeal to overturn the Oregon law, which is not euthanasia, which does not allow a doctor to give an injection, which does not allow a doctor to administer a prescription, which allows individuals who are terminally ill who have a diagnosis they will die within 6 months, after consulting with two physicians, after consulting with a psychiatrist to go to their physician and ask for a prescription which they can only self-administer. This is not euthanasia, and it has been very, very infrequently used in our State. In fact, probably fewer people have shot themselves or otherwise killed themselves under fear of the pain they were going to undergo because of the Oregon law. But these people on this side of the aisle who are for States' rights every day of the week when a State says something they agree with are suddenly today standing up and saying, well, we are for States' rights as long as we agree with the State. Preempt the will of the Oregon people. It is not the State of Oregon, it is the people of the State of Oregon twice by initiative and referendum who have passed this law.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. ``Do no harm'' is a tenet that underlies the practice of medicine in America. But despite the system we have, the great system for training, licensure, the safeguards that are built in, occasionally someone incompetent, or in this case a group of people totally unqualified in the practice of medicine, does harm to an individual patient or a group of patients. Today, the United States Congress wishes under the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) to irrevocably change end-of-life pain care in America. On the one hand the bill that will come up today says you can aggressively treat pain at the end of life even if it causes death, but the other section of the bill says if a death results in the aggressive management of pain, the Drug Enforcement Administration, that well-known bastion of medical lore, will determine the intent of the physician who provided that prescription after the fact. This is an extraordinary intrusion not only into States' rights but into the practice of medicine. Inserting the Drug Enforcement Administration into the patient-doctor relationship is outrageous and it will set back pain management for decades in this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, better to prudently plan on funds that are funds that do not yet exist, and that is saying, okay, if they do show up, we will save them, then to say, no, let us commit to spend them today to help out the wealthiest and the most powerful, mainly their campaign contributors, and not leave any for contingencies or for Social Security should it ever crop up. I do not believe those numbers. I do not believe the White House or the Republican majority on those numbers. I do not believe we are going to run a trillion-dollar surplus. And it would be more prudent to wait until we have got a trillion dollars in the bank and then figure out how to spend it, whether we want to give it to the wealthy in tax cuts, if they get enough votes for that, then they win, or they want to invest it in our kids in an education and other needed programs, then we win. But the point is, until that money exists, do not spend it because there is only one place it can come from if it does not crop up fortuitously in the future and that is out of the Social Security Trust Fund. They were committing and spending those funds just as they have for emergencies, just as they have for directed spending, just as they have for an unneeded aircraft carrier and other boondoggles in this year's budget.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield. Further on the tax cut. Now, just like the emergency spending, where would the money for the $792-billion tax cut come from? Now, if indeed we were running huge and growing general fund surpluses, it would come potentially out of that. But, in fact, because of the numbers that were used to project this not yet realized, contingent, possible, sometime future, maybe surplus, they wanted to lock in $792 billion of tax cuts today heavily weighted towards the largest corporations and the most wealthy Americans, those families earning over $300,000 a year; and if everything did not come out in the rosy scenario, record growth, record low inflation, we have already exceeded those estimates and growth is already dropping off the charts, in huge and growing surpluses, it would have come out of Social Security, out of the Social Security surplus. So lock in a tax cut today. The same party, of course, who has the majority leader who has said for 2 decades he does not believe in Social Security, and maybe they can kill Social Security tomorrow. Because, well, we do not have enough money to meet the obligations of Social Security because, well, gee, we gave it back to the most wealthy people in America and to the largest corporations. No. The bottom line is that was the most irresponsible proposal. $792 billion of tax cuts, most probably coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund, and now that same party, the one that did not vote for the original Social Security Act, has proposed to privatize Social Security, has a majority leader who says he does not believe in it, did not vote for Medicare, and now wants the American people to believe that they have had sort of a death-bed conversion or whatever we would call it here, that now, suddenly after this history for 60 years and a proposal a month ago to cut a surplus that does not exist by $792 billion jeopardizing Social Security, suddenly now they are the great defenders of Social Security. I do not think the American people are going to buy it. I hope they spend all of their campaign funds on those stupid ads. Because I do not think they have any credibility with the American people, that the people who have consistently attacked Social Security now are its greatest saviors. I beg them to run those same ads in my district. I ask them to run those ads in my district.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Four. No, no, no, the gentleman is wrong. In the world of the Republican budget, two plus two can be any number that they direct it to be. It is called directed scorekeeping. So if they get a result they do not like from their own Congressional Budget Office, which they have appointed, they direct that in fact two plus two is one, or zero, or maybe minus eight, or whatever they need to do to add up to budget. But the hard fact is that the money they are spending, which is actually going to be spent by these appropriations bills passed by the majority, originating in this chamber by the Republican majority, that money has to come from somewhere; and that money is coming from the Social Security surplus. Every time they do one of these funny tricks, yes, it makes it look okay in terms of the Budget Act, emergency spending, directed scorekeeping; but it is coming out of Social Security. So let us drop the charade and develop an honest budget and admit we are probably going to run a real deficit this year. That is where we are headed. Because they have loaded up these bills so much, if we go to the real priorities of the American people and keep all the junk they have loaded into the bills, we are going to be running a deficit. Unless they want to pull out some of those things, the aircraft carriers the Pentagon did not ask for and some of those other things, they are up the creek without a paddle, or a boat or a life jacket.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding. I think the American people are often puzzled in listening to our debates, and let us just try to distill this down a bit. What do most families consider to be an emergency? Now, in my case, I have a little bit of money set aside, like other people do, for emergencies. Now, my property tax bill, which I know is going to come on November 15 of every year, is not an emergency. My bills for my insurance, my homeowners insurance, my mortgage, which comes on a monthly basis, these obviously are not emergencies. I think all Americans would agree we would not consider these sorts of anticipated expenditures, whether they are annual, monthly or biannual, in the case of my insurance, as emergencies. But somehow, strangely enough, the Republican majority has decided that things that are eminently predictable, such as the census of the United States, something required since the founding of our Nation in the Constitution to be conducted once every 10 years, next year is the year 2000, everybody has known since they wrote the Constitution that if the Republic stood, we would conduct a census in the year 2000; but they have declared those funds to be an emergency. Now, that is probably puzzling to a majority of the American people. Why would they do that? Why would they declare something like the census or expenditures in the Department of Defense as emergencies, when their annual operating costs, in the case of the Department of Defense, are a required expenditure once every 10 years by the Federal Government? Because they do not count. It is money that because of the Budget Act does not count. Well, it has to come from somewhere. These emergency funds have to come from somewhere. Guess what? They come out of American taxpayers' wallets that are paid in taxes and go to the Federal Treasury. Now, in this case, the money is, in fact, going to come out of, since they have already spent the general fund surplus, the Social Security surplus. It is just a fact. They have already, in their wild spending spree here, like the aircraft carrier that the majority leader of the Senate wants and that the Pentagon does not want, they have already exceeded the budget. They have exceeded it. They have spent all the available money and the projected general fund surplus. So where is this emergency money coming from? The emergency money can only come from one place, either thin air, I suppose they could call downtown to Alan Greenspan and ask him to print up some million dollar bills, or it comes from Social Security. The Social Security surplus. They have already spent it. They have spent it in spades. And they are spending again and again. As these bills come to the floor, more and more things are declared emergencies. Let us talk about one other way they are spending it. There is this other kind of funny money out there. What is two plus two? Well, everybody knows. The gentleman can answer.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, actually H.R. 782, the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act which we have been awaiting for 4 years, had many other problems; and it is best that it was pulled. This is legislation that is vitally needed so we can better fund and prioritize programs for senior citizens. But the bill was going to take money from the Older American Employment programs, away from the efficient, the private nonprivate providers and dump it on State bureaucracies that have no track record and in fact where they do have a track record, one that is less effective and less efficient. It also was going to cut congregant meals for seniors under the theory that they should just stay home; it is cheaper to serve them there than to have them come to congregant meal sites, missing out on the vital socialization function and others things that go on there. It was a bad bill, and it is best that it was pulled. It needs more work before it comes to the floor of the House, and it should come under open rule so amendments can be offered. We have waited 4 years. It should not be under a closed procedure.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that today would be a day to celebrate. For 4 years, the Older Americans Act has languished in this House of Representatives. The authorization expired 4 years ago. We have been operating off of a continuing appropriations resolutions for 4 years. Because of that, there has been no inflation adjustment in many crucial programs for our senior citizens. Because of that, there has been no review and addition to the Older Americans Act of new programs to serve the vital needs of our seniors. I introduced bipartisan legislation the beginning of the session. We have more than half of the Members of this House of Representatives on that widely agreed-upon legislation. But now, in rather a bit of a surprise move, the Republican leadership is popping out an Older Americans Act revision to the floor, H.R. 782, under suspension of the rules, no amendments allowed, that is extraordinarily controversial. Why is it controversial? Well, because in a pique, in a pique, the Republican leadership is very angry with one of the many senior groups which participates in the Older Americans Act employment programs, the National Council of Senior Citizens, who regularly advocate for progressive issues for seniors, for prescription drug coverage and other things. Yes, they ding the Republican leadership and the Republicans a bit. So in a pique, to get at that one group that they hate, they are going to take and penalize all the other senior groups who actually do 90 percent of the senior employment and arbitrarily change the program. What are the Republicans, the party of small government, the party of the private sector, the party of charitable nonprofit groups going to do? They are going to rip money away from a very successful program being operated now by dozens of other senior groups and give it to the States. Well, one might say, what is wrong with that? Well, even in my own State, which is recognized as the leader on senior citizen issues, they are less efficient and less capable. They get fewer people placed for the same amount of money as the private nonprofit senior groups do. They get fewer people through this program. They serve a different clientele. Actually, the States serve the easier-to-serve clientele, the urban clientele, the more educated clientele than do the disbursed groups like Green Thumb and others who go into rural areas where the States do not have the capability of going. This is extraordinarily unfortunate that this bill should come forward in this form. It is going to come forward under the suspension of the rules. No amendments allowed. We could have at least had a fair fight over this issue. Given the fact that more than half of the House has cosponsored my legislation, bipartisan legislation, I believe we would have prevailed. But we will not be allowed to offer an amendment to this bill. There will be 40 minutes of debate. We have waited 4 years. Only the people who are running this House of Representatives after 4 years could deliver a turkey like this, a bill that is going to hurt senior citizens. Instead of helping them when this should have been a day to celebrate for America's senior citizens, it will be a day that we will look back upon and say how is it now that the Older Americans Act senior employment programs were destroyed, they were destroyed because a few people in the majority were mad at one senior group that gets a tiny fraction of the money under this bill. So they dumped money into State bureaucracies that were incapable of doing the job. That is a sad day. In addition to that, we find that the administration is very opposed to this. Perhaps they can even get this on to the veto list if they try hard enough. The Secretary of Labor has said that they find unacceptable the changes that were made to the Senior Community Service Employment program authorized under title 5 of the Older Americans Acts. We believe this change would significantly diminish the effectiveness of the Senior Community Service Employment programs. So why? Why are they doing this? It is so sad. Again, just to repeat one last time that, because they are angry at one senior citizen group that has advocated against some of their priorities, their misplaced priorities here, they going to penalize all the senior citizen groups, including Green Thumb, which has got one of the most successful employment programs for hard-to-serve rural low-income seniors in this country and provides vital services in thousands of communities across America. They are going to have millions of dollars ripped out of their budget and delivered to State bureaucracies that will not spend it as efficiently and perhaps will not be able to spend it at all. I urge people to oppose this bill under the suspension of the rules.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise strongly in support of her substitute. Mr. Chairman, violence against women and, even more horribly, violence against pregnant women deserves the attention of both Federal and State law enforcement authorities. Perpetrators should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. But I do not really believe, unless my colleagues support this amendment, that that is the issue before the House of Representatives today. There are a number of highly respected organizations nationally in my own State, and locally in some of my communities, who are concerned with violence against women and violence against women who are pregnant, violence against women and their children, violence within the families, yet, they are notably absent in their support or even having been consulted by the authors of this legislation. There are other groups in this country who are principally concerned, obsessively concerned with overturning the decision Roe versus Wade, a woman's right to choice. They are prominently involved in the drafting of the underlying legislation and in the endorsement of that and in the opposition to this amendment. This amendment, if my colleagues are concerned about violence against women, violence against pregnant women, violence against pregnant women that harms the fetus, then there is no reason to oppose this amendment. It would say we are going to have harsh Federal penalties for the few cases that are brought in Federal court. Remember, few of these are brought in Federal court. But if they are, if they rise to that level, harsh penalties just for the violence against women. If it causes any harm to the fetus, 20 years in Federal prison. No parole. If it causes the death of the fetus, it could lead to a life sentence without parole in Federal prison. Now, those are pretty darn harsh penalties. How can you oppose that? Unless the reason my colleagues are really here is a back-door attempt to repeal Roe versus Wade. Let us just be honest about it. Bring a constitutional amendment to the floor to repeal Roe versus Wade. The only problem with them doing that that honestly is that they know a majority of the American people do not support that. So, instead, under the guise of something that it is very difficult for anybody to oppose on the floor of the House, they are bringing forward this high-sounding argument that, well, there are these technical legal concerns about whether or not these people who could cause the death of a fetus will be adequately punished. Under this amendment, they will be dealt with harshly. Support the Lofgren amendment.