Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the language of the original amendment be changed on line 2 to not more than $28,097,000.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is unfortunate that the gentleman from New Mexico objected. What we see here is a last-ditch attempt to preserve a $10 million subsidy to western cattle and sheep ranchers. Half a million dollars of this money flows to my own State, so I am not just out there cutting in other people's States. Seventeen western States receive $10 million to conduct activities on predator control to protect livestock on private property at no expense to the landowner. Clearly a large majority of the House supported that amendment and that intent. As the gentleman from New Hampshire stated, due to a drafting error by Legislative Counsel, we may have cut more and may have extended the impact beyond that subsidy in the 17 western States to private livestock and ranching interests. So we have a number of opportunities here. The gentleman from New Hampshire attempted to insert one word, the word ``operations,'' to make absolutely clear what the 36-vote majority of the House intended at that time. I shortly will offer another opportunity to the chairman and would urge the chairman to take it, because I have got to inform Members at this point in time, despite the potential error, the groups that had vital interest in the original vote are no longer interested in the original vote. The scoring will be on the revote. Because even if the chairman objects, the inadvertent language problem can certainly be fixed in the conference committee. It was the clear intent of the House and a majority of this House to end this subsidy to private ranching interests while fully protecting public health and safety over a range of other issues that are conducted by APHIS out of its $500 million budget. I am going to in a moment give the chairman one more chance, because I know the chairman believes he will prevail and will be able to preserve the $10 million subsidy to the private ranching interests for one more year.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time and thank the gentleman. There are a plethora of ways that this could be fixed. The simplest way is by the insertion of the word ``operations'' which the chairman objected to. I am going to propose changing a number. That is one change in one number. That would fix the problem or any potential problem. If the chairman objects there, it could still be fixed in conference or with a technical correction later. That is correct. So clearly the revote, if it occurs, will be on whether or not the Members want to provide a $10 million subsidy to western cattle and ranching interests which I believe a clear majority stated yesterday they do not. That will be the vote that will be rated. Request for Modification to Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, there is a second program, and this is a little bit personal to my district. There is a program which the gentleman is familiar with, the National Guard Youth Challenge Program. It actually operates in Oregon in the district of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Bob Smith). But if the gentleman is aware of the tragic shooting that took place in the high school near my home in Springfield, rather sadly, the father of that youth was attempting on the day that he was killed to enroll the youth into the National Guard Youth Challenge Program, because it has such an incredible reputation in our State. They have put more than 500 at-risk youth through that program, and Major General Reese told me that only 4 of those youths out of 500 have committed crimes after going through that program. I realize that the administration only requested $28.5 million, and I certainly intend to put efforts into getting the administration to ask for more next year. I realize that the chairman has upped that by $10 million during the committee process. It is my great hope that the chairman can strive to reach, at least in conference, the $50 million level, which would maintain the current services. There are States, including that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) on the waiting list. I would hope, I know the chairman supports the program, I would hope that we can strive to at least make the program whole and perhaps get to some of the States on the waiting list in the near future.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. I would note that the Senate is at 62. If we did the usual sort of split the difference, we would come out a little over 50, which would make the program whole.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage the chairman for a moment in two very important programs in which I know the chairman has a great interest. The first is the DOD-VA medical research account. Last year the chairman graciously accepted my amendment on the floor to lift the amount of money invested in this program, a tremendous program dealing with Gulf War syndrome, traumatic nervous system injury, and other combat readiness and combat-related injuries to $15 million. Eleven million dollars is in the House bill. I would like to know the chairman's intention, if we can be assured that in the conference the chairman will strive to make the program whole so we at least can maintain current services.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I think we are reaching the end of this debate, and I appreciate the fact that the committee members allowed us to correct the drafting error by Legislative Counsel. That means we are going to have a straight up-or-down vote, the same vote that we took yesterday, the same issues, nothing has changed. Let us get a few facts straight. I serve on the Subcommittee on Aviation. I am certainly very concerned about bird strikes. We are not touching the money that goes to bird strikes. You can say, yes, since it is an appropriations bill, we cannot target the cut at one particular program, but we can certainly indicate where we want it to come. Ten million of the $28 million in this program is spent for livestock protection in 17 western States, including my own State who gets nearly half a million dollars from the Federal Government. So I am not just cutting in somebody else's backyard. I think this is a bad program, it is a waste of taxpayers' money. I do believe it constitutes a subsidy. It encourages the Federal Government, sends Federal employees on to private property to undertake lethal predator control, generally pretty indiscriminate lethal predator control efforts on private lands to theoretically protect those sheep or cattle from predation. Actually the losses due to lung disease, to birthing problems, to digestive problems are about 97 percent of the losses in the West. Three percent, according to our own animal damage control people, now called Wildlife Services, come from predation. So we are spending all this money for a few people on private lands to protect predation that is not really happening. I am puzzled by Secretary Glickman. Kansas has the most progressive program in the country. They pretty much stopped this program 10 years ago and they have an incredibly successful program with higher concentrations of coyotes than their neighboring States with very, very, very little loss because they have moved away from the indiscriminate lethal controls and gone to more effective methods, without the Federal subsidy. So why should the other 33 States and Members from the other 33 States pay for a subsidy to these western States, to these private interests in these States? I am puzzled by that. It is not public health and safety. If you go through the budget, if you took out $10 million out of the budget, you are right, Secretary Glickman if he wanted could say, ``Well, I'm going to teach them a lesson, I'm going to cut the money out of the airports and I'm going to put the money into the ineffective subsidized program on private lands.'' I do not believe they will do that. If we cut this $10 million, we will bring this wasteful program to an end. The other programs are all categorized. We have here the program for property, for human health, for crop, for natural resources, for forest and range protection, and even for aquaculture protection. Those all within the administration's budget get separate little line items. Now we are going after one program and one program only, and the total amount of money that goes into that program, $10 million, $10 million spent to protect private property for private purposes with very little contribution. In my State, zero is contributed by the beneficiaries. It is paid for by State taxpayers and Federal taxpayers. That situation occurs in other States. In some States indeed there is a share paid by some of the ranchers. They can certainly continue those activities on their own or in cooperation with their State if their State legislatures want to put up general fund money for these activities. But the Federal Government has no business being involved in this. Then to the issue of how many coyotes are running around the gentlewoman from Ohio's district or Los Angeles, that is true. This program has been going full bore for 60 years, and because they have not looked at the science and effective control methods, by going after and breaking up the alpha, killing the alphas and breaking up the packs, there are more coyotes now than there were 60 years ago before we spent hundreds of millions of dollars on these programs and hit a whole bunch of nontarget species. What we are doing is not working, it is time to admit it is not working. If the committee in its wisdom wanted to work through conference or something else and put this money totally into research or into more effective nonlethal methods, model the State program in Kansas, other things they could do, I would be supportive of that. But the point is this money is being wasted, it is ineffective, it does constitute a subsidy, and our colleagues should know that this will be the vote that will be scored, not the vote yesterday, this vote, the vote to reverse the vote. I would hope that Members would not within a 24-hour period, given the fact that nothing has changed, reverse their vote and reverse their position.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, what we are talking about here is plain and simple. A $10 million subsidy to private western ranching interests, some in my own district, so I am not cutting something in someone else's district. And to the gentleman from Texas, this is a 30 percent cut in the overall budget and it is only the funds identified by Animal Damage Control Wildlife Services as being used for the ineffective, subsidized, government-agent-run lethal predator control program in the western United States which has given us more coyotes today than when they started spending the money 60 years ago.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman, I support the nonlethal research that was going on at that facility. That is good research. The gentleman's State does not draw hardly any funds from the lethal predator control program. In fact, out of the $10 million spent in the western United States, his State only took $106,000. So Washington is being progressive. Mr. Chairman, I support the nonlethal, but that is not what this debate is about. The gentleman is off the point. This debate is about $10 million for ineffective, subsidized, indiscriminate lethal predator control, first response by Federal employees on private ranches for private profit. I do not know how to say it any more plainly than that. It is not about developing alternatives. There is plenty of money left in the budget to develop alternatives. There is plenty of money left to develop the programs that the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) reported. What we cut is $10 million, the subsidized funds, used for lethal predator control. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown). (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, in disagreeing with my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon, first, public health and safety is fully protected under this amendment. Crop protection could go forward. What we are targeting is ineffective, lethal, indiscriminate predator control by what is now called the Wildlife Service, and it used to be called Animal Damage Control. After 50 years, more than 50 years of their activity, there are more coyotes now than there were 50 years ago, because they are doing the wrong thing with their indiscriminate attack. We also have problems with rodents and ground squirrels and mice and all the other things that coyotes would predate upon, preferably to the larger livestock. We should follow the example of Kansas. Kansas is not sucking up $1 million of Federal money, like a lot of our other Midwestern and western States. They have instituted a State program which uses non- lethal methods, education, uses guard dogs, uses a whole bunch of other methods, much more effectively than their neighboring State of Oklahoma, which has a big coyote problem, or Wyoming, which has only half the density of coyotes, but again, much more predation. Kansas is leading the Nation in this, and they are doing it without a large Federal subsidy. This is a subsidy. It is welfare. In my own State of Oregon, $403,000 comes from the Federal Government, $270,00 from the State, and not a penny from the beneficiaries. Not one cent is spent on this predator control program by the beneficiaries. Who should be paying? Should the general fund taxpayers of the United States, should the general fund taxpayers of Oregon, or should those who benefit from the activities? We are not saying they cannot conduct these activities when they have a problem at their own expense, on their own property. We are saying it should not be indiscriminate, it should not be broadcast all across the West, and it should not be done by Federal agents with a subsidy. This has become a codependent welfare subsidy where Animal Damage Control, by the Wildlife Service, is forwarding their own jobs and their own prospects by inefficiently controlling the problem and not following the path which has been laid out by the Congress, which is in the past to say, look at nonlethal alternatives, look at more effective alternatives, because you are losing your so-called war on predators here. This is a taxpayer issue, it is an environmental issue. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, some Members might remember the rather confusing battle of the Fazio-DeFazio amendments last year. Unfortunately we will be deprived of that confusion in the future with the retirement of the gentleman from California. But the issue over which we disagreed will be before the Congress in future years. I have concerns in the way it is presented in the report language here. I decided to forgo an amendment this year since we are in limbo on the Animas-La Plata project; that is, it is not determined how or if it will go forward and in what form, so I decided not to come to the floor this year with an amendment to delete the funds. But what we find in the bill is language that says they should go ahead post haste with an alternative, whatever that might be, which of course is not authorized by law. Perhaps it would be the alternative advocated by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) who represents that district who has a bill, H.R. 3478, which has not even yet had a hearing. I think it would be most unusual and probably illegal for the Bureau of Reclamation to begin a project which has not even had a hearing in Congress, let alone being authorized. I would suggest that that language in the report should be, and probably will be, ignored by the administration. The point here, this project was not justifiable, the massive amount of money. It was being sold as settling the legitimate claims of the Ute Indian tribe. However, it was much, much more than that, many hundreds of millions of dollars more, and it was not going to deliver water to that tribe. So some alternatives have been proposed. No one has as of yet authorized any of those alternatives. One called Animas- La Plata Lite is favored by the gentleman who represents the district, but it has not been heard, it has not been voted on, it is not law, and you cannot lawfully spend money on that project. There are other alternatives that have been proposed. At some point, the committee of jurisdiction on which I sit, the authorizing committee, is going to have to hold hearings, puzzle through the potential alternatives, and come up with a solution which settles the legitimate claims of that tribe and protects the taxpayers at the same time. I do not believe we quite have that formula before us. Mr. Chairman, I am rising just to point out this language in the report. Since the language would order the Bureau to do something which is illegal, I assume that the language will not be quite worth the paper it is printed on. I look forward to future discussion of this issue in committee and on the floor of the House as we move forward to authorizing a fair and just settlement but something which also protects the Federal Treasury.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today we have the stealth plan to fix the system of taxation in America, to repeal the entire Tax Code. Well, not the entire Tax Code, not the most regressive part of the Tax Code. Seventy-two percent of the American people pay more in FICA taxes than they do income taxes to the Federal Government. Guess what? That 72 percent of the American people are left out of this phony election year proposal. But what is included, what we are going to repeal is the mortgage home deduction. That is the one, the one shelter, that middle income, working Americans have available to them is a deduction for the interest on their home mortgage. That is repealed. That is gone. We are also going to repeal that which provides for employer-provided health care and charitable deductions. Guess what? This stealth proposal is a dagger aimed right at the heart of working Americans under the guise of helping them. So once again, the Republicans can service the special interests that are doing so well under the current code, but want to do better under a new one.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that mischaracterization of my record? The gentleman will not yield? Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by this debate. If I listened correctly to the other side, they are saying that all of the fees in this resolution are unwarranted. Now, I guess I would be puzzled that they are saying that with regard to bank examination fees. Are they saying that the depositors who are getting miserable rates of interest and paying exorbitant credit card fees to the bank should also pay for the Federal regulation of the banks, or are they saying there should be no Federal regulation of the banks, like we tried with the savings and loan industry during the Reagan era? There is a fee for the registration of pesticides. Are they saying that the American people, average taxpayers, should pay for the evaluation of and the registration of the safety of pesticides, or are they saying we should have a pesticide industry that is totally unregulated by the Federal Government, creating and applying whatever it wants, wherever it wants, however it wants, and putting it in our water supply? I do not believe even the Republicans want to repeal those fees, nor do they believe average working Americans should pay fees for the profits of the pesticide industry or should pay fees for the profits of the banking industry. But even beyond that, I am extraordinarily puzzled by the inclusion of one of the most onerous fees to come out of Congress and the administration, in my opinion, in the last five years, and that is the fee for those of us who live in the West. Any time we want to drive on, park on, or recreate in our federally owned forests and BLM lands, we have to pay a fee. Now, the gentleman from New York is always fond of calling us to our consistency and talking about our past votes. I would like to know how the gentleman from New York voted on the two bills that created this fee, both passed by a Republican majority. H.R. 3019, the balanced budget down payment act, April 25, 1996, I believe the gentleman voted for it, although he would say perhaps he opposed that part. And I believe again the gentleman in all probability voted for H.R. 3610, the Interior appropriations conference report, which I opposed. Both of those bills created this onerous fee. They came from the proposal of the honorable gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) in this House of Representatives. This is an incredibly onerous fee on the people of the western United States, created by a Republican Congress, passed by a Republican Congress, never having been authorized by the committee on which I sit. That is an outrageous fee. So let us have some consistency around here.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is a very perilous path we tread. No one knows where this will lead, this vaguely worded amendment, not even the most well-intentioned supporter. There are more unanswered questions than there are answered questions. There is a presumption of whose religion it will be, and that presumption even goes further. It is a presumption that it will be a Christian religion, and it is a presumption on the part of many that it will be their form of Christian religion. That is not set by this. It can be any cult claiming to be a religion. Mr. Speaker, that happened to my State. We have a 20-day voter cutoff in our State because a cult, the Rajneeshis, tried to take over a school board, and we were afraid they would bus people in from outside the State to take over that school board and impose their cult on the children of that rural town. That would be allowed under this amendment. We will fight a pitched battle, community by community, county by county, State by State, over where the tax dollars will flow because this allows tax dollars to flow to private religious activities and institutions. And some support that. Despite the desperate straits of our public schools, some support that. But, guess what? This amendment also in all probability allows for the first time in our history the taxing of religious institutions. Now, I think many who support the tax dollars for private religious schools will be aghast when they receive a tax bill for their previously-exempt institutions. There are those who are proposing that somehow this is an answer to the violence in our schools. I live in Springfield, Oregon. No one is closer today to that question than I am. And those who bring forward the simplistic answer that if we only had had an established prayer in that school, a very conservative town that I live in, that we would not have had that violence, that is an insult. Mr. Speaker, this is a complex problem which goes to many things. This is not a simple solution. It raises more problems than it answers, and it potentially threatens the stability of this Nation. Do we want to be Bosnia? Do we want to be Northern Ireland? Do we want to be India and Pakistan and have a nuclear war over religious issues? Vote no on this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we all had many teachers during our years of education. Some of them were more important than others in assisting our understanding of the world and our place in it. For me, Dan Goldrich was one of the very few who stood head and shoulders above the rest. He helped me develop my ability to think critically and defy conventional wisdom when necessary. He is credentialed as a Professor of Political Science but he taught me much more. Often as I take to the Floor of the House of Representatives to debate issues of human rights, labor rights, international trade, the environment or U.S. foreign policy, Dan's lessons echo in my mind. Dan's teaching didn't end with my graduation from graduate school. He has continued to counsel and assist me during my political career. He has also constantly challenged me and many other former students by the example he sets as a tireless activist and humanitarian. Congratulations on your formal retirement to emeritus status! I fully expect that freedom from the demands of full time teaching will give Dan even more time and energy to inspire a whole new generation of activists who understand the struggle for sustainability, democracy and equity!

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, a tragic event has occurred in my congressional district, in my hometown; and I am requesting a leave of absence for Friday and the balance of the week, as the eyes of the country turn toward my hometown of Springfield where, early this morning, a number of students at Thurston High School were shot by a fellow student. Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. At this time, many, many questions remain about the circumstances of this horrible tragedy. But what we do know is that a terrible tragedy has occurred. I need to return to Oregon to be with my family and my community in this time of sorrow.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I think it is unfortunate that we are having and will have the debate tonight on the largest single expenditure of the government of the United States, late at night with virtually no Members in attendance. Further, it is unfortunate that as the bill moved forward, that there were two copies of the report on this bill available in the anteroom of the committee for the 435 Members of the Congress. If any Member wanted to attempt to develop an amendment, they could have gone down and sat in the anteroom and tried to pore through the hundreds of pages of the bill, because the amendments were due on Thursday and the reports were issued to the Members' offices today. I think that is equally unfortunate. And what we can expect from that is that many vital issues will not get the scrutiny that they should have on the floor of the House of Representatives or in the Congress. Procurement reform. No one can argue that the procurement system of the Pentagon works well. The scandals are still there. If it is not toilet seats, it is screwdrivers. If it is not screwdrivers, it is fasteners. If it is not fasteners, it is whole weapon systems that do not work. These things should be adequately reviewed. But profits come before efficiency, or even come before national security, and certainly come before the troops. We are not going to address effectively in this bill the fact that 15,000 enlisted families are eligible for food stamps in the military. The small across-the-board raise given in this bill is not going to boost those families up above that level. We are not going to effectively address the much more cost-effective alternative of the National Guard as an alternative to full-time standing military for the defense needs of our country. We are still going to short the National Guard in this bill. People say, well, there is not enough money to go around. Well, the Pentagon is spending a lot of time pushing some other big programs that are of dubious value, another generation of attack submarines. When the last one, Seawolf, was launched, a senior chief said, ``Now, if we could just find somebody to fight with.'' Well, now we are going to develop another generation of submarines, even more sophisticated, even though there are none as sophisticated as the last ones we are still launching. We are still going to invest $3.8 billion in ballistic missile defense, some of it oriented toward theater defense to defend our troops, but some of it still following the fantasy launched by Star Wars $50 billion ago with not yet one successful test. There will be no amendments on that issue here on the floor of the House. There will be very little discussion of that issue here on the floor of the House. These are things that deserve scrutiny. These are things that should have amendments oriented toward them. But the process that was adopted here, two reports available, amendments due by Thursday, reports issued today to Members, did not lead to that and the debate late at night does not either.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will yield.

Mr. DeFAZIO. That is an inaccurate statement.