Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I would first yield to the Honorable Richard Gephardt, the minority leader.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the minority leader, and I am very pleased myself to have the honor of welcoming the gentleman from Oregon, Earl Blumenauer, as the newest Member of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Oregon delegation. I have to say, in all honesty, I cannot think of a more highly qualified person to represent Oregon as a new Member in this body. He has a lengthy history of public service: He served in the Oregon Legislature, the Oregon Community College Board; he was a Multnomah County Commissioner at the same time I was a Lane County Commissioner, a tremendous experience and training to become a Member of Congress, to bring that local orientation with him; and he was on the Portland City Council. Throughout his 24 years of elected office, perhaps the thing he is best known for is he is a worker, a hard worker. In each position that he has held of public trust he has not only done the job that has been asked of him, he as taken on a leadership role, rolled up his sleeves and helped develop creative and workable solutions to problems at every level of government. He has not risen through the ranks of government by resting on his laurels on his past record; he is constantly working, learning, serving, and doing better. I know he will continue that commitment here in Congress, and I look forward to having his skill, knowledge, and energy to call upon and utilize as we work to do the people's business for the citizens of Oregon and our Nation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in response to the last gentleman, they are within 3.9 percent of the President's budget, but of course it erred on the side of increasing the rather generous allotment that the President has already made for these agencies, as though a fiscal crisis did not exist here in Washington. This is an extraordinary debate, and I think the burden goes to those who are defending against a 10-percent cut in a secret number that we cannot know. Now, a case can of course be made that it is a dangerous world and we need these various organizations, and they need and can spend productively every penny which has been allocated, even a 4- percent increase over and above the generous allotment requested by the President. But the burden does rest with the members of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence because they are overseers, they are the monitors, they are the protectors of the Constitution that says only Congress should appropriate funds and that it should know how much it is appropriating. I do not know. I have not gone to look at the secret number, because if I go and look at the secret number, then I cannot tell people what the secret number is, which I can read in the New York Times. But this is somehow protecting us against the threats of our enemies. What it is protecting us against is fiscal responsibility at these agencies. Now, wait a minute, the National Reconnaissance Agency, well, they did have a little problem. They built a building for some $300 or $400 million out at a shopping center, and Congress did not know about it. Perhaps the agency itself did not know about it or most parts of the agency did not know about it, because it keeps secrets from itself. This is the agency that monitors everything that goes on on Earth at all times. At this moment they are recording my conversation, if not by supersecret satellite, from CNN, where they get a good deal of their information. Now they are saying that they have found an extra $4 billion in their budget. Not to worry, $4 billion. We kill on the floor of the House of Congress, for a couple hundred thousand crummy dollars over here, and talk about welfare cheats and food stamp fraud and all that, and amounts of 10 or 20 or 30 thousands of dollars. But here is an agency that had $4 billion, more than the total appropriation of the FBI and the State Department for their general operations, and they just did not know it, and that does not need that. Never too much money. No; an extra $4 billion. I mean given the magnitude of their annual budget, secret number, we cannot know how much that is, they needed this $4 billion. They just did not know they had it and they did not know how to spend it. Now, there is something very, very wrong with this picture. They know everything that is going on. They are monitoring my speech on the floor, but they do not know how much money they have because they are so awash in funds, they cannot even be bothered to go out and buy a $39 software program to keep track of it. Now, that is absurd, absolutely absured, and to say that that agency cannot withstand a cut of 10 percent is indefensible. The burden lies on those who would defend it. They get $4 billion they have not been able to spend, they did not know they had, and now they cannot withstand a 10-percent cut of their annual budget, secret number, no one can know it. The Soviet Union might learn something from knowing how much we are spending on that agency. They will learn that we are spending more on these agencies than they are spending on their entire military budget, is what they will find. They will shake their head and wonder. Of course the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, and that has almost percolated down to some of these agencies. They have found that fact out and we will be getting a report on that soon. So I would rise in support of this amendment and say that the burden lies with those who would say an agency, just one of many, we do not know how much the others have lost or have an account that they have not spent. That is secret, too. But just one of our supersecret agencies had $4 billion it did not know it had, that it has not spent, and we are being told now it was a management reserve. If that was a management reserve there, how much is reserved at the other agencies? Do they really need this year's budget? Because maybe they should spend down the reserve a little bit, because they might be at an imprudent level.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I thank those speakers earlier in the well who said that this was an honest alternative and they said it was about the difference in priorities. Indeed it is. Let us talk about something that neither the Republicans on that side of the aisle, nor the sponsors of the other alternatives that will be offered today, want to discuss. Today in America, 73 percent of the foreign corporations doing business in our country pay no Federal income tax, none, zero; profitable, huge, multinational corporations. The U.S. Tax Code is full of credits and giveaways that actually encourage our firms to move overseas and move their jobs overseas. And guess what? The Republicans are saying that the middle-income taxpayers should carry the burden; they should subsidize the foreign mining corporations for removing billions of dollars of gold from our public lands in the West without paying 1 cent in royalties to the Federal Treasury. I am talking about the billions of dollars that the Federal Government gives to profitable corporations in the forms of subsidies, tax loopholes, outright gifts. And none of the other budgets on the floor today touch those giveaways. Darn right, we increase taxes. We are going to ask these corporate freeloaders to pay their fair share. Why do the other budgets not address this issue? Because both political parties are addicted to the corporate cash that fuels their campaigns. It is like the emperor's new clothes. Nobody will admit that the king is stark naked, and nobody around here will tell the truth to the American people about how thoroughly our political system has been bought and sold. There are two distinct paths to the balanced budget. On the one side we have the Republican budget and its pale shadows, the President's budget and its pale shadows, the President's budget and the Coalition budget. All of those budgets operate from the premise that military spending and corporate welfare are sacred cows that cannot be touched. The arithmetic is simple. If my colleagues will not cut the cold war military budget and they do not want to upset their corporate campaign contributors, they have no choice. So they have to cut Medicare, and they have to cut other vital social programs. The Republicans actually want to make the matter far worse because they want to increase military spending and give their wealthy friends a hefty tax cut. As a result, they make deep cuts in Medicare, education, the environment, and other programs the American people strongly support. We in the Progressive and Black Caucuses are offering the only genuine alternative to business as usual. We demand that foreign corporations doing business here get out of the wagon, as a famous gentleman on the other side of the aisle likes to say, and start pulling with the rest of us. We close loopholes and encourage job exports to the Far East and Mexico. We make foreign mining companies pay their fair share for valuable minerals they mine on our public lands. We have the guts to take on the biggest pork barrel in the Federal budget, the bloated spending at the Pentagon across the river. We protect Medicare without forcing hospitals out of business or making seniors pay more for their care. We increase Federal investment in education. Mr. Chairman, let's talk about something that none of the sponsors of any of the other budgets on the floor of this House want to discuss. Today in America 73 percent of the foreign corporations doing business on our shores pay no Federal income tax. None. The U.S. Tax Code is full of credits and giveaways that actually encourage U.S. firms to move jobs overseas. Middle-income taxpayers are being asked to subsidize foreign mining corporations who are removing billions of dollars worth of gold from our public lands without paying one cent in royalties to the U.S. Treasury. I am talking about the billions and billions of dollars that the Federal Government gives to profitable corporations in the form of subsidies, tax loopholes and outright gifts and none of the other budgets on the floor today touch those giveaways. Why? Because both political parties are addicted to the corporate cash that fuels their campaigns. It is like the emperor' new clothes: Nobody will admit the king is stark naked, and nobody around here will tell the truth to the American people about how thoroughly our political system has been bought and sold. There are two distinct paths to a balanced budget. On one side we have the Republican budget and its pale shadows, the President's budget, and the coalition budget. All of those budgets operate from the premise that military spending and corporate welfare are sacred cows that cannot be touched. The arithmetic is very simple. If they will not cut the cold war military budget and do not want to upset corporate campaign contributors, there is no choice but to make deep cuts in Medicare and other vital social programs. The Republicans actually make the matter far worse because they want to increase military spending and give their wealthy friends a hefty tax cut. As a result, they make deep cuts in Medicare, education, the environment, and other programs that the American people strongly support. We in the Progressive and Black Caucuses are offering the only genuine alternative to business-as-usual. We demand that foreign corporations doing business here get out of the wagon and start pulling with the rest of us. We close loopholes that encourage job exports to the Far East and Mexico. We made foreign mining companies pay their share for the valuable minerals they mine on our public lands. And we have the guts to take on the biggest pork barrel in the Federal budget, the Pentagon's bloated bank account. We protect Medicare without forcing hospitals out of business or making seniors pay more for their care. We increase Federal investment in education and job training to make American workers more competitive. We take care of veterans and we fully fund the war on crime. We can afford to do these things because we're willing to challenge the powers-that-be, the new class of corporate robber barons whose campaign contributions and private favors have so badly corrupted this nation's political system. This budget is a collaboration between the Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. Though I disagree with my colleagues in the Black Caucus who seek small increases in foreign aid, I believe we need to cut overseas assistance. This budget illustrates our priorities as well as any collaboration can. Our budget is the only proposal on the floor today that challenges the conventional wisdom in Washington, DC, and puts the interests of American working people first. I urge the House to adopt it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I do not have time to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will open up the rule again, I will bring one by.

Mr. DeFAZIO. All right, Mr. Speaker, I will yield if the gentleman does not use more than a minute.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I appreciate that there will not be an amendment on star wars. Here is a fantasy program created by Ronald Reagan that has spent over $40 billion. The total results are one phonied-up test over the Pacific Ocean, which the Pentagon admits it phonied up. It did not actually work. They blew it up with a detonator. And now we are going to go ahead with billions of dollars more. In fact, we are going to mandate deployment on an antimissile system. Which one? None of them work. Well, we do not know, but within 7 years we will deploy one for up to $40 billion or $50 billion. Probably it will not work and it is not needed. We have missile defense in this country. It worked against the greatest threat to this country's freedom and security, the Soviet Union, for 50 years. Mutually assured destruction. No Podunk third World terrorist nation is going to launch a missile at the United States of America that is identifiable because they know they would no longer exist. We do not need that kind of missile defense. We need defense against terrorist weapons. But we will not have the discussion about star wars here on the floor. That amendment will not be allowed. We are not going to have a discussion about the fact that the Department of Defense cannot account for $15 billion over the last 10 years. Now, if any other agency of government were missing $500,000, we would have special committees and investigations. Mr. Speaker, members should vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time. The debate thus far has been interesting. I would just like to reflect on what the House has been doing the last couple of days. We considered legislation regarding housing for tens of millions of Americans across the country and the assistance they might receive from the Federal Government. We spent over an hour and a half debating the issue of pets. Pets in public housing. But during the consideration of this bill there will not be 1 minute, there will not be 1 second spent on the issue of whether or not the United States of America should continue to acquire B-2 bombers, a weapon that is worth more than its weight in gold. Every single ounce of that plane is worth more than an ounce of gold. Not 1 minute will be spent on whether or not we should acquire additional B-2 bombers, a weapon system that even the Pentagon does not want. But that could not happen here on the floor. Now, the chairman will say, well, no one wanted to offer it. It was not offered because we all knew it was a done deal. The books were cooked and these kind of amendments were not going to be allowed. Why not have an open rule? The famous open rule, where we would consider any and all amendments offered by people legitimately elected.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I think those listening to the debate are perhaps becoming a bit confused. We have heard from the esteemed chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary how these secret agreements and the antitrust exemptions will lead to a freer market, more competition, benefit all shippers, particularly possibly maybe smaller shippers and others, and those who have been listening to the debate have heard the opposite from this side of the aisle. I guess that is a good argument to basically withdraw this bill and go back to the committee of jurisdiction on which I sit and hold a hearing. It would be nice to hear from the broad interests that are going to be impacted by this bill in some detail how they believe this will affect American ports, American shippers, American workers, and the American maritime industry, such as it is. But no hearings were held and none will be held before this bill is voted on. That is absurd, for something that has such a tremendous economic impact, or potential impact on this country. I respectfully disagree with the prior speakers on that side of the aisle. I believe that antitrust immunity linked to secret, nonpublished tariffs and rates will lead to an anticompetitive environment, an environment that is particularly to the disadvantage of small- and medium-sized shippers and the businesses which they serve. I believe that this will also bring about problems for medium-sized and smaller ports in America. I do not believe a country that concentrates all of its shipping in two or three large ports is a healthy nation, particularly a maritime nation such as the United States of America. So for those Members who represent States which contain medium-sized or smaller-sized ports, if they do not represent a megaport, this bill in all probability will deprive their port, their State, of vital interests and of carriage through those areas. That means job loss, competitive loss, competitive disadvantage for their States. Beyond that, I disagree also, Mr. Chairman, on the fact that this will somehow disadvantage the foreign cartels; to have antitrust immunity, and secret agreements, and no transparency, and no publication of rates and tariffs is somehow going to disadvantage foreign cartels, who are right now trying to drive American shippers out of business and trying to channel business through a few select ports. No, I do not believe this bill is going to help that situation. In fact, I believe it is going to make it worse. There is only one remedy. We can get the savings proposed here by eliminating the Maritime Commission. We can get the savings and the efficiency that underlie other parts of this bill, and we can maintain competition, maintain a viable environment for small shippers, medium shippers, small ports, medium ports if the bill is amended with the Oberstar amendment, which the chairman of the full committee objects to vehemently. Again, perhaps we could sort those differences out if we went back and held a hearing. But absent a hearing, I think we should act in a way that is prudent to protect America's interests and the diversity of interests in this country by adopting the Oberstar amendment. And absent the Oberstar amendment, I and many others will not support this legislation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as cosponsor of H.R. 2823.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, we have heard, I believe, some really interesting and creative accounting here with the chart from the chairman of the Committee on the Budget and the ranking member. They would have us believe that, over time and currently, that we are spending more than we collect in dedicated taxes to maintain the transportation infrastructure of our country, and they are most interested in balancing the budget and keeping the books straight. If that were true, then I am confused as to why the Committee on the Budget chairman and the ranking member are not supporting this bill. If it is true that we are now subsidizing these trust funds, I am willing to live with reality. Let us only spend the dedicated taxes that we take in that are levied on the people of the United States, in gas taxes and in ticket taxes and other taxes that support this infrastructure. Let us only spend that. I am willing to live with that. Are they? No, they are not, because in fact they are taking money out the back door to defray other expenses of the Federal Government. They are borrowing every penny that is accumulated in the trust fund balance, and it has been spent and replaced by IOU's. It is also interesting to me that in a Congress that is interested in growth and investment, that we do not have a little more discussion from some of those in opposition about what it means to spend money that is invested. If you spend money in a bridge, a highway, in mass transit, that money will provide economic benefits for decades to come. Yet we treat that the same as money spent for a one-time expenditure of something consumable and thrown away by the Federal Government. Does that make any sense? It makes no sense whatsoever. These funds are raised to be invested to improve the transportation and infrastructure of this country, and no one in this body can tell me or any other Member who is informed that we have met those needs, with bridges falling into the rivers and highways in disrepair and mass transit going unbuilt. We need to get these funds off-budget

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues think the current tax system is fair and equitable, then they will love this amendment. If they like the loopholes and tax giveaways in our Tax Code, they should embrace this constitutional amendment. Why? Because it will let the special interests and foreign corporations who are now getting a free ride under our loophole-ridden Tax Code stop any reforms from moving through Congress. Seventy-three percent of the foreign corporations doing business in the United States pay absolutely no Federal corporate income tax. This is a scandal, and the authors of this legislation want to keep it that way. They say that a minority of either the House or Senate should be able to stop tax reform that places a fair tax on foreign corporations doing business in the United States. Every year foreign corporations mine millions dollars of gold on Federal lands. They pay no royalties to the U.S. Treasury. This bill allows a minority of Members of the House or Senate to stymie any legislation placing a reasonable royalty on mining operations on Federal lands. The oil and gas industry seems to be doing just fine. Prices are rising at the gas pumps. Profits are up, stocks are increasing in value. Do they really need a $1.5 billion a year Federal tax subsidy? Do we need a constitutional amendment that protects their subsidies? They majority thinks so. This amendment has been cynically sold as tax relief for average Americans. Nothing could be further from the truth. This legislation makes certain that Members of Congress, whose campaigns are fueled by contributions from the oil industry and a host of other special interests, can protect their tax breaks, subsidies, and loopholes those special interests receive. Make no mistake about it, every dollar that the U.S. Tax Code dishes out in corporate tax loopholes comes straight out of the pockets of working people in this country. This cynical legislation ought to be called the Special Interest Tax Loophole and Corporate Welfare Protection Act. It is a desperate attempt to defend the status quo and make sure that working Americans pay while foreign corporations and special interests play.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the assault weapons ban was political theater by the Democrats. It was brought to the floor and passed because the President's pollster said it would be a hot issue for Democrats in the fall election. Repealing the ban is equally cynical political theater by the Republicans. The fact is that the assault weapons ban has done nothing to stem violent crime. By the same token, it has caused little or no significant inconvenience for gun owners. I saw no reason to enact the ban in the first place and voted against it; I see no reason to continue this debate over symbolic measures here today. I'll oppose this repeal effort for the same reason I opposed the ban in the first place: it is symbol over substance. What we do here today will have little effect on violent crime and little effect on the rights of lawful gun owners. After this meaningless debate is behind us, I'll continue to support the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And I'll continue my staunch support for measures that will stop violent crime and put criminals who use guns behind bars for a very long time. When the so-called assault weapons ban was first before the House, I voted against it. I said then and I'll say today that banning these weapons would do nothing to reduce violent crime in America. In fact, the ban didn't ban much of anything. Consider this: the assault weapons ban specifically prohibits sale of the Colt AR-15, which is capable of firing up to 30 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, each shot requiring a squeeze of the trigger. However, the bill specifically allows the continued sale of the Ruger Mini-14, which is capable of firing up to 30 rounds of .223 caliber ammunition, each shot requiring a squeeze of the trigger. The only difference between the two is that the Colt rifle looks more threatening. The ultimate irony, of course, is that the assault weapons ban didn't even make it illegal to sell AR-15's or any of the other weapons supposedly banned by the bill. It merely prohibited their future manufacture and made existing stocks more expensive. In January of this year a man walked into an office building in Portland, OR, carrying a supposedly banned AK-47. He shot two people and took a number of others hostage before being apprehended by the police. Thankfully, no one was killed. The story is interesting for two reasons. First, he was using a supposedly banned assault rifle that he had legally purchased in 1995--after the assault weapons ban took effect. Second, he could just as easily have been using an equally dangerous rifle like the Ruger Mini-14, which was not banned by the so- called assault weapons ban. If this repeal is adopted today, next year or the year after another ban will be offered that could be even more intrusive to legitimate gun owners. So let's quit kidding the American people into thinking this charade means anything. The debate here today is about people's emotions, not about measures that will actually reduce violent crime. First, our system of justice must provide stiff sentences for criminals who use guns and for multiple violent offenders. Our communities desperately need more police on the streets. Unfortunately, Republican leaders are doing everything they can to cut funding we passed to put 100,000 new cops on the street. Equally important, however, is a commitment to early intervention and prevention for at-risk youth. Until we as a society can begin to undo the harm that has been done to the hopes of millions of Americans, violent crime will almost certainly continue to plague us. Let's do the people's business here and quit playing these cynical political games. Let's stop the debate over symbol and move on to substance.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, the so-called ban has been neither the Armageddon for gun owners that was predicted during last year's debate nor the panacea for the problem of violent crime in America predicted by the advocates. The truth is, it did not ban much of anything, not the sale, only the future manufacture of a few weapons, chosen for cosmetic reasons. And even if it was not a real ban, have we not learned that prohibition does not work well in America? That is it. I did not support the ban, because I said it would have little or no effect, it was symbolic; nor will I support the repeal here today and trigger an endless series of debates on this issue, while this House avoids the real debate on the real issues that bring violent crime to the streets of America. Where are the 100,000 new cops? The majority will not give us the 100,000 new police in America. They say we cannot afford it. Where are the prevention programs, so we do not have another generation of dangerous criminals in America? They have been eliminated by the new majority. Those are the things we should be debating here today on the floor, and this debate distracts from that.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, our national policy regarding immigration is overdue for change. We need to balance our proud history of diversity with the economic reality of high national unemployment and over-burdened social services. We must consider reforms that address the needs of U.S. citizens first and recognize the fiscal reality of Federal and State government. Congress is now considering a major proposal to dramatically change our Nation's immigration policy. I support the goal of ending illegal immigration. But I also believe we must reduce the number of people legally immigrating to our Nation. We simply cannot hold the door open for every one of the world's dissatisfied citizens. Continued high immigration hurts our environment, it hurts our low wage workers and it is increasingly hurting higher skill and higher wage workers, as well. High levels of immigration may have been a boon to our Nation at one time. They have ceased to make any sense today. Representative Berman has proposed an amendment to strike the legal immigration provisions of the bill. I'm concerned that if we eliminate the attempt in this bill to reform the Nation's legal immigration policy--as flawed as this bill's legal immigration reforms may be--the impetus for reform will die. I, therefore, cannot support his amendment. I'll continue to work for tighter borders and responsible immigration control, and press for strong protection for our Nations work force.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership is wrong to make the continuing resolution a Christmas tree bill. They have done Americans a tremendous disservice by dressing up bad legislation by attaching emergency flood assistance and other necessary pieces of legislative business. As a member of the delegation from Oregon, I take personal offense at this underhanded parliamentary maneuver. Parts of my State were devastated by floodwaters. Tens of thousands of people were evacuated from their homes. I flew by helicopter over towns that were completely ravaged by flood waters. The administration and northwest Democrats and Republicans have worked to put together a package of flood assistance for these people. I receive calls from Oregonians on a daily basis who are depending on this flood assistance to rebuild homes and businesses, fix washed-out highways, and clean drinking water. I have to vote ``no'' on this legislation, however, because it is a bad bill that hurts working Americans. The Republican leadership is trying to accomplish by stealth what it couldn't accomplish by shutting down the Government. This bill takes a knife to school funding, heating assistance for senior citizens, veterans programs, affordable housing, job-training and dislocated worker assistance, and worker safety protection. This bill is evidence that the so-called Republican revolution is still about helping the wealthy and large corporations at the expense of working and middle-class Americans. I am particularly concerned about the Republican leadership's continued attack on the environment. Today's measure deeply cuts funding for the Environmental Protection Agency--cuts that will result in less teeth in the enforcement of environmental laws in every community in the country. According to the EPA, these cuts have already had an impact in the Northwest by shutting down work at Superfund sites, halting efforts to bring safe water supplies to rural communities with contaminated water sources, ending measures keep pollutants away from salmon habitat, and halting a host of other ongoing environmental protection efforts. This is an antienvironment bill written by an antienvironment Republican leadership that jeopardizes the clean air and clean water that all Americans take for granted. And as if misplaced cuts and attacks on the environment weren't enough, the antichoice forces in Congress have once again hijacked legislation in Congress to suit their own agenda. Hidden within this government-funding bill are provisions that would deny lower income women the right to choose. It's shameful that those whose views on choice are at odds with the overwhelming majority of the American people have now lowered themselves to legislative trickery to advance their cause. Mr. Chairman, the legislative process was not meant to work this way. I urge the majority to let the emergency flood assistance be voted on separately--apart from the continuing resolution--so that Oregonians affected by the flood can be given a fair shot at rebuilding their lives and communities.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I certainly deplore the Cuban Government's decision to shoot down unarmed civilian aircraft. It was unconscionable and outrageous. However, our Government bears some blame for failing to fulfill its obligation to keep U.S. civilian aircraft from conducting harassing raids into foreign airspace from U.S. soil. But that's not the issue here. The issue is what kind of policy will bring Cuba into the fold of democratic nations. In this case, United States foreign policy has been hijacked by a small population of right-wing Cuban exiles in Miami. The bill before us represents a complete surrender to these extremists by the President and congressional leaders. I urge my colleagues to reject it, though I know they will not. This bill will do nothing to encourage Cuba's transition to democracy. In fact, the opposite will be the case. By continuing and tightening the fruitless embargo against Cuba, we are strengthening the Castro regime's only remaining claim to legitimacy. The losers are the Cuban people. The winners are Castro and his henchmen--who will remain in power not only in spite of but because of the embargo--and United States politicians eager to pander to the Cuban exile vote in Florida. The contrast between United States policy toward Cuba and our Government's stance toward the brutal and geriatric communist leaders of China is stark. Despite China's well-documented human rights abuses, its unfair trade practices and its policy of exporting dangerous arms to terrorist regimes around the world, this Congress and the President insist on giving China favored nation trade status. Chinese belligerence and intransigence is not only tolerated by our Government, but rewarded. Yet the impoverished nation of Cuba is deemed to be such a threat to our shores that the most punitive sanctions are justified. This bill is hypocrisy and pandering at its worst. It should be rejected.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I wish to voice my strong disapproval with the French Government's nuclear testing program. I join with many of my colleagues--and most the world community--in protesting the detonation of six French nuclear weapons in the South Pacific. That is why I am joining the congressional boycott of the French President's visit to Congress. French President Jacques Chirac will appear February 1 before a joint session of Congress. I can not of good conscience attend. France and the United States have a proud relationship of cooperation extending back to the beginning of our Nation. However, France's conduct in the South Pacific can not be justified. Exploding nuclear weapons in pursuit of further weapons development contradicts the view of 175 nations--including France and the United States--who signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also needlessly endangers the environment and people of the region. Just last week, France acknowledged the presence of radioactive iodine in the lagoon near the Mururoa test site. Despite their declaration that the tests blast are perfectly safe, we have no way to know if this is true. Since the French Government refuses to allow independent assessment of the environmental impact of these nuclear explosions, I must remain suspicious. Are the people who live in the South Pacific threatened by nuclear poison in their region of the world? What will the ecological and human health threats 10, 20, or a 100 years from now? Although the Clinton administration has officially denounced the French nuclear testing program, its actions hardly match its rhetoric. I urge the White House to put real pressure on the Chirac government. Let us not forget our responsibility in this matter: the United States has long supported the French nuclear weapons program. I must take special exception to the U.S. decision to allow French military aircraft to flying to the South Pacific test site the use of U.S. airspace. How can the world take seriously a United States criticism of the French nuclear weapons testing program when the United States refuse to take even the most basic action to resist the French action. The only assurance Congress can get from the U.S. State Department is that no nuclear materials are being transported ``according to the best of our knowledge.'' This hardly represents strong scrutiny by our Government. Now that the French Government has ended its series of nuclear detonations, I call on President Chirac to firmly commit his nation to end all future test. At the very least, France should declare the permanent closing of the South Pacific test site. France should also clean up the nuclear mess if left behind and allow independent monitoring the area. It is the least they can do for the South Pacific peoples who will have to live with the legacy of decades of nuclear weapons testing. The rationale for nuclear testing ran out years ago. If the world governments won't stop this cold war relic now, then when? I look forward to the recognition by France that their ongoing nuclear weapons testing program was simply wrong. Perhaps we can now move toward a international ban on all future such explosive tests. The United States must continue to press for a comprehensive ban on all such future nuclear test explosions. And France must become an active player in these negotiations. It is my hope that a change in the behavior of France's Government will allow me to participate in Mr. Chirac's next visit to Congress. I also look forward to a successful conclusion to the ongoing comprehensive nuclear talks so the world can take an important step toward nuclear disarmament.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we have made a little progress here today. We can balance the budget of the Federal Government in 7 years; we can bring fiscal responsibility to Washington, DC. I myself have drawn up a detailed budget. It is going to require some tough choices. But, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to abandon goodies like huge tax cuts. We are going to have to go after corporate welfare and subsidies. We are going to have to reduce agriculture subsidies. We are going to have to go after the sacrosanct Pentagon and eliminate useless weapons like the B-2 bomber and star wars. There are a number of other places where tough choices are going to have to be made. But in order to get there, we do not need to punish Federal employees and their families. We should stop doing that. Mr. Speaker, we have made some progress on that today with a temporary resolution to put people back to work. There is a question of whether or not those employees, when they go back to their places of work, are going to have the resources they need to do their jobs. That may be resolved later this evening. So, perhaps in addition to stopping the punishment of employees, we can stop the punishment of taxpayers. Put the Government back to work and Congress and the White House can get down to its job of balancing the budget.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, just a few short days before Christmas and during the observance of Hanukkah, to denounce the welfare reform conference report as antifamily, antichildren, and the most dramatic illustration of the cruel agenda of the House Republicans. In this time of giving and caring, of family togetherness, it is simply unconscionable that we are considering legislation that will ultimately deprive children, the elderly, and low income families in this country of the most basic human needs--food, healthcare, and protection from abuse. What has happened to this country's priorities? Last month, Congress approved a $245 billion tax cut that primarily benefits wealthy Americans and profitable corporations. Just last week Congress passed legislation authorizing $260 billion in defense spending, including funds for more B-2 bombers, at $2 billion each, which the Pentagon does not want. Today the House authorized $28 billion for intelligence operations. I am unalterably opposed to this irresponsible welfare reform proposal. The plan punishes our country's poor families and children while doing nothing to move them off welfare and into family-wage jobs. The conference report pretends that if we punish the poor, the problem of welfare dependency will somehow go away. The conference report reduces funding for education and job training and provides insufficient funding for child care--the very tools that enable people to leave welfare and become self-sufficient. In a nation facing unemployment rates of 5.6 percent, this legislation will not prepare welfare recipients for family-wage jobs and self-sufficiency. Instead, it sets an arbitrary time limit of anywhere from 2 to 5 years in which people who have been given no opportunity to succeed are permanently barred from assistance. Welfare needs reform, but we must give individuals real opportunities for success. The Republican leadership argues that welfare eats up our entire Federal budget. In fact, we spend 1 percent of our total budget on Aid to Families With Dependent Children--$16 billion. That's about the same amount the Republican leadership proposes to spend on foreign aid. By conservative estimates, we will spend about $570 billion over the next 5 years on corporate welfare for large profitable corporations, many of which are foreign owned. In contrast, the welfare reform conference report will cut anywhere between $60 and $80 billion over the next 7 years in a variety of public welfare programs--we don't know exactly how much, because we haven't been able to see the final report. We do know who will feel the burden of these cuts. It is our Nation's children, Mr. Speaker. In the United States in 1992 children made up 67 percent of all welfare recipients. That year, slightly more than 9 million children received cash assistance from Aid to Families with Dependent Children [AFDC]. It is these children who will face the terrible consequences if this bill is enacted. What will happen to these children if their parents are denied assistance? Will America look more like Calcutta in 7 years? Is that what Americans want. We have heard that if families are forced off welfare, they will still have access to healthcare and food stamps. However, the conference report eliminates the current guarantee of Medicaid coverage for AFDC recipients, as well as children receiving foster care and adoption assistance. In addition, nearly half of the cuts in this bill come from the Food Stamp Program. Republicans have been assuring us all along that they're maintaining the basic noncash safety net for children of food stamps and Medicaid. Now we see the reality behind the rhetoric. This is a mean-spirited attack on the poor which will increase child hunger and deny children access to health care. I would like to close with some passages from that cherished Christmas story, ``A Christmas Carol,'' as spoken by the character, Ebenezer Scrooge: Are there no prisons, no workhouses? . . . I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support these establishments and they cost enough and those who are badly off must go there . . . It is enough for a man to understand his own business and not interfere with other people's. Sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? You have heard almost identical statements from the Republicans throughout the past year. All ends well in this story of Christmas past and Scrooge mends his ways. I call on my colleagues to follow this example and reject this mean-spirited legislation for the sake of our Nation's children.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Dornan proposal. Mr. Speaker, I stand in reluctant opposition to the legislation by the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] to cut off funding for United States armed forces already on the ground in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The basic problem is this: the President has already placed United States troops on the ground in Bosnia. That is a fact, though I maintain that he had no proper constitutional authority to do so without advance congressional authorization. But despite my opposition to this policy, I believe we owe those troops our support and our blessing. Therefore, in this instance, I will reluctantly oppose Mr. Dornan's resolution and support the resolution offered by Mr. Buyer which once again expresses our disapproval of the President's policy, but stands behind the well-being and safety of our young men and women in the Armed Forces. The sorry chain of events leading up to this vote only serves to underscore the need to revamp the legal relationship between the White House and Congress in matters of war and peace. I've introduced legislation to reassert Congress' constitutional authority to place troops into war or warlike situations. The key to my legislation is a binding requirement for prior congressional authorization for the use of U.S. forces in hostilities except in those cases where the President must act to protect the United States, its troops, citizens, or territories abroad. Until we in Congress act to reaffirm our prerogatives, we will find ourselves faced with this kind of Hobson's choice again and again. Frankly, I do not believe this peace accord will succeed in the long run, though I pray it will at least stop the blood letting for awhile. We are dealing here with an ethnic and religious war that is hundreds of years old. The best intentions of the Western powers are not likely to cool the flames of hatred in the region. Furthermore, our Nation should not assume the lion's share of the financial burden and military risk in this attempt to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. For more than 40 years, the United States has provided for the security of Europe. We have spent as much as $100 billion each year to protect the European democracies from the threats posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. It's time for the European community to own up to its responsibilities and take up its share of the burden.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, December 5, 1995, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 837. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.'' This vote was on passage of H.R. 2684, the Senior Citizens Right to Work Act of 1995. I am pleased to voice my support for H.R. 2684 which will allow our senior citizens to appropriately supplement their income during retirement. Social Security was intended to be supplemented in retirement by pension and asset income. However, under current law, individuals aged 65 to 69 years old with earnings above $11,280 lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $3 earned. Coupled with standard income taxes and other payroll taxes, this amounts to an overall tax rate of over 70 percent for many of the Nation's working elderly--more than double the rate paid by the wealthiest individuals in America. I am also pleased that this legislation was brought up as a stand- alone bill, rather than as a provision in the Republicans' budget reconciliation package, which I strongly opposed. In fact, the budget reconciliation package will make this legislation even more vital for America's seniors because the budget package will increase out-of- pocket costs for average Social Security recipients. With their budgets further strained by these increased costs, seniors will need extra earnings just to keep up in the new Republican reality. I urge prompt enactment of H.R. 2684. Our economy needs older workers. Older Americans deserve the opportunity to continue to enjoy meaningful employment. Last year, Congress eliminated the mandatory retirement age. This year, Congress must act to eliminate this discriminatory policy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the securities litigation conference report. The laws governing securities litigation can certainly stand to be improved, but the language of this conference report does much more harm than good. This legislation--written by and for the large securities firms--is antismall investor and antiworking family. The conference report reduces consumers protection. An investors ability and right to sue unscrupulous securities firms should not be stifled or circumscribed by Congress. For example, the language includes a sweeping loser-pays provision that will make it extremely difficult for anyone without a multimillion-dollar trust fund to challenge a large corporation in court. Supporters of this legislation claim that there is an explosion of frivolous suits. The fact is that the number of securities class action suits has shrunk over the past 20 years. During the last several years, suits have been filed against only 120 companies annually--out of over 14,000 public corporations reporting to the SEC. I cannot support this legislation. This conference report goes against the interests of working people and small investors. I sincerely hope that the President will veto this legislation so that Congress can then enact true reform of our Nation's securities litigation laws.