Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is, plain and simple, an attempt to obfuscate the facts. And for those around here who supported the balanced budget amendment, for those around here who are voting for these appropriations bills, slashing student loans, and they are going to cut Medicare, there are alternatives. The alternatives are to raise and maintain revenues. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues do not vote for this motion to instruct, they will be ceding another $15 billion of revenues, royalty giveaways, to companies that are full well prepared to make profits under the existing scheme, but they are happy to take an additional $15 billion of taxpayers' money. They are always happy to take more of the money that is due to the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, it is time to have true fiscal responsibility in this House, to stop BS'ing the people about the issue here. The issue is not development or nondevelopment or national security. We all agree they should be developed, but we do not need to give away $15 billion to do it.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, the Central Oregon and Pacific operates in my Oregon congressional district. The railroad also has informed me that it would seek a $10 million loan guarantee to rehabilitate the Coos Bay Railroad Bridge, if this program were continued. The Coos Bay Railroad Bridge is the line between Coos Bay and Eugene--including all points east, north, and south--and at present, the railroad hauls over 10,000 cars per year over the bridge. During the Southern Pacific's ownership of the bridge, it threatened to abandon service over this line due to the condition of the bridge. The Central Oregon and Pacific would like to continue service to and from Coos Bay, but to do so, the Coos Bay Bridge needs major rehabilitation. The railroad has pledged $600,000 to the project, if Federal loans money is available, and the State of Oregon plans to assist in the funding. If the railroad bridge were to fail, all of the traffic to and from Coos Bay would be diverted to the highway. This would put the existing highway bridge under enormous pressure. A lone guarantee to a private company is preferable to tens of millions of dollars in highway grants funds to rebuild highway infrastructure.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of vital amendments, and particularly the one relating to the Coast Guard, where we have quite a few speakers. If we could get 10 minutes per side for that one, or if the Chairman would want to accept the amendment, of course we would not have to debate it, or if the Chairman would want to cede some of his time, so we could get at least 10 minutes on our side, I would not object.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is not the same amendment that we voted on during the authorization. This deals both with small boat closures, small boat lifesaving closures, and the consolidation issues. It is paid for. It is budget neutral, which the Traficant amendment during the consideration of the authorization was not. This whole attempt on the part of the Coast Guard to jam through these closures is going to cost lives around the country. It is not well thought out. They told us they took into account the cold water conditions of the Pacific Northwest. All those things were in the parameters. No, they were not. When I asked for the data, in fact there were strangely some stations that met the parameters for closure but somehow fell off the final list. But mine were still on, as were others around the country. It is some politics going on here, folks. Politics are going to cost lives. They said, ``Well, don't worry. Whenever we downsize or close something, we'll put people at adjacent stations.'' I have a 200-mile section of coast where every Coast Guard station is being reduced or closed. Oregonians are going to drown. It happened in 1988 when the Bush administration closed those small boat stations. We had three deaths within a month. People are going to drown. You cannot tread water for 40 minutes in the North Pacific and live to wait for the rescue helicopter. We will pick up corpses with the rescue helicopters, not living citizens. Vote ``yes'' on this amendment. Save lives and cut bureaucracy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to question the procedure here. There are a number of us who had amendments relating to the O&M account and my question is, if this amendment is acceded to, does that preclude any further amendments to the Coast Guard O&M account?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my understanding is that there is some rule regarding revisiting an account once the number has been altered.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. If the Chairman agrees, then I would certainly not object to this amendment going forward.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings] for the generous grant of time. Mr. Speaker, I think there is broad agreement here on the problem: the egregious violations of human rights in China, the use of prison labor, the imprisonment of Harry Wu, a United States citizen, the unfair trade practices of China, those that make the Japanese look like proponents of Adam Smith and free trade, unfair trade practices that resulted last year in a $29 billion surplus with the United States, headed towards $40 billion trade surplus with the United States this year according to the Commerce Department. That means we are going to export 8 million United States jobs to China because of their unfair trade practices. We disagree over the solution. What does this resolution say? Intensify diplomatic initiatives. Well, we have been doing that every year now for about a decade. A report from the President. Well, we have been having reports from the President since the Reagan administration on the abuses in China. We know what they are, and it has not changed a bit, but there is one new, very serious, initiative. We are going to broadcast Radio Free Asia into China within 90 days. The geriatric oligarchy of China is quaking in their boots. Yes, they are quaking in their boots. We will not be allowed to vote on the resolution of disapproval. A quick sleight of hand is going to move to table it. Why is that happening? Because last night, for the first time, we saw a crack in the free-trade dogma that has dictated policy under both Democrats and Republicans in this institution in the vote on the bailout of Mexico, and suddenly, after the leaders, the Republican leaders and the Democratic administration, lost a vote on the bailout of Mexico which came to the floor, they do not want to allow a vote on the resolution of disapproval of MFN for China because they are afraid there might be an honest vote in this House where people would say we have been gumming this issue for years. The Chinese will take $40 billion in unfair trade practices and laugh all the way to the bank. They will only understand real action. Repeal MFN.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is a troubling moment for the House of Representatives. I would say that 95 percent of this House believed that we were going to have the opportunity to vote on an actual resolution of disapproval for MFN for China because of their human rights record, because of their unfair trade practices, because of their acting in concert with nuclear terrorists and in violation of the nonproliferation treaty. For a whole host of reasons, a large number of Members of the House wanted to vote on a straight up-or-down resolution of disapproval. That will not be allowed, Mr. Speaker. A deal was cut, we were not informed of this deal, it was not explicit in the rule, but a deal was cut. I found out about it this morning in a meeting over on the Senate side. They knew about it, but it certainly was not provided to Members of this body. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have to vote on a motion to table. Vote ``no'' on the motion to table. If Members want to vote up or down on MFN for China, if Members want to send something other than a meaningless message, they can paper it over all they want, but what did the resolution we just adopted do? Intensify diplomatic initiatives, for the 10th year in a row; a report from the President for the 10th year in a row about the abuse in China; but there is one new significant act, we are going to broadcast Radio-Free America into China, while they continue all the same unfair trade practices, the same repression of human rights, arresting of United States citizens, dealing with nuclear proliferation. That is all going to continue. All they want is the money. They do not care what we say. They do not care about empty words and gestures. They understand one thing: money and power. Did appeasement work in Bosnia? Do Members think appeasement is going to work any better with the oligarchy, the gerontocracy that runs China? No. We are going to get one vote. Vote against the motion to table. That is the only vote we will get on MFN.

Mr. DeFAZIO. The rule made specifically in order that a nondebatable motion to table be debatable, but not the resolution itself?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, if I understand the majority leader, he said on a nondebatable motion, there was some agreement to debate it, 10 minutes being allocated to two Members. I am wondering if that requires unanimous consent.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. A separate resolution?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, did I understand the Chair to say the bill is passed? Was there not a further pending vote on the resolution of disapproval?

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

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, perhaps a little review of the debate over the adoption of NAFTA would be in order at this point. There were many of us who stood on the floor and bitterly opposed the adoption of NAFTA, and one of the many points we made was that it was clear in the oligarchy that runs Mexico that they had artificially overvalued the peso in order to make them look a more attractive trading partner with more buying power. Now, we were wrong. We were wrong. I admit it. We said the peso was overvalued by 25 percent. The markets say the peso is at least overvalued by 40 percent, probably more, except the United States intervened in a bailout to save it. Now the free market would have found a value for the peso. This is free trade. Why do we not let free markets work? I suspect it is because of a whole heck of a lot of large investors on Wall Street. The 50 percent that are institutional, are not institutional, whichever it is, had billions of dollars on the line. They had only been making 40 and 50 percent interest. I can understand that the taxpayers should bail them out. These poor investors, 40, 50 percent interest. All my constituents are accustomed to getting that return in their savings account, and if their savings alone went down, they would expect to get bailed out if they had been getting 40 or 50 percent. Get all their capital back. Right? Right? No. Did not happen here. Should not happen there. We do not know who was invested in Mexico because Mexico will not tell us, and the United States government will not tell us. We are bailing them out with $20 billion of our taxpayers' money, and we are not entitled to get a list of the recipients. The New York Times had a really interesting graphic. They showed the flow of the money. The money went from the U.S. Treasury in Washington to the Federal depository institution in New York, and it went from there to the brokerage houses in New York, and it went from there offshore to the Bahamas into tax-free accounts. Who owns those tax-free accounts? Average Mexicans? Average Americans? People with their pension funds? No. Special interests, big investors, big-time Wall Street folks, international investors, and others. This is who we are bailing out. Nothing has changed. We had a Republican revolution. Nothing has changed. Nothing. Those same people are dictating the trade policy of this country, and when they could not jam a bill through the House of Representatives, even with the support of the Speaker of the House, they then pressured the administration and got them to cut a back room deal. And we still do not have the documents and the disclosure. What else would we spend $20 billion on without a vote, without the documents, without the disclosure, without knowing who the beneficiaries are? I do not think there is anything else that could go through this House. We spent hours debating the elevator operators' salary on this floor. $20 billion, colleagues. If you vote no on this amendment, there is one thing the people of your district will know. You have voted to endorse the back room deal, the bailout of Mexico. A vote no on this amendment is a vote to send the dough to Mexico with no accountability on the part of this House or on the part of the administration and no accountability to the taxpayers. Just remember that. If you vote yes, you are asking for accountability, and you are saying these sort of things should not happen without a vote of the elected representatives of the people. [[Page H 7222]] We do not commit our taxpayers' funds to bail out big investors and foreign interests without the consent of the duly elected representatives of the United States, or we should not. Vote for this amendment. Vote no, and you are voting to endorse the bailout.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we have been told that this is a success that has bolstered the dollar. Actually, if you remember, the dollar reached record lows versus the German mark and the Japanese yen about a month and a half ago, and many of the pundits said that there were three reasons. First was NAFTA, second was our U.S. deficit, and third was our international deficit. But they emphasized NAFTA. They said, we have inextricably, through the bailout, linked the U.S. dollar to the peso, we have linked our currency to the currency controlled in secret by an oligarchy, one that has been known to profit and artificially benefit billionaires in its own country and oppress its own people. The standard of living of the people of Mexico has dropped 40 percent since December. This is not a success. It is simple. If you are against the Mexican bailout, vote yes on Sanders. If you want to implicitly or explicitly take the only opportunity you will be offered this year to vote on this, if you want to endorse the bailout, vote no.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans have discovered the crisis in Medicare. We did not hear much about it last year when they stonewalled health care reform. We did not hear a thing about it during the contract in the first 100 days of the Congress or during the elections. Suddenly they have discovered it. We have got to cut $270 billion out of Medicare. That is the bottom line, they tell us. And these cuts are to be revealed on the 22d of September, not before, and adopted on the 1st of October; 8 or 9 days for debate, discussion, hearings. The largest changes ever in Medicare, in 8 days. Why 8 days? I think it is because what they are proposing. Beneficiaries who want to enroll in MediGap plans, they are going to penalize them. They are going to make them pay more for Medicare. They do not think you should have MediGap insurance, and the rich people do not need it, so why should average Americans? MediGap coverages would be prohibited from covering part B expenses. They would increase premiums for Medicare recipients, impose a 20- percent coinsurance on home health services, a 20-percent coinsurance on skilled nursing, a 20-percent coinsurance on clinical laboratory. [[Page H 7183]] This is what they are going to sneak through in 8 days. And now they are trying to cover their fannies.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, as the Republican revolution patters on about the audit of the House of Representatives, the economy is crumbling around us. It is business as usual in Washington, DC, or, rather, as usual, big business and Wall Street are dictating that we continue our failed trade policies with the enthusiastic support of the new Speaker and the new majority. We ran a record trade deficit in May. According to the Commerce Department, it was an $11.4 billion trade deficit. That means we exported 228,000 jobs to unfair trading partners around the world. What does the new majority have to say about that? Well, precious little, because they are too busy filling their campaign coffers with special trips to Wall Street rather than addressing the failed trade policy. Yes, this administration, the Clinton administration, has followed Reagan and Bush in this failure. But the new majority is doing nothing to change it. We need a new trade policy for this country, a policy that brings jobs home to America and protects our economy.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today we had the latest in a round of disastrous statistics relating to the United States trade policy. We ran a record 1-month trade deficit for May. We ran a near record with Mexico, over $1.5 billion. We are headed toward a $20 billion trade deficit with Mexico; $3.5 billion with that great bastion of democracy and capitalism, the People's Republic of China, a known terrorist nation, oppressing its own people, putting United States citizens in jail, dealing in nuclear weapons, and yet they still have most-favored- nation status. What is the response of the new Republican majority, the Republican revolution, those who were going to bring change to Washington, DC? Do they defy the established order, the order that has been imposed in Washington, DC, by Wall Street and the multinational corporations? Are they calling for a change in this disastrous trade policy? We are headed toward a $170 billion trade deficit this year. If we use our own Commerce Department's statistics, that would mean over 3 million American manufacturing, family-wage jobs will be exported from this country due to unfair foreign trade practices. True, the Clinton White House, Mickey Kantor, our Special Trade Representative, are complicit in this, also. In fact, they did something probably George Bush could not have done had he been reelected, that is, getting both NAFTA and GATT through the House of Representatives and signed into law. So we have complicity at the top on both sides, a complicity of silence. So much of the campaign contributions flow from the corporations that are doing so well, and so few of the campaign contributions flow from the workers and the communities that are being devastated by this trade policy, this export of technology, this export of jobs. It is time to admit that American trade policy is a failure. How can anybody look at a string of annual growing deficits in trade, every billion dollars meaning 20,000 lost jobs here in the United States of America and say this policy is successful? There is only one major power in the world we run a trade surplus with, and that is Great Britain, because they are crazier about following the edicts of an economist that has been dead more than 200 years, Adam Smith, than we are. They have opened more of their markets and their country to unfair trading practices than even the United States of America has done. Every other one of our major industry trading partners and our not- so-major trading partners, like Mexico, have figured it out. That is, that you should have a trade policy that creates wealth in your country, you should have a trade policy that raises wages in your country, you should have a trade policy that creates jobs in your country, you should have a trade policy set up so that you do not run annual account deficits to the tune of $160 billion which puts your currency at risk in the world markets. All of our trading partners have figured that out. The Japanese laugh at the things we do, the so-called concessions that the Clinton administration got on auto parts. Spark plugs still cost $8 in Japan, and the same spark plug produced in the United States of America still costs $1, and you cannot get that $1 spark plug into Japan or into a Japanese engine because they say theirs are different. They are not any different. What is different is they are protecting their industry, they are protecting their jobs, and we have done nothing to open those markets. The statistics we got today point to the further failure of that policy. It is time to begin thinking about a new trade policy for this country. I am urging my colleagues to look at and hopefully sign a letter which I am writing to the President, the Speaker of the House, the majority leader of the Senate and the minority leaders on both sides asking that we name a bipartisan commission to review and investigate our trade policy and formulate a policy that make sense as we guide this country into the next century. Mr. Speaker, we cannot go on forever piling $160 billion trade deficit on $160 billion trade deficit any more than we can go on piling $200 billion national deficit on deficit year in and year out. You have got to get your trade in balance the same way you have got to get your Federal budget in balance. It is time for a change. I urge Members to join me in this effort.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing H.R. 2019, with Representatives Barton, DeLay, Cox, Hinchey, Kingston, Furse, Pallone, Norton, Owens, Smith (NJ), Lipinski, Velazquez, Evans, Dellums, Deutsch, Frazer, and Hilliard, the Access to Medical Treatment Act. This legislation will allow greater freedom of choice in the realm of medical treatments by making alternative treatments more accessible to the public. The Access to Medical Treatment Act represents a significant departure from the current paternalistic practice of medicine. It is based on two beliefs about our current health care system: First, the system limits patients' choices of medical treatments to conventional modalities; and second, the system effectively discourages the development of alternative therapies that could help treat illnesses that often are unresponsive to conventional medicine. This act opens up the health care system and market, under controlled conditions, to informed consumers. There is a compelling need for this legislation. Health care reform requires more than just access to conventional treatments. Real reform examines the fundamental premise and framework of our current medical system. As we confront escalating medical costs and struggle to contain Medicare and Medicaid spending, alternative medicine provides some affordable, less invasive, and effective answers, especially in the areas of long term and chronic illnesses. Canada, Germany, France, and other G-7 and EEC countries know the value of alternative medicine. In fact, many of these countries view alternatives as traditional and essential to their health care systems. The lessons learned abroad show that alternatives can be successfully incorporated into mainstream medicine. It's time that we shift our health care paradigm from a model of disease maintenance to one of wellness, prevention, and holistic care. The New England Journal of Medicine reported in January 1993, that more than one-third of Americans used alternative, nonconventional medical treatments. Many Americans, suffering from chronic, debilitating, and life-threatening illnesses, are turning to alternative medical treatments. Unfortunately, our current health care system effectively eliminates access to nonharmful alternative medical treatments that may help patients, complement conventional treatments, contain costs, and generate new [[Page E 1425]] approaches to treating illness. Thousands of individuals abroad have legal access to these treatments. In an effort to protect the public, the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has effectively restricted the proliferation of alternative therapies. Only large pharmaceutical companies can afford the time and expense--over $100 million--currently required to gain FDA approval of a treatment. The FDA's process effectively excludes potentially innovative contributions by individual practitioners, scientists and smaller companies. Many alternative treatments are combinations of natural products; thus, they are ineligible for patents. Without a patent, companies cannot recover the investment needed for the FDA approval process. I have met many doctors who could better treat their patients with this legislation and many patients who desperately want more treatments available to them. Former Congressman Berkley Bedell knows firsthand the importance of this legislation and served as a catalyst for its development. Former Congressman Bedell used a treatment that was nothing more than the processed whey of cow's milk to treat his Lyme's disease when costly conventional methods failed. After 2 months of taking regular doses of this processed whey, his symptoms disappeared. He estimates that the total cost for this alternative treatment was no more than a few hundred dollars. He credits this inexpensive treatment for his recovery. Unfortunately, this and many other safe alternative treatments are not available to the public because they have not passed the FDA approval. Mr. Speaker, there are Berkley Bedells all across our country who are desperate for cures that conventional medicine simply does not seem to effectively provide. The Access to Medical Treatment Act gives patients the right to obtain nonharmful alternative treatments that have not been approved by the FDA from state authorized medical providers. The intent of this bill is merely to extend freedom of choice to medical consumers under controlled situations and grant individuals access to alternative treatments that are currently offlimits. Practitioners who now use alternative, nonharmful treatments risk losing their licenses for trying to help their patients with unconventional treatments. As with any effort to challenge the status quo there is skepticism about the implications of opening up the market to alternative treatments. We have worked hard to develop a bill that gives patients and their health care practitioners the freedom necessary to treat their illnesses while including the protections necessary to safeguard consumers from dangerous treatments and unqualified practitioners. It is not my intention to dismantle the FDA or to weaken its authority to regulate the safety and efficacy of most drugs in this country. This legislation does not attack the FDA for the valuable role it plays in helping America maintain a topnotch, high-quality health care system. Unfortunately, the expensive and extensive FDA approval process does prevent low-cost, alternative treatments from gaining access to the market. The FDA would remain solely responsible for protecting the health of the Nation from unsafe and impure drugs. Before a treatment receives the Government's stamp of approval and has a claim of efficacy attached, it must make it through the FDA approval process. This bill requires full disclosure to patients of the contents and possible side effects of treatments. In addition, the strict claims section in this bill mandates that patients are notified that the drug has not been proven safe or efficacious by the Federal Government. The medical treatments prescribed must have no evidence of causing an adverse impact on individuals' health. However, if any treatment is found to cause harm, the treatment must be immediately reported to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and then any practitioner who continues use of the treatment is not covered under this act. Finally, the greatest concern expressed about this proposal is the issue of consumer protection. This is an essential part of this legislation and I, as much as anyone, want to protect sick and vulnerable individuals from negligent charlatans who would prey on their misfortunes and fears for personal gain. The Access to Medical Treatment Act is armed with these protections. In order to protect consumers, this bill limits those qualified to administer treatments to State authorized medical providers who are working within their scope of practice. Most importantly, the bill strictly regulates the circumstances under which claims regarding the efficacy of a treatment can be made. It prohibits all advertising and labeling claims and any other claims by individuals for whom the underlying intent of promoting the treatment might be linked to personal financial gain. There can be no marketing of any treatment administered under this bill. This eliminates the incentive for anyone to attempt to use this bill as a bypass to the process of obtaining FDA approval. I want to protect consumer safety, but I also want to promote consumer freedom of choice. Individuals, especially those facing life threatening and debilitating illness, should have the option of trying alternative treatments so long as they are informed of possible side effects and there is no evidence that the treatment is harmful. Patients must be given the keys to steer the course of their health with the assistance of trained health care providers. Permitting the administration of and access to alternative medical treatment extends freedom of choice to the realm of medicine. Opening the health care system to alternative treatment can help patients, complement conventional treatments, contain costs, and generate new ways to treating illness. This choice is one for the consumer, not the Federal Government.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We have had quite a discussion of the need to cut, need to get the budget balanced, and as a supporter of the balanced budget amendment. I agree there. We have got to do it with a certain sense of priority. We have also got to realize there are two ways to get a balanced budget. One is to make cuts, and the other is to raise revenues. What this rule and consideration of this bill specifically prohibits is an egregious loophole which is being used by foreign corporations and by large corporations in America; that is, the giving away of the mineral lands of the western United States for $2.50 an acre. Just last year a Canadian corporation which pays no income taxes in the United States, they do pay some employee taxes, but no income taxes, got a $10 billion resource for $9,700. That is the return to the U.S. taxpayers. Now, if we are really serious, we would allow an amendment to this bill that would allow us to raise revenues to offset some of the unwise cuts in this budget. What are the unwise cuts? Well, for example, we are going to eliminate the Bureau of Mines of the United States of America at the same time that we are allowing foreign corporations to come here and buy our precious mineral resources at $2.50 an acre. We are eliminating the United States Bureau of Mines, something that has been in existence for more than 100 years, an agency that has already been reformed, an agency which has cut its budget 20 percent in the last 2 years, an agency which helps develop the conservative use of these mineral resources, the safe environmental use of these resources. They provide technical expertise to our small miners and prospectors. They work on safe extraction techniques for the people who work in the mines. They have developed restoration plans for bad mining practices that went on earlier in this century. They have developed ways to classify solid waste. They have developed ways to do in situ purification of heavily polluted waters. No, we are going to eliminate them. We are going to eliminate the United States Bureau of Mines because we would not want to ask a foreign corporation like American Barrick to pay the American taxpayers a fair return for the extraction of those depletable mineral revenues, and under this bill we will not be allowed to ask those foreign corporations to pay, no. We will eliminate an essential agency, a vital function, investment of the United States Government before we will ask a foreign corporation to pay a penny. We do not get the same privilege in their country. They should not get it for free here. We are cutting other vital investments in this bill. We are cutting investments in State and private forestry. We are cutting investments in the O and C lands in the Western United States. We are cutting investment in the National Forest System management. We do not have enough money now to develop the plan proposed by the administration to manage the Federal forest lands in the Western United States or to begin a deliberate program of forest health recovery across the lands that are ravaged in the inner Mountain States, in eastern Oregon, and other States. We need more investment, and it is the place to get it, but it is not allowed under this bill.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.