Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this goes to the ultimate commitment of $700 million of Federal taxpayer money. The Committee on Appropriations in its wisdom saw fit to add $5 million to the administration's request on the Animas-La [[Page H 6793]] Plata project. The administration asked to continue studies and planning for the Animas-La Plata project, a potential $701 million Federal obligation. The committee has added $5 million to actually begin construction, that is, make an irrevocable commitment to go forward. I would suggest that this is poor timing. We have a report from the inspector general of the Department of Interior dated July 1994 which finds that this project is not economically justified. Further, the report of the inspector general says, Inform the Congress of the economic and financial viability of the Animas-La Plate project based on the results of the reevaluation. If warranted, the commissioner should seek congressional approval for restructuring the project to limit the size and scope of the project to only those water supply functions that are either economically or financially viable or required under the terms of the Colorado Ute Indian Water Right Settlement Act. Mr. Chairman, that report has been prepared. We know the numbers. It is being concealed downtown, withheld, by the Clinton administration. They have twice withheld release of this report, delayed release of this report, and were prepared to release it this week, but are now going to withhold until after we take this vote. The last evaluation said that this had a cost-benefit ratio of 0.6 to 1, colleagues--$701 million of Federal money, and we will get back a return of 0.6. According to the rules of the Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, the project should not go forward. On a per acre cost, the irrigation will be $7,664 per acre, and the repayment will be $303. We would be better to buy out those irrigators or to give them half that amount of money, rather than spending all of this Federal money. This is a project born in a very different time: Cheap power, cheap water subsidies to agriculture, limitless Federal resources. It was first authorized in 1968. Times have changed, and so should this project. If we appropriate this additional $5 million and make an irrevocable commitment, begin to turn dirt, you all know how difficult it will be next year to revisit this after we get the new report from the Department of Interior, which is rumored to have lowered the cost- benefit ratio from 0.6 to 1 to 0.36 to 1. That is 36 cents on the dollar returned, in the most generous terms, to the Federal taxpayers for this project. We should take out this $5 million. It will not kill the project, and it allows continued planning and evaluation and allows us to look for cheaper alternatives. There will still be $5 million in the bill for the project. But then we will have the benefit of the report from the inspector general, the new cost-benefit analysis, and perhaps have an opportunity to review less costly alternatives next year before we make this irrevocable commitment. It does not make sense to go forward now and commit this Congress and the taxpayers of this country to a $701 million project, when less expensive alternatives are available and when this does not provide a position cost-benefit analysis to the American taxpayers. Beyond that, it is particularly outrageous to go forward, when the Clinton administration is concealing a very, very negative report downtown, and they are going to release it just after we vote. If you vote to keep these funds in the bill, you will be very embarrassed next week when they finally release that report and show the benefit to be 0.36 to 1, 36 cents on the dollar to the Federal taxpayers.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to reopen title II for the purposes of an amendment which I have at the desk, and that the debate be limited, as per prior agreement, to 5 minutes per side.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, that is the understanding.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time this week debating the Federal budget. I believe all Members can agree on the need to eliminate unjustifiable spending. At least one item in the Department of Defense budget falls into this category: the Pentagon's huge fleet of VIP aircraft. I have joined with 10 of my colleagues in introducing legislation to sell off some of these ``generals' jets,'' which would result in a budget savings of at least $130 to $200 million a year. The Department of Defense has a fleet of about 600 aircraft that are used to transport senior military personnel and civilian officials. About 500 fixed-wing planes and 100 helicopters perform administrative support missions. These aircraft do not include the Presidential aircraft, the 89th Military Airlift Wing, such as Air Force One, nor are they used for operational transport of troops. Rather, they are used for airlift transportation in support of command, installation, or management functions. The General Accounting Office found that size of the administrative aircraft fleet--often called Operational Support Aircraft--far exceeds the wartime requirements, even according to the Pentagon's own estimates. Only 48 OSA were used ``in theater'' during the gulf war. This suggests that OSA aircraft's main role is not wartime, but peacetime. Even in the United States, the gulf war saw the services using much less than one-half of their inventory. The Commission on Roles and Missions also recommended reducing the size of the OSA fleet. In 1993, the Joint Chiefs report concluded that OSA inventories exceed wartime requirements. The Air Force concurred with the Joint Chiefs in 1994. However, nothing has yet been done to eliminate the excess aircraft. The public first heard about the aircraft issue last fall when a high-ranking Air Force general made a very expensive flight from Italy to Colorado. Although the flight was made for administrative purposes, and much less expensive commercial flights were available, a single general and his aide spent more than $100,000 for the trip. The Air Force is even using their OSA planes to fly Air Force cadets to Hawaii to watch football games. Perks at the Pentagon are no more justifiable than perks in any other agency of the Federal Government. If Congress is to have any hope of balancing the budget during the coming decade, we must focus our attention on reducing budget outlays. This means ending some programs that have little justification. Our bill would offer the American people significant reduction in spending that could either reduce the Federal debt or fund other, more critical spending priorities. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in bringing high-flying generals down to Earth. Let's save taxpayer dollars by paring this Pentagon perk.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. And I have read it.

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

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I think it behooves us as legislators, knowing there are many subtleties and words, to have before us the actual language, the laws that are being waived, the laws that are being superseded, the new standards that will be imposed, and the objectives before we vote. The gentleman derided me, the gentleman from Louisiana, for I have read the bill, and I voted against the original rescissions bill. I have read the language that was available an hour ago. I have talked to the chief of the Forest Service as recently as an hour ago. But there is language now that has come since that time that is not available in print.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I have read that, if the gentleman will yield?

Mr. DeFAZIO. We need a thoughtful forest health program. We have a forest health crisis in the Western United States caused by mismanagement, and that would include some salvage, but we are being asked to accept a pig in a poke. We are being told that the Democrat administration has entered into a secret agreement not available in writing with the Republican majority which we are going to be asked to vote on within 15 minutes here in the House of Representatives. I am being asked to accept on good faith that this is something that will both protect the environment and do what we need for forest health and salvage in the Western United States, but it is not available in writing. This is an outrage, this is an extraordinary outrage. I do not know how many times I heard from the minority on that side last year, ``You can't make us vote on something we haven't read.'' We have not read this. This is not available to us. It is not available to us either through the Democratic administration, nor the Republican majority. That is absurd. No one in America thinks we should vote on something we have not read.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Representing the most public timber-dependent district in the Nation and far exceeding the needs of the gentleman's district, could the gentleman provide something in writing to decide before we vote, or are we going to be required to vote on the good-faith assurances of the Republican Party, having dealt with a Democratic President, and telling us that there is nothing available in writing?What is available in writing to the Members of this House, 435 members, now?

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am asking him to yield.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Will the gentleman yield on that point? Will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. DeFAZIO. He owes the courtesy of reading it before I vote on it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, of course not. They will not let us read it, and they will not yield.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Is it in writing?

Mr. DeFAZIO. The gentleman will not yield. He is shutting me down.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, today the House will vote on an amendment to the Constitution, and for the first time ever probably vote a change in the Bill of Rights. Now, changing the Bill of Rights is of such importance that surely this will take place with due deliberation. Well, actually not. It will be a closed rule, no amendments, no substitutes, and precious little debate. One hour for the first change ever to the Bill of Rights in over 200 years. Is this any way to treat the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? This is not the first instance of disrespect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights under the Republican majority. We had the infamous H.R. 666, a direct attack on the fourth amendment by authorizing warrantless searches. Mr. Speaker, now, at the end of all this the flag might fly on high, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will lie torn and tattered at our feet.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker I have been preceded in the well by several Members who spoke eloquently and personally of reverence for our freedoms as symbolized by the flag: the gentlewoman from Florida who fled the oppressive Castro regime for her freedom; the gentleman from Korea who immigrated to America for great freedom and opportunity. In Castro's Cuba, South Korea, mainland China, and the old Soviet Union, there was one common thread. Show disrespect to the hammer and sickle, you go to jail. In Cuba, China, Korea, all the tottering oppressive regimes, show disrespect to their symbol, you go to jail. Until today, America was different. We had a Bill of Rights that was the beacon of liberty to oppressed people around the world. When they throw off the chains of oppression, they do not endeavor to copy our flag. They endeavor to copy our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. Vote ``no''. Do not be afraid to be free. Save the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about drive-by-shootings. How about drive-through deliveries? This latest threat to the health of newborns and their moms comes from insurance companies and managed health programs. They are requiring physicians and hospitals to put mothers and newborns out of the hospital in as little as 12 hours. Not to meet the wishes of the new mother, not to foster the health of the newborns, not because it is best in the professional medical opinion of the attending physicians. These arbitrary limits have been imposed, possibly jeopardizing the health of the newborns and their new moms, only to increase the profits of the insurance companies and these for- profit managed health care plans. Today the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and I have introduced legislation to restrict this growing threat to the public health and to our most vulnerable newborns and their mothers. I urge my colleagues to join us in stopping this outrageous practice.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Last week we were discussing the living conditions for enlisted people, the fact that we have more than 15,000 on food stamps and are living in substandard trailer parks. Today we are here debating housing that averages $208,000 a unit, and generally, despite the earlier speaker, not to address the living needs of enlisted people. Here is one example, Little Rock Air Force Base, Arkansas, we have a home here for the general officer housing. It is totally inadequate for the position and entertainment responsibilities of the installation. Perhaps the general could use the officers' club or the golf club to entertain if he finds his home inadequate. The kitchen configuration creates a circulation problem. Well, a lot of us have that problem in our homes. Generally we remodel. We do not tear the house down and start over, but the taxpayers are not paying for our homes. Here the four bedrooms and their closets are undersized. Is the general entertaining in the bedrooms? What sort of entertainment are we talking about here? They have outdated ceramic tile floors. I do not know, in my part of the country, people consider that a feature, and they actually pay extra for ceramic floors. Wainscoting, that is kind of considered a plus out my way, too. The question here is: Are we going to spend an average of $208,000 a unit to better house the general staff because they do not want to entertain at the officers' club and they want to live in spiffy new houses? They have already got cars, drivers; they have already got the helicopter rides from the Pentagon to Andrews Air Force Base, the private jets around the country. Now they need new houses at a average of $208,000 each with no rent paid in return. I think it is time to draw the line somewhere. Support housing for our enlisted folks, but no more for the generals and the top brass.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. We are revisiting trickle-down economics, the theory that, if we give those people who are much smarter than we are, who earn, you know, over $200,000 a year and control these corporations more money, that they will create more jobs and the failed trickle-down policies of the mid-1980's. Those policies brought us record debt, record deficits and, as the gentleman pointed out, consistently caused the decline in the standard of living of middle- income families.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, perhaps that is the bottom line here. It is, you know, how the money flows in Washington, DC, how the influence flows in Washington, DC. As my colleague knows, in the office of the special trade representative, a study I saw said that 74 to 75 percent of the people who worked in the President's Office of the special Trade Representative have become foreign agents; that is, they are now representing foreign nations against the interests of the United States in trade and economic policy. You know we have got to close these revolving doors. We have got to reform campaign finance. We have got to reform the gift rule. But somehow it did not fit into the Republican Contract on America. No gift reform, no campaign finance reform; those things got left out, to be done later, of course.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am saying that will be true, and in fact, if we go back to the pre-alternative corporate minimum tax days, the 1980's, we could say, in fact, that those same working people will pay taxes so that tax credits can flow to those companies. The other issue there would be, of course, the United States stands alone in the industrial world in not taxing foreign operations in the United States or multinational corporations. We have adopted such a limp section to the Code of taxation that virtually every major multinational and foreign corporation in this country pays no income taxes no matter how profitable they are because they upstream or downstream their profits to other lower tax countries. They are not paying their fair share, yet every day, every week, every American sees their taxes go up. They see the deductions out of their paychecks, but, no, Honda does not make any money in the United States of America. They just sell cars here. Toyota does not make money in the United States of America. They just sell cars here. Mr. Speaker, if we adopted the same system of taxation that all of our major trading partners have adopted, the estimates are we could raise $40 billion to $60 billion next year; that is about a third of the deficit. We can raise it by just taxing the profits of multinational and foreign corporations the same way that every one of our major economic competitors does.