Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], who is an internist and a trained physician.

Mr. DeLAY. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty unfortunate that we have to come down to the well on this issue, because this is a States' rights issue. The Clinton administration decided upon its own initiative that it would impose the will of the Federal Government on States. That is what this is all about. This is a States' rights provision that, frankly, I think corrects an injustice and reaffirms the principle that States should decide whether or not or how they spend their funds. The gentleman just before me said, and I want to reemphasize this, the Hyde amendment did not impose paying Medicaid funds for rape and incest. What it said was those States that use Medicaid funds for rape and incest can continue to do so. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing to me that some of the Members have come down here and said, We are going to make them pay, whether they like it or not. They ought to be making those same speeches in the legislative bodies of the States. [[Page H 8375]] If my colleagues do not like the position that the States have taken on rape and incest and how Medicaid funds would be used to pay for abortions for rape and incest, then go change the laws of the States. But to have the Federal Government support the Clinton administration's total philosophy that ``big brother'' Washington, DC knows more what is good for you than you do is total repudiation of the last election. If there was one message coming from the last election, it is that the American people are fed up with Washington dictating to them how they are going to live, how they are going to spend their State funds, and how they are going to do business in their own States. Mr. Chairman, all we are saying with the Istook amendment is let the States decide how to spend their own funds. I ask a ``no'' vote on the Kolbe amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pretty unfortunate that we have to come down to the well on this issue. I think if we just took abortions out of this debate, we would have an automatic unanimous vote against this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, in 1 minute, I might say, if the moral language brought out by the gentleman from Iowa provided any comfort to these teaching institutions, why are they against his amendment and for my amendment in this bill? We must act on this because Medicare and other Federal benefits and the heal programs that loans to these doctor students are based upon accreditation. Simply put, the accreditation council has issued guidelines which require medical students to be trained in performing abortions, and the language in this bill ensures that Federal programs and States receiving funds under the bill do not penalize doctors and hospitals that refuse to perform abortions when they give accreditation and receive Federal dollars to practice medicine. We are getting the Government out of these private institutions. What has happened is this ACGME has decided to get involved in abortion politics and to force abortion training on people that do not want it. Vote no on the Ganske amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], who is trained as an ob/gyn.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith]

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] to respond.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, this is a glorious day. We are revealing Washington's best-kept secret: welfare for lobbyists. This is an amendment that exposes what has been going on in this town for many, many years, where organizations from the left like Act-Up all the way to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have taken Federal funds and have lobbied for more Federal funds. It is a cycle, a continuous cycle that we have to break, and we hope to break it tonight. As the gentleman says, there is $40 billion in Federal grants each year that goes into lobbying and we are not limiting anyone. They can spend up to a million dollars. Is a million dollars not enough to lobby in this town? We are not closing anybody down, but what we are doing is we are breaking that chain that has controlled this town for so long. This bill attacks the problem directly and indirectly. Money is fungible. If we give them Federal grants in one pocket they can take other moneys to lobby with. Stop welfare for lobbyists. Vote ``no'' on the Skaggs amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the title 10 family planning program was created in the 1970's with the expressed mission to decrease teen pregnancy. Mr. Chairman, that mission has failed. I repeat, title X has bee an abject failure. Unfortunately, more money does not solve our country's social ills. The increase in funding for title 10 over the past 25 years has actually paralleled a dramatic increase in teen pregnancy, between 1970 and 1992, the teen pregnancy rate has increased 23 percent. In addition, when title 10 began, 3 in 10 teen births were out of wedlock. Today, 7 out of 10 teen births occur outside of marriage. The increase in funding not only correlates an increase in teen pregnancy, but also in teen abortions, the transmission of sexually transmitted disease and the HIV virus. In addition, title 10 gives a $33 million subsidy to Planned Parenthood, the Nation's largest abortion provider, which also provides contraceptive services and abortion counseling without parental consent or knowledge. I have to say, as a father, the idea of some other adult counseling my daughter to have an abortion, without my knowledge or consent, makes me sick to my stomach. Mr. Chairman, title 10 has never been evaluated and has yet to show any success, and in this bill the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] directs the $193 million back to the States, and, if my colleagues do not believe in block grants, I understand it, but they can compete for this money through the block grant system. This is in addition to the $560 million we already spent in 1995 for family planning services through Medicaid and social services block grants. Vote ``no'' on Greenwood and ``yes'' on Livingston.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I hope Members are watching this debate and paying very close attention to what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is trying to do. It is a huge amendment that affects a lot of issues that are very important to a lot of Members. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is trying to remove legislative language that deals with striker replacement. In a situation where the President has, in my opinion, stepped way beyond the bounds of his authority by writing legislation through Executive order, we are trying to correct that. The gentleman also strikes a provision in the bill that I think is very, very dangerous, if Members do not know about it and vote for this amendment, and that is the legislative language that prevents the raiding of pension funds by the Department of Labor, a position that has gotten a lot of people exercised about a new way of spending, designed by the Secretary of Labor, by going in and raiding pension funds. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] has already talked about the ergonomic standards, another example of overzealous regulatory agencies trying to write regulations on an issue that the scientific community has no consensus on, yet they are trying to write regulations that would have a severe impact on jobs in this country. The gentleman is also attempting to stop summer jobs. In this bill, we have language that prohibits the Labor Department from stopping individuals under the age of 18 from using cardboard balers in grocery stores. Right now, they are trying to stop high school kids who work summer jobs in grocery stores from operating the cardboard balers in those stores. The gentleman strikes that language. Also, those that understand, particularly in light of the recent Surgeon General, we do not need a Surgeon General in this country. The gentleman strikes the language that does away with the Office of Surgeon General. We go on and on and on. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] even includes some of the abortion language, so those Members who consider themselves pro-life had better look very carefully at this amendment, because it strikes the language that stops medical experimentation on human embryos outside the womb. I do not think anybody is offering a single amendment to strike that particular language. I understand the point that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, is making. The point is, he is upset with legislating on an appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that in taking over the majority in the short period of time that we have had, we did not have time to legislate through the normal process; and we feel that it is very important to do these kinds of things to stop an overzealous administration from accomplishing some really bad things. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Obey amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, America is watching this Congress to see if its deeds match its promises. It has had a very good record so far but a critical promise we made to the American people was to get Government off their backs. And the EPA, pure and simply, has been one of the major clawholds that Government has maintained on the backs of our constituents. These riders are about changing EPA's behavior in a way that reducing their funding doesn't. Overall, the question on these riders is: Do you believe the EPA's behavior needs to be changed? One of the riders this amendment would strike is one that my State and my constituents are very angry about. The enhanced-emissions testing program, or centralized testing, that EPA has been trying to force feed to our constituents has caused rebellion in the streets. Despite the risk of sanctions and losing millions of dollars in Federal highway funds, many States have taken actions against the complicated, centralized testing scheme because the requirement is misplaced, unworkable, and has little to do with clean air. But States are in a bind--unless they implement the failed EPA design, EPA will not give full credit to States in their implementation plans. EPA insists that their centralized design is flawless and that, therefore, credits for the decentralized system must be arbitrarily discounted. But study after study has confirmed that the EPA is way off the mark in their assertion that the centralized program is any more effective in cleaning the air than a decentralized system: The California Inspection and Maintenance Review Committee concluded that ``whether an I/M program is centralized or decentralized has not been an important factor in determining historical I/M program effectiveness''; the Rand Corp. found that, ``In terms of program effectiveness, our research finds no empirical evidence to require the separation of test and repair''; the Rand report further found that ``a well safeguarded decentralized system, with rigorous State supervision, can be highly effective.'' The language in this bill provides nothing more than that--it simply gives States a 2-year test period to demonstrate that their program deserves full credit based on actual emissions reductions, not a computer model that has no relation to real world data. And let's be clear--including this language here is no backdoor maneuver--the authorizing committee has held extensive hearings on this issue. Sixteen States face sanctions in the next few months. About 30 Members of this House--both Republican and Democrat--have written to the Appropriations Committee urging support for this provision. The relief provided by this language is desperately needed. It's true that we're cutting EPA's funding and that's important. But these riders send a different message about EPA's behavior and one that I submit is every bit as important. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the international space station and in very strong opposition to this amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer]. Mr. Chairman, we have given at the office. There is no one more committed than myself to the deficit reduction effort, to cost- effectiveness, to the prudent use of taxpayer dollars and the outright stinginess in Federal spending. But NASA has done its part for deficit reduction. In the past 3 years, NASA has reduced its multiyear budget plan by 35 percent, over $40 billion, and for 3 consecutive years, its annual budget has been reduced. But even in a time of extremely tight budget allocations and with a commitment to balance the budget by the year 2002, the space station remains a top funding priority, and that is what we are talking about here, spending priorities. The budget resolution that we passed just a month ago includes the space station because of its significance to our Nation's future, because of the exploration of space that touches the core of American identity as pioneering adventurers; and the success of the space station bears directly on how our future here on Earth, in the United States, in our schools and hospitals, offices and factories will be shaped. I understand the gentleman from New Jersey's approach; I just disagree with it. The bottom line here, cutting through all the rhetoric, is if we want a space program, we have to put man in space. We cannot do a space program on Earth. So, Mr. Chairman, what we have to do is put man in space in a space lab to do the kinds of wonderful experiments and scientific breakthroughs that come from that. Mr. Chairman, the American people support this critical program. I believe today, as it has been for the past several years, the space station will receive the support of the majority of my colleagues. Vote ``no'' on the Roemer amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I am, indeed, honored to follow the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science and his remarks. He is right on. He is right on the issue, and I appreciate the work that the chairman of the subcommittee on VA, HUD, and independent agencies has done on this issue. He has been very fair in allocating these funds. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this very misguided amendment. For the most part, the accounts the gentleman from Wisconsin seeks to [[Page H 7853]] increase have already been accommodated in the managers amendment. In regard to the VA medical account, this is the only account in the bill that has already received an increase over the fiscal year 1995 level. The Obey amendment attempts to redirect the priorities set out in this bill and I submit to my colleagues that the priorities of the gentleman from Wisconsin are far different from those of the majority of this House. While this amendment makes rather small add backs to several accounts, it terminates the international space station program. This is a program that represents one of the few areas of this bill where Federal tax dollars actually contribute to an investment in this Nation's future. I am a vigorous supporter of the space station for many reasons. For me, and I think for most Americans, America's space program is one of the activities undertaken by our Government which is unquestionably legitimate. And the objectives are far too important to compromise. Forget the unparalled knowledge about space itself, forget even the new heights of international cooperation and the building of inhabitable structures in space. The long-duration microgravity capabilities of the space station will directly affect research in cell and developmental biology, human physiology, biotechnology, fluid physics, combustion science, materials science, benchmark physics and the large-scale commercial development of space. We cannot afford to forgo the tremendous impact these scientific efforts will produce. Moreover, the reaching of these objectives through space research is exactly the type of activity that Americans expect their Government to undertake. This expectation is what separates space station funding from Federal spending on paintings and poetry, on museums, publishing, broadcasting, farm subsidies, loan guarantees, real estate development, and bank bailouts. And let me be clear: To those who believe that we can maintain a human space program without the space station, don't fool yourselves, without the space station there is no shuttle program and without that, there is no NASA. I submit to my colleagues that the space station is a program we cannot afford not to fund. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, section 330 of the bill relates to the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Program which is administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The section imposes a 1-year freeze on the ability of NHTSA to increase the CAFE standards for passenger cars and light trucks and vans. This provision has strong bipartisan support as evidenced by a Dear Colleague letter circulated last week which includes the signatures of the minority leader and the minority whip, as well as several of my Republican colleagues. Mr. Chairman, NHTSA is in the process of rulemaking activity on CAFE, which could result in a sharp increase in the standards for light trucks and vans. Because of the light truck market now represents over 40 percent of total vehicle sales and it is a segment which is dominated by domestic manufacturers this action would be devastating to the Nation's economy. The purpose of Section 330 is to establish a pause in this rulemaking process, to give the Congress an opportunity to review the CAFE program, to determine if the underlying statute, written more than 20 years ago, is still adequate in light of current circumstances. In fact, the authorizing committee has already begun that process, with a hearing which was held last Monday in the Commerce Committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee. In offering this provision in subcommittee, it was my intent that NHTSA would withhold any further action directed toward increasing CAFE standards, and that the CAFE standards for light trucks and vans for the 1998 model year, which must be issued during fiscal year 1996 to meet industry's lead-time requirements, should be identical to the standard that is currently in effect for those vehicles for the 1997 model year. This intent is clearly stated in the committee report which accompanies the legislation. Mr. Chairman, I also want to clarify that it was the committee's intent that although this provision would not take effect until the fiscal year which begins on October 1, we fully expect that the agency will follow its regular rulemaking process, and will not rush to action on any increase in CAFE standards, in order to try and beat this deadline. Such an action would clearly be counter to the intent of the House, and would not be viewed favorably by this member of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Rhode Island may not be aware that the gentleman from Virginia amended his own amendment by making sure that nothing in the repeal of 13(c) abrogates any rights of mass transit employees to bargain collectively or renegotiate or discuss terms and conditions of employment. This is a perfect exampled of a labor protection that has run amok. We have, for over 30 years built a system that has cost the taxpayers, that has [[Page H 7593]] cost low-income riders, that has driven up the cost of mass transit to outrageous sums, and it is because of things like 13(c) that has pushed the envelope. We have got to bring it back to some sort of reasonableness. This repeal of 13(c) only gives transit authorities the necessary flexibility to reduce operating expenses. It was intended at the beginning to protect the rights of transit workers employed by private transit authorities that were acquired by public agencies in States that prohibited collective bargaining. Now, 30 years later, ironically the same jobs that 13(c) seeks to protect may be those same jobs that are lost because of it. Mr. Chairman, 13(c) has become a means to pursue broader labor objectives and will ultimately mean the loss, not the protection, of jobs in the transit industry. The certification process itself is used by labor to pursue their agenda and has led to inexcusable delays in receipt of transit funding. The GAO found that not only does the Department of Labor take an average of 81 days to certify a grant application, but a lot of time its takes 25 weeks before it can be processed and the negotiation of new 13(c) protections could take as long as 30 weeks. You know what that does? It drives up the cost of transit facilities, facilities that are going to help the poor. Mr. Chairman, I would just ask my Members to take a look at this sheet that is out here on the desk of the number of transit authorities that support the repeal of 13(c), not exactly Republican strongholds, like Chicago; Washington, DC; Los Angeles; New York City; Trenton, New Jersey; Newark; in Ohio, the entire Department of Transportation and Cincinnati and Cleveland, in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. So, Mr. Chairman, I just ask Members to do what is right. Bring reasonableness to labor protection and vote against this amendment.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman of the committee, for putting together a very difficult bill under very hard circumstances and bringing it to the floor. This is his first attempt at writing a transportation appropriations bill and I am very proud to say that I sit next to him on the committee. I am very proud of the work that he has done. I am also proud of my colleague and fellow Texan, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the ranking member, for his hard work on this committee. Particularly I thank the staff of the committee. I do not think we can thank the staff enough for putting up with us and helping us write these bills, because it is through their knowledge and their hard work that we are able to bring a bill of this quality to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this bill. It is a good bill. I can support an appropriation bill that actually cuts spending from last year. This is $1.4 billion less than 1995 in discretionary and $22.6 million less than even the President requested. But the thing that I am most proud about this bill is an issue that the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and I have worked on for many, many years, and, that is, that the bill repeals section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act which gives transit authorities the necessary flexibility to reduce operating expenses in their transit system. Section 13(c) was originally intended to protect the rights of transit workers employed by private transit authorities that were acquired by public agencies in States that prohibited collective bargaining. Now, 30 years later, and ironically the same jobs that 13(c) seeks to protect may be the same jobs that are lost because of it. Like Amtrak, these protective arrangements provide transit workers up to 6 years of full compensation and benefits after they lose their job. Section 13(c) is a labor protection that has become too costly and outdated. It has impeded innovation, efficiency, and growth in providing transit services across the country, including new and restructured services. Section 13(c) has become a means to pursue broader labor objectives and will mean ultimately the loss, not the protection, of jobs in the transit industry. The bottom line is that section 13(c) has been used by the unions as another bite at the apple to get additional concessions that they could not get through regular collective-bargaining practices. I encourage all the Members to vote against any amendment that would strike this repeal language. Mr. Chairman, the bill is a responsible bill, and it is one that should be supported by all the Members of this House because it does represent a well-crafted piece of legislation. We eliminate the ICC in the bill, providing only close-down costs. The bill has absolutely no highway demonstration projects, allowing the States to do their job in designing and building highway projects that are the priorities of the State. There are no new section 3 starts. The only projects that are funded are ongoing projects that need completion. With regard to Amtrak, the bill requires the authorizers to make significant reforms, including labor reforms, before funding is provided. I encourage all the Members to support the transportation appropriations bill.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the Packard amendment, and in very strong opposition to the amendment of my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio. I am going to try to explain why. I understand the intent of the gentleman from Ohio, but I think what he is doing is keeping the status quo, because as I read his amendment, nothing really changes in what we are trying to get at. The Packard amendment would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being spent on shocking and offensive so-called non-technical employee training programs. I am appalled, not only at what we are forcing Federal employees to engage in, but that these outrageous activities are being funded by the hard-earned tax dollars of our constituents. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has explained, this issue arose during hearings of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, of which I am a member. FAA employees testified about how they were forced to walk through large groups of female coworkers who were instructed to grope and fondle the participants. The unbelievable justification for these activities by the FAA was that this was a method to show men how it felt to be sexually harassed. Another FAA employee testified about how, during a training session, she and her colleagues were forced to strip to their underwear and tie themselves to a coworker of the opposite sex for periods exceeding 24 hours. They were forced to eat, sleep, bathe, and use toilet facilities while tied together. Mr. Chairman, I cannot believe there are any Members of this body that could support these kinds of activities, much less go home and tell their constituents that they voted to spend their money for this damaging and ill-conceived program. This amendment, the Packard amendment, will also address the so-called AIDS-HIV awareness training that the Clinton administration mandates on all Federal employees, where they are forced to endure how-to sessions regarding condoms, sexual techniques, and devices. Let me just read what the administration's rules are for AIDS instruction, and what they tell their trainers. They tell their trainers to avoid certain terms, such as--outrageous things, terms such as ``husband and wife''; avoid such terms as ``homosexual men,'' ``promiscuous,'' ``sexual preference,'' and ``addict.'' The trainers are to deflect homophobic comments during a training session, saying, ``there is some division of opinion on that point.'' Trainers are to watch out for troublemakers among the pupils. A Federal worker who takes an intransigent point of view, in their words, on condom distribution in schools, or needle distribution, is pegged as a partisan. A heckler is someone who expresses disbelief, disgust, or scoffs at content and process. I am quoting from the manual. Mr. Chairman, what does this have to do with Federal workers doing their job? One Federal worker recently recounted how she was offended when an instructor of one of these training sessions began talking about her grandmother's likely sex practices. This is going on in our Federal Government right now. A Defense Department employee who walked out of a session said: I do not believe I should sit next to a female and be told how to do intercourse. I do not want to be in mixed company and talk about a lifestyle I'm not involved in, that I do not approve of. I do not care to be instructed by Big Brother in things that I avoid. If we do not defeat the Hobson amendment, we will never get the opportunity to vote for the Packard amendment. With all due respect to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio, his amendment does not change the status quo in any significant way. We need to stop these kinds of politically correct nonsense. We need to vote against the Hobson amendment and for the Packard amendment.

Mr. DeLAY. I applaud the chairman's efforts to support greater levels of contracting out at the U.S. Postal Service. The chairman should be proud that his leadership on this issue is in direct harmony with the mandate of the 104th Congress: to shrink the Federal Government. I find it ironic that while on the one hand the Postal Service is asking for Congress' help to make the Service more businesslike, on the other hand is eliminating the private sector's role in an information technology program that was developed specifically for private sector operation. I urge the chairman to continue to pursue this line of inquiry with the Postal Service, and preserve the private sector's role in the RBCS program.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand the concerns of the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from Washington. But this agency, this organization, let us put it that way, it is a public/private organization because it receives public funds, got and raised its own fund for years, for years. They did not need Federal funds. They operated very well, like we have come to this Congress to try to make happen. They do not need this money. Frankly, most of the people that belong to the National Trust for Historic Preservation are rich enough to write checks for the amount of money we are quibbling over here and take care of it and leverage it all they want to. The point is, if we cannot do this, what are we going to do? Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the amendment to eliminate the Federal subsidy for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. I offered the very same amendment during consideration of the fiscal year 1994 Interior Appropriations bill several years ago. I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior subcommittee for recognizing the questionable nature of the Federal subsidy for the Trust by cutting the appropriation in half and directing the Trust to figure out how to make up these funds in the private sector, as they won't be receiving any Federal funds next year. The question is, do we want to sink another $3.5 million into this program--I submit that the American taxpayers do not. The Trust was chartered by the Congress in 1949 to protect buildings, sites and objects significant in American history, but not suitable for inclusion in Federal trusteeship. However, only 20 percent of the Trust's budget goes toward administration of their 18 historic properties and the Trust does not accept any new properties unless they come fully endowed to cover all future operating costs. The other 80 percent of their budget is allocated to activities which facilitate public participation in the preservation of historic sites, buildings and objects. These activities include extensive lobbying, regularly suing the Federal Government, organizing opposition to private property rights and what they call the greatest opponent to historic preservation, superstore sprawl. These efforts are not activities taxpayers expect to be underwriting. Moreover, the Trust could do this work without tax dollars. The Trust has an extensive fundraising ability as well as dues paying members. Its budget has increased in the last 6 years and its portfolios of assets exceeds $67 million. If this Congress can't find the intestinal fortitude to save tax dollars from being spent on a program which doesn't need it, I have serious doubts about our ability to ever balance the Federal budget. I'm sure we're going to hear loud wails from opponents of this amendment about how the loss of Federal funds will threaten the Mainstreet program or other true preservation activities of the Trust. Such cries--no doubt prompted by lobbying from employees of the Trust-- are simply an effort to allow the Trust to continue its elitist activities and to avoid prioritizing spending. Let's look at how the Trust allocates its spending: It pays its president a salary of over $233,000; Six positions at the Trust paid salaries in excess of $100,000 in fiscal year 1994 charging $385,000 of it to the Federal appropriation-- in fiscal year 1995, five positions paid in excess of $100,000 and $333,000 is being charged to the American taxpayers; In 1993, the Trust spent $884,000 for lobbying, entertainment and catering; In 1991, the Trust spent over $700,000 on its legal department, which has entered over 30 cases against the Federal Government in the last 5 years. The Trust also organizes numerous workshops and seminars. Perhaps the workshop that included the Eco Tour of the Boston Park Plaza hotel enabling participants to see an environmentally sound hotel that integrates environmental action into all daily decision making it an activity that could be cut out. Likewise, perhaps organizing international trips such as the Red Sea Passage tour to Egypt and Jordan, described in the Trust materials as travel with fewer than 95 passengers aboard the splendid Regina Renaissance could be minimized. Trust efforts like the Mainstreet program should be a top priority for the Trust. It is widely supported and good work is done through the program. To suggest that this would be the first to go if the Trust's budget is a couple million dollars less than this year is absurd. It's a matter of setting priorities and surely I've described many actives in which the Trust is involved that could be cut back or eliminated. Day after day, we hear cries over the future of our children, of people who rely on Federal welfare and others in need and everyone asks the question, ``where can we cut funding so these people don't get hurt.'' Well, this is a great place to start. The Trust serves as a slush fund for the most wealthy and elite members in [[Page H 6988]] every community to oppose development that offends their aesthetic tastes. A recent article critical of the Trust's efforts to prevent what they call public enemy number one--superstore sprawl--stated, WalMarts and similar stores may not be as quaint as Georgetown shops but they usually offer consumers more for less. If in these days of fiscal crisis we can't face a program like the Trust and recognize that it's a luxury for a few, not a necessity for many, and discipline ourselves to put the money elsewhere, I fear for our ability to make the far tougher choices we have ahead of us.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Certainly we can take that under advisement, but I think Members need to, right now, plan on votes after 5 o'clock on Monday. And if we can get a hold of some of the time on some of the amendments, maybe we can schedule the session a little earlier during the days of the week.

Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, I think the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi has a very good point, and we just may very well have to do that. We may very well have to look at working the weekend of the 28th and the 29th, through the weekend, in order to finish these bills. We do not intend to take away the privilege of any Member to offer any amendment to strike on an appropriations bill, and we want to make sure every Member of the House has the opportunity to do that, and as we look at the number of amendments that are being filed, it is obvious to us that many Members are taking advantage of that, and we have to adjust the schedule accordingly.