Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of those figures. First of all, I think two comments must be made. They are per-State figures. They also include roughly $2 million which is designated for arts education. We are designating far more than that for arts education. I did not include that in the title. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the other fact that they distributed I think is very misleading. They do not include, in the total being distributed to the States, the arts funding that we are distributing, and it makes it look like every State is getting less money. That is simply not true.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is an attempt to mediate or to end a long-standing dispute in the House of Representatives regarding funding of the arts. As my colleagues well know, every year we have a battle about the NEA and the manner in which it disburses Federal funding. This year for the first time it appears definite that the House will not approve funding for the NEA, as we just observed. This amendment is an effort to separate the issue into two aspects. One is the funding of the arts. The second is the method of distributing the funding for the arts. The purpose of my amendment is to avoid the battles we have had in the past about the NEA and the manner in which they distributed their funds by developing a new distribution system and yet maintain the funding of the arts that we have had during the past year. The amount of money we are arguing about is relatively small in the sense of the amount per citizen. Last year we funded the arts in this Nation to the tune of 38 cents per capita. The bill that is before us had great difficulty reaching the floor. As we all know, the rule passed by only one vote. And yet the entire debate appeared to focus on the arts and the funding for the arts. I happen to support the arts. I also support funding for the arts. In fact, I support Federal funding for the arts when it is handled appropriately. This amendment will provide appropriate funding for the arts. The NEA has proved to be a lightning rod. It has attracted all types of criticism because they have, upon occasion, given money for art which is profane, or obscene, or vulgar, or sacrilegious, or sometimes all four. The amendment avoids this problem by recognizing that there are not enough votes in this body, as it is presently constituted, to support the continuation of the NEA, and simply says we will recognize the fact that the NEA cannot pass the House of Representatives but it is very important to continue the funding. This amendment has other advantages over past methods of distributing funding. One of my goals was to achieve equity. Currently we have approximately $229,000 contributed by every Member's district toward the operation of the NEA and the funding of the arts. Of that amount, most districts do not get anywhere near that kind of money back. In fact, 25 percent of the arts funding distributed in programs by the NEA went to one State. Let me say that again. One-fourth of all arts programs funding went to one State. That is hardly what one would consider equitable funding. I refuse to believe that one-fourth of the worthy artists in this country all reside in one State. The amount we are advocating is $80 million, which is even less than last year. It is 31 cents per capita. So if any citizen should happen to write one of my colleagues and object to the Federal funding of the arts, they are spending more on their stamp than they spend on support of the arts. I think that helps put this in perspective. This is not, however, a reduction from last year, even though it is almost a $20 million reduction in total funding. It simply gets rid of $20 million in overhead and internal operations of the NEA which we will not be perpetuating. The amendment is somewhat vague about the precise guidelines to be followed in distributing the funds, and that was done deliberately because, at the request of the authorizing committee, they wish to prepare an authorization bill. And we have a gentleman's agreement that the actions of the authorizing committee will, in fact, guide the deliberations of the House members of the conference once this bill reaches the conference committee. Now, I am concerned, because this effort emphasizes funding for the arts and equitable distribution for the funding of the arts, and I have been told that some of the Members on this body on the other side of the aisle plan to vote against this amendment because it does not continue the NEA. I urge Members on the other side of the aisle not to listen to that argument. I happen to believe funding the arts is more important than the existence of the NEA. I think it is much preferable to send a bill from this House containing $80 million to fund the arts and provide some continuation of funding than to send a bill across to the other side of the rotunda which has zero dollars appropriated for the funding of the arts. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill. This is a new approach that will provide block grants to the States. It will provide as much funding for the arts commissions for their own general distributional purposes as they had last year in every State, or, perhaps, in many cases more. Approximately 26 of the 50 States will get more money this time because we will not have one- fourth going to one State. Furthermore, it provides additional money for arts education in the schools, and I believe that is very, very important. First of all, it is proven that arts education at an early age helps in brain development and helps students do better in other fields. But, in addition to that, I believe that proper arts education will help develop greater arts appreciation in this Nation and will ensure healthy continuation of the arts in the future. So Mr. Chairman, I urge that this amendment be adopted, that we not get wrapped up in the details of the distribution mechanism. We can certainly work that out through the authorizing committee as we go to conference. But this, I believe, is a worthy amendment which will continue funding for the arts even though the NEA will no longer exist as the House bill passes. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe that under the NEA 25 percent of the funding went to one State. There was a lot of talk about the NEA, about distributing funds to the little people. Our program does a lot better job at distributing funds to the little people than the NEA has done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Blunt]. (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would simply reiterate the choice before us is very clear at this point. This amendment, in spite of the accusations made against it, is not a smoke screen, it is not trying to fool anyone. It is a simple attempt at providing continued Federal funding for the arts, given the fact that the House at this moment in time is not prepared to continue the NEA. So the issue is clear. Do we want to send a bill to the Senate that has no NEA and no arts funding, or do we want to send a bill to the Senate that has no NEA but does have continued arts funding? The choice to me is very clear. Let us continue the Federal support for the arts. Let us continue to provide funding for the arts through the various State agencies that are available, through the arts education programs at various States and that school districts have. I believe it will be a more equitable distribution than we have had. It certainly will be far less controversial, and I believe it will be beneficial for the arts, for the people of this Nation who are interested in the arts, and it will be beneficial for the students who will be learning about the arts. I think it is a win-win situation. I urge all Members of this body to forget partisan differences, to forget the arguments about the NEA and say at this point in time the best thing we can do is pass this amendment and send this bill to the Senate with continued funding for the arts, and we will there, in conference, resolve the issues about the future of the NEA. So I urge all Members of this body, regardless of partisan differences, to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, rather than continue that mini-debate, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds for a response to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds for a brief response. My good friend, the gentleman from New York, just made a statement that every State loses. He is undoubtedly basing that on the NEA flier that I mentioned earlier on, which was distributed and simply gave inaccurate information. States do not lose. They in fact do gain. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bono]. (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks).

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Upton].

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply remark that the rules of the House provide that a waiver protecting from a point of order applies only if the chairman of the authorization committee authorizes it. That is what happened in this case. So the rules of the House were followed. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson].

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yes, I do have a chart here. I have not distributed it. It is not by district, because we do not know how the State agencies or how the State art commissions would distribute on a per district basis, but I do have a breakdown by State of how much would be given to each State for the use of their arts commission to distribute and how much would be given for their schools to distribute.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply observe this amendment is definitely not a smokescreen. I have never smoked in my life. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn]. (Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply point out that if we had a better distribution mechanism that was not so controversial, we would probably have much more money to distribute to the arts than we do now. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Fowler]. (Mrs. FOWLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, first of all I would simply respond, those who know me well know I do not try to fool anyone and this amendment is not intended to fool anyone. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the authorizing committee. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] in commending and complimenting the chairman and ranking members of these two committees for an excellent bill, and I rise to speak in favor of this bill and encourage my colleagues to support it and vote for it. Over a hundred years ago this Nation established land grant universities which have served this Nation well. One of their primary purposes was to conduct research in the uses of our land, particularly for agriculture, and today we still have a network of agricultural research which is second to none in the world and which has been of great benefit to the farmers and the citizens of this country. More than half, in fact considerably more than half, of our planet's surface is occupied by oceans and large lakes, and yet we have devoted far less of our resources to research upon the water ways of this planet than we have to the land of our Nation. The good feature of this bill is that it begins and continues the process of research that we have instituted for the oceans and the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes of this Nation are a valuable resource. They hold more than 90 percent of the fresh water in this Nation and are the primary source of fresh water throughout the world. Michigan alone has greater shoreline than any other State of the Union other than Alaska. We have over 3,000 miles of shoreline which indicates the importance of aquaculture, fisheries, and things of this sort to the State of Michigan. But research and the science necessary to really maintain the fisheries of this planet and the resources of the Great Lakes has been lacking. This bill will help continue the research we have begun in places such as Ann Arbor and other resource facilities in the Great Lakes area, but throughout this Nation this bill will provide the funding that is needed to do the research necessary to continue to ensure that our fisheries are adequate to supply the needs of our Nation and of other nations. A new problem has arisen in the recent past and is also addressed in this bill, and that is the problem of invasive nonindigenous species. A major problem at the moment, of course, is the zebra mussel which is creating havoc in the Great Lakes and is rapidly spreading across this Nation. It is plugging water supply lines to power plants, municipalities, creating problems for boaters, ship owners, and we need a great deal more research in understanding the zebra mussel and other invasive species. I am very pleased that this bill specifically addresses the zebra mussel problem, and I hope in the future we will be able to increase the funding for the study of invasive species so that we can in fact tackle the problem, reduce the difficulty of dealing with these species in the Great Lakes and in other bodies of water in and upon the shores of this Nation. It is a good bill, and I urge the support of my colleagues. Vote for it.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say a few words about estate taxes, sometimes called inheritance taxes and more recently referred to as death taxes. This is often designated as a tax on the rich, and some therefore say we should not cut it. But I wish to clarify some of the issues. Ninety-three percent of the businesses in my area of west Michigan are small businesses, having under 50 employees. Estate taxes, contrary to the public's perception, do not apply just to Bill Gates and others of that sort, but they apply to a majority of the small businesses and farmers in this Nation because, when they die, they have substantial assets in their businesses. The saying is that farmers are always cash poor but land rich. That is certainly true. And it is unfortunate that today many farmers are not able to pass their farms on to their children. Part of the farm must be sold in order to pay the estate taxes before the farm can be passed on to their children. Even modest family owned businesses and farms can fall into the range of estate taxable assets, causing great financial hardship. Ironically the truly wealthy families are generally better able to avoid estate tax liability because they can afford to hire experts to reduce their estate taxes, while the small business people and the farmers do not have the money to hire that kind of expertise. Furthermore, the top estate tax rate of 55 percent is taxing money which has already been taxed, giving a high tax rate of approximately 73 percent. I believe the estate tax is too high. It is unjust and we should change this so that those who own small businesses and farms can in fact retain them and pass them on to their children upon their death.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Grace Reformed Church in Wyoming, MI. The names and faces of pastors and the location of the church may have changed over the years, but the spiritual mission and commitment of Grace Reformed Church have become stronger with each year of existence. The history of the church actually dates back 101 years to 1896 when members of the Second Reformed Church and the Fifth Reformed Church met at Reelman's Hall to discuss combining their congregations. On February 18, 1897, the two churches formed Grace Reformed Church. Ten days later the congregation ordained and installed its first consistory, consisting of two elders and two deacons. The Rev. John Van De Erve served as the church's first pastor until 1901. During his 4 year tenure, Reverend Van De Erve oversaw the construction of a temporary facility to help ease the congestion problem Reelman Hall was experiencing. In 1899, the growing congregation began construction on a new church that would be dedicated during a 2 day service in April 1900. Following the departure of Reverend Van De Erve, the congregation experienced a number of changes in the pulpit. In 1902, the Rev. J. H. Joldersma served as pastor for a 6 month period. He was replaced by the Rev. P.P. Cheff from 1903 to 1905. After Reverend Cheff's departure, Rev. Peter Braak took over as pastor and oversaw the construction of a new parsonage that was built on the grounds of the church so that pastors would no longer have to live in nearby rented apartments. After a 3 year assignment, Reverend Braak moved on and was replaced by the Rev. Lawrence Dykstra who served until 1912. In 1912, the church began to move in a new direction with the introduction of the Rev. C.H. Spaan who to this day has served the longest tenure as pastor at the church. Reverend Spaan was a fixture at Grace Reformed for 26 years until poor health forced him to give up his duties in 1938. During his ministry, church members generously donated their time to help with several major improvement projects including the installation of a steam heating plant and the expansion of the auditorium's seating capacity. In addition, the church also built a new basement and added a new kitchen for church social events. After the retirement of Reverend Spaan, the church welcomed the Rev. Theodore Schaap who served from 1938 to 1945. In October of 1945, the church welcomed the Rev. Henry C. Van Deelen to the congregation. During Reverend Van Deelen's pastorship, plans were made to establish a building fund for future expansion and remodeling projects and a celebration committee was established to prepare for the church's 50th anniversary in 1947. In 1949, the Rev. Abraham Rynbrandt was installed as pastor and served until 1953. He was replaced by the Rev. James Schut in 1954 who remained with the church until 1959. The Rev. Rodger H. Dalman began service in 1959 and stayed with the church until 1965. During the early 1960's the church, under Dalman's leadership, moved forward with plans to build a new sanctuary at a new location. In 1963 the congregation approved preliminary building plans for their new home. In 1964, the church sold their building on Caulfield Avenue and moved into a new facility on Burlingame Avenue. After selling their previous place of worship to New Hope Baptist Church, members of both churches held a joint worship service to celebrate a new beginning for both congregations. During the transition period, church members attended worship services at Lee High School while the finishing touches were being put on their new home. On April 26, worshippers celebrated their first Sunday in their new sanctuary and later held a week-long dedication ceremony to celebrate. In 1965, the Reverend Dalman left the church for a new position in Wisconsin. He was replaced in 1966 by the Rev. Harry Brower who served until 1972. Rev. Mark De Witt was installed as pastor in 1973 and remained until 1985. During Reverend De Witt's service, the church dedicated a new pastor's study, consistory room, and nursery. The church also enlarged its seating area for worship services. Phase two of this improvement project was completed in 1990 and included an elevator and a covered lower entrance. Rev. Louis H. Benes, Jr. was installed as pastor in 1986 and served for 10 years. On September 29, 1996, the Rev. Richard Veenstra was commissioned as interim pastor and remains in that position today. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, Grace Reformed Church has come a long way from its humble beginning and has been an integral part of the Wyoming community for a century. The contributions of this church, its tradition, and commitment to God should serve as an example for others to follow. As the members of this church celebrate this remarkable feat, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating them on this very special anniversary.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this topic. It is one that we have spent a good deal of time on in the Committee on House Oversight. As most of the Nation knows, when the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, we put in some drastic budget cutting measures. In fact, we saved $210 million from our congressional budget for the people of the United States of America in the last session. That is the larger cut than we applied across the board to any Federal agency. In other words, we felt we should lead the way in this Congress and in this committee by cutting our own budget first. We cut committee staff by one-third. I am pleased with the amount of work that we have been able to do in spite of that cut. I have heard the news media saying that the Congress is not doing anything. I do not know where they are. Maybe they are sitting in the coffee shops instead of coming to the committee meetings I am in. I have spent hours and hours in the Committee on Science, of which I am a member. I have spent hours in the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where we are working on the formula for funding ISTEA, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, which is a major piece of legislation up for reauthorization this year. I just came to the floor to speak while sitting in a hearing in the Subcommittee on Aviation dealing with war risk insurance, something that must be addressed soon. But in the Committee on Science in particular, my schedule has been full, as has been the schedule of every member of the Committee on Science. We have reported out approximately 10 bills for action on the floor, most of which have been taken up on the floor, with one major piece still remaining to be considered. And we have been able to do all this and do quality work after having cut the staffs of our committees by one- third. In other words, we have gotten rid of the fat and we are down to the bone, and we are doing good work with the bone that is left. In regard to the proposal before us, the committee funding proposal, we are talking about an average 2 percent per year increase, below the cost-of-living increase, below the increase that is being given to all Federal employees and Federal retirees, below the increase that is being given to Social Security recipients. I think it is remarkable that we would cut our staff by one-third in the last session, and have a below-cost-of-living increase in this session, and still be able to do the amount and the quality of work that we have been doing in our committees. They are receiving a lot of careful consideration. The floor action has been less than overwhelming, simply because so much work is being done in committees, but that work will come to the floor very shortly. I am very pleased to rise in support of this proposal and to recommend that the House adopt what is a fair funding proposal for the committees, one that conservatives and liberals alike should welcome as an example of how we can use the taxpayers' money to get the job done at much less cost than we had before.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner). (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)