Jo Ann Emerson

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my good colleagues the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] if they all have proposed in their districts, their specific districts, a Man and The Biosphere Program?

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mrs. EMERSON. I know that it cannot technically be done, but let me tell the gentleman, I will share with the gentleman all of the proposals as they existed before they were pulled back by the Park Service and others, because there was such an outcry. I will show them to the gentleman, and they indicate very emphatically that there were limitations, restrictions put on it.

Mrs. EMERSON. The fact that private property management would be restricted.

Mrs. EMERSON. However, Mr. Chairman, first of all, the buffer zone, which was much larger than the core area which would be designated by the Park Service and other land management people, is private land for the most part. I can assure the gentleman that not one local official, and there are no zoning Commissions in my particular part of Missouri, but the presiding commissioners of the counties involved, as well as local citizens, were not alerted, not asked for their opinion whatsoever.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, how can the gentleman say there is no example if, in fact, two-thirds of my district was going to be tied up?

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I missed part of this debate, but let me talk about a specific example of a Man and the Biosphere reserve program that had been set up in my district in Missouri. It was called the Ozark Highlands Man in the Biosphere Preserve. Mr. Chairman, we would have had two-thirds of my district and probably the northern third of the Arkansas district that borders mine, a little bit of the district of the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Marion Berry, and a little bit of the district of the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Asa Hutchinson, tied up as a Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program. Let me just talk to the gentleman about how this came about. First of all, if you do designate a Man and the Biosphere preserve area, local citizens and local presiding commissioners and county officials need to be involved in the process. This did not happen in my district. All of a sudden the Park Service and all of the other land management departments decided that this would be created. There was no local input whatsoever. We were not told about it. We were not told about it. Then finally our folks heard about it through the grapevine, if you will, and, consequently, with the outrage and an outcry from thousands of residents within our district. That was not because necessarily of the core area. The core area was on public lands. But the surrounding buffer zone would have tied up two-thirds of my district, and limited land use and economic development and other things in an already very poor part of my district, with no local input whatsoever. That is not right.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, that is true. We did not, and we were able to keep our land from being used for this purpose. But the problem is, the problem that I have is that there was no community involvement whatsoever during the 2-year process that they were trying to make this designation, I suppose because there is really no authorization for it.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I guess I just look at it from the point of view of my constituents. The counties, the several counties that would be tied up in my district are those of the poorest part of my district where there is a great deal of unemployment and a great deal of poverty. The buffer zone where they live is limited in land use for the future, or that is how the proposal was. Consequently, we could not economically develop that area so we could not get more jobs there. The only few jobs we have are tourism-related jobs. We cannot bring in big trucks. We cannot build better highways in that kind of a situation.

Mrs. EMERSON. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, were the gentleman's local citizens included in the process? Which of his local constituents were?

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Kennedy-Porter amendment, which would undermine the health of our national forests and effectively shut them down to recreation, industry, and sportsmen. This amendment is completely contrary to the wise and effective management of our national forests. The International Association of Firefighters says that the programs targeted by the Kennedy/Porter amendment are ``essential to providing safe passage for firefighters and protecting our national forest and surrounding communities from catastrophic wildfires.'' One of the most misunderstood aspects of the forest roads program is how the money is actually spent. The fact of the matter is that new road construction accounts for a very small portion of the funding. In fact, the forest service intends to build only 8 miles of new roads in the entire 190 million acre national forest system, and just 1 mile of this is a timber road. The essential point here is that almost all of the road construction funds provided to our 122 national forests goes for reconstruction of existing roads. I would also like to address the issue of how county governments and local communities would be affected by the Kennedy/Porter amendment. Each year, 25 percent of all revenues collected by national forests are returned to the States where those national forests are located. This is money that pays for bedrock community projects, such as public schools and county roads. In addition, counties also receive payments in lieu of taxes [PILT], which can supplement school and roads funding or go toward other important community needs. In many of the counties in my district, this can mean more than $100,000 annually. In fact, the residents of Oregon County in my district would stand to lose as much as $140,000 were the Kennedy/Porter amendment to pass. The damaging effects of this amendment are made even more evident when you consider the loss in jobs and economic activity. The timber industry in the State of Missouri accounts for approximately 20,000 jobs and $3 billion dollars in economic activity. These are family owned businesses, hard-working folks. Their work is an important part of our local economy and a key element in the wise management of our national forests. Finally, let us make no mistake about the special interests and the real agenda of this amendment. Its chief proponent is the Sierra Club, which is bent on halting all logging in our national forests. If the Sierra Club had its way, the lives and livelihoods of good people would be disregarded in favor of its own extremist agenda. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to KFMO Radio of Park Hills, MO. A friend to the Eighth Congressional District, KFMO recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. The first radio station in Park Hills, KFMO began serving the folks of Park Hills, MO, on July 4, 1947. At that time, the radio station was owned by Hirsch Broadcasting Corp. From the time of the forty's when radio was king through today, KFMO remains one of the most vibrant and energetic stations in the area. KFMO is part of the Parklands Information System and carries extensive news coverage throughout the day. With the Parkland Today Show, the senior's lunch menu, obits, and tons of local news, folk in St. Francois County know that if it is happening locally, it's happening on KFMO. In 1992, KFMO was acquired and is currently owned by Hirsch Broadcasting Co. Under the leadership of President M. L. Steinmetz and Larry D. Joseph, vice president/general manager, M.K.S. Broadcasting also own and operates B104 FM radio which is also in Park Hills. Mr. Speaker, with so many people in so many different areas dependent upon the folks at KFMO for their information, I am pleased to wish them a happy 50th anniversary. I salute their commitment to the community and I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing the folks at KFMO all the best for another 50 years of success and service.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong opposition to the Harman amendment. In 1996, the people of the United States assured us that they are firmly opposed to having tax dollars which are allocated for the defense of our country, used to perform abortions. Currently, Federal law prohibits abortions in military facilities, except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the unborn child were carried to term, or in cases of rape or incest. I could stand up here and speak to all of you about how this is a matter of preserving the law, the reason the law was enacted and the amount of times abortion amendments have been voted down in the past few years. None of that matters however, if the folks in our country feel as though their safety is at issue because we spent funding to allow abortions to be performed at the expense of protecting our country. Military hospitals are important to the health and life of our military. As a result, they are important for the health and well-being of our national security. If individuals feel less protected based upon the funding of our defense dollars, then our military could be less prepared and ready to defend our Nation. Just as we need to preserve the strength of human life, it is equally important to preserve the security that people have in our Nation's defensive capabilities. Today in Congress, we have the opportunity to assure the people that we will spend their dollars in a responsible and meaningful way. This is the matter before Congress, and this is why we must make certain to continue to enforce that no Federal taxpayer dollars will be used to finance abortions in Department of Defense funding. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Harman amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to my late husband, Bill Emerson, who spent 16 wonderful years as a Member of this Chamber, 2 years as a page, and who died a year ago this Sunday, June 22. I remember so well when Bill was first elected in 1980 and the excitement and joy that we felt after his election. And I can picture vividly so many memories: that first dinner in Statuary Hall, which was given by Bob Michel, who was then the Republican leader of the House; the many trips he, Mickey Leland, and Tony Hall made to Ethiopia, Somalia, the Sudan and other parts of Africa; fighting for flood relief throughout our district, standing up for the folks he represented; and the most recent memories of the days he sat in the Speaker's chair and oversaw the business of our House. He was so proud of the fact that he was the only Republican in the 104th Congress who had actually been here during the last Republican Congress in 1953 and 1954 when he served as a page with our colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Paul Kanjorski, and he was real excited on the first day of the 104th Congress, too, when he was asked to preside over the House. It was Bill who taught me all about putting people before politics and ideas before ideology. He was my best friend and mentor, and gave me the tools that I needed to run for this seat in Congress and to try to be a productive Member of this legislative body. It was he who taught me the importance of friendship in a place that can be very lonely, and the importance of seeking out relationships and friendships with our colleagues across the aisle, which is why I have chosen to speak this morning from this side of the aisle. Bill, I know you are in a much better place now, though your friends and colleagues and I miss you very much, but we are all better off for knowing you. And when I look at the person sitting in the Speaker's chair every day, I see your smiling face and hear your deep and resonant voice and know that you are looking down on all of us, encouraging us to do the right thing as we fight for the very folks who sent us here to represent them. Thank you so very much for giving me and your friends here today the benefit of knowing you.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 54, the Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment to provide Old Glory with the complete and unqualified protection of the law. Our flag is an enduring symbol of America's great tradition of liberty and democratic government. Missouri's own Harry Truman hailed the special importance of Old Glory when he signed the Act of Congress which established June 14 of each year as National Flag Day. With Flag Day just 2 days from now, it is altogether fitting and appropriate for the House to pass the constitutional amendment to outlaw its desecration. Countless brave Americans have followed our flag into battle. More than 1 million have died in its defense. These men and women, our soldiers and veterans, stood in harm's way to defend the flag and the principles which it represents. Please let us not diminish their sacrifices and their courage by looking the other way at the desecration of America's proudest symbol. Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong ``yes'' vote on the flag protection amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as a cosponsor from H.R. 1559.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith amendment to prevent taxpayer dollars from promoting abortion overseas, and I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], for offering this important amendment and for his unwavering support for the unborn. As many of us know, the House has already endorsed several of the provisions of the Smith amendment in a vote earlier this year, and in passing H.R. 581 we affirm the wisdom of the Reagan-Bush Mexico City policy, which does prevent taxpayer dollars from going to international organizations which promote or perform abortions as a method of family planning. Today the House has an opportunity to again make it clear that the U.S. Government must not be in a position of encouraging abortion. The second part of the Smith amendment, which would prohibit funding of the United Nations population fund until that body ceases activities in China or until China abandons its policy of forced abortion, is equally as important as the first. It is a terrible injustice that the UNFPA would allow China's abuses to go unchecked, but worse still that the United States taxpayer may be a partner to this crime. The safeguards contained in the Smith amendment are the only way to be sure that we are not fostering the policies of the Chinese Government, or making it possible for the UNFPA to do so. I urge the House to say no to a policy of exporting abortion and yes to support the Smith amendment.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, this year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the ISTEA law to ensure that the critical infrastructure needs of our Nation are met as we strive toward a more efficient safe, and productive transportation network. To that effect, I am introducing legislation that will expand the bridge discretionary program and I would allow States and local communities to receive sufficient funds for high cost bridges that are in dire need of replacement. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, in 1995, 25 percent of the Nation's interstate bridges were classified as deficient. Twenty eight (28) percent of the 130,000 bridges on all other arterial systems in the nation were deficient as well. In fiscal year 1994-96 States requested $1.28 billion in discretionary funds for 65 different bridges. Currently, ISTEA funds the bridge discretionary program at $69 million a year and there is tremendous need for a greatly expanded program. My legislation would authorize $800 million to be used out of our transportation funds in the new highway bill for these bridges. In the 1970's and 1980's, the Federal highway program has a large discretionary component that met the needs of replacing aging bridges and reconstructing early segments of the interstate system. However, in the last two surface transportation acts, these programs were severely cut back. Prior to ISTEA, the bridge discretionary program was funded at the $200 to $225 million level annually. ISTEA dramatically scaled back the funding, and the state of the nation's bridges has continued to deteriorate. An expanded bridge discretionary program would allow your State to compete for bridge funds each year. It would permit these projects to move ahead faster and receive more money rather than relying on a State's regular apportionment or scarce demonstration project funds. Once these bridge projects receive their initial funding, they go to the top of the list to receive funds in the future years, if needed. The Nation benefits from a strong Federal transportation system. We must allow the Federal Government to have the flexibility to fund a State's extraordinary bridge needs in any given year. This legislation would provide the funding and flexibility to meet this pressing need to help rebuild our high-traffic bridges that are in very poor condition nationwide.

Mrs. EMERSON

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, it pains me to have to rise and speak against the amendment of my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert]. Mr. Chairman, it will not help my district in Missouri, and I realize that that sounds a little bit selfish, but the fact is that my job here is to protect the folks back home, and that is what I need to do. Let me explain by telling the Members about a couple of situations in my district. We have a small town called East Prairie, where the integrity of its levees are greatly threatened. This is a poor town and it is very prone to flooding every year. Because of this, there are a lot of folks who live on welfare in East Prairie because no companies want to come to East Prairie and locate because they keep getting flooded out. So we have no jobs. We have lots of welfare recipients and we do not have any prospects for getting new jobs until our levees can be fixed and we can get two pumping stations to help keep those levees strong and maintain them. I need to know what I can tell the folks in East Prairie, MO, who desperately want to find work. Am I going to tell them that they ought to move away because Fish and Wildlife or the EPA thinks that the pallid sturgeon in our region is more important than them? And then several miles up the river in a place called Commerce, MO, right on the river we have another problem. If we had a flood half as bad as they had in Grand Forks, the Army Corps of Engineers tells us that we would have a huge chocolate tide coming in because our levees cannot hold the water and, it would spread all the way through our district, southern Missouri, all the way to Helena, AR, the home of our colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Berry] and the President's home State. Our levee simply cannot manage that influx of water. We stand to lose half a million lives, several interstates, schools, businesses, private property. It is a terrible situation. Our landowners, for example, we have to wait 2 years to have an environmental impact statement to tell us if we can even get a permit to fix this. That is not right. Our landowners in both these cases have offered five times the mitigation to maintain and repair these levees, but we are told by the EPA and Fish and Wildlife that since this is not natural wildlife they will not accept that, but five times hundreds of thousands of dollars of mitigation and it is unacceptable. So what do I tell these folks in my district? What do I tell them when their lives are in harm's way on a daily basis? That we have to wait 2 years to even try to fix this problem? So anyway, that is my problem. That is my concern. I sure think that the Pombo-Herger bill is going to help our folks in southern Missouri a lot more than that of my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].

Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Chairman, the eastern border of my district has 200 miles of Mississippi River frontage. I can tell my colleagues that when the Mississippi River floods, the wildlife head to our levees. If we are going to talk about truly protecting wildlife, then I think the best way to do that is to have a levee that is structurally sound, well-maintained and able to withstand the extraordinary floods that we have had in the past few years. Our levee boards, our drainage districts that work on a daily basis to maintain these levees, who touch and see and feel and who actually have some experience with the levees, oppose the Boehlert amendment and support H.R. 478. These folks have to face the daily threat of the Department of Interior and the EPA swooping down on them because they disturbed wildlife while doing some sort of general maintenance work, all in the name of endangered species. If we cannot do preventative maintenance, then the levees fail and we do not protect anything. As a matter of fact, our Department of Conservation every 2 years has to spend $1 million to put the wildlife habitat back together. If the levees were intact, that would not be the case. That is just taxpayer dollars. If we cannot do preventative maintenance, the levees will fail, we will not protect anything, we will not save the communities, the people in those communities or the birds, the fish and the beetles. We have to be able to perform maintenance that prevents levee failures. As the gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] says, current ESA provisions allow repairs only after natural disasters have begun to destroy human life and property and only after the President declares this a Federal disaster area. I urge support for H.R. 478. Let us put people first for a change.