Terry Everett

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to bring to the attention of this body a historic and noteworthy anniversary. This year marks the 125th year since the founding of the Alabama Press Association [APA], the oldest statewide trade association in Alabama and one of the oldest State newspaper associations in the Nation. In 1871, as Alabama continued to recover from the ravages of the Civil War, its newspaper editors and publishers, joined by community leaders, sought new ways to promote economic growth. This was the genesis of the Alabama Press Association which actually came into being with the first statewide meeting of newspaper executives on March 17, 1871 at the Montgomery Advertiser. Since those early days, the APA has evolved from a social organization of editors and publishers to an association that has played an important role in developing the daily and weekly newspapers of Alabama and serving as a catalyst for the State's economic and cultural development. The APA worked on behalf of the citizenry of Alabama by advocating stronger public access to government records and meetings. It has pushed for the State's first statewide taxes to support public education and it spearheaded a successful effort to launch a statewide chamber of commerce. The APA played a role through many of its leaders in guiding the State through some of the important and cultural changes of the last half of the 20th century. Its officers have included some of the leading newspaper men and women in America, and its member newspapers have won the Nation's highest awards for journalistic excellence. Additionally, before coming to the Congress it was my pleasure to serve as president of the APA in 1991. Alabama and the Nation can be justly proud of the contributions and leadership of the Alabama Press Association as it continues toward another 125 years of public service.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration, developed a much touted six-point test that must be satisfied before the use of military force is warranted. The first, and perhaps most important point of the test is ``does the United States have vital, national interests at stake.'' The answer in Bosnia is clearly no. The international community has allowed the most recent fighting of this centuries-old civil war to carry on for nearly 3 years before air strikes directed by the United Nations were ordered. Now, some 4 years later, President Clinton has decided to assume Europe's responsibility and help bolster NATO's standing by sending United States troops into a tentative and unwarranted peacekeeping mission. To conduct a peacekeeping mission successfully and safely, the peacekeepers must be perceived as neutral by the warring parties. How can United States forces be seen as neutral when U.N. air strikes against Serb positions have largely been conducted by the United States for the past year? To add fuel to the fire, President Clinton has promised that the United States would be simultaneously involved in training and equipping Bosnian Moslem forces so that they may be better able to defend themselves against possible Serb attacks. Other dangers facing American service men and women serving as peacekeepers in the Balkans involves the very real threat of terrorism from Islamic fundamentalists, thousands of land mines--most of which are unaccounted, and the risks of traveling over the snow- and ice- covered mountainous terrain of this area. Although the President has determined that U.S. peacekeepers will be withdrawn from this mission area in 1 year, I find the exit strategy to be lacking and full of holes that could leave U.S. forces bogged down in this effort for a much longer period of time. Mr. Speaker, the United States cannot conduct foreign policy by deploying our troops around the globe to interject our morals, values, and way of life upon warring nations. It won't be successful, and we could lose the credibility that we currently enjoy as the lone superpower. There are many ways we can support peace in the Balkans without putting young Americans in harms way. It is not too late to halt any further troop movements to this region, so I urge all of my colleagues to support the Dornan legislation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Medicare Preservation Act. Yes, reforming Medicare is intimidating. Yes, maintaining the status quo is easier. Well, my constituents did not send me up here to take the easy way out, but to make hard choices in the best interest of the second district of Alabama and for this country's future. I believe that there is nothing more abhorrent than using the power of this institution to terrify the elderly, the disabled, and the poor. But, the House Democrats are doing just that. While they are well aware that the Medicare Program is in a state of crisis, they continue to spout fear rhetoric. We all know, and even Democrats cannot deny, that Medicare is growing at over 10 percent every year. In order to sustain this rate of growth. Congress would be forced to cripple working Americans by raising the payroll tax by 44 percent. The only other alternative would be to allow Medicare outlays to reach 100 percent of Federal revenues by the year 2030 and bankrupt the entire country. The Republican Party has a plan to save, preserve, and improve Medicare for today's beneficiaries and for future generations. The Medicare Preservation Act offers seniors the same cost effective choices for quality health care available to younger Americans, but develops innovative ways to save health care dollars; all while still delivering the best health care to all Americans without cutting a single dollar to beneficiaries. Let me make that clear, regardless of Democrat's demagoguery, there are no cuts in this legislation, Mr. Speaker. Medicare payments will increase at a high rate of 6.5 percent allowing for a $2,000 increase from the current $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002, for every single beneficiary. Correct me if I am wrong, but a $2,000 increase is not a cut in any teacher's math class. Currently, Medicare recipients pay 31.5 percent of their Medicare part B premium. Under the MPA, traditional Medicare recipients will continue to pay 31.5 percent of their Medicare part B premium. The MPA does not include changes to the deductible or the co-payment. Again, how can this mean that seniors pay more? The truth of the matter is that because the Medicare Program is a 30-year-old dinosaur, seniors actually pay more money in traditional Medicare for fewer services than their children and grandchildren do in the health care open market. This historic legislation empowers seniors by offering choices through MedicarePlus coverage which includes coordinated care preferred provider organizations, local union or association policies, HMO's, private fee-for-service, medical saving's accounts, or continuing traditional Medicare. Most of these choices are currently available for every other American. Why should senior citizens continue to get the short end of the stick? The MPA goes a step further and opens the health care playing field to hospital and doctor coordinated organizations who can network to offer direct medical care to beneficiaries saving the cost of a middleman. Since hospitals are burdened with a large portion of the Medicare payment reimbursement savings, creating provider service organizations [PSO's] will allay some of their burden while opening up a whole new choice for direct medical care. Medical savings account [MSA's] will allow seniors who choose this option to completely control how their Medicare contribution and out- of-pocket money is spent. They will receive their Medicare contribution each year in one sum which will be deposited into their medical savings account. They can then choose a high deductible policy which best fits their needs, maintaining at least 60 percent of the cost of the deductible in their MSA at all times. They can then use the balance of their MSA for doctor's visits, prescription drugs, eyeglasses or other medical-related expenses. If they are hospitalized the MSA pays for the [[Page H 10366]] deductible and then insurance pays for the rest. If money is left over in the MSA at the end of the year, the money belongs to the senior and can be used for any purpose or can be rolled over into the next year's MSA. MPA not only keeps the Medicare Program healthy into the 21st century, but finally gives seniors the power and choices they deserve. The legislation also includes long awaited liability reforms, strong incentives for combating fraud and abuse, and many other reforms which will only improve the Medicare health care delivery program. The amazing thing about this is that the MPA does not cut a single dollar from a beneficiary check, nor does it ask seniors to pay a single dollar more than they now pay. Again, in simple language, there are not cuts to beneficiaries in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, we must all take the responsibility for protecting and caring for our grandparents and parents and of those disabled either physically, emotionally, or financially. But, we also have a responsibility to our younger taxpayers who are not only future beneficiaries of Medicare, but the future of this country. At this point they are paying 68.5 percent of the Medicare part B premium. Like most seniors, they simply cannot afford to pay more. Private health care organizations have been successful in the last several years at finding savings by actively seeking new and innovative ways to deliver the quality health care that Americans expect and deserve. The Republican Medicare Preservation Act accomplishes this same goal for America's seniors. In support of the Medicare Preservation Act, I challenge Democrats to quit their scare tactics and join Republicans as we get down to the business of saving Medicare today and protecting and preserving the program into the 21st century.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2394 is a cost of living adjustment bill which will increase the rates of compensation for service connected disabled veterans along with the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation [DIC] for survivors of certain disabled veterans. The rate of increase will match that set by the Social Security Administration and will become effective on December 1, 1995. In 1993, the House Veterans' Affairs Committee approved a measure that granted a one-half COLA based on the new-law benefit amount for all DIC recipients. This year, however, despite some COLA provisions to help meet the committee's reconciliation targets, we will be able to improve on OBRA 93 and give a full rate increase to all DIC recipients based on the new-law benefit amount of $790. This bill would also provide for a round down to the next lower dollar amount for all compensation and DIC benefits when the amount is not a whole dollar. While we have not studied all cost of living adjustments, according to the congressional research service, a major portion of Federal programs made COLA round downs permanent in the 1980's, including military retirement, aid for dependent children, supplemental security income, Social Security, railroad retirement, civil service retirement, and food stamps. This is a good bill. If the letters from your constituents are anything like the ones I have been receiving, you know that a full DIC COLA is not something a lot of surviving spouses are expecting. This year, the administration's budget request and the budget resolution both suggested a half COLA. With a bipartisan effort, we are able to provide a full rate increase to help ensure an adequate standard of living for the 2.23 million veterans receiving disability compensation, in addition to the almost 313,000 surviving spouses and children of our veterans whose lives were shortened by service-connected illness or injury. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to add to what has been said about my good friend the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. I came to this Congress 2\1/2\ years ago. He was one of the first men I met here. I have great admiration for him. I also have many people in my district who know him and love him, think the world of him. I would just echo what was said. If all Members of this Congress operated the way that Sonny Montgomery operates, this Congress would have a much different reputation.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, Alabama's beloved bandmaster, Dr. Johnny Long, retires this year after three decades as director of bands at Troy State University, Troy, AL. Instead of resting on his laurels, Johnny Long has always looked to the next goal and achieved it. This motto has served him well throughout his career as I'm sure it will in retirement. His numerous achievements include past president of the prestigious American Bandmasters Association, and recipient of the 1994 Sudler Medal of Honor from the Sousa Foundation for this many contributions to the excellence of bands and band music. Johnny Long was also elected in 1994 to the National Band Association's Hall of Fame of Distinguished Band Conductors, becoming the youngest active bandmaster to be so honored. Dr. Johnny Long inspires an uncommon passion for musical scholarship in all he touches. Witness the fact that over his career more than 200 of his former students have become active high school band directors and college music educators throughout the United States. To be sure, the whole Nation owes a debt of gratitude to Dr. Johnny Long on this occasion of his retirement from nearly half a century of bandmastery.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with members of the Alabama and Georgia delegations, rise to introduce a measure on behalf of the Historic Chattahoochee Commission, a State agency of both Alabama and Georgia. On October 14, 1978, President Carter signed Public Law 95-462 which granted the consent of Congress to the Historic Chattahoochee Compact between the States of Alabama and Georgia. Earlier, both States had passed identical legislation to authorize the creation of this compact for the operation of the Historic Chattahoochee Commission. The Commission, a bi-State heritage tourism agency, serves 11 Georgia and 7 Alabama counties along the lower Chattahoochee River. At present, the Historic Chattahoochee Commission's board nomination process is cumbersome. The commission's 28 board members--14 from each State--are appointed ``* * * by the historical commission or organization or similar historical body or other designated authority in each of the counties represented by the Commission who shall be bona fide residents and qualified voters of the party states.'' In some counties, there are no historical or preservation groups and organizations. In other countries, there are two or three historical or preservation organizations. County or city governments and even some tourism or commerce organizations have been called upon to nominate board members in counties without historical or preservation groups. This process is often confusing and time consuming. In an effort to resolve this inefficiency, the Historical Chattahoochee Commission's board of directors proposed to amend the interstate compact to simplify the commission's board selection procedures. This legislation seeks to ease this process. In 1993, the Alabama Legislature approved Act 93-643 and the Georgia General Assembly endorsed Act 326 which amended the Historical Chattahoochee Commission's interstate compact to provide for a different board selection process. This amendment, and the legislation I am introducing today, specifies that The Commission shall consist of 28 members who shall be bona fide residents and qualified voters of the party states and counties served by the Commission. Election for vacant seats shall be by majority vote of the voting members of the Commission board at a regularly scheduled meeting. On August 19, 1993, the Alabama Attorney General's office rendered an opinion that the Historical Chattahoochee Commission, * * * cannot use the amended version of the enabling legislation to select new board members until the consent of Congress is given by the amending of Public Law 95-462. On February 2, 1994, the Georgia Attorney General's office issued an opinion that: * * * the Georgia amendment expressly requires that both the Georgia and Alabama amendments of the Historic Chattahoochee Compact be approved by Congress prior to becoming effective. Without such approval, the Commission does not have the authority to act under the Georgia or Alabama amendment. With this requirement in mind, it is with pleasure that I join with my colleagues Representative Bevill, Representative Bishop, Representative Browder, Representative Cramer, and Representative Hilliard in seeing that the amendment to the Historical Chattahoochee Commission's interstate compact becomes effective. Senator Shelby has introduced S. 848 in the Senate and he is joined [[Page E 1466]] in support by Senators Heflin, Coverdell, and Nunn. During the 104th Congress, I look forward to gaining the support of the House in advancing this legislation expeditiously, as it has already been approved by the States of Alabama and Georgia.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that liberal Democrats have absolutely no plan to save Medicare. None. The closest they come to saving Medicare is Bill Clinton's alleged balanced budget. And even here, the Democrats would just delay Medicare bankruptcy by just 3 years--which is not really saving Medicare. We can also see that liberal Democrats will not even recognize the report of the Medicare Trustees that says Medicare will be stone, cold bankrupt in just 7 years. After all this, though, Democrats breathlessly defend this program and denounce any Republican effort to save Medicare. Well, my friends you can not have it both ways. If Democrats want to continue Medicare, but reject the Republican plan, you really only have three options: First, you must increase payroll taxes by 44 percent; or, second, you must immediately decrease Medicare spending by 30 percent; or, third, you must dramatically increase premiums paid by our seniors. Mr. Speaker, to Republicans none of these possibilities are acceptable. But they show why the Democrats have been so silent about honestly dealing with Medicare.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to congratulate the committee chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. This truly, Mr. Speaker, has been an outstanding effort of bipartisanship, and I want to congratulate all those involved. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have been a part of the bipartisan effort that has unanimously brought H.R. 1565 to the floor out of the Veterans Committee. This is a necessary and important bill, and I am glad to speak in support of it today. H.R. 1565 clarifies and simplifies the conditions for coverage for victims of agent orange exposure. Veterans who exhibit characteristics of the exposure will be covered, as will those whose condition demonstrates an association with the disease. Even when available medical data merits no conclusion on the source of their condition, the veteran will be covered. This bill gives veterans every benefit of the doubt. In addition, veterans exposed to radiation during their time on active duty will be eligible for hospital and nursing home care where credible evidence exists of a positive association with the disease and the defoliant. As an extension of the Agent Orange Act of 1991, this bill will also require the Department of Veterans Affairs to work with the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate and review all issues pertaining to agent orange. This is a positive step that will allow veterans access to the best available information on their ailments. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a good day for our veterans and those who have suffered from agent orange. We must work together to protect the interests of our Nation's veterans, and this legislation marks a positive step in that direction.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this en bloc amendment package, which includes my amendment that would prohibit the Army from consolidating the Aviation Technical Test Center [ATTC] to any other facility until the Institute for Defense Analyses has completed an independent review of an Army proposal to transfer the ATTC from Fort. Rucker and Edwards AFB to Yuma Proving Ground. I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not a base closure issue. This proposal has been brewing within the Army's Test & Evaluation Command for more than 2 years, and in my opinion, is based on a flawed and incomplete analysis with a predetermined outcome. Last year, the House-passed defense authorization bill contained report language requiring the Army to submit a report to Congress which substantiates their interest in moving the ATTC to Yuma. To date, we have not received such a report. Mr. Chairman, I would not be here questioning the Army's motives unless I thought this proposal was ill conceived. The idea of recreating the aviation testing operation at considerable expense, and moving it from one location to another just doesn't pass the commonsense test. This amendment gives both the Army and the Congress the opportunity to review this proposal from an independent source. This is a prudent course of action for [[Page H6015]] the House to make, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. consolidation of the army's aviation technical test center The Army's Test & Evaluation Command has submitted a proposal to the Secretary of the Army to consolidate the Aviation Technical Test Center, currently located at Fort Rucker, AL and Edwards AFB, CA, at Yuma Proving Ground [YPG], AZ. In order to accommodate this consolidation at YPG, substantial infrastructure--$10 million--and logistics investments will be necessary. In the best of circumstances, the funding for these infrastructure investments are not planned by the Army until fiscal year 1998, which is well after the planned October 1996 stand-up date at Yuma. The Army has failed to adequately address the following concerns: Enhanced synergy of Army aviation at Fort Rucker. The vast pool of pilots and aircraft from the training center allows ATTC to meet any testing demand without additional cost. Large maintenance, logistics, and supply facility at Fort Rucker enables ATTC to keep aircraft flying consistently and inexpensively-- this would need to be refabricated at Yuma. The parts inventory alone could cost as much as $1.6 million. The $10 million needed for hangar and maintenance facilities at Yuma will not be requested until fiscal year 1998, the work-arounds to leave these aircraft in the open, exposed to the harsh desert climate, seem short-sighted and ill advised. Of the 97 tests conducted by ATTC, only 2 required the Yuma range, 1993; last two armament tests were conducted at China Lake and Eglin. Armament and aviation testing trends are moving toward computer- simulated tests, rather than live-fire tests.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the suit filed by the Seminole Indians that would allow tribes to sue States in order to enter into Class III gaming-- casino gambling--compacts. The Court's interest in hearing this case points to the long overdue need for a restructuring of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. One glaring flaw of the statute lies with the current approval process for gaming compacts--the local communities do not have a voice in these matters which will clearly impact their quality of life. By way of background, under current law, all that is required for Class III gaming approval is a compact between the tribe and State--the local community affected by the gaming activity has no involvement in the approval process. Moreover, under the current law, State and local governments are prohibited from assessing taxes on these gaming activities. I believe that the local community, whose infrastructure and public services will be strained by the operation of a gambling casino, should be able to participate in the approval process. A full- fledged casino would place untold burdens on the police, fire, rescue, and other public services of a small town. The roads, bridges and water and sewer capabilities of a small or rural town would be inadequate to handle the added demand and usage. Today I am joined by a number of interested members in introducing legislation that will give local communities a voice in the approval process. First, the elected governing body, such as the city council, mayor or county commissioners, would be required to approve the Tribal- State compact. Second, the local community will then have the opportunity to approve the compact through a referendum. The inclusion of the local community in the gaming compact will not only reflect a more complete representation of the people of the affected area, but I believe will foster a friendlier and more cooperative relationship between the tribes and the local communities in which they reside. Whether you are a proponent of opponent of casino gambling, the concerns of impacted local communities should be factored into the process. This legislation will go a long way to alleviate these concerns, and believe that it is time for Congress to take action and amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the Stump amendment to restore funding to the veterans programs that have been cut in this bill. As a nation, we have asked veterans to put their lives in harms way to preserve our freedom. Many have given the ultimate sacrifice, and many more have suffered severe and debilitating injuries that they carry with them each and every day. As a nation, we have also asked these veterans to take cut, after cut, after cut to fund the modest programs to provide adequate health care. They have always responded ``we'll do our fair share.'' Mr. Chairman, there is enough fat existing in the Federal Government that other programs should be cut before we ask the veterans of America to make yet another sacrifice. The amendment before us restores $206 million needed for VA outpatient clinics and essential medical equipment purchases. These clinics will provide outpatient services at a much lower cost than if these services were delivered from a large hospital. The medical equipment cut of $50 million would only add to the $800 million backlog in needed medical equipment that already exists. In order to restore these funds to the VA, the amendment reduces funding from Americorp. In my opinion, Americorp shouldn't be in existence at all. It's another example of a big, unnecessary Federal program that is a nice idea, but unwarranted in the wake of our budget problems. Furthermore, Americorp, which was created by the National Service Act, undermines and trivializes military service as a form of duty to country. Not only does Americorp provide these paid-volunteers the same educational benefits as military personnel under the GI bill, but the military member must pay $1,200 into this fund. The paid volunteer pays nothing into the Americorp fund. Mr. Chairman, this amendment restores necessary and important funding to the VA and offsets these costs with prudent cuts from an unnecessary Federal program. Let's do the right thing and support the veterans of America; vote yes on the Stump amendment.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, the current welfare system has been a nightmare for children. It is a fact that long-term welfare dependency harms children. A study by Child Trends found that children in families dependent on welfare for long periods of time have more developmental problems than children dependent for only short periods. The problem is, most welfare recipients are long-term dependents. So it is no surprise to learn that 69 percent of children in chronically dependent welfare families score in the bottom third of all children on vocabulary and language skills tests. The sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is that welfare is probably far worse for children than for anyone else involved, because it gets them into the same habits of dependency they are surrounded by, resulting in an almost unbreakable cycle of welfare. And yet, my liberal Democrat colleagues come to this floor to deceive, to distort, and to disinform about the Republican proposal on the school lunch program. They are so concerned with protecting the bureaucracy that they are blind to the greater tragedy to children that is going on in my State of Alabama and right outside this Capitol. That is sad, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, in a speech to the City Club of Cleveland a little over 7 years ago, former President Ronald Reagan had this to say about the line-item veto: ``No President should be faced with the all- or-nothing proposition. The time is here for giving the President the same thing that 43 Governors have--a line-item veto.'' Mr. Speaker, the Contract with America calls for a vote on the line- item veto. Hopefully this measure will pass with the same measure of bipartisan support that unfunded mandates did. President Reagan was right 7 years ago and his words are true today. Republicans are working hard to deliver on our promise to the American people to give the President a tool to help fight waste and redundancies in the Federal budget.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, every month millions of Americans go through the same ritual. They take out their bank statement and the records they have kept and they balance their checkbook. It can be a difficult task, and occasionally the numbers just do not add up right. However, for the Federal Government, the numbers have not added up right for over a quarter of a century. The rest of America understands what it is like to live within a budget. They understand that they cannot spend more money than they make. Mr. Speaker, every American household must balance their checkbook. It is time the House balanced its checkbook. When the time comes, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in voting yes for the balanced budget amendment and restoring a sense of reality to this House.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, events on the House floor the last few days may have caused some viewers to think that the people's House is the most expensive day care center in the world. It, of course, is not. The planned disruption by those with no ideas will not keep Republicans from changing the culture of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the American people elected a Republican majority in November. They sent a clear message: Clean up the way Congress conducts its business. We promise to bring to the floor issues that the American people want to see, including unfunded mandate legislation and a balanced budget amendment. We are working to change the culture of Washington to bring discipline to Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is time to get on with the business at hand. I want to change Congress, while some Democrats just want to change the subject.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, a headline in today's Washington Post reads ``Unfunded Mandates Top Cities' List of Problems.'' It sites a study by the National League of Cities that finds unfunded mandates is the issue local governments find most vexing. It's time for Congress to put an end to this practice of trying to balance our books on the backs of State and local governments. If the Federal Government cannot pay for it, we will not force the costs on the States. That is what our unfunded mandate legislation will accomplish. Republicans want to change the culture of Washington through unfunded mandates legislation and a balanced budget amendment. We want a Government that works for the people, not against the people. I urge my colleagues to supported unfunded mandates legislation. The time has come to change the culture of Washington. The article to which I referred is as follows: Unfunded Mandates Top Cities' List of Problems--Officals Surveyed Also Cite Crime, Violence (By John M. Goshko) Halting increases in crime and violence, curbing costly federal requirements and creating more jobs are the biggest problems facing American towns and cities, according to the National League of Cities' annual survey of the issues preoccupying municipal officials. The NLC, a bipartisan organization that represents state municipal leagues with a combined membership of 16,000 cities, based its findings on responses from 382 elected officials drawn from cities of 10,000 people or more. The findings of the survey, conducted before the November elections, closely paralleled many of the concerns that dominated campaigns and led to Republican control of Congress. The survey found that unfunded mandates--laws or regulations imposed on cities without funding from federal or state governments--is the issue local governments find most vexing. The adverse impact of these mandates on cities with shrinking municipal financial resources was cited by 74.2 percent of respondents as a steadily worsening situation that Congress must address urgently. Also of great concern to municipal officials is a panoply of public safety issues: youth crime (63.4 percent), school violence (52 percent), gangs (51.3 percent), drugs (48.4 percent) and violent crime (40.8 percent). In proposing ways to deal with crime, respondents broke sharply with the tough measures proposed by House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) in his ``Contract With America.'' In accordance with GOP campaign promises, Congress is preparing to consider substantial revision of the omnibus crime bill, passed under President Clinton's sponsorship last summer, to divert funds from crime-prevention programs to prison construction. The NLC survey asked respondents to measure the potential effectiveness of 20 different approaches to reducing crime. They expressed the least confidence in get-tough ideas such as more death penalties (8.1 percent), more prisons (8.4 percent), elimination of parole (9.9 percent) and stricter gun control (11.8 percent). By contrast, 63.6 percent of respondents declared themselves in favor of strengthening family stability as the most effective deterrent to crime. They also gave high marks to job creation, after-school and recreational programs and early-childhood education such as Head Start as approaches to fighting crime. ``Municipal officials believe that last year's crime bill struck the right balance,'' said Donald J. Borut, NLC executive director. ``There is serious concern about the current efforts at revision under consideration in Congress. Last summer's bill has been in effect barely four months, and we believe it should be given a chance before attempts are made to tamper with it.'' Both Borut and Carolyn Long Banks, NLC president and an Atlanta city council member, stressed that the greatest concern in city governments is unfunded mandates. They praised Sen. Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) for taking the lead on legislation that would curb Washington's power to impose mandates without funding them. Banks noted that unfunded mandates take up almost 15 percent of Altanta's annual budget. She added that her city is being fined $9,000 a day for failing to comply with a federal law requiring construction of a system to handle storm and water runoff. It hasn't been done, she said, because the city doesn't have the money to meet federal specifications and because many residents don't want the requisite construction in their neighborhoods.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, recent polls indicate that some 80 percent of the American people favor the balanced budget amendment. The people have sent their message to the people's House. Now it is time for the people's House to respond. My colleagues, if we are sincere in our desire to get big government off the back of middle income Americans, then we should vote yes on a balanced budget amendment. The balanced budget amendment is designed to produce results. It forces us to take action. It forces us to be responsible with the taxpayers' dollars. It forces us to do what this House has not done in 30 years. Mr. Speaker, the time for stalling is past. Nearly $5 trillion of debt placed upon our children and grandchildren demands a response. We must take action now. We must pass the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. EVERETT

Mr. EVERETT. Mr. Speaker, it has been a quarter of a century since this Congress passed a balanced budget, 25 years. The Members of this institution have proven incapable of making the tough decisions necessary to balance the budget. An amendment to the Constitution will force this House to make those difficult decisions. I believe that we can all agree that we must discontinue piling up the debt on our children and grandchildren. For those who disagree with this proposition, I would say state their reasoning clearly. If they are against balancing the budget, come out and say so. Do not hide behind misleading information and untruths. Mr. Speaker, I employ my colleagues, if they are sincere in their desire to balance the budget, then they must vote for an amendment to the Constitution.