Rodney Frelinghuysen

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the motion of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe]. Mr. Chairman, today, we must ask ourselves whether or not we will respect the rights and needs of victims of rape and incest. The victims of these horrendous crimes are unfairly caught in the cross fire of a debate that fails to recognize their rights. In past weeks, we spoke loudly in defense of the rights of women and children in Bosnia who have been victims of rapes. Should we speak any less of the rights of rape victims here at home? I think not.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa, Dr. Greg Ganske. Mr. Chairman, let me speak from a layperson's perspective. My primary concern is that we want those who practice obstetrics and gynecology, or any other kind of medicine, to be trained in every legal medical procedure. I certainly would want to know that those treating my loved ones, families or friends, would have the best or most complete training in order to safeguard their lives in either emergency or nonemergency situations. Quite frankly, and to close, Congress simply has no business legislating on this issue. Let us keep the heavy hand of government out of graduate medical education. I am including for the Record a letter from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, August 2, 1995. Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen, 514 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Frelinghuysen: On behalf of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), an organization representing physicians dedicated to improving women's health care, I am writing to urge you to support a motion that will be offered by Representatives Greg Ganske and Nancy Johnson to strike Section 512 of HR 2127, the Labor, Health and Human Services Education and Related Institutions FY96 Appropriations Act. This section would prohibit the government from recognizing the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as the accrediting body for residency programs in Obstetrics- Gynecology if the current ACGME standards regarding abortion training are not reversed. Section 512 was added to HR 2127 during the Appropriations Committee markup by Representative Tom DeLay and is designed to override new ob-gyn residency training requirements adopted by the ACGME. The ACGME is a private medical accreditation body composed of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Association of Medical Colleges, the American Board of Medical Specialties, and the Council of Medical Specialty Societies that is responsible for establishing medical standards for more than 7,400 residency programs. Earlier this year, the ACGME adopted modifications of the requirements that Obstetrics and Gynecology residency programs must meet to be accredited. These modifications include the following: Experience with induced abortion must be a part of residency education, except for programs and residents with moral or religious objections. This education can be provided outside the institution. Experience with management of complications of abortion [[Page H 8379]] must be provided to all residents. If a residency program has a religious, moral or legal restriction which prohibits the residents from performing abortions within the institution, the program must ensure that the residents receive a satisfactory education and experience managing the complications of abortion. Furthermore, such residency programs (1) must not impede residents in their program who do not have a religious or moral objection from receiving education and experience in performing abortions at another institution; and, (2) must publicize such policy to all applicants to that residency. During the Congressional debate on this issue, misconceptions about the ACGME language have arisen that I wish to clarify. First and foremost, under the ACGME requirements, no institution or individual can be required to participate in the training of induced abortion. Thus, Section 512 seeking to override the ACGME language in order to protect institutions and individuals opposed to abortion is unnecessary given that the requirements already guarantee that any program or resident with moral or religious objections are exempted from the training. ACGME has demonstrated its fairness and its commitment to this principle by altering its language when it was argued that the requirement forced more involvement than those opposed to abortion were comfortable with. Now all that is required of a program that chooses not to provide abortion training for moral or religious reasons is that they notify residents that the program does not offer the training and that they not impede residents from getting the training elsewhere. In addition, training in elective abortions is not specified. Rather, the language requires that training in induced abortions take place. Congressional override of the ACGME training requirements sets a very dangerous precedent. Never before has Congress sought to override educational standards, let alone standards for training in medicine. ACOG is forced to oppose any new involvement of the government in the education of physicians. Although Section 512 is intended to address the ACGME abortion training requirements, it actually goes much farther by prohibiting federal and state programs that receive federal funds from relying on ACGME accreditation for Ob-Gyn residency programs. This could create havoc in the medical education field. For example, to assure that federal funds are being provided for quality medical education, the Medicare program requires that to be eligible for federal funds a residency program must be accredited by ACGME. Section 512 states that the Medicare program cannot rely on ACGME accreditation, but fails to provide any indication of what standards should be used as a substitute. If Section 512 becomes law, the Medicare program would be faced with four choices in order to comply: (1) to establish a separate federal accreditation standard and compliance process for Ob-Gyn residencies; (2) to require the states to establish such a standard; (3) to encourage the formation of an alternative private accreditation standard; or (4) to have no standard and allow residence programs to receive federal funding with no quality demonstration. In ACOG's view, none of these alternatives are desirable and several would create major problems for Ob-Gyn residency programs. The first two options involve government in a field that has traditionally been left to the private sector. No doubt establishing new government standards would be time consuming and duplicative of the work ACGME has done for years. Even if this is accepted as an appropriate role, the fate of Ob-Gyn residencies and those that are enrolled in such programs would be in doubt until such new standards could be put in place. The third option, while not involving the government, would cause the same disruptions and uncertainty, as current laws require that one must have completed an ACGME accredited program in order to become board certified in Obstetrics and Gynecology. If the government chooses any of the above options, programs would have to be accredited twice if they desire to receive federal funds and to have their residents eligible for board certification. It is unlikely that a program that does not have federal funds or whose residents are not eligible for board certification could survive. The final option removes all protections of quality, which clearly is not the desire of physicians and their patients, nor should it be the intent of the Congress. Clearly, Section 512 could have many unintended consequences for the federal government, states, the medical education field, physicians, and their patients. Although ACOG is opposed to any federal intervention in the ACGME accreditation process, we recognize that there are those who believe Congress should intervene in this process. For those individuals, ACOG must point out that Section 512 is more far-reaching than necessary, is vague, and non-specific and should be opposed. ACOG urges you to support the Ganske- Johnson motion to strike this provision when the full House considers the Labor, HHS Appropriations bill later this week. Sincerely, Ralph W. Hale, MD, Executive Director.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Solomon amendment. The question before us tonight is simple. Should students and parents decide how to spend their money, or should political organizations be allowed to covertly siphon dollars from students and parents for agendas they do not espouse? In New Jersey, the choice was obvious. This March Governor Whiteman signed a bill that does exactly what the Solomon amendment would do. The Governor said the following: ``PIRG is the only one, the only organization in the country we could find that has enjoyed this kind of negative checkoff.'' But New Jersey PIRG found a loophole. They were so fearful of losing their funding bonanza that they devised a plan to get around the law. Unfortunately, a State judge approved the plan, so this fall thousands of people will again be hoodwinked into donating to a cause they may not agree with. My friend Alex DeCroce, and assemblyman from New Jersey, wrote me a letter which I have here today. It says: A broad based Federal standard enacted this fall to eliminate the negative checkoff would resolve our dilemma in New Jersey and give public institutions across the Nation the ability to protect consumers. Mr. Chairman, we have all heard the great weeping and gnashing of teeth from opponents of this amendment. Why are they so frightened? If these agendas are so important, they should have no trouble in raising money through voluntary contributions. This amendment is all about free speech. It restores the rights of students and parents to decide what [[Page H 8400]] causes they wish to support. I strongly support the Solomon amendment and urge my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I submit for inclusion in the Record the letter I received from Assemblyman DeCroce: 0New Jersey General Assembly, Morris Plains, NJ, July 28, 1995. Hon. Rodney P. Frelinghuysen, House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Frelinghuysen: I am very pleased to learn that the US Congress is willing to tackle the ``negative check-off'' issue that unfairly burdens many of our students and their families. As the sponsor of A-380, the New Jersey legislation which addressed that issue, I was jubilant when the bill passed both the General Assembly and the Senate and less than 24 hours later was signed by Governor Whitman. Unfortunately, on July 5, 1995, a Superior Court judge decided that the NJ PIRG plan to separate their lobbying efforts from their educational functions, which was devised to circumvent the new law, was found to be acceptable. This means that the Fall, 1995 student tuition bills for Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, include a negative check- off for NJ PIRG. Once we have resolved this issue in New Jersey, which we intend to do, our constituents attending school in other states can still fall prey to the negative check-off. A broad based federal standard enacted this fall to eliminate the negative check-off would resolve our dilemma in New Jersey and give public institutions across the nation the ability to protect consumers. Under separate cover you will receive my complete file on A-380. I am anxious to work with you to see a resolution to this issue. My personal best wishes. Sincerely, Alex DeCroce.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Greenwood amendment. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the title X family planning program is a national priority. We have done a disservice by transferring these monies to other areas with no guarantee that these vital services will continue. Title X provides basic health care services for millions of low- income women. Without title X, my state of New Jersey will lose $5.3 million in designated family planning funding and over 106,000 New Jersey women will lose access to contraception, pre-natal care, and other basic health services like cervical and breast cancer screenings. This debate is about whether or not we believe it is a national priority to provide low-income women with family planning information, education and services. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that it is a national priority. The most recent data estimates each year in the United States, there are 3.1 million unintended pregnancies, 1.5 million abortions, and 1 million teenage pregnancies. This is a national crisis. Congressman Greenwood's amendment simply restores direct funding for title X family planning programs and I urge its passage.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the manager's amendment which will be offered by the gentleman from Virginia sometime later. And I do so regrettably, because I rise in strong opposition to it. But first, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] on the enormous effort they have put forward in bringing this bill to the floor. Mr. Chairman, I represent nearly 20,000 people who are employed in the telecommunications industry. This bill will directly impact their lives, professions, and the local economies which they support. And I thought the bill that was reported by the Committee by a vote of 38 to 5 was a balanced bill. But the changes in the 66-page manager's amendment would dilute the competitive provisions in the original bill and would tilt the playing field in favor of the local exchange companies. So I will be opposing the manager's amendment. However, this bill impacts more than just the people who work in the telecommunications industry. As many have said here tonight, our actions will impact every American citizen and we must remember them-- our constitutents--in this debate. Yes, this is an historic bill which will guide this multibillion dollar industry into the next century. But we need to understand that the results of this profound debate will enter into every facet of our personal and professional lives financial and otherwise. And that is precisely why I oppose the manager's amendment. We should debate these substantial changes for longer than a half hour because they do represent a clear departure from the original bill. I would urge a no vote on the manager's amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to pay tribute to our Nation's Korean war veterans. Last week, the Korean War Veterans Memorial was dedicated to their honor--and it's about time. These men and women have waited too long to be recognized for their sacrifices. They fought, and many died, for ``a country they never knew and a people they never met,'' as reads an inscription on one of the memorial's sculptures. The Korean War Veterans Memorial is a somber yet powerful monument to those who served in what is often referred to as ``the forgotten war'' of the 20th century. Many heroes of the Korean war have spent the last 40 years lost in the shadows of the triumphant victory in World War II and the national divisiveness sparked by the war in Vietnam. Yet, the Korean war was critical because it was the first test of the post-World War II order; our Nation's commitment to defend liberty and to arrest the growing threat of tyranny were being directly challenged. Carved in stone on the memorial are the words, ``Freedom is Not Free''--a truism confirmed by painful numbers. Over 5 million Americans were mobilized for the Korean war--103,000 were wounded in battle, 52,000 gave their lives and 8,000 prisoners of war are still unaccounted for. There are still over 140,000 Korean war veterans in New Jersey, 12,400 of them in the 11th Congressional District. Today, as I speak, thousands of American troops work together with South Korean forces to maintain the fragile peace that their grandparents fought and died for along the 38th parallel. For 42 years now, they have stood watch. Ever vigilant, ever brave, they continue to guard what has become a thriving democracy and a vibrant culture. So, while a threat still looms from the north, our Nation's commitment to defend the principles of liberty remain steadfast. The legacy of the soldiers who fought in the frozen hills of the Korean Peninsula is evident today in the stark contrast of a nation's people still divided. The morning before the memorial was dedicated, South Korea's President, Kim Yong-sam, addressed a joint session of the United States Congress as the leader of a free and democratic nation while Kim Il Jung of North Korea still shrouds his people in the cloak of communism. The Korean War Veterans Memorial serves as a reminder to the United States, South Korea, and the rest of the world that freedom has a price and we ought never to forget those who paid it.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the current provision in title III that deals with the regulation of combustion of hazardous waste and in opposition to the Stokes-Boehlert amendment that would allow EPA to ignore the combustion language. EPA's activities under the so-called Combustion Strategy have made unfair demands on the regulated community without the proper legal authority to do so. Title III of this bill restricts EPA from spending taxpayer money on requirements that we, as Members of Congress, have not authorized. The language in the bill is designed to ensure fair and effective environmental regulations, which benefit the environment, industry and American workers. [[Page H 7944]] In my district, chemical manufacturers have worked hard to comply with EPA's regulation, but the regulations have been expanded above and beyond what the law demands and requires. The result is increased prices for all Americans without corresponding environmental benefits. Let me reiterate that the language in the bill does not change the law governing the disposal of hazardous waste, but instead it requires EPA to act under the statutory scheme duly authorized by law. It merely demands that EPA follow the rules. It is no surprise that the language in this bill is supported by a broad-based coalition of chemical manufacturers, fuel processors, industrial boiler owners, building material companies, and labor unions. This bipartisan measure stops the EPA from preselecting outcomes before all of the facts are in. We must demand EPA comply with existing procedures. By contrast, the Stokes-Boehlert amendment is an attempt to keep the status quo and let bureaucrats run the agency without the consent of Congress. It would render all limitations in the bill meaningless by allowing some environmental groups merely to inform EPA of their opposition in order to defeat the intent of Congress expressed in title III. Mr. Chairman, the measure in this bill is a good provision and requires that EPA follow the law as intended by Congress. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment and require EPA to follow the law.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Chairman Lewis' amendment to reprioritize some of the housing programs and to add more funding for the special needs housing programs which consolidates the housing construction programs for people with disabilities, the elderly, and AIDS housing. In addition the amendment adds more funding for the homeless housing program and the Multifamily Credit Subsidy Program. I am pleased to be a part of this compromise agreement reached between Chairman Lewis and the chairman of the Housing Subcommittee, Mr. Lazio. While I agree that the Department of Housing and Urban Development is in drastic need of downsizing and consolidation, I was concerned about the reduction in the special needs program. By adopting the Lewis amendment we will be sending a clear message to the bureaucrats at HUD that Congress is willing to support programs that work like the section 202 and section 811 programs. Both of these programs have a proven track record and I am pleased that this amendment addresses the successes of these two programs. This amendment will also address the multifamily credit subsidy program. Here again, I believe that we need to find ways to revise the operation of the current multifamily programs, so that it can become self-sustaining without a federally appropriated subsidy. However, in the interim and lacking a new authorization, Congress needs to continue this program because if targets the people who are most in need. Again, I urge my colleagues to adopt the Lewis amendment and make these constructive changes to the VA, HUD, and independent agencies appropriations bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this subcommittee I want to thank Chairman Lewis, Congressman Stokes, and the subcommittee staff for their leadership and guidance during this long process. Our bill contains funding for many vital programs for our Nation's veterans, to protect and preserve our environment, to help house the needy and disabled, and for scientific research and discovery. It has been a difficult task balancing these needs and funding all of the programs. I believe that we have achieved this. In total, our bill provides $79.4 billion for these programs. Mr. Chairman, this is $10.5 billion less than last year and $10.5 billion below the President's budget request. Like the other appropriations bills that have passed the House this year, this bill moves the country closer toward the goal of a balanced budget. While I do not agree with all the reductions in this bill, I do believe it is time to stop throwing good money after bad and start refocusing our limited resources toward programs that work. Since subcommittee markup, I have been contacted by many people who merely look at the bottom line or the appropriated level for each agencies that are contained in this bill. I would suggest to these people that they begin to look at the programs contained in this bill and ask the question are these programs working? In many cases they are not. For example, both Secretary Cisneros and the President agree that the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD] needs to be reformed. In fact, it is the Secretary's own suggestion that many programs should be eliminated and the entire department should be reduced down to three umbrella programs. I am hopeful that the authorization committee on housing will soon adopt a housing bill that will reform HUD and put it back on track. This message is also targeted toward the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. Simply sitting back and extending current law, like Superfund, is an abdication of their leadership. Its time to come to the table and be a full partner toward reform. EPA's Administrator has said the program is broken and this bill recognizes that fact. The bill provides adequate funding to keep the program moving, however, it stops the expansion of the program until the law is reauthorized. The last reauthorization was done in 1986. In reviewing EPA's budget, I have found that the Superfund situation is not an isolated case, but a rule of thumb for many of EPA's programs. [[Page H 7825]] Yes, environmental laws have worked, however, laws need to be updated and reformed and the status quo is not acceptable. In many cases the bureaucrats have decided arbitrarily to overstep their legal authority and push policies that are clearly beyond statutory intent. Distracted by regulation and litigation, EPA has lost their focus on the bottom line--protecting our resources and addressing critical environmental needs. In my State of New Jersey, both housing and environmental programs are extremely important. That is why I am pleased to have worked with the chairman to provide additional resources for section 202 and 811-- two housing programs that do work to help our older Americans and people with disabilities. This issue will be addressed in the chairman's amendment and I thank him for his support of these programs. This bill also funds the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly half of the bill's funding supports these activities and I am pleased that the committee was able to increase medical care above this year's level by nearly $500 million. In addition we have been able to fully fund the compensations and pensions programs, veterans' insurance, and the Loan Guarantee Program. This bill is not the perfect answer to all the problems that we face, however, it is the first step in a process that will bring us toward a compromise. Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to adopt this measure.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Coleman amendment and in support of ending the outdated provision known as 13C. Mr. Chairman, the time has come to end this provision, which has been an albatross around the neck of all public transit authorities. Proponents of keeping 13C argue that it was developed as part of the collective bargaining process. 13C was not a result of collective bargaining, it resulted from a legislative provision that was passed in the 1960's. As most of us know, 13C has simply outlived its useful life. The current application of this law extends way beyond the original intent. It has become the key obstacle that prohibits public transit agencies from even considering the economic benefit of competitive contracting. Supporters of this amendment argue that this bill will impede labor's collective bargaining rights. Well, this is simply not true. In fact, 13C intrudes into local decisionmaking and the collective bargaining process. Repealing 13C does not in any way remove labor's collective bargaining power. Based on labor protection law of the 19th century, if a protected employee is adversely impacted, that employee is entitled to 6 year's full salary. This antiquated protection violates fair and equitable collective bargaining and insures that public transit authorities, greatly dependent upon Federal assistance, will rarely risk such an expense. Thus--innovation and competition are stifled. [[Page H 7595]] Repealing 13C is supported by every transit authority across the Nation, including New Jersey Transit. Under 13C, every Federal transit grant is reviewed by the national office of the labor unions. If the national union does not like a particular grant proposal, the union simply refuses to sign off on the grant and therefore holds the funding hostage, adding to the cost of operating mass transit. This practice has to stop and sanity must be restored. In these times of reduced Federal operating assistance, public transit authorities must have as much flexibility as possible to build projects on time and on budget. Without this flexibility, New Jersey and other States will not be able to provide the quality service that the public expects and deserves. We need to end the veto power that labor holds over transit projects. 13C has been a gift to organized labor for far too long. 13C needs to be repealed. Let the local transit authorities manage the systems that they are in charge of and reject the Coleman amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Smith amendment. I believe it is shortsighted and it goes against the very principles of the ISTEA act of 1991. When Congress passed ISTEA, the goal was to give flexibility to the States, so that they could best meet their own transportation needs. The Smith amendment denies this right. Mass transportation has already been cut substantially in this bill. This Congress has said time and time again that one-size-fits-all approach does not work. If a State chooses mass transit over highways, then they should be afforded that option, and not be forced into one type of transportation. The Smith amendment is sending the wrong message. Mass transportation is a vital link to the economic and social well-being of the citizens of New Jersey and of the Northeast, the entire United States. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Wolf, for the time, and compliment him and the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Coleman, on the good work that they have accomplished in this bill. I rise in strong support of H.R. 2002, the Transportation Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996. Mr. Chairman, this bill is important for several reasons. First, it reduces overall transportation spending by $1.2 billion from last year's level. As Chairman Livingston has said on this floor several times, the Appropriations Committee is doing its job and this bill is further proof that we are keeping our promise to balance the budget. Second, the bill is good for the State of New Jersey, the most densely populated State in the country. This bill gives New Jersey the funding and flexibility we need to improve our transportation system. Most important, the bill provides $75 million for the urban core project, a series of mass transit upgrades which will take cars off the road and made commuting much easier for New Jersey residents. I thank the chairman and ranking member for including this important funding. Finally, the bill ends an outdated requirement that has held up and raised the cost of several transit projects. This 30-year-old provision, known as 13C, has stifled innovation, efficiency, and growth in transit services, and I am pleased that the committee decided to end it. Mr. Chairman, we know we have to do more with less money, and this bill does that. Transit operating subsidies have been reduced. But this bill repeals 13C which has been nothing more than a gift to organized labor for the past 30 years. This takes away labor's veto power over transit projects and lets transit manages do what they do best--which is manage. Mr. Chairman, I again applaud the gentleman from Virginia for this bill and urge its adoption.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. As author of section 101 of the bill, let me clarify my intent and the intent of the Committee on appropriations. Our primary motivation was saving extremely scarce dollars without adversely impacting essential Corps missions. In addition, we intended to take steps that would be supportive of the private sector which is so essential in ensuring the proper maintenance of the Nation's navigation channels. Specifically, the amendment I offered in Committee would prohibit the Army Corps of Engineers from going forward with major repairs and improvements to the government owned dredge McFarland, especially when earlier studies questioned the justification of the current Federal hopper dredge fleet and when the Corps is, once again, conducting a reevaluation of the Federal hopper dredge fleet and industry capability. We on the Appropriations Committee have the responsibility of ensuring that Federal dollars are spent wisely. At the same time, we recognize that the authorizing committee has the major role in deciding the need for and the appropriate size and scope of the Federal hopper dredge fleet. Our intent was simply to defer expenditures for major repairs of one of the vessels until the ongoing study is completed. Further, we felt that a more accurate assessment of the existing Federal fleet was through a market test--using industry first and the Corps vessel in reserve if industry can't do the job. It was never our intent to usurp the jurisdiction of the authorizing committee.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to request a colloquy with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905 making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1996. As a new member of this subcommittee, I would like to thank Chairman Myers and Ranking Member Bevill for their leadership and direction. I would also like to thank the dedicated and capable staff of the subcommittee for their expertise and knowledge of these important issues. The bill before the House today reduces spending and downsizes the Federal Government, while maintaining funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and important energy research programs like fusion energy. We had to make the tough choices about where to reduce spending while supporting programs that are in the best interest of our country. Overall the bill reflects the changing priorities of the new Congress by reducing spending for the Department of Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies by almost $1.6 billion from last year's level. An 8-percent reduction. Unlike the budget resolution which passed the House in May, the decisions in this bill will directly reduce Federal spending and are essential in our efforts to reach a balanced budget. Specifically, the bill will fund fusion energy research at $229 million, slightly below the new authorized level. I am hopeful that as this bill moves through the committee process we will be successful in meeting this new number. In another area, the bill will close the Tennessee Valley Authority's environmental research center, a facility which I questioned the need for during our hearing process. This is clearly not a priority when we have a $5 trillion debt and we have an EPA that is responsible for these same activities. I am also very pleased with the subcommittee decision to flatly reject the President's wish to end flood control and coastal protection projects. These projects are ``nationally significant'' and it is my belief that the President's policy was ill-conceived and not founded on solid fact. By rejecting the President's policy, New Jersey's shore and flood-prone areas will be protected again. This bill represents real progress toward a smaller, smarter government. It is one more step closer to balancing the budget and keeping our promises to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905 making appropriations for energy and water development for fiscal year 1996. As a new member of this subcommittee, I would like to thank Chairman Myers and ranking member Bevill for their leadership and direction. I would also like to thank the dedicated and capable staff of the subcommittee for their expertise and knowledge of these important issues. The bill before the House today reduces spending and downsizes the Federal Government, while maintaining funding for critical flood safety projects, coastal protection, and important energy research programs like fusion energy. We had to make the tough choices about where to reduce spending while supporting programs that are in the best interest of our country. [[Page H 6780]] Overall the bill reflects the changing priorities of the new Congress by reducing spending for the Department of Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, and other agencies by almost $1.6 billion from last year's level: An 8-percent reduction. Unlike the budget resolution which passed the House in May, the decisions in this bill will directly reduce Federal spending and are essential in our efforts to reach a balanced budget. I am also very pleased with the subcommittee decision to flatly reject the President's wish to end flood control and coastal protection projects. These projects are nationally significant and it is my belief that the President's policy, was ill-conceived and not founded on solid fact. By rejecting the President's policy, New Jersey's shore and flood prone areas will be protected again. This bill represents real progress toward a smaller, smarter government. It is one more step closer to balancing the budget and keeping our promises to the American people. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this bill.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his time and comments.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Just for clarification, the compromise that we have agreed to would prohibit the expenditure of funds for improvement or major repair of the dredge McFarland. This language is intended to prohibit the Corps from going forward with any substantial new investment in upgrading the McFarland or extending the vessel's useful life, but not to limit the Corps' ability to undertake repairs needed to keep the vessel operational as part of the Corps' minimum dredge fleet and to meet Coast Guard certification. I would ask the gentleman whether this is his understanding as well.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, America celebrated flag day. Millions of American men and women all across the country retrieved their Star Spangled Banner from the basement or attic and proudly displayed it to honor the day. For many families, the flag itself is a tradition. Perhaps it was a grandfather's flag, or a gift from a son or daughter serving in the military. Perhaps it even draped the coffin of a sister or brother who made the ultimate sacrifice for the United States. Whatever the case--the American flag means something special and personal to each and every one of us. It represents our freedom, our liberty, and our common bond. It is the emblem of a unity to which every fourth-grader has pledged their allegiance in homeroom. In the House of Representatives, we begin every day with that same pledge. We pledge allegiance to the flag because of ``the Republic for which it stands.'' As a veteran, I believe that our flag is our Nation's most enduring symbol. It is unfortunate and saddening that some disagree. They use the flag to express an opinion or make a statement. I think that this is wrong. Burning our flag is simply wrong, and should be outlawed. As an original cosponsor of a constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration, and with nearly 280 of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, I am working to protect the flag and what it stands for. I plan to vote today for this constitutional amendment. Our goal is to pass the amendment this year and to present it to the States for ratification. Forty-nine States have already passed resolutions requesting that Congress pass this amendment banning the desecration of our American flag. We hold high respect for the flag not because of what it is but because of what it stands for. We have rules which define the proper way to display, store, and maintain our flag. These rules were established for a reason. They were established so that we would not grow complacent about our flag, and hence our unity and our freedom. They protect our flag so that we remember the high price we paid for our freedom and personal liberties. Our flag reminds us that we are one nation, one People--regardless of our diverse backgrounds, religions, or heritage. Our flag reminds us of who we are as Americans, and deserves the utmost honor, esteem, and protection.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday was a rare example of how Government can work with industry--instead of against them--on regulations that will improve safety. I am referring to the decision by the Consumer Product Safety Commission on child-proof medicine caps. New Jersey is home to 15 major pharmaceutical companies with over 83 facilities statewide. The industry employs over 56,000 New Jerseyans and contributes close to $10 billion to our State's economy. Child-proof caps have become so hard to remove--especially for our elderly--that adults leave the bottles open or switch the drugs to pill boxes, where kids can easily get into them. The result was that more children were ingesting dangerous substances. In February, during a VA-HUD appropriations hearing, I asked that the commission work with industry to fix this problem. Yesterday's ruling does just that. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the commission and industry for working together. This is a win-win result and I am glad that I was able to play a part. This rule should improve child safety and make older Americans' lives easier--what could be better?

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and commend all of those involved in the Holocaust Rescuers in Italy Day to be held at the Villa Walsh Academy in Morris Township on this coming Tuesday, May 23. This ceremony marks the extraordinary courage exhibited by ordinary people during the Second World War. During the autumn of 1943, Italian Jews were in imminent danger of being captured by Nazi troops. In order to try and save them from the horrible fate of the Nazi death camps, Pope Pius XII sent word that the Roman Catholic religious orders should provide sanctuary to persecuted Jews by welcoming them into their monasteries and convents. Eighty percent of Italy's Jewish population survived the Holocaust because of their efforts. This took countless individual acts of courage by Italian Catholics who risked a similar fate if discovered by Nazi storm troopers. ``A Debt to Honor,'' a documentary film narrated by New Jersey resident Alan Alda and produced by Documentaries International president Sy Rotter, shows how these acts of heroism occurred when individuals, faced with extraordinary fear and adversity, simply did what was right. This film is a welcome reminder of what we are all capable of as human beings and that heroism and moral courage are not forgotten character traits. Sister Margherita Marchione, a member of the Religious Teachers Filippini, one of the Catholic orders involved in helping the Jews of Rome, assisted Rotter in collecting the memories of Italy's Jewish survivors such as Carlo Sestieri. According to Sestieri, who was hidden in one of the Vatican buildings while his wife was provided sanctuary in a nearby convent: Thousands of Roman Jews would have been captured by Nazi troops on October 16, 1943, had it not been for the prudent politics of the Vatican. Without a doubt, it helped avoid worse disasters. Sister Margherita has opened the doors of Villa Walsh to numerous Jewish and Italian organizations including the United Jewish Federation of Metrowest, the Italian Embassy, the Italian American Foundation, the Anti-Defamation League, Unico National, Order Sons of Italy in America, and the Temple B'nai Or of Morristown, who along with the National Endowment for the Humanities are sponsoring the event. I am proud to have ``A Debt of Honor,'' filmed in Italy with the help of the Italian State Broadcasting Network, debt in my congressional district. Holocaust Rescuers In Italy Day helps to remind each of us that there are things in life larger than ourselves, things worth sacrificing for--things worth being a hero for.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 1158. Mr. Speaker, as a new Member of the House, I voted for a balanced budget amendment knowing full well that such a measure would require tough choices. While some contend that we don't need such an amendment, personally I felt that our Nation's future depended on it. Our national debt is staggering, our annual deficit continues to grow, and our actions today on this conference report mark the first real step to protect future generations. We are here for our children and grandchildren, pure and simple. If we act today we give them a greater measure of security. Most important, this first tough vote may give them a chance to have the opportunities we enjoy: a great education, the prospect of a real job and an opportunity for a better future. Our vote today is a downpayment on a balanced budget. Let's be clear this package is a $16.4 billion reduction out of a total of a $1.5 trillion budget. It is less than a 1 percent reduction. The bottom line is that we need to start the process. What better steps than to consolidate a horde of programs, some highly duplicative, some unauthorized by Congress itself, some with unjustified increases, and others paralyzed in the money pipeline with little likelihood of being spent. I am astonished that President Clinton is considering using his first veto on this bill that would reduce Federal spending by $16.4 billion and provide emergency funding for the California floods and the Oklahoma City bombing recovery effort. The President and the Democrats have made their position clear--which is that they intend to sit on the sidelines while the Republicans balance the Federal budget. As I said early, this reduction represents less than 1 percent of the Federal budget, and yet the President thinks that is too much. It is ironic and saddening that the very day the House will vote on the first real balanced budget plan in 25 years, the President would rather keep spending money we don't have and stick our children and grandchildren with the tab. This is living proof that Washington will not stop spending without a balanced budget amendment. With this bill we are making it clear that we will set priorities, we will limit the size of government, and we will do what we said we would--reduce the deficit, balance the budget, and restore the future to our children. I urge the passage of this important conference report.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican plan to balance the Federal budget. This is the first time in over 25 years that the Congress has committed to balancing the budget. And, quite frankly, it's long overdue. Americans across this great country need to know why it is so important to get our federal spending under control and balance the federal budget. Here are just the numbers. The Federal Government has amassed a debt of over $4.9 trillion. Even though the Federal Government collected over $1.3 trillion from taxpayers last year, Congress spent in excess of $1.5 trillion every year. So, today, we offer this broad plan for balancing the Federal budget over the next 7 years. Simply put, it ends business as usual and this spend-more-than-you-can-afford attitude that has existed for far too long in Washington. What does this debt mean to each and every taxpayer? It means that the share of that debt for every American is $17,000. If we do nothing, our children will have to pay $200,000 in taxes over their lifetime to cover this debt. And, because of this debt, we are wasting over $260 billion a year--a full 16 percent of the total Federal budget--just paying interest. That's money we could be using for more health care, more education, and many other worthy purposes if only we had balanced the budget. Most important, this debt means that we are playing a high-risk game with our children's future. Saddled with this debt, we threaten their future opportunities. So today, we lay out a broad plan to balance the budget--while protecting Social Security, as we promised, and while preserving, protecting, and improving Medicare. As expected, there are those who claim the sky will fall and that we cannot survive without each and every Federal program, without each and every dollar that is spent here in Washington. Even under this plan to balance the budget, the Federal budget will still increase every year. Let me repeat that. The budget increases every year. In fact Federal spending will increase $1.2 trillion over the next 7 years. Only in Washington can reasonable increases be called cuts. What is the alternative? The President has failed to provide a plan to balance the budget. While we are taking the lead and making the tough choices, the President has remained on the sidelines during this critical national debate. It is quite clear that the President does not want to balance the budget. Despite this, we move forward. To honor our commitment to America, the Congress and the President need to work together. We also must work as a nation to discuss openly the choices we face. Over the past 4 months, I have heard from thousands of constituents with their ideas, suggestions, and concerns. New Jerseyans know how to make the tough choices for their families and their businesses. In New Jersey, our State balances its budget. In New Jersey, we have made government smaller and more efficient. In New Jersey, we have made sure that taxpayers come first, not last. Over the next few months, the House will debate and make final decisions on each item proposed in the budget. As we debate our spending priorities, everyone needs to participate. There must be national dialog on where we are today and what we must do for our future. Today's vote marks a historic beginning. We have set our Nation on the path toward fiscal sanity and a solid future for all Americans.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN

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