Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 2722.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Monday next, for morning hour debates.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 2722 authorizes the award of the Medal of Honor to three individuals who have been recommended for the award following a review by the Secretary of the Army. In authorizing an award S. 2722, waives the time limits established in the law for the award of the Medal of Honor. The three cases involve extraordinary valor in combat and represent well the high standard for bravery that is the hallmark of our Nation's most cherished decoration, the Medal of Honor. Corporal Andrew J. Smith, 55th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, saved the regimental colors from capture on November 30, 1864, during the Battle of Honey Hill, South Carolina, when an assault left one-half of the regiment's officers and a third of the enlisted men killed or wounded. Technician Fifth grade, James K. Okubo, Medical Detachment 442nd Regimental Combat Team, rescued several badly wounded members of his unit while under heavy enemy fire on October 28, 29, and November 4, 1944, near Biffontaine France. Captain Ed. W. Freeman, 229 Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division, repeatedly flew into one of the hottest and most embattled landing zones of the Vietnam War to provide essential supplies and evacuate wounded on November 14, 1965, at landing zone X-ray during the battle of the LaDrang Valley, Republic of Vietnam. The legislation would provide the appropriate honors posthumously to three valiant Americans of very different backgrounds, engaged in three very different battles. No matter how different the men, no matter how different the tactical or technological aspects of the conflicts in which they found themselves, they each reflected the best character of the American soldier. Mr. Speaker, I also want to note that this legislation would, if adopted by the House, permit Mr. Okubo's family to receive his medal along with other Asian-American veterans who will receive Medals of Honor in a White House Ceremony on June 21. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of S. 2722. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 2722), to authorize the award of the Medal of Honor to Ed. W. Freeman, James K. Okubo, and Andrew J. Smith, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of offering my amendment No. 37, I ask unanimous consent to return to page 2, line 13. I was in the Chamber at the time we were on that item. I was on my feet, but I was not recognized. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Sununu) was recognized.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us moves $4 million from the wild horse and burro management line item of the Bureau of Land Management budget to the wildland fire management line item of the U.S. Forest Service. In recent weeks, we have seen just how serious a problem fire is in the Rocky Mountain West. The recent fires in New Mexico resulted in the destruction of 400 residences, damaged two Indian pueblos and the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and loss is estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The problem is not confined in New Mexico. This week, two wildfires are burning houses and forced hundreds from their homes southwest of Denver and west of Loveland. I have headlines here from the papers just this week out there: ``Two fires destroy homes, force residents to flee. Hundreds flee Larimer County fire. Front Range fires rage,'' the headlines read. Three years ago, Dr. Thomas Veblen, a forest historian at the University of Colorado, stated that Rocky Mountain forests were due for a catastrophic fire event 3 years after the onset of a wet season. He was not talking about the kind of fires we see every year. He was talking about wildfires stretching the length of the Rockies from Wyoming to Colorado to New Mexico. At that time, some of us estimated that these catastrophic fires could occur within 3 to 5 years, and we would have what they call a ``millennial fire.'' Now we may be 1 or 2 years away. As we have seen in this week's newspapers, we might be seeing the start of it. At risk this time are the towns like Evergreen, Manitou Springs, Woodland Park, Estes Park, and Boulder. These are not isolated hamlets but thriving communities, some located inside of cities like Denver and Colorado Springs. The Buffalo Creek fire, which struck the Pike-San Isabel National Forest 4 years ago, was one ridge and one rainstorm from hitting the Denver suburbs. The forest fire service map of the Front Range shows a solid block of red from Boulder to Pueblo. So as we have seen, this is not just a Colorado problem. The New Mexico fire speaks for itself. Three years ago, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) introduced legislation to treat the northern forest of that State. At that time, the Forest Service stated that forest treatment and prescribed burns would be needed in the foreseeable future to clear up the build-up on the forest floor. For the past 2 years, the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth- Hage) has held hearings on the forest health problem. Frankly, until the New Mexico fires, the response from the Forest Service headquarters has been silence. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can wait any longer. According to its own report, the appropriation bill is approximately $5 million under what is needed for a Forest Service to run an optimum wildland fire management program. I do not think we can stint on this. I would add, I think, the report of March 2001 deadline for a Forest Service plan to deal with this is too far out. We should direct them to implement the plans they have now according to their internal priority lists. The amendment before us offers a choice of priorities. We could argue about the merits or demerits of the wild horse program, but this does not do away with that program at all. There is still half of that money for that program there, $4 million, that can continue that program. But even with a budget increase, the burro and horse program is going to be a problem with us for a long time to come. The fire situation is something we can and must start dealing with right now. With that, I urge support of this amendment.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I just want to say that we do recognize that both the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), are not unsympathetic about this. They have worked in their bill to try to provide a great deal of assistance in this area, and we appreciate that and understand that. And we understand if the problem intensifies that they will be there to be helpful to us. The Forest Service tells us that they are $5 million short of being able to do the kind of program that is needed to meet the need. This would put $4 million of that $5 million in it. At the same time, it would not in any way destroy the horse and burro program because that is something too that we need to solve. We have too many horses and burros on the range. I would advise the gentleman from Ohio that I raise horses. I am sympathetic with the horse problem. I live in the West. I saw My Friend Flicka and Thunderhead. I understand about wild horses and the affection we have in America for wild horses. But we have too many on the range, and we do need to solve it. I would not in any way want to take away all the money from that. That is why half the money is still there.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, a family that has suffered a loss of a loved one should not have the added grief of losing the family business, ranch, or personal savings; yet that is what is happening under our current Tax Code. Because of an archaic tax law, when a person dies in this country, an outrageous tax of 37 to 55 percent is levied on his or her property, even though the deceased spent his or her entire life paying taxes on that very estate. The death tax is a form of double taxation that has devastated too many families and businesses. It has been estimated that one-third of small business owners will have to sell outright or liquidate a part of their business to pay death taxes. More than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive the second generation, and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. In my district of Colorado Springs, a well-established family business had to close its doors in the face of an enormous estate tax bill. Small family-run businesses are the backbone of our Nation's strong economy and should not be forced to close down because of taxes. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the Death Tax Elimination Act on this very day.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, China has a continuing legacy of human rights violations and oppression which cannot be ignored. Year after year we have been told, ``Give most-favored-nation status to China and their government will be forced to reform.'' We heard that during the Bush years. We hear it during the Clinton years. Let us look at the score card a little bit. We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue their policy of population planning with forced abortion. We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue not to tolerate any dissent of any kind; the imprisonments, the torture, and the killings go on. It was reported in the beginning of May that Chinese police cut off a villager's tongue after he was detained for writing anti-corruption slogans on a communist party office building. We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue to try to stamp out any religion that is not state-supported religion. ``In February, the family of 60-year-old Chen Zixiu, a Falun Gong follower, were asked to collect her body from a police station in Shandong province where she had been detained for four days. Her body was covered with bruises, her teeth were broken and there was blood coming out of her ears. She was arrested on suspicion of planning to go to Beijing to petition the authorities against the banning of the Falun Gong.'' We gave most-favored-nation status and their policy of cultural genocide in Tibet continues. ``The International Campaign for Tibet reports that more than 1,000 monks and nuns were expelled from their monasteries and nunneries in 1999, bringing to more than 11,000 the number of monks and nuns turned out of their monasteries since the beginning of the `Strike Hard' campaign in 1996.'' We gave most-favored-nation status and they sell nuclear and missile technology to some of our worst enemies. ``In addition, Beijing is aggressively developing strategic ties with Burma, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.'' We gave most-favored-nation status and they make plans to invade Taiwan. ``An internal document prepared by China's Central Military Commission and published in the Western press states that the United States will `pay a high price' if it intervenes in any China-Taiwan military conflict.'' We gave most-favored-nation status to them, and they have the biggest buildup of nuclear missile development of any country on the face of the earth. PNTR supporters say access to China's huge market will increase U.S. businesses exports and create extra jobs in America. As it is, we have a 70 billion dollar trade deficit with China and most proponents of the agreement admit our deficit will continue to grow. ``In all likelihood there will be no great improvement in the trade balance. . . . And there will be no net extra jobs.''--National Journal. The United States should not sell out for the promise of an extra buck. . . . a promise that will not be kept even if PNTR is passed. If you have a rabid dog in your backyard, you don't welcome him into your home. Vote ``no'' on PNTR with China.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is notorious for being cumbersome and slow to change. When it comes to making improvements in our 17,000-page Tax Code, this is particularly true. So it is no great surprise that there is a 102-year-old temporary tax law on the books which became obsolete less than a year after it became law. That is right, the Spanish-American War tax, which charges Americans a 3-percent excise tax on their phone line usage, was passed by Congress in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-American War. Well, the war is over, folks, but the tax is still with us. It is hurting 94 percent of Americans who use phone lines either for personal or business use. Why has it not changed? It has not changed because of the insatiable appetite of Government for every single tax dollar it can get its hands on. This is wrong. Congress needs to disconnect the American people from the outdated Spanish-American War tax.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 154.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material on the Senate amendments to H.R. 834.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the gentleman from Guam (Mr. Underwood), to the minority and the majority and our committee, the Committee on Resources, for their help on this legislation. It has taken a lot longer than it should have. I think it will be very meaningful. We are happy to try to work to encourage, if there are any problems in implementation, to encourage that to be taken care of. But I think we are making a major step. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 154, would establish a uniform Federal policy for the collection of fees for commercial film work on America's public lands. This bill is the result of some real grass-roots interest. Before I introduced this bill 3 years ago, a lady in Englewood, Colorado, contacted my office and wanted to know why Hollywood directors could film on Park Service land for free. To the surprise of virtually everyone, we found that the Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service had been forbidden by regulation to collect such film fees since 1948. No one knows why. We have tried to find out. No one knows why. This bill is our attempt to remedy this situation. The bill directs the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to establish a reasonable fee for commercial filming activities on lands under their jurisdiction. The fees collected would then be divided according to the formula set down in the recreational fee demonstration program, with 70 percent remaining in the unit where it was collected and 30 percent systemwide use. These fees would be used to cover all costs associated with giving film, video, and photography professionals access to the land. The bill also prohibits filming, taping, and photography in areas where such activity could cause environmental damage, disrupt public use of the land, or cause health or safety concerns. Finally, the bill requires that the Secretaries create a process that will ensure timely responses to permit requests. The bill before us incorporates the Senate's language which, by and large, has the effect of recognizing that one of the Nation's land management agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, is part of the Department of Agriculture, not Interior, but should also have a film policy. In fact, the Forest Service already has such a policy, and this legislation would serve as a floor for that existing program. H.R. 154 is the result of an unusual degree of cooperation between my office, the Department of Interior, and the Motion Picture Association of America. Its passage is supported by the Interior Department, the National Parks and Conservation Association, the MPAA and commercial still photographers. It is indeed rare when a measure is endorsed by those who will be paying its fees. Its passage is one of Fish and Wildlife Service's top four legislative priorities. In conclusion, this bill presents a win/win situation. We want people to film in our national parks. After all, many people were probably first exposed to our public lands through the classic westerns of John Ford, which were filmed on public lands near Moab, Utah. At the same time, we do not want our public lands turned into sound stages. If permitting filming allows us to recoup its costs and to deal with some of the other needs of our land management agencies, then that is a desired result. H.R. 154 strikes the proper balance between use and preservation. It is the right thing to do. I urge its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 154) to provide for the collection of fees for the making of motion pictures, television productions, and sound tracks in National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System units, and for other purposes.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the top movies in America today is ``Gladiator,'' a story of a young upstart struggling against an outdated and cruel dictatorship. This week, the House will witness a similar struggle, Americans with phone lines versus the Internal Revenue Service. More than 252 million businesses and families use phone lines, allowing them access to telephones, faxes, computers, and cellular phones. They are beneficiaries of modern technological advances that have changed our society, and yet every time Americans use this technology, the IRS financially penalizes them with the outdated Spanish-American War phone tax. This tax was used to fund the Spanish-American War, a conflict which began and ended in 1898, 102 years ago. It is yet another case of a greedy and overbearing government using any means to tax hard-working Americans and this must end. This week, let us disconnect Americans from the Spanish-American War phone tax.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendments to the bill (H.R. 834) to extend the authorization for the National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes.