Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we share the gentleman's concerns, too, and we want it to work. What we are trying to do with the reauthorization to make it work, let me just share with you the report language of what we intend here. H.R. 1522 modifies the existing Secretarial review of nominations to the National Historic Register as an option of appeal, rather than a mandatory stage in the nominating process as it currently exists, which speaks to what you just spoke to. This legislation intends that most of the decision making would take place at the State and local level, which is also what you want.

Mr. HEFLEY. I think we share the same kind of goals. You have had a very bad experience with it, and I think a lot of us have. We want to make it work right. We do not want to throw it out, because I think it does have merit, but I want it to work.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, to both the Chairman and the Ranking Member, I extend my appreciation for their help as we worked through this process and did try to bring all the groups together. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the roles of government is the preservation of our historic values. To paraphrase one historian, we are unlikely to deal well with our future if we do not understand our past. Since 1966, the Historic Preservation Fund has been part of the way this Nation seeks to accomplish that. The bill before us today reflects the success and maturity of that program. Rather than a set of sweeping reforms, H.R. 1522 attempts to fine-tune what is a mature program. The bill reauthorizes the Historic Preservation Fund at its existing level through the year 2004. I should point out that, despite the authorization level, actual appropriations have never exceeded $50 million, and, in the last 7 years, have only twice exceeded $40 million. The 2004 end date is intended to bring into sync budget deadlines for this program, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the budget agreement. The bill also makes a number of changes to reflect what is happening in the States. It reemphasizes this Congress' commitment to the rights of private property owners. It gives State and tribal historic preservation offices greater flexibility in the hiring of their employees. The provision recognizes Interior's ongoing work at developing standards for these employees, but gives States and tribes the right to make the call on what professionals they need. It allows the Federal Government, through the National Trust for Historic Preservation, to respond to emergencies such as the Mississippi floods of 1994. The bill also codifies an executive order directing government agencies to give consideration to the use of historic buildings in historic districts and central business areas. This is not only something Federal agencies should do as a matter of course, it may help blunt the erosion of downtown areas. The bill also contains a provision backed by strong report language which signals the Committee on Resources' intent that government agencies in Washington should honor the intent of preservation laws in their dealings with local preservation agencies. Too often, the law has been observed only as an afterthought. As I said, this should not be a controversial bill. There are areas where the involved parties simply agree to disagree. We do not agree on everything in it. But it has the backing of the Nation's five major preservation groups, the Preservation Action, National Trust for Historic Preservation, American Cultural Resources Association, National Alliance of Preservation Commissions, National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices. So it does have a broad base of support. Mr. Speaker, I will close and encourage passage of this piece of legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I come to the House floor today to pay tribute to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD as it is commonly known. Today NORAD is celebrating its 40th anniversary, and I wish to congratulate them on a job well done. Located in Colorado Springs, NORAD is charged with the mission of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Since the first binational agreement was signed in 1958 between the United States and Canada, NORAD has faithfully carried out the task of early warning missile and manned aircraft detection. In addition to serving as a vital component of our national defense, NORAD also assists in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking. Originally conceived as a defense against long-range Soviet bombers, NORAD has always adapted well to changes in the global national security arena. The evolving threat of nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles during the Cold War era increased and expanded NORAD's focus to that of a long-range missile attack. It was the early detection capability that I think helped deter nuclear war. I salute NORAD on its 40th anniversary.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Tip O'Neill once made the statement, Tip O'Neill, the long-time Speaker of the House here in this Chamber made the statement, and I quote directly, ``God, I love big government.'' If my colleagues adhere to that philosophy, then they do not want this amendment. But if my colleagues want a smaller government, a less intrusive government, a less expensive government, this amendment needs to be passed. It should not be easy to raise taxes and it is far too easy to do that now. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to some of the comments coming from the other side on this issue and they keep telling us that we should not make it harder for Congress to raise taxes for the sake of the people. Do not do it because it would hurt seniors and Social Security. Do not do it because too many children are smoking. Do not do it because there are too many people out there that need our help. Always reasons to take more of the people's hard-earned money because we seem to know a better way to spend it than they do. A great deal of my colleagues seem to think that if the Nation has a problem, we should simply raise taxes to solve it. They still do not understand that in so many cases higher taxes is the problem. If we allow every American to keep more of their own money, lower taxes could make seniors and future retirees less reliant on the Federal Government and Social Security. It could mean that families might be able to spend a little more time together instead of one parent working to pay the taxes and the other parent working to pay the bills, as in so many families. The extra family time would do more to ensure our children are raised right than all the Federal programs that we can drag out. Mr. Speaker, those on the other side of this issue still do not get it. And unfortunately if we do not get it, the American people will pay the price. '

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Neither the gentleman from Michigan nor I know whether there was a $50 billion tax cut put in the budget agreements.

Mr. HEFLEY. My answer to the gentleman is I think that is a ridiculous question that not even the gentleman from Michigan----

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think that is a ridiculous question.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is all kinds of pending out there that by the time we get through, it will change form many times. But by the time this amendment is ratified, we will have far more than enough time to do whatever the gentleman wants to do with the tobacco settlement.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is no tobacco settlement at this point.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, here is a quiz. What has over 3,500 pages, is practically impossible to understand and is so complicated that rich people, poor people, middle class people all think it is an unfair monstrosity? Of course it is the Federal Tax Code, all 3,500 pages of it. The Tax Code is a monument to the power of special interests, a symbol of big government and liberalism run amok, a scourge to all who believe in fairness, openness and common sense. I am convinced that just reforming the Tax Code is not going to work. No, Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code will have to go because the Tax Code is fundamentally corrupt. It is not an honest system when people trying to do the best they possibly can to figure out how much they owe make innocent mistakes and then get hammered by the IRS. A simple tax, maybe a sales tax, maybe a flat tax, with a low interest rate is the only way to have fairness, transparency and honesty in the way the Federal Government collects revenue. Let us get serious. Let us replace, not just reform, the 3,500 pages of the Tax Code.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I always thought that we were great when we got behind Radio Free Europe and others, and I thought we had free radio here in the United States. It is a shame to me that we are even arguing over this. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the only outrages bigger than those coming out of the West Wing of the White House are those coming out of the left wing of the White House. Just listen to their latest warning about letting people keep a little more of their own money. The White House, only 2 years after calling Republicans extremist for wanting to balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time, now thinks that the tax cuts would be dangerous, irresponsible, and bad policy. This is the same White House that has proposed billions and billions of dollars in new spending programs in their latest budget. Can anyone please tell me why it is that multibillion dollars of new spending programs will not endanger the balanced budget, but tax cuts will? Can anyone please explain to me why Congress should not cut more spending, cut more waste, eliminate more bureaucracy so that American families might be able to keep more of their own money? The tax package Congress passed last year was only a first step. It is time for us to take more steps in that direction.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, since 1969, the Federal tax code has penalized 21 million couples annually, not for getting divorced, not for having children out of wedlock, not for shacking up, but for getting married. When a couple gets married, they are taxed at a higher rate than if they were still single or divorced. The marriage penalty for the average couple is $1,400. Now this may not seem like much to some, but with an additional $1,400, an average couple could pay the electric bill for 9 months, pay for 3 or 4 months of day care, pay for a 5-day vacation at Disneyland, pay four or five payments on their minivan, eat out 35 times, purchase 1,053 gallons of gas, and purchase 1,228 loaves of bread. It is immoral that our tax code discriminates against marriage. We have a tax code that discourages marriage and encourages divorce. Reforming a tax code will restore equity by ensuring that working couples are treated no differently when they get married than they were before.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, a White House official was quoted in the New York Times last month referring to ``our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr.'' Listen to that again, and I am quoting, ``our continuing campaign to destroy Ken Starr.'' Here is a White House spokesman openly acknowledging their despicable strategy to destroy Judge Starr, the special counsel named by a 3-judge panel to investigate allegations of serious wrongdoings by the President. Am I to conclude that the Democratic Party thinks it is okay to smear the independent counsel? Am I to conclude that the Democratic Party does not care that the White House was in possession of 900 FBI files of Republicans, in gross violation of law and the civil rights of American citizens? Am I to conclude that the Democratic Party does not care if the integrity of our judicial system is violated, that obstruction of justice and lying under oath is okay if it is done by a Democrat? Am I to conclude that the President is in fact above the law because the Dow Jones is doing great? Where are your outraged voices, Democrats? Your silence speaks volumes.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor today to give the 1,000th one-minute speech to the 105th Congress for the Republican side, a thousand one-minute speeches in support of the Republican Party vision of smaller limited government and the belief that all God's children are born with certain inalienable rights that no government, no officer of the court, and no politician can ever take away. It is a vision that cherishes liberty above all, liberty tempered by the necessary moral restraints that are the hallmark of a civilized society. It is a vision that takes its inspiration from the Founding Fathers of our great Nation, Founders who declared our independence, fought a revolution against government tyranny, and then after 4 months of heated debate and honorable compromise crafted a sacred document that is still revered 211 years later. The Constitution of the United States is the document that guides us all, Democrats and Republicans, through this ongoing experiment in Democratic self-government. Let us agree, all of us on both sides of the aisle, that we share a common vision that America stands for liberty and the freedom to pursue our dreams from sea to shining sea. And may God bless America.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what a little sunshine will do. Political corruption, fraud, criminal activity and wrongdoing cannot operate in the light of day. When corrupt practices are opened up to public scrutiny, wrongdoers are held accountable for their actions. The White House Travel Office abuse of power; the 900 FBI files of Republicans that were discovered; the entertaining of drug dealers and arms smugglers in the White House; the use of the Lincoln bedroom for fund-raising; dialing for dollars from the White House; the selling of trade missions to raise money; the laundering of money at a Buddhist temple; putting $25,000 price tags on White House coffees; returning over $2 million in campaign contributions because they came from illegal sources. All these were activities that were not conducted in the light of day and had to be exposed by journalists and congressional investigators. And now we have the IRS. The abusive practices of the IRS, known to millions of individual Americans, began to be open to public scrutiny last year as a result of the Senate hearings. The first rays of sunshine are starting to come through, and the IRS looks even worse than we thought. Free people cannot tolerate any of these abuses, at the White House or at the IRS.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget includes a Citizen's Guide to help taxpayers better understand the budget process. It describes a typical American household where a father and mother sit around their kitchen table to review the family budget. They decide how much they can spend on food, shelter, clothing, and transportation, and figure out if they will be able to afford a family vacation this year. Let us say that this family described in the Citizen's Guide thinks that it is important to keep one parent home to care of their children. Imagine how puzzled they will be when they realize in the President's plan they do not get a tax break unless both of them work. And I bet that typical American family is sitting around the kitchen table wondering why the President feels compelled to raise taxes by over $100 billion when we are on the eve of a balanced budget for the first time in 20 years. Mr. Speaker, imagine when they hear they will have to help finance 85 new Washington spending programs, including 39 new expanded entitlements. There goes the family vacation. Mr. Speaker, I am glad our typical American family is strong, because they are going to find the President's budget very taxing indeed.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons that I oppose the President's recently submitted budget request, but none more important than the fact that it raises taxes. It raises taxes a lot. Mr. Speaker, you would think that the White House would have learned its lesson from the last time it raised taxes on the American people in 1993. You would think that the White House would have learned its lesson from the recent race for Governor in Virginia. You would think that the White House would have learned its lesson from the outrageous level of taxation in Europe and all the economic misery that has caused. You would think the White House would have learned its lesson from its own economic report, which shows that the current level of taxation in this country is at the highest peacetime level ever. But I guess not. The budget contains billions and billions of dollars in tax increases. Mr. Speaker, this budget is an affront to the American taxpayer.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, they said it could not be done. Thirty-eight years as a team without winning the big one, and they said it could not be done. For 13 years the National Football Conference dominated the American Conference in the Super Bowl and they said the American Football Conference could not do it. Four previous times the thundering herd from the Mile High City had charged up to the summit only to come down with a thud, and some said it could not be done. When they lost the last three games of the season, many said they were finished, another year of disappointment. Again, it could not be done. Wild card teams do not get to the big game, they sure do not win it. Well, the experts said they cannot do it. But I say to my colleagues, these that said it could not be done were wrong. They did it. The Broncos are world champions. I guess it could be done after all.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California, chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear a certain sameness or similarities between what each of us that have worked so hard on these bills have to say, I think. I think that is because there has never probably in the history of the Congress been two appropriation/authorization committees that have worked closer together or have worked in a more bipartisan spirit than these committees have. I appreciate from the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]) and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] so much the ability for us to work together like we have. We had the same criteria. We worked hard on that criteria. We struggled to make sure that everything absolutely met that criteria. I think we were all absolutely dumbfounded when the President chose to veto these particular bills. Let me sum it up again. All of these projects would address validated requirements of the military services. We did not invent any of these projects. We did not come up out of our head and say, ``Oh, that would be nice to do.'' These are things we demanded that the military prove their need for before we put them in. They are based on information provided by the military departments when the legislation was being developed. All of the projects are executable in 1998--33 of the 38 canceled projects, 85 percent of them, are actually in the President's 5-year defense program. One in four were programmed by the administration for the fiscal year 2000 military construction program. The military construction appropriations and authorization bills were both within the limits established by the budget agreement. There is no wasteful or excessive spending here. The White House and the Department of Defense both admit mistakes were made in the exercise of the line-item veto on the military construction propositions bill. To keep faith with the men and women in uniform and to improve their working conditions, their training environments and to enhance unit readiness, I believe the House should override the President's vetoes in this case. The Line-Item Veto Act provides a process for reconsideration. As the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] said, innate in supporting the line-item veto, and I supported the line-item veto and I still support it, but innate in that process is the ability of this body to disagree with what the President's thoughts were by vetoing them. That is what I ask us to do today. Let us disagree with the President. The President and the White House have already admitted mistakes were made. I do not think he is out there struggling for Members to sustain this veto particularly. Let us band together and have a very strong vote to override these vetoes.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today we are taking yet another step in giving the taxpayers of this country a few more rights in their battle with the IRS. First I want to thank Jim Traficant for pursuing one of these issues from day one. This bill will shift the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS. I know what it's like to come out for something when everybody else thinks your crazy for doing it, and I know how gratifying it is when you can finally see your ideas be accepted by the body as a whole. We have you to thank for that provision. I'm excited about another provision in this bill as well. Back about 8 years ago, I introduced legislation that would expand taxpayers rights. The last provision of that bill that is not yet law is in this bill. Finally the IRS will have to pay taxpayers interest at the same rate the taxpayer has to pay the IRS. No, it's not a big thing to do, but it is the right thing to do, and I thank the sponsors of this bill for including it. But don't think that we're done with IRS reform. We need to do even more to force the IRS to justify their lifestyle audits. This bill takes a first step, but doesn't go far enough. What's more, should a taxpayer actually win a court case against the IRS, they may never get paid. I think that if the IRS, with all the power of the Federal Government behind them, loses to a taxpayer in tax court, then they should not get any appeals, and they should pay the taxpayer within 90 days of the judgment against them. Again, it's the right thing to do. Overall this legislation is another step towards restoring some of the rights the taxpayers of this country should have had all along.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, those redesigned $50 bills are hot off the Bureau of Printing and Engraving presses. But what are we going to do with the more than $217 million in printing errors? That is right, many bills were rejected by the Federal Reserve because the fine concentric lines surrounding the portrait of Ulysses S. Grant were broken. This may seem like a minor flaw to some, but it is a major problem because the Treasury spent $15 million on an international education campaign touting the lines as a special feature added to thwart counterfeiters. Most likely the only option for the Treasury Department is to destroy the flawed notes and start over. This will cost the taxpayers at least $16.3 million, $8.7 million for the misprinted bills, $360,000 to destroy them, and $7.2 million to reprint them. If that is not bad enough, the Bureau of Printing and Engraving most recently purchased $50 million in printing equipment that it did not install in its Washington facility because they would have to have major renovation at that facility. The Bureau of Printing and Engraving gets my ``Porker of the Week'' award.