Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, what does the other side have to hide? Why will the Immigration and Naturalization Service not comply with the law? Why will groups which have been ordered by the court to produce documents not produce those documents as required by law? Why do the Democrats refuse to come forward and demand that the Loretta Sanchez election be investigated in the open for all to see to prove that only those legally able to vote did so? Why do the media refuse to get behind the calls of honest, clean elections in California? Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the other side says, nothing can change the fact that this issue is about honest elections and the rule of law. It is not about overturning the election and declaring Bob Dornan the winner. That is simply not going to happen. It is about fair, honest, clean elections all across this country. Mr. Speaker, again I ask the question, what does the other side have to hide?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of talk these days about the legacy that this administration will leave. I think it is fair to say that this White House has indeed set a new standard of ethics. I think it is fair to say that this White House has set a new standard in the use of the Lincoln bedroom. I think it is fair to say that this White House has set a new standard in terms of raising money on Federal property. I think it is fair to say that this White House has set a new standard in terms of deciding which rich donors get to accompany the Secretary of Commerce on trade missions. I think it is fair to say that this White House has set a new standard in terms of raising money at Buddhist temples, shaking down impoverished Indian tribes. Using the IRS for political purposes, rewarding top dollar fund-raisers with Commerce Department jobs, making huge money from cattle futures while declaring moral outrage at the decade of greed, and coming up with the ``I don't recall'' defense whenever the subject turns to raising money. I agree, that is quite a legacy.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998. This is a good bill. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a good bill. From my perspective as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, it continues the commitment of the House in addressing the serious shortfalls in basic infrastructure, military housing and other facilities that affect the readiness of the Armed Forces and the quality of life for military personnel and their families. The conference report, if adopted, would be a forceful expression of the continuing bipartisan concern in Congress over the inadequate budget plans put forward by the administration. For example, in constant dollars, the administration requested 25 percent less in funding for military construction for the coming fiscal year than it sought just 2 years before. While the bill does not buy back all of the cuts proposed by the President, it goes a long ways toward doing so. The recommendations of the conferees would authorize an additional $800 million for military construction and military family housing, over $440 million in additional funding will go directly toward housing and quality of life programs. I urge support of this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns that my colleague has raised and will work with the committee, and with him, and with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] to ensure an appropriate cleanup for the Presidio. We have this problem with a number of bases around the country, but I think this one has a unique factor connected with it. I think the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has pointed out what that factor is, and that is that this is a national park. We want to move forward in creating this, and, if we are going to do this, we want it to be a good national park. We cannot do that without the cleanup. I share the gentleman's concerns and will do everything I can to work with him and solve this problem.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding further. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has raised very important concerns, ones which have also been voiced by the Committee on Appropriations in two of its measures. We will work together to resolve these questions to ensure the success of the Presidio.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the recent decision of the President to exercise the line-item veto on 38 military construction projects which were authorized during the legislative process. Over the last 3 years, the Congress has made significant progress in advancing needed facilities improvements, meeting both housing and other quality-of-life requirements and the operational and readiness requirements of the military services. The Congress did not invent these requirements. We relied on the extensive evidence collected all year during hearings and on site visits, and it is clear that a lot more needs to be done. Military infrastructure has been neglected for years. Twenty years ago, the record was filled with discussions about World War II wood, poor housing, and unsafe working conditions. The witnesses have changed, but the testimony has not. The conditions still exist. The Subcommittee on Military Installation and Facilities, which I chair, has worked closely with the Department of Defense and the military services to upgrade housing and to improve facilities conditions generally. It is easy for some to be cynical about military construction projects. It is easy to call needed improvements pork. In fact, one Member of the other body thinks that anything that the President did not request is pork. If all we were going to do is follow the President's request, then why are we here? We could send in our rubber stamp and simply stay home. More cynical, however, is the administration's lack of commitment in this area, which has been demonstrated by eroding budget requests. The real decline in the President's request over the past 5 years to support military infrastructure has been 20 percent. The fiscal year 1998 budget request for military construction was $1.6 billion, 16 percent, less than prior year spending levels, all the while the services tell us on the record that they have multibillion-dollar facilities problems. The $287 million in military construction projects canceled by the President met validated military requirements. Congress worked with these military departments to assure that those funds would address real needs and that the project could be executed in fiscal year 1998. But the needs of the services are not what this exercise is all about. These are the facts: 33 of the 38 projects, 85 percent of them, canceled by the President are in the President's own 5-year defense program. The remainder were priorities of the military services and the commands. Moreover, 26 percent of the canceled projects, 1 in 4, are in the President's fiscal year 2000 program. They are not good projects now, in the administration's judgment, but they would be good projects just 16 months from now so why cancel them? When the defense bills are within the constraints of the budget agreement and when the projects are in the President's program, I fail to understand the rationale for the administration's actions. The only explanation I can come to is politics, simple, crass, and cynical politics. While the President plays politics, soldiers at Fort Campbell will continue to do vehicle maintenance in 1940's-era facilities that contain lead-based paint, asbestos, and faulty exhaust systems. The equipment that cannot fit in the undersized bays has to be worked on outside on gravel even during the winter. We asked the Army to deploy to places like the urban streets of Somalia and Bosnia, but the troops most likely to go, those at Fort Bragg, will not be training in an adequate way because the President canceled the necessary training complex. At Lackland Air Force Base, an aircraft painting facility was closed in 1994 because of violations of the Clean Air Act. The remaining facilities can only handle one-third of the workload and do not accommodate certain aircraft at all. The needed replacement facility was canceled by the President. Navy Station Mayport has inadequate berthing space. The Navy believes this is a critical project. The President canceled it. I have seen a number of the facilities for which the President has canceled improvements. I am appalled at the lack of judgment demonstrated by this administration. No one would suggest that the Nation could not defend itself tomorrow without these projects, but given the record of neglect in basic military infrastructure, these cancellations will continue to compound a very serious problem. At each installation these projects affect readiness and, to the extent conditions are inadequate and unsafe, they must in the end be a factor in retention. We cannot continue to ignore this problem, but the administration appears to care very little about it. The Committee on National Security held a hearing on this issue last week. I was appalled that both the director of the Office of Management and Budget and senior officials of the Department of Defense refused to submit to questions from the committee. Both OMB and OSD have gladly taken questions from the press on the subject. What do they have to fear if the cancellations are truly objective and justified? Their failure to appear is all the more troubling because this administration admits that mistakes were made on the cancellations.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, the President of the United States says that we should not politicize the IRS. I agree. So let us see if I have got this straight. The White House is going to be the defender of the IRS from politics. That must be awfully inspiring to the conservative groups and critics of the Clinton administration who have all suddenly found themselves targeted for an audit. Pure coincidence, I am sure. Look at the record. Let us see how this nonpolitical IRS is working out in reality. A nonprofit group in Wisconsin, Fortress America, mailed a fund-raising letter criticizing Hillary Clinton. What happened? Coincidence time. They got audited. A charter company, UltraAir, was one of those who got the ax in the travel office scandal. What happened? Coincidence time. They got audited. Billy Dale, coincidence time again, he got audited. Paula Jones brings a lawsuit. You guessed it. Another audit. Coincidence or abuse of power? You decide.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is a master at creating Federal programs based upon good intentions, but for which the tax till has become a lifeline for survival. Congress created Amtrak back in 1970 with a one-time grant of $40 million, one-time grant, it was supposed to be. It was to be independent and was to be self- sufficient. As we all know, Amtrak has not become self-sufficient. It has turned into a $22 billion black hole for taxpayer dollars. What have we gotten for our money? Passenger trains in 1997 are slower than they were in the 1950's. Their average speed is slower than many Third World countries. Even tomorrow's version of high speed rail will be slower than France or Japan's trains in the 1970's. Amtrak has used the taxpayers' $22 billion and taken a giant step backward. How do we reward Amtrak for this? In Congress' infinite wisdom we have decided to give Amtrak, which has never paid any taxes, a $2.3 billion tax refund. But to kill the $2.3 billion now, we would have to kill this legislation. While I do not think this bill goes far enough and I know Amtrak will be right back at the Federal trough as soon as it gobbles up the next $2.3 billion, it does contain a number of items which make sense. With the passage of this bill, Amtrak will finally be able to adjust their system of routes without fear that Congress will tie their hands. At the same time we have given preapproval for States to form interstate compacts in order to take over any routes Amtrak discontinues. We are encouraging contracting out, replacing the current Amtrak board, taking the Government out of Amtrak through the redemption of Amtrak's common stock and reforming the labor structure. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues beholden to the labor unions will argue that this bill goes way too far, and I say it does not go nearly far enough. This bill does not go far enough and Amtrak is bound to turn to Congress for more help in future years. But as long as the labor unions are spending millions of dollars trying to buy Congress, as long as we continue to delude ourselves that Amtrak will ever be able to run a railroad and as long as we continue to waste our taxpayers' dollars by pouring it down this empty pit, this is the best bill we can probably pass in this House. I urge my colleagues not to water it down any more.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, how many honest American citizens are going to be terrorized by the IRS before the IRS changes the way it does business? Everyone knows that it is not just the tax cheats who panic when the IRS comes around to conduct an audit. Ordinary American citizens who pay taxes are driven to panic as well. It should not be that way. Tax cheats should feel the cold, unrelenting power of the IRS when their misdeeds are found out, but honest citizens who do their best to comply with an extremely complicated Tax Code should have nothing to fear from an audit. But the IRS knows that many people who work for a living, who have family obligations, and are living from paycheck to paycheck do not have either the time or the money to do battle with the IRS when the auditors want to play hard ball. IRS agents know that and they can count on that advantage. But an ordinary citizen who is not a tax cheat simply does not have the money to pay for all the legal leadership necessary to defend himself against the IRS. It is not a fair fight. It is a recipe for abuse and it must stop.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, to hear the liberals call for campaign finance reform is like Marv Albert scolding Mike Tyson for using his biting skills in an inappropriate manner. Democrats have had to return over $2 million, $2 million, Madam Speaker, because they raised illegal money from foreign sources. In a town awash in hypocrisy, Democrats, who ran roughshod over existing fundraising laws in the last election, are giving hypocrisy a bad name. One would expect the always fair, unbiased media to laugh them out of town when they hear the very same people who broke the law call for reform of the law. But here is the real shocker: The ever-balanced media, far from exposing their hypocrisy, are leading the way for calls in campaign finance reform. How many times have we heard our liberal elite friends in the media say, ``The real tragedy is not what is illegal but what is legal.'' Yes, shaking down impoverished Indian tribes, illegally mixing DNC funds with Teamster money, soliciting money from foreign nationals, laundering money and shredding evidence; no, I suppose that is not the real tragedy.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the gentleman, it had not come to the floor yet. I am perfectly agreeable to the time agreement.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 18.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, it has become an annual ritual, like the swallows returning to Capistrano, that we in the bill increase the amount of money to be designated for the Economic Development Administration, and every year I come down here with some of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, and try to do away with the Economic Development Administration. I am not trying to do that this year, but I am trying to bring the amount of money back to some kind of a reasonable figure, if we think we even need it. This is a wasteful agency and an agency that we will get rid of eventually; whether it is this year or next year, we will eventually, but at this point I am just trying to cut back to some kind of reason. This is an amendment that is sometimes hard on friendships. The agency has been on the chopping block for years, but it has survived not on the merits of the program, because the program has few merits, but it survives because it makes Representatives and Senators look good. Mr. Chairman, the Heritage Foundation calls the EDA the No. 1 Federal boondoggle which could be eliminated tomorrow without hurting anyone at all, and they are right. The EDA duplicates the activities of 62 other community development programs and 340 Federal economic development- related programs administered by 13 separate agencies. We simply do not need it, first of all; and second, it does not work. Now, when we have a problem around here and we do not want to make a decision, what do we do? We say, well, let us get the GAO to do a study of it to get the facts so we will know what to do. Well, the GAO has done a study of the EDA, and it says that it has had a very small effect on income growth rates during the period that the aid was received and no significant effects in the 3 years after the aid ceased. This does not compute to the good-paying, long-term jobs the EDA is said to create. Mr. Chairman, the value of this program that will be argued here tonight is fiction. The Senate received testimony to this effect in June of this year, and consequently had decided to appropriate only $250 million, I say only, but it is a lot of money, more than I would want, but it said, they have said $250 million to the EDA. We have gone far above that. I urge my colleagues to approve this amendment and bring the EDA's funding in line with the Senate bill. This has been a target of Presidents, this has been a target of almost every think tank that has looked at it and tried to evaluate it. It has been a target of the GAO. Instead of getting rid of it, let us at least bring it down to the Senate level.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately we are not as critical of this program as we would be of some of the others to see if it is really working well because it is too good for our reelection efforts. We live in a culture where we are judged by how much we are able to take back home. The Department of Commerce Inspector General issued a semiannual report earlier this year and could not even express a opinion on the financial position of EDA because it has too many inadequacies in its internal control structure. The I.G. also identified many specific examples of grants that either should not have been made or that just did not work the way they were supposed to, just did not work. So, yes, I do not have any illusions that this amendment is probably going to pass tonight; sometime it will, I think, but maybe not tonight because it is too good a bottomless pit for us to take money out of and take back home, whether it works or not.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, one of our speakers earlier talked about all of that matching money that came back. In September of 1994, a nonprofit corporation in Alabama was awarded a $750,000 grant to create a revolving loan fund, and the community matching funds were to be $1 million, and the $1 million never showed up. The Inspector General investigated the nonprofit and found that they had not been meeting the matching fund requirement since 1986. So when we hear of all these matching funds, in theory that works, but in practice I could give my colleagues example after example after example where it simply has not worked. The theory behind EDA, which is what most of the speakers are talking about, is good. The practice is, it does not work.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, liberals are calling congressional investigations in the White House fund-raising scandals and political corruption a partisan witch hunt. Does anyone take this accusation seriously? The fact is, the only thing we are hunting for are the 6 foreign nationals that fled the country, the 10 foreign witnesses refusing interviews by the Thompson Committee and the 31 witnesses who have pled the fifth amendment. The same administration that claims to be cooperating fully with investigators has got a list of noncooperating witnesses that grows daily. They have a very strange notion of cooperation indeed. I am beginning to think that the liberal idea of campaign finance reform is to pass a law that says these crimes should not be investigated, political corruption should go unpunished, and lawbreaking should be overlooked if it involves foreigners of any kind, especially if those foreigners are from Communist countries. One wonders if the 50 fugitive friends of Bill are what the President had in mind when he pledged to have the most ethical administration in history.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as the Washington Post reported last month, despite a booming economy and a soaring stock market, most Americans think America is on the wrong track. They are deeply mistrustful of the Government's ability to solve the problems that most concern them. My question is, if 75 percent of Americans do not trust the Government to solve the problems that most concern them, why, why do liberals keep turning again and again to the Government to solve the problems? Most astonishingly of all, why would liberals look to the Federal Government in Washington to somehow make bad schools good or mediocre schools better? Mr. Speaker, certainly the education of our children is one of the most important issues on the minds of those who have kids in school, and certainly we can all agree that if there is one thing Government excels at, it is mediocrity. If our goal is mediocrity, then, yes, we should sing the praises of the Federal Government's wonderful powers to make bad schools better. But if we care about excellence, then look to school choice, local control, parents, educational savings accounts, and more competition to produce better schools for our children.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, if all the speakers are finished, I am prepared to yield back the time of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane]. I am sitting in for him. I have an amendment which will follow, which will just hold the funding level. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. LaHood]. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 30 seconds remaining.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, there has been some wonderful changes around the House of Representatives in the last 3 years, and I applaud those changes, but as I sit here and listen to this debate, it is amazing to me how even though changes occur, how much things stay the same in many respects. Only here in the House of Representatives would we say that it is a myth to say that we are raising funding when we raise funding by $50 million. But it is a myth, based upon some kind of a measurement back in the past of what we did in another era, and we are trying to get away from that era with the changes that have occurred. It is a myth that we are raising the funding for this. It is a myth to say that if we do not do this, if we do not do this $50 million, that we are cutting public broadcasting. Things change, but things stay the same. Let me make it very clear. What I propose to do here is not do away with public broadcasting. What I propose is to hold the funding level with what it was last year. In compliance with the intention of the Committee on Appropriations in 1995 when they said, we need to move public broadcasting, to begin to wean them off the public funding, which, as was pointed out by the other speakers, is a very small percentage anyway, to begin to wean them off the public funding and make them independent. That is all we are trying to do here. We are not destroying anything. We are just trying to hold level what we did last year. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.