Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, maybe the gentleman misunderstood what I said or I did not say it very well. I said there was a division among the owners as to whether or not to sell or not. The owners in San Francisco want to sell; the owners in Colorado do not.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), I do not want to prolong this. I think we have said what needs to be said. The gentleman repeated several times that this is his district, his district, his district, as if it is in his district, we ought to do it. When I got on the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands several years ago, I discovered that a lot of Members were bringing parks home to their district, whether they had any merit or not. Steamtown, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) may remember Steamtown is one of them. Our good friend Joe McDade brought that one home. I guess this has a whole lot more merit than that did, by the way. So there is interest by people when that is not in their district. There is interest in that park, or whether it is a park or not. I do not know if the gentleman heard me, because I think the gentleman was talking to one of his staff at the time, but when the gentleman starts talking about draining water out from under the Dunes, I have no intention, and the gentleman knows that, of draining water out from under the Dunes. The gentleman is absolutely right; you take that water, and the Dunes go away. The water has to stay there. I want the water to stay there, not just for the Dunes, but I want the water in the San Luis Valley to stay in the San Luis Valley. I do not want it coming to the Eastern Slope or the big cities. I want it to stay there, because if it does not stay there, I think that valley, which is already economically depressed in many ways, becomes a real problem. So I want the water to stay there, and I do not want there to be any mistake about that. I guess I would just close by saying again, yes, this is part of the process; but it is a subversion of the process. There was a national park put in the Interior bill. I voted against that. I think that was wrong. I do not think that this should be part of the process. I think the process should be both Houses go through their committee structure, ask the questions, have the hearings, let everybody who wants to have input into it, and then make a logical decision.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I am please to inform the House that this conference report authorizes $8.8 billion for the military construction and military family housing programs of the Department of Defense, an increase to the President's request of $787 million. These funds will be used to meet critical shortfalls affecting the qualify of life of military personnel and their families and to improve facilities supporting the training and readiness of the armed forces. This conference agreement is consistent with the bipartisan agreement reached earlier this year on the military construction appropriations bill. This conference agreement also provides for an extension of the military housing privatization initiative that is beginning to show some significant successes. Properly implemented, this program will go a long way toward resolving the housing crisis confronting military families. Beyond military construction, Mr. Speaker, this is landmark, legislation. I have long been concerned about the quality and availability of health care for both retirees and active duty personnel. The health care reforms provided in this bill will meet the promises made to earlier generations of servicemen and women and will guarantee that those promises will be kept to those in uniform now and those volunteers who will come after them. I urge all members to join me in support of this important bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the month of September is Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, and I am proud to stand here wearing my gold ribbon of hope and voice my support for the children and families who are affected by this disease. Cancer causes more deaths during childhood than any other disease. This year an estimated 12,400 children will be diagnosed with cancer, and 2,300 will die. Though we celebrate with the survivors and their families, we cannot forget the children who will, unfortunately, succumb. That is why I am preparing to introduce legislation on behalf of these children and their families that will support them through the hospice care. Later this month, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and I will host a conference for Members and staff in order to address the challenges concerning hospice care for children and share our ideas and examine questions regarding this serious topic. I hope my colleagues will support this legislation, the conference, and Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a problem that impacts not only the United States Olympic Committee, which is located in my district of Colorado Springs, but also millions of Americans who are involved in the Olympic movement. The problem is known as ``ambush marketing,'' a deceptive practice in which companies deliberately and falsely suggest that they support or are affiliated with an event or organization. This enables companies to steal the benefits of sponsorship of events such as the Olympics without paying the associated sponsorship fee. Numerous American companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's and Visa have spent millions of dollars for the privilege of being official sponsors of the Olympic Games. Competing companies, through deceptive advertising, have attempted to capitalize on the goodwill and favorable publicity of an Olympic sponsorship without paying the appropriate licensing fee. You may ask, ``So what?''. The ``so what'' is that official sponsors have invested time, creativity and money into helping our nation's Olympic effort, while the ambush advertisers have invested nothing in the Olympic movement, yet hope to profit from an association. Ambush marketing has the direct and immediate result of depriving officially licensed sponsors of the Olympic Games of the exclusive rights in their product category to advertise their financial support for the Olympic Movement and associate with the Olympic Games. What will happen in the future if Congress does not put an end to ambush marketing in the context of the Olympic Movement? Advertisers and marketers will, quite likely, be less inclined to buy the requisite sponsorship packages for the privilege of being an ``official Olympic sponsor.'' Indeed, some may think about becoming ambush marketers themselves and enjoy the fruits of an Olympic sponsorship without any of the corresponding obligations. Such a result will most certainly have a devastating effect on the United States Olympic Committee which receives no federal funding. The current system of private funding has worked marvelously in providing the money and support that pays for the training, transportation and facilities of our great Olympic athletes. However, the system is being threatened. Ambush marketers are diluting the value and prestige an Olympic sponsorship. The more they erode the value of sponsorship, the less incentive others will have to contribute the millions of dollars required to enjoy the distinction of being an official Olympic sponsor and support our Olympic athletes. I first addressed this issue in a floor statement in 1993, but in the ensuing years the practice has become more widespread. While the USOC has worked tirelessly to combat ambush marketing, it apparently needs better tools to put an end to the practice. Only Congress can provide these tools, and it is becoming apparent that it is time for us to step in. I look forward to working with my colleagues next year to craft targeted legislation to give the USOC the proper tools necessary to combat ambush marketing.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Cold War may be over but the weight of responsibility inherited by the United States is heavier than ever. Threats are no longer contained by bipolar ideologies. Threats come from every corner of the world. It is under these conditions where our military forces find themselves doing more with less. Stretched to a point where spare parts become an oxymoron and retention and morale is critical, it is in this environment where I fail to understand the President's rationale in sending Congress defense budgets asking for fewer and fewer dollars. In every budget year since Clinton and Gore took office, the administration has proposed a decrease in defense spending. As a matter of fact, the defense budget has been reduced by more than $10 billion in constant dollars since fiscal year 1993. Fortunately, the Armed Forces have received better support from a Republican controlled Congress. Despite cuts proposed by the administration, Congress has funded above the President's request and has long recognized the importance of a prepared and well-funded military force. Mr. Speaker, we should be proud of our men and women in uniform and should provide them what they need to do the job.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, death should not be taxed. Unfortunately, current law allows the IRS to do just that. When a person who owns a small business or a family farm passes away, the Government taxes up to 55 percent of that business' worth. The death tax has meant the end to thousands of family-owned enterprises. In fact, this tax prevents nearly 85 percent of these organizations from being transferred from one generation to the next. Business owners who can afford high-price lawyers can sometimes avoid passing on this tax to their families, but average Americans often cannot. The American Dream should not be taxed. And yet in vetoing this legislation, the Clinton-Gore administration is doing just that. It is wrong for the Government to compound the shock of losing a family member with the devastation of losing one's livelihood. Now is the time to right this injustice. Vote to override the Clinton-Gore veto of the death tax.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, it appears that this time the Federal Government is the one that is due a substantial refund. Auditors within the Federal Emergency Management Agency have found $442 million in emergency funds that should be returned by States that did not need or abused these emergency dollars. As my colleagues know, FEMA is often called upon to provide emergency aid to States in cases of natural disaster. However, the agency is starting to be viewed as a Federal insurance company which hands out free money to repair and to renovate. In one case, the New Orleans sheriff's office has kept $56,000 it received for flood clean-up work that was performed free by prisoners. California is holding on to $1.4 million it received to fight a wildfire that was recovered from a negligent party. And Georgia used $15 million in emergency payments to not only repair flood damage but to also upgrade a facility. FEMA funds are taxpayer funds. They are not part of a slush fund for States to tap into for whatever they want. The guilty State governments get my ``Porker of the Week'' Award.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Food Stamp Program is designed to help indigent families feed their children. This is a noble goal. Unfortunately, widespread abuses in the food stamp program cost American taxpayers an estimated $1.4 billion in 1998 due to improper payments. That is money denied to thousands of poor American children throughout the Nation. In fact, food stamp reforms such as the electronic benefits system, the EBT, which has replaced food stamps in 29 States, have actually generated more welfare fraud. In one instance, two people in Beaumont, Texas, were convicted of trafficking in EBT food stamp benefits in exchange for crack cocaine. And in another, the owner of a meat and seafood market redeemed more than 331,000 in EBT food stamp benefits, even though virtually no food was purchased. We cannot let this continue. For the sake of our children and for the sake of the taxpayer, we must do a better job of eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, now is the time, once and for all, to eliminate the marriage penalty and the death tax. These are antiquated and unfair taxes, and they penalize too many American families. In my district alone, more than 77,000 married couples are subjected to the marriage tax. There is no good reason why we are penalizing these couples who choose to marry. It is unfair financial hardship and it does not reflect the family values of this country. I hope the President will join us in our effort to eliminate this unfair tax burden. I also want to see the elimination of the estate tax. It is obscene that in this country we tax the dead and penalize the survivors. The time has come to eliminate both these Federal taxes. Mr. Speaker, I urge the President to put aside political considerations and help the Congress abolish these taxes. Why? Because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the United Nations is at it again. One of the most wasteful organizations in the world acknowledged last week that its 38,000 peacekeeping troops are spreading the AIDS virus. Its solution to the problem is not to restrict them to the base or discipline inappropriate behavior, or something that actually might work. No, their solution is to distribute one free condom per day to each troop, courtesy of the American taxpayer. The United States contributes 25 percent to the U.N. peacekeeping budget. The money is supposed to be for troops, equipment, and peacekeeping efforts. Yet, the U.N. spends a portion of the money on condoms. Is this part of the U.N. uniform: A helmet, flak jacket, canteen, rifle, and condom? Give me a break. By my estimate, each condom costs approximately 20 cents. Multiply this by 38,000 troops per day and we are talking about an annual condom fund of $2.7 million. What makes them think that troops engaging in irresponsible behavior are responsible enough to use the condoms? The U.N. peacekeepers are supposed to protect, not infect. The U.N. gets my ``porker of the week'' award.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Most of the things that have been said I agree with. It is great to have farms there. That is good for the environment, there is no question about that. It is a matter of whether this program makes any difference or makes any sense. The gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) said this program is doing well. Great, let it do well, but why does the Federal government have to participate in it? When we talk about building bed and breakfasts, people build small businesses every single day without a special program like this. If they need help for it, if they need small business loans, we have a Small Business Administration. We have a small business loan program for that. If they need guidance in how to make a small business thrive, then they have small business guidance programs to train them in how to make a small business thrive. If they need to build a restroom, by gosh, the lumberyard on the corner that gets started, it does not have a farm loan to build its restroom. It figures out how to build a restroom as part of its small business. To me, Mr. Chairman, this seems to me to be the perfect example of the classic farming of the Federal government, rather than farming of the land. It just makes no sense to me at all. If people want to go watch people milk cows, watch corn grow, I think that is great. I think it is great. You have a tourism industry to do that. I do not know why the taxpayers of the whole Nation need to subsidize that.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts what I think is questionable government spending by $2 million. The money was dedicated to agritourism in the Rural Community Advancement Program. Now, on the television program ``20/20'' John Stossel has a segment at the end every time that is called ``Give Me a Break.'' I guess I would say to this program, give me a break. Agritourism. This program just does not meet the laugh test, it seems to me. Congress should provide real solutions for America's embattled farmers instead of creating wasteful spending programs. The number of small farms in America has fallen from over 300,000 in 1978 to 170,000 today. Last year, 260,000 American farmers were hit by natural disasters, claiming $1.3 billion in damages. The number of farmers has dropped from 6 million in 1933 to less than 2 million today. We all know of the terrible drought conditions being faced this year by farmers in the Southeast. Agritourism is not a bad idea, because look what some of the examples are: cut your own Christmas tree, pick a pumpkin out of a pumpkin patch, roadside produce stands where people can meet the farmers who grow their food, pick and process grapes in a vineyard. All of these programs are a great way for American farmers to raise money. But all of these programs are for profit. Farmers make money on these programs. Why should the Federal Government subsidize them? Congress should not create wasteful programs that will only benefit a few. We need real solutions, real progress, real programs in Congress to help our farmers. This amendment is a good way for Congressmen to stand up against government waste in the agriculture appropriation bill, which is often known as a vehicle for pork barrel spending. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of this agritourism amendment.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Will the gentlewoman continue to yield?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea. That is not a point with this at all.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $200,000 for International Asparagus Competitiveness from the special research grants. Before I get bombarded with the asparagus contingent like George Bush did with broccoli, let me say this, I am not saying I do not eat asparagus, and I am not saying asparagus does not have the right to be competitive in a national market. In fact, I like asparagus. Mr. Chairman, I want to stand on that here today. I am saying the Federal Government should not be paying for specialized pork projects like this. Money would go towards building a harvesting machine for asparagus, it is currently picked by hand, and various other research projects. The asparagus industry is far from beleaguered. They earned $43 million in the first half of 1999. In 1998, U.S. exports of fresh asparagus totaled 15,601 tons at a value of $46 million. In May 1999, fresh asparagus exports to Japan were up to 422 percent from the previous year. As the industry is doing very well, why should the Government pay to build them a harvesting machine? While I highlighted this section of the bill, let us look at some of the other wasteful projects which are included in this bill. There is $400,000 for an agriculture-based industrial lubricant research, $5 million for research into citrus canker, $150,000 for blueberry research, $500,000 for peanut allergy reduction, and it goes on and on, Mr. Chairman. The asparagus issue is simply an indication of what we get in this bill. All industries listed above, including asparagus, make enough money to subsidize their own research and development. Congress should be working to solve farmers' problems with the drought, the industrial farm competition, the estate taxes, but these small pork projects like this really do add up. Mr. Chairman, total special research grants for this year would be $74,354,000. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen) and I had a very good friend, still have a very good friend, Dan Schaefer, who was a Congressman from Colorado, and I remember one year when Dan did have legitimate competition in his congressional race, the opponent used his support of this type of asparagus program. I remember the brochure she used, and she had asparagus sprouts all wrapped in a little ribbon on the front page of this brochure showing this is the kind of thing that Congress does and it needs to be stopped. Of course, she was going to come here and stop that kind of thing that Dan supposedly supported. This is something that it is a minor thing, it is not a big deal, but illustrative, I think, of some of the things that we do in here. I give a porker of the week award every week for some kind of government foolish spending, and I have to tell my colleagues, the Agriculture Department gets the porker of the week award more than its share. It gets it for things just like this. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of the amendment.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have no idea.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentlewoman makes my point for me, which State does this lie? Is there a Member from that State here who wants to defend this project? That should not be the reason we make these decisions. We should make those decisions based on real issues.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, imagine how many single family homes and apartment buildings could be built for $1 billion. That is the amount the Inspector General at the Department of Housing and Urban Development reports has been wastefully spent. In several different reports, the Inspector General details wasteful spending ranging from overpayments to pure abuse. One report identified $935 million in Federal housing subsidy overpayments during 1998 in HUD's assisted living programs. The overpayments resulted from the HUD's inability to accurately know if recipients qualified based on income or housing benefits. It has been estimated that $935 million could provide housing assistance to 150,000 needy families. Another report on a Bronx, New York, housing project uncovered ineligible and unnecessary expenses totaling $258,000. The audit uncovered expenses totaling $26,000 that was either unnecessary for the project's operation or not supported by adequate documentation, including $13,000 for unnecessary telephone charges and $10,000 for unnecessary cab fares. The Department of Housing and Urban Development gets my porker of the week award.