Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Republicans have a plan to pay Uncle Sam's credit card bills. For over 30 years, tax and spend liberals have racked up an enormous debt. It is just now beginning to be paid down, thanks to the GOP majority in the House and Senate. In our budget, we will pay down $3.6 trillion, yes, that is $3.6 trillion, in public debt by the year 2013. Why does this matter? If we ask a family in my district if they live better without debt, or if they would rather be sitting on massive credit card bills with high interest rates, it is pretty easy to guess the answer will be the former. They will have a hard time understanding the fact that a sizable chunk of our annual budget goes to pay creditors because government spending cannot be kept under control. Mr. Speaker, paying the public debt will benefit everyone. Seniors will not have their social security funds raided, homebuyers will have lower mortgage rates, car buyers will have lower interest rates. This country will function better with a zero balance and maybe even a surplus to be given back to the taxpayer. It is time to lift the burden of debt off our children. It is time to support the Republican budget and eliminate the public debt.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, last week the world watched as five cloned piglets were introduced before an international news core. Scientists cheered the achievement as a scientific and medical breakthrough. Maybe the American people should have cheered as well since we paid for a good bit of that research with $2 million of our tax dollars. The Advanced Technology Program, a corporate welfare program managed by the Department of Commerce, gave a grant to the company responsible for cloning the piglets. The company, PPL Therapeutics, claims it needs taxpayer assistance because it cannot find private backing for cloning research. It will certainly be interesting to see if that company shares its profits with the American taxpayers now that they have found success. In this modern-day nursery rhyme, five little piggies got cloned, and the American public got taken to market. The ATP gets my ``Porker of the Week'' Award.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to my constituent, Bill Crawford, who was one of our Nation's distinguished military heroes and one of my community's great treasures. Bill passed away on March 15 at the age of 81, having led an exemplary life that took him from being a small-town grocery delivery boy to a recipient of the nation's highest military honor. As an Army private in the fall of 1943, Bill was on a scouting mission near Altavilla, Italy when he encountered an enemy machine-gun nest prepared to fire at his platoon. Without orders, Bill advanced to within yards of the German fighters, threw a grenade into the pit from which they were firing and saved his platoon. Private Crawford then turned his valor on not one, but two, additional machine-gun nests firing at American soldiers. He was able to overtake both German encampments and turn the captured machine-guns on fleeing German soldiers. When United States forces moved ahead, Crawford stayed behind to care for a friend who had been injured. He was captured by German soldiers and spent 19 months as a prisoner of war. Presumed dead, Crawford was awarded the Medal of Honor posthumously on May 11, 1944. Maj. Gen. Terry Allen presented the award to Bill's grieving father at Camp Carson, just 30 miles from Bill's hometown of Pueblo, CO. Two months after Private Crawford's Medal of Honor was presented to his father, the family received news that Bill was alive. One year later, Private Crawford was released from prison. After his release, Bill returned to his Colorado roots. He met and married his wife Eileen, and began a family that eventually included two children, five grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. He returned to military service, much of it as an Army recruiter in his home town of Pueblo. Bill ended his career at the U.S. Air Force Academy, where he worked as a janitor and served as a mentor to the students. The cadets at the Academy loved Bill and paid tribute to his distinguished military career by asking him each spring to present the ``Outstanding Cadet'' award to a member of the graduating class. On May 30, 1984, Bill was presented with an honor of his own. President Ronald Reagan was the commencement speaker that day at the graduation ceremonies at the U.S. Air Force Academy. During his speech, President Reagan turned his attention to Bill, who was crisply dressed in his military uniform, and hung the Medal of Honor around his neck. Seventeen years after his retirement from the military, and 40 years after his heroism at Altavilla, Bill was finally presented with his Medal of Honor award. As a Medal of Honor recipient, Bill distinguished himself through exemplary service to this nation. He answered the call to arms and bravely faced hazardous duty, hand to hand combat and imprisonment by the German army. He was also dedicated to his family and his community. He was an extraordinary man, who displayed humility, kindness and love in all that he did. We will miss this gentle man in Colorado Springs, and we extend to his family our sincere condolences. Our Nation bids farewell to one of her great heroes and I bid farewell to a friend.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago this House voted to right a wrong. Most of us agree it is unfair for a married couple to be penalized by the Federal Government just simply because they are married, so we passed legislation to fix that unfairness. Today it is time to fix another long-standing unfairness, the Social Security earnings limit. Mr. Speaker, it is about time. For too long we have penalized our most experienced workers, created disincentives for them to work, oftentimes when their employers need their expertise the most. No American should be penalized for their desire to work and contribute to the economy and strength of our country, least of all our seniors. In 1987, my class in Congress, the Republican members of my class, voted to take this on as a project, to try to eliminate the earnings limit. We met with Dan Rostenkowski. I think it was the only time he ever spoke to me, but we met with Dan Rostenkowski, and he said, ``No, we won't do it.'' So over the years we have picked away at it with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Archer) and various ones, and with their help picked away at it and made it better. But today is a chance to get rid of it. For the sake of simple fairness, it is time for this body to eliminate the earnings limit. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 382 with one reservation. I do not oppose the establishment of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site in the State of South Dakota. I do, however, have significant concerns with directing the Secretary of the Air Force to transfer funds to the Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of establishing, operating, and maintaining the site. In my judgment, the financial responsibility for maintaining the National Park System does not rest with the Department of the Air Force. Section 4(b) of the bill provides for such a transfer of funds. However, I would note that the funds specified for transfer in section 4(b)(1) have expired. In the interest of facilitating the establishment of the Minuteman Missile National Historic Site, I saw no need, as a member of the Committee on Resources, to strike the moot provision concerning the transfer of funds and thereby send the bill back to the Senate at this late date in the session. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to note further that an authorization to transfer such funds is properly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Armed Services. I think it is fair to say that the Committee, and certainly this member, would oppose any effort to compel the Secretary of the Air Force to utilize military construction, operations and maintenance, or other funds authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2000 to support the establishment, operations, and maintenance of this site.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Colorado for yielding. I have to admit to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) that I was not back in my office hanging on every one of his words. But when I realized he was doing this special order, I hoped he was doing it in reaction to the news conference which was held earlier today, the made-for-TV political news conference that was held earlier today. I wanted to come over and just visit with him a little bit about this thing. Columbine for the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) particularly more than anyone else in this chamber, for him particularly, was a hard-hitting experience. Because this was in his district. But it adjoins my district. I have some addresses that are Columbine addresses. And I do not know of any tragedy like this that has hit me so hard in a long, long time. It was a terrible tragedy to the folks that experienced it and to all of us in Colorado and, I hope, across the country. The day after this tragedy, this tragedy I believe occurred on a Tuesday, on Wednesday the chairman of the Democratic National Committee from this House was standing before his colleagues in his conference saying this is a great political issue for us, a great political issue for us, and we need to flood the Congress with gun control bills because the Republicans will vote against them and this will be a great issue for us in the next election. I was appalled. I was offended, I was disgusted that someone would jump in and make political hay when my heart was broken. We had had a terrible tragedy, and this was going on. I also noticed that as we went through the debate and discussion about gun control after that, because they did exactly that, flooded the Congress with gun control bills; and as I looked at each one of those, it was my opinion that not a single one of them, had they been law prior to Columbine, would have altered the Columbine experience one iota. I think there were 18, 20, 21 laws violated there already. None of these new laws would have done anything. None of the laws that they were talking about at that news conference in the basement of this Capitol would have done one thing to alter the Columbine experience or to prevent an additional Columbine experience. One thing that I think might help prevent something like that is if we would enforce the gun control laws which are on the books right now. And the gentleman has probably said all this, and better than I can, but if we would enforce the laws that are on the books right now, which this Justice Department has had a dismal record of enforcing the gun laws that are on the books, absolute dismal record. And in an instant or two that I am aware of, where a U.S. attorney or assistant U.S. attorney has taken it into his own hands to be strict in his enforcement of gun law violations, the gun crime rates have dropped like a rock. But the Justice Department does not like that. In one case they were even trying to get a U.S. attorney fired because he was enforcing the gun laws too strictly. Now, what can I assume from that? All I can assume from that is if we actually did enforce the laws on the books, and if it did reduce gun crime, then there would not be the motivation to accomplish their goal, which is to take away private ownership of guns in America. I do think that is this administration's goal. So we do not want to reduce the rate of crime with guns, because if we did that, then they would not have that argument. That is appalling as well. We need to enforce the laws that are on the books and stop making phony political hay out of one of the worst tragedies that has occurred in this country in a long, long time. I thank the gentleman for having this special order and giving me an opportunity to express, too emotionally, but I feel emotional about it, some of my feelings about this situation.

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, once again the Federal Government is playing a shell game with taxpayers' money. The Department of the Interior has been diverting millions of dollars collected from excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment to controversial environmental projects. Congress dictated that the taxes collected be sent back to the States to fund wildlife and sports fishing restoration management programs. However, Fish and Wildlife Service officials diverted money meant to administer programs into a slush fund to pay for 75 pet projects that are not related to hunting. The projects include $385,000 for the spotted owl, $429,000 for Atlantic salmon; $292,000 on wolf programs; $116,000 on the blackfoot ferret; and $791,000 for marine mammals. Now, some of these may be good projects, but that is not what Congress gave the money for. It is estimated that more than $45 million has been diverted and much of it wasted by the Fish and Wildlife agency. The Fish and Wildlife Service gets my ``Porker of the Week Award.''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have here a headline from the Colorado Springs Gazette newspaper. It says, ``Brookhart's Lumber Business Selling to Avoid `Death Tax,' Company Says.'' I have known this company for over 30 years. I watched their struggle over this issue. This is a company that is 52 years old, locally owned, three generations. They wanted to continue to operate this profitable small business. They wanted their boys to inherit it when they are gone. But they cannot because of the death tax. Locally-owned company sells out to a Dallas conglomerate. We lose a locally-owned company. Be proud, Mr. President, your veto saved the Nation from this evil tax cut that would have gotten rid of the death tax and prevented incidences like the Brookharts which are occurring all over the Nation with small farms and businesses everywhere. In his passion for more tax dollars and for the bigger Government he so loves, he should remember that there are real-life consequences to his irresponsible actions. Be proud, Mr. President. But I am ashamed of you and your thirst for the hard-earned tax dollars of working Americans.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and I have worked together; but we have been friends and colleagues and worked well together for darn near 15 years, and that is not going to change because of this bill this year. And we have talked about next year and future years and how this ought to be done, and we intend to do it differently. I appreciate his comments. Second, section 8167 provide new appropriations and authorization for an Army Aviation Support facility to support the Army National Guard at West Bend, Wisconsin. This MILCON project was not included in either the House or the Senate version of the defense authorization bill or in the House or Senate version of the military construction appropriations bill. It is an entirely new $10 million project that is not even included in the Future Years Defense Plan, what is called the FYDP, meaning that it is not part of the current Army National Guard planning until well after the year 2005. That is not the way we do business. The urgency of this project escapes me. Its inclusion in the general appropriations bill to support the Department of Defense is simply wrong and compounds the troubling precedent presented by section 8160. Third, section 8163 provides authority for the Secretary of the Air Force to accept up to $13 million in contributions from the State of New York for the purpose of combining those funds with $12.8 million in appropriated funds to consolidate and expand facilities at Rome Research Site at New York. It sounds like a good deal for the Air Force. The trouble is that the Air Force does not support it. The President's budget request for the coming fiscal year contained a requirement for a $12.8 million facility at the Rome Research Site. The conference agreements on the defense authorization bill and the military construction appropriations bill both provided the funding necessary for the validated MILCON requirement. However, the proposal for broader authority to permit the State of New York to contribute funding for additional facility improvements was rejected by the conferees on the defense authorization bill. While the Department of the Air Force fully supported the requirement contained in the President's budget, the Secretary of the Air Force declined to support the broader facility improvement plan. In a letter dated August 6, 1999, the Secretary stated that ``The Air Force currently has no additional phased consolidation projects for the Rome Research Site in the Future Years Defense Plan and does not have options for funding any future phases.'' Finally, section 8168 contains extensive new authorities for the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a ``pilot project'' at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas. These authorities fundamentally change the nature of installation management. Although the provision was slightly modified for the version contained in the Senate-passed defense appropriations bill, this is a matter which deserves review by the authorization committee, even if it is just a ``pilot project.'' Mr. Speaker, as I said, I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and other members resisted the inclusion of many of these provisions and I appreciate their efforts. Regretfully, the conferees on H.R. 2561 could not withstand the significant pressures to depart from the well-established pattern of comity that has governed the authorization and appropriations process for military construction in recent years. I simply cannot support legislation that in the end significantly undermines the authority of the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I do this based on a provision that is in the bill, section 8160, which makes the statement, ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all military construction projects for which funds were appropriated in Public Law 106-52 are hereby authorized.'' In other words, in an appropriations bill they are saying that anything we want to do is okay to do and we will assume that they were authorized. Now, this is not unusual. We do this often in bills. In fact, there are many committees who do not do an authorization bill and then an appropriations bill, but that is not the case with defense. We work very hard to do an authorization bill. We struggle with that. We have endless hours of hearings with that. We come up with a bipartisan, it is almost always a unanimous, vote. Certainly in my committee it is always a unanimous vote on the authorization process. Then we go to the full committee, and it is almost always a unanimous vote. So we have struggled with these things, trying to authorize the things that really do make sense, that are good public policy. Then we go through the conference process, and we struggle with the Senate, and we come out, and we have an authorization bill. Now, many times the appropriations bill is out ahead of the authorizations bill, and so they can accept statements like this because they are out ahead, but that is not the case this year. The authorization bill is first. It has been signed by the President. The Committee on Rules, I asked in the Committee on Rules that they make these authorizations subject to a point of order so that we could at least get to these things and determine whether or not we want to do them or not. The Committee on Rules did not do that. This is bad policy. This is a bad way to do our business here on the House Floor. It raises the question of whether or not we need an authorization committee and a Committee on Appropriations if the Committee on Appropriations is going to do it all. So, Mr. Speaker, I would request that we would reject this rule and come back with a rule that would give us an opportunity to deal with this blanket authorization which is being done in an appropriations bill.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in great reluctance to oppose the conference report to accompany H.R. 2561, the Department of Defense appropriations act for the year 2000. I oppose the legislation because it contains numerous provisions which taken together represent an erosion of the prerogatives of the authorization process and actually raise the question of do we need an appropriations process and an authorization process if the Committee on Appropriations is going to do both in their bill. I am not usually down here opposing a defense appropriations bill. I always have been and I continue to support a strong national defense. Let me tell my colleagues, there is a lot of good in this bill. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) pointed out many of the items. There is a lot of good in this bill. The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) should be commended on the bill that they have produced and for getting this out of the conference report. But since I have became chairman of the subcommittee on military installations and facilities over 4 years ago, I have worked closely with Members of both sides of the aisle to find additional resources needed to improve and enhance our military housing and infrastructure. I have always done so in cooperation with the Committee on Appropriations. In fact, the military authorization bill on military facilities and construction and the appropriations bill on military construction in these last 4-plus years have been mirrors of each other because we worked so closely together. That is the way it should be. That is not the way it is this year. That is why it is especially troubling to me to review the conference report and see that there are so many provisions that violate the necessary and reasonable boundaries between the authorizations and the appropriations process. First, section 8160 provides a blanket authorization for all military construction projects for which funds are appropriated pursuant to the Military Construction Appropriation Act, 2000. The legislation contained funding or additional funding for 18 military construction projects amounting to $110.5 million for which no authorization of appropriations was provided in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Mr. Speaker, I will include a list of these military construction projects at issue following my remarks. Mr. Speaker, sometimes the appropriations bill is out ahead of the authorization bill; and when that happens, a provision like this may need to be done, but it is usually done with the idea that we are appropriating this subject to the authorization of these projects, which we then look at the next year and we get done. That is not the case this year. The authorization bill did not provide authority for these military construction projects because there was a consensus among House and Senate conferees on that bill to not break scope to add large number of new projects, given the limited resources available to us. While these projects may have legitimate military utility, none, in my judgment, represent an urgent requirement that could not be evaluated during next year's authorization review. It is not unusual for an occasional construction project to be appropriated without authorization. But, as I said, we do that the following year.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I am here today to propose a national holiday in honor of the Governor in Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. After all, he confounded the pundits, the pollsters, and the prognosticators by winning the highest office in the State at a time when most voters thought of him as ``Jesse the Body.'' He continues to confound everyone. Not too much notice was made when he indicated he would like to be re-incarnated as a large bra, but eyebrows did raise when he referred to members of the Armed Forces as Frankenstein monsters that cannot be controlled. Then, of course, he outdid Oliver Stone by suggesting that President John Kennedy was killed by our own military-industrial complex in order to stimulate business. Who can forget his plunge into theology? ``Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers,'' the Governor said. So today I am proposing we name a day after Jesse Ventura, and the day I have chosen is April 1. That is right, April Fool's Day, because I can think of no one that so embodies the spirit of that day as the Governor of Minnesota.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. A study from the General Accounting Office reveals that President Clinton's trips last year to Africa, China, and Chile cost more than $72 million. The President's six-nation tour of Africa required advanced, 10 separate advance, trips to arrange the itinerary, 1300 military and civilian officials, more than 200 White House aides, 13 helicopters and enough equipment to require 98 air cargo missions, all at a cost of $43 million. A 10-day trip to China costs nearly $19 million, and a 4-day regional summit in Chile had a $10.8 million price tag. Of the 72.1 million total for these three trips, 84 percent was charged to the Defense Department. At a time when Bill Clinton is gutting defense budgets and asking for military personnel to do more with less it is offensive that he draws tens of millions of dollars for presidential trips that yield very little. Instead of perpetuating the 13-year downward defense spending cycle this administration has continually promoted, Clinton should build up America's military that he so readily uses. Does not it appear excessive to pin $72 million on three trips billed as goodwill tours? Bill Clinton gets my ``Porker of the Week Award.''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 834) to extend the authorization for the National Historic Preservation Fund, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have other requests for time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, with the appointment of Alan M. Hantman as the new Architect of the Capitol, Congress has a chance to begin a new era and build a partnership with the citizens of Washington, DC. The land that houses the nation's congressional offices, the Botanical Garden and several of the administrative offices is under the stewardship of the Architect of the Capitol. In the past, Congress has exempted the Architect of the Capitol from meeting the same building, design, and community notification guidelines it requires other builders in the city and nation to meet. These exemptions have not worked to the public's benefit nor have they encouraged Congress to set the example of being good partners with the surrounding community. In the early 1960's Congress spent over $100 million to build the Rayburn House Office Building. It was designed by the Architect of the Capitol of the time, J. George Stewart. The building sits on 50 acres and is considered a waste of precious space. Only 15 percent of the building is used for hearing rooms and offices. Forty-two percent is used for parking. The appearance and design of the building since its inception has been considered architecturally void and barely functional with its hallways that end without warning. Again, in 1997 the Architect of the Capitol, without consulting the public, demolished an historic row house built in 1890 to construct a $2 million day care center. The location was bitterly opposed by residents and local groups. The Architect demolished the historic house and constructed a new structure with what appeared to be of very little coordination with the people who lived in the neighborhood. Fortunately, Representative Joel Hefley's bill H.R. 834 takes steps to curb the Architect of the Capitol's influence on the surrounding neighborhoods. I am hopeful the mistakes of the past will not be repeated due to the building guidelines in this bill and other efforts currently in process by my office. The Architect of the Capitol needs to update their services by including the public in their decision making process and by following building guidelines established by Congress. In addition, I would like to add that H.R. 834 successfully addresses the codification of Executive Order 12072 and 13006. These Executive Orders require federal buildings to locate in downtown areas. Over the last several decades the federal government has been drawing investment away from our cities and helping the elements of urban sprawl by building outside of our downtown. Sprawling development leads directly to traffic congestion, decreased air quality, loss of farm and forest land, decreased water quality and the need for costly new infrastructure. As land development continues to press further and further out, many of our older suburbs have begun to deteriorate as well. I am pleased that there appears to be one agency within the federal government that is restructuring its programs so it can take the lead in making our communities more livable. Earlier this year, the General Service Administration established the Center for Urban Development and Livability. G.S.A. is the nation's largest real estate organization, and the 3,000 location, planning, design and construction decisions that they make every year have a tremendous impact on urban vitality in the more than 1,600 communities around the country where they control federal property. The establishment of the Center for Urban Development and Livability has been created to take advantage of opportunities to leverage federal real estate actions in ways that bolster community efforts to encourage smart growth, economic vitality and cultural vibrancy. I am hopeful that Congress and the new Architect of the Capitol will follow G.S.A.'s example and modify programs to actively seek the public's opinion with their building and renovations to make Capitol Hill and downtown D.C. more economically viable and to help create a more livable community.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 834 reauthorizes the National Historic Preservation Fund until the year 2005. The bill also amends the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to include a larger area of exemption under the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol and modifies the way Federal agencies consider historic properties for carrying out their responsibilities. H.R. 834 reauthorizes funds for the National Historic Preservation Act which established a general policy of Federal support and funding for the preservation of the prehistoric and historic resources of the Nation. This policy directs the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a national register of historic places, to encourage State and local historic preservation through State historic preservation officers, authorizes a grant program under the Historic Preservation Fund to provide States monies for historic preservation projects and to individuals for the preservation of properties listed on the national register. Lastly, the policy established the advisory counsel on historic preservation which reviews the policies of federal agencies in implementing the Historic Preservation Act. We need this policy to continue in order to protect our valued historic treasures. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that one of the principle purposes of the government is to preserve the cultural fabric of the Nation. Since 1966, one way this Nation has tried to accomplish that goal is through the National Historic Preservation Act. The bill before us reauthorizes that act, as I said, through 2005 at its present level. I think it is a tribute to the program that it has achieved enormous success in spite of the fact that it has never received its full authorization. State historic preservation agencies have used these federal funds to attract over three times the amount of State and private investment. The bill also codifies and clarifies Executive Order 13006 regarding historic properties by federal agencies. H.R. 834 includes a check list agencies must run through to ensure that wherever possible federal agencies will first make use of adjacent historic properties before seeking to build or buy new buildings. The bill maintains the exemptions for the Capitol, as I stated earlier. It is hoped that the requirement that the Architect of the Capitol report the area of his jurisdiction will bring awareness to the Federal Government that it should abide by the same laws it passes for the citizenry. That has not always been the case, particularly here in the District of Columbia. Finally, this bill provides as authorization by which the Interior Department may administer grants to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. This does not mean we are putting the trust back on the public payroll. Rather it allows Interior to respond quickly to emergency situations such as hurricanes or flooding. In conclusion this bill makes most sweeping changes, only incremental changes to what has become a mature and, I think, a very successful program. There is an element of urgency in passing this legislation since the program has been without authorization for 3 years. So I would hope that all my colleagues would support this very sound, very solid legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 H.R. 834, as amended, the bill just passed.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) on bringing this bill to the floor of the House. This is one of the really serious issues, veterans and retirees' health care both. We are dealing with veterans' health care here, but both are very, very important. As I go around to these various military bases, and I am sure my colleagues have the same experience, one of the things that the young recruits express concern about is that recruits before them were promised certain health care benefits that they do not feel they are getting today. I think the bill that my colleague is proposing today goes a long way towards meeting that concern or, at least, takes giant steps in that direction. I think it will help in recruitment, it will help in retention. It is an extremely important thing that we ask people to go and lay their necks on the line for America and, by golly, we need to take care of their health care needs; and I think my colleague goes a long way towards that. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time and for bringing this bill to the floor.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, liberal Democrats do an awful lot of railing against the Republican tax proposal that the President has promised to veto. The funny thing is they never tell us exactly what parts of the tax proposal they find so offensive. Are they against the part that would make it easier for parents to save for their children's education? Are they against the part that would make it easier for workers to obtain health insurance? Are they against reducing the marriage penalty? Are they against doing away with the death tax? Or are they against the part which reduces the tax on capital gains, the part of the tax code which has perhaps the greatest impact on whether the American economy is a job-producing machine. Who will come forth and explain what part of the Republican tax proposal offends liberal sensibilities? Let me tell my colleagues I think all of it offends them because they want every penny they can get for more government and bigger government. I am not surprised that a liberal President wants to veto this true tax relief package.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report to accompany S. 1059, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000. This legislation represents a significant improvement over the defense program presented to the Congress earlier this year by the Administration. It has been shepherded through the House and through the conference process by Republicans and Democrats with a deep desire to keep faith with the men and women in uniform who defend this Nation. Our bipartisan efforts have previously received overwhelming support in this House and this conference report also deserves such support. This legislation will provide the military equipment, training, pay and benefits, and adequate living and working conditions that is required to support the Nation's defense effort. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the House that the conferees worked hard to address the impact of inadequate facilities and military housing on military retention and readiness. And, we have fully funded the most critical items for the coming year. S. 1059, like the legislation that passed the House earlier this year, rejects the incremental funding of military construction projects proposed by the Department of Defense. That scheme clearly was not in the interest of the taxpayer. It would have led to a delay in the delivery of needed facilities and would certainly have increased their cost. Frankly, the Department of Defense left the Congress with a broken military construction program for fiscal year 2000. To cite but one example, the conferees needed to add nearly $1.1 billion to the budget to adequately fund the Department's request to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing and begin the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormatories, and BEQs for the single enlisted--a requirement for which only $313 million was requested. This housing must be built and occupied as soon as possible and only full funding can accomplish that. In addition, the conferees agreed to fund an additional $136 million for 14 other military housing for both families and the single enlisted to further alleviate the continuing military housing crisis. While we could not fix all of the problems associated with the unfunded military requirements that continue to pile up due to the broad inattention of the Department to critical infrastructure upgrades, we have produced a good bill. From improving military infrastructure and ensuring continued access to critical military training areas, to a significant effort to enhance pay and benefits, to continuing our efforts to modernize the Nation's arsenal, and to protecting programs vital to the national security, S. 1059 is comprehensive defense legislation that meets the real needs confronted everyday by ordinary Americans who are asked by their country to do extraordinary things on an almost daily basis. The men and women who volunteer--and I stress volunteer--to defend the liberty of this Nation deserve this bill. They deserve your vote. I urge every member to see this bill for what it is--that is, a meaningful and serious effort to deal comprehensively with our defense problems. Republicans and Democrats stood together to develop this legislation and we should continue to stand together to send this legislation to the President for his signature.