Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. First it was Jordan, then it was Gretzky, now it is Elway. On Sunday afternoon, the whole State of Colorado turned on their television sets to watch a press conference. The man whose name has become synonymous with the Denver Broncos, John Elway, announced his retirement from football. The statistics books will show that John Elway had 16 great seasons as a Denver Bronco. He had 148 victories and 47 come-from-behind wins, both National Football League records. He passed for over 50,000 yards, rushed for another 3,000 and played in 234 games, and through it all he only missed 15 career starts. Not the least of his achievements, he led the Broncos to five Superbowls and two Superbowl wins. What the stat books will not show us is what John Elway has meant to the State of Colorado. He gave us joy and excitement every week. His career became a true profile in courage of perseverance and was a testimony to all that dreams can really come true. Most importantly, in a time when Colorado and this Nation is in such desperate need of role models, John Elway was that, too. John, from the State of Colorado and from a grateful Nation and from this Bronco fan: ``Thank you.''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, I rise in support of this resolution to prohibit the use of funds for the deployment of ground troops in Yugoslavia unless specifically approved by Congress. Now, this does not prohibit ground troops from ever going into this area for combat, but if the people of America are going to be sent into war, it seems to me the representatives of the people of America should be in a position to approve that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should actually remove our forces from that area that are already there. In the last 6 years the manner in which this administration has circumvented Congress when it comes to deployment of the U.S. military forces around the world has been unprecedented, so it should come as no surprise that the House is here on the floor pleading to at least have a say in the process. The President is the commander-in-chief, but Congress should not relax in its role as a consultative partner when it comes to the deployment of our servicemen and women. So I agree with this measure wholeheartedly, but I want to talk about why I believe that we should not be there at all. In any military exercise, there should be a clear, succinct mission and exit strategy, similar to our successful efforts in Desert Storm. The Kosovo plan, and I hesitate to even call it that much, does not have a clear mission, clear goals, a way to measure accomplishment standards, or an exit strategy. For United States ground forces to enter that region, I also believe a more stable environment must be achieved by diplomatic means. This is not a desert. Our technological superiority will only give us so much of an advantage in the rugged terrain of Yugoslavia. It will not take only 4 days, as it did in the Gulf. The Serb army has entrenched itself over hundreds of years, and, unlike in Iraq, they appear to have complete loyalty to their leader, Mr. Milosevic. In other words, if we go into this hostile situation, we will lose American troops. Look at the history. Hitler had many, many divisions in Yugoslavia during the Second World War, and look how much good that did him. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would all support this measure.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I attended with the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) the memorial service for the students and the teacher who died, and, as I looked over the sea of 70,000 grieving faces, I realized that the media has touched the utter devastation Coloradans and, indeed, most Americans feel in the wake of this brutal attack. In shopping malls, grocery stores, public parks, churches and other venues across Colorado, people are grieving. They are moving slowly, they are talking in subdued voices, they are weeping at a moment's notice. There is unpalatable grief overwhelming the State of Colorado as we mourn the death of our children and friends and our neighbors. In the days following the attack, many have tried to assign blame or to identify a reason for the tragedy. Unfortunately, one cannot find a reason for something so senseless. There have been calls to judgment and proposed quick-fix solutions to the problems that appear to plague some of our Nation's youth. A parade of commentators have appeared on television and radio shows, each trumpeting their own solution to ensure that such a tragedy never occurs again. There have been calls for more gun laws, stricter gun laws, armed school guards, armed teachers, school metal detectors, parental advisory boards and random student searches. While there is merit in some of these so-called solutions, I fear that we are missing the bigger picture. In fact, all of the guns and all of the bombs that were used in this brutal attack were illegal. There are already laws against them. One commentator said these young people exercised very bad judgment. Very bad judgment? Very bad judgment is going the wrong way on an one- way street. Very bad judgment is to drink a little too much at a party, at a high school party. That is very bad judgment. These young men exercised evil. They were evil; they plotted evil, and they carried out evil, brutal acts of violence. For over a year they methodically and systematically plotted this vicious attack, and as has already been indicated by the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), they intended a great deal more. They were going to kill at least 500 students. Then they were going to go into the neighborhoods. Then they were going to highjack an airplane and they were going to crash it into New York City. So obviously they lived in a fantasy world, an evil fantasy world during the process of that. It is a tragic wake up call to all Americans, particularly adults, that there are children in this country who are so mentally ill and in such need of guidance that their only outlet for attention is by identifying themselves with deviant music, games, books, movies, even Adolph Hitler. Mr. Speaker, to revere Lincoln and Martin Luther King is not the moral equivalent of revering Adolph Hitler, but unfortunately, too often in the name of tolerance we say this is okay. It should be no surprise that once a child is immersed in evil thoughts, evil actions often follow. As a society, we try to mask evil through tolerance. We tend to ignore the signs of deviant behavior because we think people have a right to engage in their corruptive activities and we must be tolerant. While people do have this right, it cannot come at the expense of others. There are video games, movies, books, music that promote violence and corrode our society with a pervasive sense of evil, and we can no longer ignore these thoughts, activities and products in the name of tolerance. We need to call evil evil and take action against it. We cannot in our society tolerate evil. We as a society and as adults need to pay more attention to our children. We need to reach out to our children before they reach for evil. We need to provide them with a moral framework from which they can guide their lives. Hopefully, by listening to our youth and learning who they are, we can identify those children who need help. This is a tragedy that has deeply affected every community in my home state. My deepest condolences go to the city of Littleton, the students of Columbine High School, and especially the families of the students and teacher who were killed in last week's tragic shooting. Yes; 13 died. Many more will never be the same. I ask for your prayers at this terrible time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, we are beginning to see evidence of military shortages everywhere. At the same time, our military is dangerously overstretched. We have fewer and fewer resources and more and more missions, many of them of dubious value and wisdom. Less than a month into a small operation, the President is already calling up 30,000 reservists. The U.S.S. Enterprise went to sea short of 400 personnel. Today there are 265,000 American troops in 135 countries. Our troops are not being taken care of properly. It is tragic that it has taken the war in Kosovo to expose the total mismatch between resources and missions in the U.S. military: world policeman, global social worker, all the while cutting back dramatically and drastically on weapons procurement, training, and personnel. This administration has not given our troops the priority they deserve. For 7 straight years, the President has sent Congress a defense budget that falls short of its needs. If Congress had not added to this budget each year since 1995, we would be in even worse shape. Kosovo illustrates the problem, but we in Congress have the power to correct it.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, once again Congress finds itself in the midst of one of the most important debates that we have of our generation, this tax limitation amendment. As I listen to the debate, it seems there are some in this body who feel that everything that the working people of America earn belongs to the government, and if they are good, we will give them back a little of it. We will let them keep a little of it. There are others of us that seem to feel that a person is entitled to the fruits of their labor, and it ought to be very difficult to take it away. In fact, one of the previous speakers said that we do not want to limit this body from doing what it does best, and they are right, probably. What we do best is tax people. What we want to do, on this side, at least, and some on that side, is to stop doing what we do best in taxing people. We must ask ourselves, what kind of life are we going to leave to our grandchildren? What will our children point to and say, this was our legacy? There are few votes we will make in Congress that could have such a profound effect on our grandchildren. We will balance the budget this year, we will probably cut taxes over the next several years, but nothing that we do will prevent future Congresses from easily undoing that hard work. This vote today is about being right and being responsible. It is about leaving a better life for our children. It is about making it more difficult to force my children and grandchildren to be faced with even higher taxes than the record taxes we are now forced to pay. They should be able to keep more of the money that they earn. Unlike some individuals here in our Nation's Capitol, I trust that the American people can decide for themselves better how to spend their own money, and think giving too much of it to the Federal Government is creating enormous difficulty for families all across America. The average working person today spends over 40 cents of every dollar they earn in taxes and government fees, if we can figure all of that, almost half. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for our children and grandchildren and all Americans, and support for this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing the Troops to Teachers Program Improvement Act of 1999. This legislation will enable retiring military personnel to find rewarding second careers as teachers in our Nation's public schools. As we all know, our schools and students are in desperate need of more high-quality teachers. This bill, which I am introducing with the support of my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill), will help provide those teachers. This bill not only reauthorizes Troops to Teachers, but also strengthens and improves the enormously successful program. Troops to Teachers was created in 1994 to assist military personnel who were affected by military downsizing find second careers in which they could utilize their knowledge, professional skills and expertise in our Nation's schools. The program offers counseling and assistance to help participants identify teacher certification programs and employment opportunities. Since its authorization in 1994, Troops to Teachers has helped over 3,000 active duty soldiers enter our Nation's classrooms and make significant contributions to the lives of our students. These military personnel turned teachers have established a solid reputation as educators who bring unique real-world experiences to the classroom. They are dedicated, mature, and experienced individuals who have proven to be effective teachers, as well as excellent role models. They are also helping fill a void felt in many public school districts. Over three-quarters of the Troops to Teachers participants are male, compared with about 25 percent in the overall public school system, and over 30 percent of these teachers belong to a minority racial ethnic group. In addition, a large portion of these teachers are trained in math, science, and engineering, and about half elect to teach in inner city or rural schools. Overall, the retention of these teachers is much higher than the national average. Not surprisingly, Troops to Teachers is winning glowing reviews from educational administrators, teachers and legislators. Education Secretary Richard Riley praised the program as an new model for recruiting high quality teachers. School principals and superintendents who have employed Troops to Teachers participants are overwhelmingly supportive of the program. In a 1995-1996 survey, over 75 percent of the principals and superintendents rated Troops to Teachers participants as above average or higher. The authorization of this successful program is set to expire at the end of this year. My colleagues and I have introduced the Troops to Teachers Program Improvement Act in an effort to reauthorize the program and strengthen some aspects of it so it operates more efficiently and more effectively, and targets the educational needs of our students. I hope my House colleagues will join me in preserving this education success story by cosponsoring the Troops to Teachers Program Improvement Act.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, many of the Nation's most famous and profitable motion pictures were filmed on public land. John Ford filmed his classic westerns around Moab, UT, and the opening scenes of ``Raiders of the Lost Ark'' were filmed on Park Service land in Hawaii. Before 1948, the Interior Department charged filmmakers market prices for the use of these lands. But in that year, for reasons lost to time, Congress prohibited the Park Service and the Fish & Wildlife Service from collecting fees for commercial film making. This has resulted in lost revenue. The 16 units of the National Park System most involved with the film industry welcomed 2,800 productions over the past 3 years. At the present time, no requirement for fee collection besides normal special use permits. The Bureau of Land Management, which operates a film program under its existing permit system has processed approximately 1,000 requests per year. Estimated revenues of $300,000 per year; or about $1,000 to $1,100 per day. In contrast, production companies have paid as much as $8,500 a day to film on private land. Our bill would repeal this prohibition. Interior would be directed to develop a policy for collecting fees. Eighty percent of those fees would remain in the unit involved for maintenance needs, the remainder for systemwide use. There are also two Senate bills dealing with this: A. S. 338, Senator Campbell's bill; B. S. 568, by Senator Craig Thomas, which would extend the fee policy to the Forest Service, as well. In our discussions with the Forest Service that agency said it was satisfied with its existing policy and did not wish to be included at this time. This bill is the result of extensive discussions between my office and Members on both sides of the aisle, the Interior Department and representatives of the film industry. It is as near to a consensus proposal as we are likely to see. H.R. 154 provides the middle ground between the needs of the Interior Department and those of the film industry while providing our natural resources. The film would like the certainty of a fee schedule based on the number of people or the acreage involved in a production. While Interior would like the flexibility to address these requests, I think this bill does that. We think our bill offers the chance for a real win-win situation. The Park Service needs the money and the film industry is willing to pay it within reason. Fees will also help balance the use of our parks for filming with protection of the resource. And the more people see our parks through the movies, the more they'll want to visit them. Everyone can benefit if we do this right. With that I'll close. I urge your support for the measure.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill and commend the leadership for bringing this issue to the floor today. I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who will have the courage to vote to declare it the policy of the United States to deploy a national missile defense. Mr. Speaker, in my district, Colorado Springs is ground zero for the missile launch warning and tracking system for the United States military. I have visited the incredible facilities at NORAD, Cheyenne Mountain, the U.S. Space Command, and Schriever Air Force Base on many occasions. In fact, on one occasion when I visited NORAD, they put me in front of a monitor and they simulated an attack on the United States. A missile came over the polar region from the Soviet Union and they told me what that missile was, what its explosive power was, where it was going to hit, and I said, ``This is magnificent. This is state of the art. What do we do now?'' And they said, ``Nothing.'' They said we might be able to warn, give a short warning to some of the people that are going to be killed by it, but not enough warning for them to escape. We can do nothing. I do not think most of the American people realize that. I wonder how it sits with the American people. I wonder how my colleagues who are opposed to this policy can look their constituents in the eye and say, ``We shouldn't try to build a system to protect you and your families.'' I have listened to the arguments coming from the President over the years who has opposed this and others and they make some points. We need to consider all of these points. But, Mr. Speaker, to not even try sickens me. I hope all Members will, when considering their vote on H.R. 4, think about the people that sent them here to represent them but also sent them here to protect them from things like this. That building across the river over there that we call the Defense Department, I have always thought it curious that we called it the Defense Department but it cannot defend us against the number-one threat to America today.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this New York Times headline says it all: ``China Stole Nuclear Secrets for Bombs, U.S. Aides Say: Espionage Case at New Mexico Lab is Said to be Minimized by the White House.'' Why would a case that intelligence experts consider to be worse than Aldrich Ames be minimized by the White House? The reason is clear to all those who have followed the campaign finance scandal of 1996. It would also be clear to all those who followed the administration's China policy. First, when this scandal came to light in 1995, and then more conclusively in April of 1996, the White House was under fire for taking campaign cash from the Communist Chinese army. Second, this stunning revelation of nuclear espionage would have threatened the administration's policy of what they call engagement with Communist China. That is why the White House would have a clear incentive to avoid notification of Congress and to reject the clear evidence that our most sensitive nuclear secrets have been stolen.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted we are doing this debate today. I think that for us not to do this and to wait until it was too late would be a terrible mistake. I think, as a member of the Committee on Armed Services, there are four considerations that we need to consider before we send troops into Kosovo. First, the manner in which this administration has circumvented the legislative process when it comes to deployment of U.S. military forces around the world has been unprecedented, so it should come as no surprise that the President does not want us to debate this today. The President is the Commander in Chief, but he has a consultative partner in the Congress. He ought to consult us about these things. When we were debating Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, when we were going to debate it that night, the President told me he did not care what we thought about Bosnia. He did not care. He was sending troops into Bosnia anyway. That should not be the attitude of the Chief Executive. So we are doing something right here today. Even if he does not care what we think, we are doing something that should be done. Secondly, before we send troops in we should have a measure of success. How do we know when we have done our job? How do we know when we are finished, when we have completed it? I do not see that in the plan at this point. I do not see any clear mission or goals or accomplishment standards, what will be the measure of success. Third, for the United States to enter the region, there should be a signed agreement by both the Albanians and the Serbs. Following that, there should be a request that we in NATO come in to help them. This is a civil war in a sovereign nation. We should be there only at their request. I recently visited similar nations in the Balkans. We can see the hatred all over that part of the world. The idea that we would be so arrogant as to believe that we can go in and fix a problem without the full participation of all the stakeholders in this is just ridiculous. Then it is even more arrogant, I believe, to think we can mollify this problem in a short period of time. We may be there a while, if we go in.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 minutes to do it, but I want to thank the gentleman for presenting this picture, because that is the picture I wanted to present. He did it better than I could. Who is going to pay the bill for these kinds of things? If we are going to do them, and we are going to do them, obviously, around the world, who is going to pay the bill? We need to pony up and do what we should for our troops.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, a lot of people ask me why the government penalizes couples for being married, and the only answer that can I come up with is that the government does some dumb things, and this is one of them. Who is willing to defend this bizarre monstrosity in the tax code? Who will step forward and explain to the American couples in my district why Uncle Sam thinks they should pay more to the government for being married than if they were shacked up? What kind of cruel genius came up with the idea of penalizing people for being married? I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join me in doing away with the marriage tax penalty, a penalty which hits especially hard on those who are just getting by. Enough of this travesty. We have it within our power this year to stop at least one dumb thing this government is doing.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, in this new Congress, I am again introducing the Municipal Biological Monitoring Use Act (``MBMUA'' or ``Biomonitoring Bill''). This bill amends the federal Clean Water Act (``CWA'' or ``Act''). I would respectfully request its consideration this year as separate legislation or in connection with other bills to amend the CWA. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that our nation's wastewater, stormwater and combined sewer facilities owned by local governments are not unfairly exposed to fines and penalties under the federal Clean Water Act when biomonitoring or whole effluent toxicity tests conducted at those facilities indicate an apparent test failure. Similar legislation applicable to sewage treatment facilities was introduced in previous Congresses. In recent years, various offices of EPA have sought to apply WET test limitations to municipal separate storm sewer systems, combined sewer overflows, and other wet weather facilities. Therefore, as in the last Congress, this bill would also apply to wet weather facilities owned by local or state governments. Enforcement of biomonitoring test failures is a concern of local governments nationwide. Where whole effluent toxicity is a NPDES permit limit, the limit is defined as a test method as provided in EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 136. Any permit with whole effluent toxicity tests expressed as a discharge limit is subject to enforcement by EPA or a state delegated to implement the NPDES permit program, or under the Act's citizen suit provisions. Fines and penalties for such tests failures are up to $27,000 per day of violation. These tests are known, however, for their high variability and unreliability. Furthermore, because the source of WET at any given facility is usually not known until the tests are conducted, local governments are unable to take appropriate action to guarantee against test failure, and hence permit violation, before such violation occurs. The bill we reintroduce today would retain the use of biomonitoring tests as a management or screening tool for toxicity. Our bill would, however, shift fine and penalty liability from liability for test failures to liability for failure to implement required procedures for identifying and reducing the source of WET when detected. In so doing, this legislation would in the long-run strengthen environmental protection by removing the enforcement disincentive for its use. Background EPA or delegated states regulate wastewater discharges from sewage treatment, separate storm sewers and combined sewer systems through the NPDES permit program. NPDES permits include narrative or numeric limitations on the discharge of specifically named chemicals. Treatment facilities can be and are designed and built in order to assure compliance with such chemical specific limitations before a violation occurs. Compliance is determined by conducting specific tests for these specifically known chemicals. NPDES permits may also include limits to control the unspecified, unexpected, and unknown toxicity of the sewage plant effluent which is referred to as whole effluent toxicity or WET. The authority for biomonitoring tests was added to the Clean Water Act by the 1987 amendments. Since then, EPA has issued regulations describing biomonitoring or WET test methods under Part 136, permit requirements under Part 136, and enforcement policies for the use of WET tests as a monitoring requirement or as a permit effluent limitation at POTWs. Compliance with WET as limits is determined by the results of biomonitoring or WET tests. Biomonitoring or WET tests are conducted on treatment plan effluent in laboratories using small aquatic species similar to shrimp or minnows. The death of these species or their failure to grow or reproduce as expected in the laboratory is considered by EPA to be a test failure and therefore a permit violation. Where such tests are included in permits as effluent limits, these test failures are subject to administrative and civil penalties under the CWA of up to $27,000 per day of violation. Test failures also expose local governments to enforcement by third parties under the citizen suit provision of the Act. WET test failures can also trigger toxicity identification and reduction evaluations that include additional testing, thus exposing local governments to additional penalties if these additional tests are expressed as permit limits and also fail. The use of biomonitoring test failures as the basis for fines and policies is the issue which this bill addresses. WET Test Accuracy Cannot Be Determined EPA recognizes that the accuracy of biomonitoring tests cannot be determined. An October 18, 1995 Federal Register preamble document issued by the Agency in promulgating test methods determined that: ``Accuracy of toxicity test results cannot be ascertained, only the precision of toxicity can be estimated.'' (EPA, Guidelines for Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants, 40 C.F.R. Part 136, 60 FR 53535, October 16, 1995.) While the Agency cannot determine the accuracy of such tests, EPA still requires local governments to certify that WET test results are ``true, accurate, and complete'' in Discharge Monitoring Reports (``DMRs'') required by NPDES permits. This is a true Catch-22 requirement. Laboratory biomonitoring tests are known to be highly variable in performance and results. Aquatic species used as test controls may die or fail to reproduce normally during test performance through no fault of the POTW or its effluent. False positive tests occur frequently. Yet test failure is the basis for assessing administrative and civil penalties. EPA also recognizes that WET is episodic and usually results from unknown sources. These unknown sources can include synergistic effects of chemicals, household products such as cleaning fluids or pesticides, and illegal discharges to sewer systems. Even a well-managed municipal pretreatment program for industrial users cannot assure against WET test failures. The inaccuracy and high variability of WET tests is the basis of a judicial challenge to EPA Part 136 WET test methods brought by the Western Coalition of Arid States (``WESTCAS'') in 1996. This litigation was settled by the Agency in 1998 but is still under court jurisdiction and supervision. Under the settlement, EPA agree to conduct additional tests as to the validity of WET testing and the test methods in Part 136. The responsibility for this new effort to justify the technical basis of WET testing is split between the EPA Office of Research and Development and the EPA Office of Water. Scientific method blank or blind testing for WET tests was conducted by WESTCAS in 1997 preceding the settlement with EPA. These blind tests were conducted by a series of qualified laboratories throughout the United States. The purpose of these blind tests was to quantify the natural level of biological variability in test organisms and the variability inherent in the test procedures themselves. Without the knowledge of the participating laboratories, all of the samples tested contained no reference toxicants of any kind, i.e. The samples were pure dilution water. The results of these tests is highly revealing. Thirty-five per cent of the tests failed. Failure in this case means that toxicity was reported in non-toxic water samples. The 35% false positives among these tests demonstrated the high inaccuracy of the test methods used and the inappropriateness of their use as an enforcement weapon. Had any of these false positives occurred in actual samples from municipal facilities, they would have been subject to fines and penalties of up to $27,000 for each violation of a permit limit. Even if WET tests are improved, their use as enforcement tools is fundamentally unfair because the source of WET is usually unknown and cannot be controlled before test failures as permit violations, occur. Municipal Wastewater Facilities Municipal sewage treatment and combined facilities are designed to control specific chemical pollutants. Stormwater facilities are less able to control even specific chemicals. In any event, these local government facilities are not designed to control WET, especially in view of the fact that POTWs cannot be assured of knowing the specific nature of influent discharged to these facilities. To guarantee against these test failures before they occur, local governments would have to build sewage treatment facilities using reverse osmosis, micro filtration, carbon filtration or ion exchange, at great expense to citizen rate payers and with potentially very little benefit to the environment. The CWA and EPA regulations (40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.44(d)(1)(iv)) require that toxicity be determined based on actual stream conditions. An EPA administrative law judge decision issued in October, 1996, confirmed this interpretation in ruling: Although some form of WET monitoring may be legally permissible, there must be a reasonable basis to believe the Permittee's discharge could be or become acutely toxic. In addition, the proposed tests must be reasonably related to determining whether the discharge could lead to real world toxic effects. The CWA objective to prohibit the discharge of ``toxic pollutants in toxic amounts'' concerns toxicity in the receiving waters of the United States, not the laboratory tank. In the Matter of Metropolitan-Dade County, Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, NPDES Permit No. FL00224805. In actual practice, however, NPDES permits often restrict species for WET tests to a limited number of standard species which may not be representative of the stream-specific conditions to which local facilities discharge. This situation can also result in false test results. The failure to allow for the use of indigenous test species is a particular concern to POTWs discharging to ephemeral streams located in Western states where nationally uniform species could not survive. POTWs cannot be assured of knowing what substances are discharged to their facilities, as can industrial dischargers. They are community systems with thousands or even millions of connections, absolute control over which is not feasible. The inability of sewage treatment facilities to know the cause of WET failures so that the appropriate controls can be installed before test failures occur is fundamentally unfair because the local governments owning these plants do not have notice of what they must do to conform their behavior to the requirements of law. Constitutional fair notice in such situations is critical, and critical to fundamental fairness under the American legal system, whether at the federal or state level. There is less basis for making WET test failures subject to fines and penalties for storm water-related discharges because local governments are able to exercise even less control over such storm sewer systems and over combined sanitary and storm sewage systems. EPA may say that WET test failures often are not enforced under the Agency's exercise of administrative discretion. However, the opportunity for such enforcement remains, especially as more permittees are faced for the first time with enforceable WET permit limits and where an enforcement action is based on one or more alleged permit violations. The Agency should not rely on a lack of enforcement or enforcement discretion to justify this fundamentally unfair enforcement method. Any legal requirement that is not based on fair notice lacks credibility and undermines basic due process principles whether enforcement occurs once or many times. Additionally, third party suits are not subject to the exercise of EPA review and discretion. WET Tests Can Be Used as Early-Warning Management Tools Procedures for locating and reducing the source toxicity can require accelerated testing which would expose local governments to additional penalty liability. Thus, the Agency's insistence on making WET tests subject to penalties has become counter-productive to preventing toxicity. Nothing in the Clean Water Act requires EPA to make WET testing an enforceable permit limitation. As originally conceived by EPA personnel who developed biomonitoring test protocols, these tests, when made reliable, could be used as a screening or management tool for detecting WET, rather than for enforcement purposes. Since the 1987 amendments, however, through regulations and enforcement policies, EPA has persisted in making WET test failures violations of permit limitations even though these tests are technically unsound and fundamentally unfair for enforcement purposes. It is for these reasons that a legislative solution is necessary. Alternative, Legislative Solution Needed One legislative alternative would make WET testing a monitoring-only permit requirement. Another alternative would shift the enforceability of WET permit requirements from WET tests failures to local government failure to implement a tiered compliance process and schedule for locating and reducing the source of toxicity. The bill we reintroduce today adopts the second alternative and retains the use of WET as an enforceable part of the Clean Water Act by: Amending Sections 303 and 402 of the CWA to prohibit the finding of a violation under the strict liability provisions of the Act for a failure of a WET test conducted at publicly owned treatment works, municipal separate storm sewer systems, and municipal combined sewer overflows, including control facilities, and other wet weather control facilities; Requiring that criteria for WET must employ an aquatic species that is indigenous to the type of waters, a species that is representative of such species, or such other appropriate species as will indicate the toxicity of the effluent in the actual specific receiving waters. Such criteria must take into account the natural biological variability of the species, and must ensure that the accompanying test method accurately represents actual instream conditions, including conditions associated with dry and wet weather; Authorizing NPDES permit terms, conditions or limitations to include enforceable procedures for further analysis, toxicity identification evaluation (``TIE'') or toxicity reduction evaluation (``TRE'') for WET where an NPDES permit authority determines that the discharge from the applicable facility causes, has the reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an in-stream excursion above a narrative or numeric criterion for WET. Our bill would also direct that the NPDES permit must allow the permittee to discontinue such procedures, subject to future reinitiation of such procedures upon a showing by the permitting authority of changed conditions, if the source of such toxicity cannot, after thorough investigation, be identified; and Requiring the use of such NPDES permit terms, conditions or limitations only upon determination that such terms, conditions or limitations are technically feasible, accurately represent toxicity associated with wet weather conditions, and can materially assist in an identification evaluation or reduction evaluation of such toxicity. WET testing should be used as a management tool to locate and reduce WET. The assessment of penalties for test failures or the potential for assessment has become a recognized disincentive for the use of WET tests, including accelerated testing to locate and reduce toxicity. This bill would assure the use of these tests as tools to prevent pollution by respecting their technical limitations, eliminating penalties for test failures, and preserving the enforceability of procedures to locate and reduce whole effluent toxicity when detected. I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation and I urge its consideration and enactment in this Congress.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as I walked from my office yesterday morning to this chamber, I was almost overcome by the weight of the responsibility thrust upon us. The idea of having to make a decision on the impeachment of a President is sobering and no one should approach it casually. Mr. Hyde and Mr. Gephardt both did an excellent job of framing the issues, but from that point it was mostly downhill. The debate degenerated into small sound bytes of partisan demigogery interspersed with infrequent moments of lucidity. Many talked of the inappropriateness of proceeding while our troops are in combat, as if we were somehow doing something to impede their efforts. Nonsense! Others, argued that the President's behavior was ``reprehensible'', but that censure was the appropriate punishment. No, we are not here to contrive novel types of punishment for the President, or even to decide whether he should be removed from office. We, in this House, are to determine whether enough evidence has been presented to convince us there is substantial cause to believe that the President has committed offenses for which he should stand trial in the Senate. This is our responsibility! No more! No less! One of the themes put forth by a number of speakers yesterday was, ``He who is without sin, cast the first stone'' or `'vote'' as it were. If this is the criteria, there will be no impeachments, or grand jurys, or trial jurys, for that matter. The scripture tells us, ``All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.'' As I look out over this House I know this must be true. We are a group with great strengths, but also great weaknesses. We have virtues and flaws. We are the representatives of over 250,000,000 Americans who themselves lack perfection. No, no one here claims perfection and shame on any of us who wrap our robes of self-righteousness around ourself and finds joy in the task before us. But perfection is not the question. The President is being judged not by saints but by a jury of his peers as the Constitution provides. The questions we must answer center narrowly around a limited number of legal concepts. Perjury! Obstruction of justice! Misuse of office! The decisions we must make should not be based upon polls, or number of phone calls, or political party, or even how we feel about the President personally. Our decisions should be based on the evidence alone. It is on this evidence I have seen presented that I will cast my vote for impeachment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for bringing it to the floor today. While the American people and the Congress may have some question about the timing of this attack, one thing remains unquestionable, our support for the troops. Once the planes are in the air and the ships are at full steam and the troops are on the ground, we categorically and wholeheartedly believe in the mission and we believe in the wisdom of our military leaders. The provocations are many and the time for action is long overdue. Saddam Hussein is a psychopathic bully in the international playground. As we all know, the only way to deal with a bully is swiftly, directly, and harshly. It is unfortunate that over 24,000 brave men and women have to be apart from their families during the holiday season, but the extraordinary task they are performing will allow the United States and its allies to reaffirm that we will not stand idly by while this threat to safety, liberty and freedom exists. I proudly salute our servicemen and women all over the globe, and our thoughts and prayers are with you and your families and our support will not waiver.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the current budget battle in Washington shows clearly how conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats disagree about the role of government. Republicans think that the Federal Government is too big. Democrats think that it is not big enough. Republicans have been pushing for tax cuts. The liberals are horrified at the very idea and call, as the previous speaker just did, tax cuts giveaways. Republicans are insisting that we begin to reverse the dangerous decline in our military preparedness. Democrats have been fighting for even less defense. Republicans blocked a White House attempt to impose national standardized tests in elementary schools. Democrats urged the creation of a national gun registry in their latest effort to weaken second amendment rights. Republicans stopped the President's big government initiative to create a new handout, free needles for drug addicts. Democrats tried to create a national identity card. Republicans stopped that, too. Bigger government versus smaller government and more freedom, that is what is at stake. That is what this budget battle has been about over these last few weeks.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at noon on Monday next.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the majority of Republicans are conservative and they are proud of that. The majority of Democrats are liberal and I imagine that they are proud of that as well. One can only imagine what the liberals dream about in their private moments, the number of new government programs they could create if only those Republicans were not standing in the way. Republicans believe that the country has been going in the wrong direction for far too long, down the road of higher taxes, more government and less freedom. Democrats disagree. They favor a continuation down this path, and the current negotiations with the White House and with the other side of the aisle over the appropriations bill clearly reflect that. In almost every single case the dispute reflects the Republican desire to hold the line on spending and the Democrat desire to increase it. Although most Americans appear to support less government and lower taxes, you would never know it listening to the other side of the aisle in these negotiations. Spend more or spend less? The choice is clear.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, one can tell an awful lot about people by what they do not talk about. How many times have we heard Members of the other side express their shock, outrage or even curiosity about why 79 witnesses have taken the Fifth Amendment in connection with the campaign finance investigation? Again I ask is there not a single Democrat who is even curious about why 79 witnesses have taken the Fifth? Anyone? Anyone at all? In addition, 12 witnesses have fled the country, 23 foreigners have refused to be interviewed. What does that say about the ethics of the Democrat party? Would the party of Andrew Jackson, FDR and Harry Truman have remained silent in the face of all this evidence of illegal campaign contributions from a Communist Nation? Is that what the Democratic party has become? Is there not a single statesmen left in the entire party? Does not the Democratic party even want to know if foreign policy decisions were sold for campaign contributions? Their silence, Mr. Speaker, speaks volumes.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the same people who are whining about a ``do-nothing Congress'' are the very same people who accuse the Republicans of being ``extremist'' for proposing to reform welfare. They were wrong. They are also the very same people who attacked Republicans for reforming Medicare and saving it from bankruptcy for another decade. They were wrong. They are also the very same people who said we could not balance the budget and cut taxes at the same time. They were wrong. They are the very same people who had 40 years, 40 years to do something about Social Security and did not manage to put away a single dime to save it. They were really wrong. They are the very same people who failed to reform the IRS, an agency that routinely trampled on the rights of American citizens. The Republican Congress showed them they were wrong again. Just look at the record of our liberal accusers and consider their credibility.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, 12 years and nearly $6 billion after passage of the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act, many schools are neither drug-free nor safe. Using this drug prevention money, one Michigan school district gained $81,000 worth of giant plastic teeth and toothbrushes. Police in Hammond, Louisiana, have a squad car. It is a 3-foot, remote-control replica that cost $6,500. And Virginia Beach, Virginia, has extra lifeguards with this drug money. Students in Richmond, Virginia, are enjoying the social benefits of a $16,000 drug-free party guide. It includes tips on Jello wrestling and holding pageants where guys dress up in women's wear. Los Angeles schools have a new van for transporting sports equipment and have given away $16,000 in tickets to Disneyland and Dodger Stadium to students who have pledged to listen to their parents. These examples are only the tip of the iceberg. I guess it should not surprise us that the White House wants $605 million more for this program. Good idea, bad implementation. The Department of Education gets my porker of the week award.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installation and Facilities for the National Security Committee, I would like to thank Chairman Horn and Mr. Sessions for their hard work and persistence on S. 314, the ``Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998'' or the ``FAIR Act''. It is legislation of the utmost importance to the taxpayers and commercial contractors of America. I am very pleased that this Congress has passed legislation in which the Congress clearly states its policy toward commercial activities to augment the current and extensive OMB Circular A-76, already in place. This legislative initiative is an important step toward the promotion of public-private competition that will ultimately result in enhanced quality and performance, reductions in costs, and increased choices in the government contracting arena. The FAIR Act rightfully and deliberately provides for the protection of those activities that are inherently governmental and that should be precluded from being contracted out at anytime or under any circumstances. However, it appears to me and other Members that this legislation's intent also is to promote competition to ensure that the American taxpayers get the biggest ``bang for their buck''. Where the private sector can show that they can do it better, quicker, and cheaper, the government must step aside. Myself, Chairman Horn, Mr. Sessions, and other Members have heard from concerned American businesses who relay example after example of Federal agencies aggressively and proactively attempting to infringe upon their established market base when the agencies are not capable of performing the same commercial activities better, quicker, and cheaper. One example of such unfair encroachment against the private sector by a Federal agency is occurring within the Department of Defense's (DoD) Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), specifically in its Defense Automated Printing Services (DAPS). It has come to my and other Members' attention that DAPS is embarking on a high-technology military specification collection and subscription service which is in direct competition with services currently offered by private, tax-paying businesses. These businesses have invested decades of capital in this highly technical area. They have a proven track record worldwide of successfully developing, updating, servicing, and marketing these subscription based military product offerings to their customers. It is unclear to me why DAPS, an in-house government service should be attempting to replace services currently and successfully provided by the private sector. And in addition, targeting these businesses' markets with the very same tax dollars paid in by these businesses. In this vein, I would like to document for the record what I believe is the intent of S. 314: (1) To halt these unfair practices by the Federal agencies in the instances when they do not have the competitive edge over their commercial contractors and are not inherently governmental in nature. (2) To prohibit funds appropriated to the Defense Logistics Agency or Defense Automated Printing Services to offer or sell technical document subscriptions delivered via online means such as internet delivery or provided on CD-Rom in Portable Document Form and including free Adobe software with a value added index/search engine (a/k/a the ASSIST database), such activities being flagrant examples of government aggressively competing with established private sector businesses currently in this market? I would also like to document for the record my hope that since the House did not adopt the original version of this legislation, which provided even tougher safeguards against unfair government practices toward the commercial sector, that Chairman Horn and his Subcommittee revisit this issue next year, hold hearings on this subject, and pursue passage of legislation that furthers these goals.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express serious reservations about the defense appropriations conference report. I do not dispute the funding decisions made by the conferees. In the main, Chairman Young and Mr. Murtha have brought back to the House a bill that addresses the pressing defense needs of the Nation in a manner as consistent with the authorization bill as they possibly could have. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, however, I am concerned about several authorization provisions in this bill. Buried in this legislation are six real property matters that should be addressed in the defense authorization process. Section 8132 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey excess relocatable housing units at Malmstrom Air Force Base. Section 8139 mandates the Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain property in the State of New Hampshire. Section 8140 would permit the Secretary of the Navy to engage in a lease of property to the University of Central Florida. Section 8141 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to lease certain property from the City of Phoenix near Luke Air Force Base. Section 8143 would provide the authority to the Secretary of the Navy to convey property with consideration to the City of Seattle and, finally, section 8144 would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey an Army Reserve Center to the City of Reading, Pennsylvania. None of these real estate matters, all properly within the jurisdiction of the authorization committee, were raised with the committee during consideration of the defense authorization bill nor were they raised with conferees during negotiations with the Senate on H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999. None of these provisions were in the House-passed version of the defense appropriations bill. Most of these provisions came to conference as amendments to the Senate version of H.R. 4103 while the bill was being considered on the floor in the other body. Some of the provisions have murky origins in the conference itself. None of the offending provisions, to the best of my understanding, address an urgent need that cannot wait for the next authorization cycle. These provisions may have merit, but none have been reviewed adequately. To his credit, Chairman Young fought to keep these provisions--and more--out of this bill. Regretfully, he was not completely successful. As a chairman, I understand what it takes to get out of conference. Compromise with the other body is a necessary component of any conference, but we should refrain from needlessly blurring the line between the authorization and appropriations process. Beyond the real estate issues contained in this bill, I am deeply concerned about two other provisions in the area of base closure and realignment. Section 8142, which would give the Secretary of the Army the authority to retain military family housing at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, in support of the relocation of U.S. Army South, is a direct contravention of a decision made in the 1995 BRAC round to dispose of those units. Many in this House have criticized the President for his circumvention of the BRAC process for political reasons at McClellan Air Force Base and Kelly Air Force Base. While section 8142 is intended to help the Army and is not purely political, it's effect is the same. We should not begin to engage in a case-by-case undoing of prior BRAC decisions for any reason in the absence of an authorized realignment process. I hope we are not opening Pandora's box should this legislation receive the approval of the House today. Finally, I question the wisdom of requiring the Secretary of the Air Force to expend $7.6 million from the base closure and realignment accounts for demolition and other base conversion activities at Norton Air Force Base. The expenditures required by section 8145 are not related to any military mission and they are not required to comply with routine environmental remediation requirements. It is extremely unwise to tap the BRAC accounts to subsidize local reuse efforts. In that context, I find it equally unwise to continue the practice of permitting the use of other DOD resources for conversion activities at other BRAC locations. For these reasons, and despite the fact that this is otherwise a very good bill, I regret that I must vote ``no.''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, no Member in this House has been more supportive of a strong national defense than the chairman of the Committee on Rules has been since he has been here. We are going to miss him in that role. I am including even those of us who serve on the Committee on National Security. He has been such a stalwart. We appreciate that greatly. I think we should make the gentleman an honorary member of the Committee on National Security, if nothing else. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999, and for this good rule. The legislation is critically important to the defense of the Nation. It contains a needed military pay raise of 3.6 percent, an issue on which I am proud to say the Committee on National Security has been a leader. This legislation supports the readiness of the armed forces by providing an additional $900 million above the President's request to bolster underfunded training and readiness requirements. This bill would also strengthen export controls on extremely sensitive satellite and missile technology. This is a good bill. It is a good rule. I want to focus some attention on the part of the bill that I have worked the most on, and, that is, the military construction authorizations for the coming year. There is no question that the poor condition of military infrastructure continues to affect readiness and quality of life for military personnel and their families. This bill would authorize $8.4 billion for the military construction and family military housing programs of the Defense Department and the military services. This amount is $666 million more than the President's request and over 52 percent of that funding is dedicated to improving troop housing, military family housing, child development centers, physical fitness and other facilities that significantly affect the quality of life of military personnel and their families. The remainder supports either critical enhancements for training and readiness or to improve basic working conditions. This bill fully supports the MILCON appropriations agreement which passed the House 417-1 and was signed by the President over the weekend. For too long, military infrastructure has been ignored. It has been far too easy to put off needed investment in infrastructure on the assumption that one more year will not make a difference, that we can get by. The result of years of this neglect is a crumbling infrastructure which undermines readiness and housing that no one in this House would want their son or daughter living in. Over the past four years, Congress has struggled to find ways to fix the problem but from year to year we have been met by administration budget requests that continue to decline. The problem cannot be fixed by wishing it away. Earlier this week the President indicated a willingness to join those of us in Congress who have argued that defense spending must increase to meet critical shortfalls such as these. I hope we have finally turned the corner on shortfalls in the defense budget. I urge all Members to support this bipartisan legislation and to vote for a strong defense bill and to support this rule.