Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What this amendment does is not do away with public broadcasting. I am not trying to do away with public broadcasting. What I am trying to do is to do away with the $50 million increase in public broadcasting that is in this. For the life of me, I do not understand how we get to this kind of a point, kind of the business as usual that we just dump more money into every program every year. In the past few years, and I think the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] explained it very well on the last amendment, the Federal Government has appropriated less and less money each year to the public broadcasting. Let me give colleagues a little history on this. We all know that public broadcasting is funded by 2-year advance appropriations. For example, in 1993, Congress provided $275 million for public broadcasting to use in fiscal year 1996. Since then, we have reduced the yearly appropriation for public broadcasting down to $250 million, appropriated last year for fiscal year 1999. Reduced funding, even zero funding and privatization of public broadcasting was a priority of this House just a very short time ago. In fact, let me quote the House Committee on Appropriations report from the first session of the 104th Congress. Recall that this report was written in the year 1995 when $250 million was ultimately appropriated for public broadcasting. The committee report actually states, ``This level of funding will continue the process of graduating public broadcasting from the annual Federal appropriations with the goal of achieving independence from the Federal Government.'' Mr. Chairman, in 1995, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives was on the right track. Now I would like to know what happened. After all of that hard work to begin weaning public broadcasting from the Government, why are we now taking a turn to increase, enormously increase funding for this agency? It simply makes no sense to me. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting uses taxpayer money to fund programs which make millions of dollars for private companies and individuals. A single celebrated public broadcasting children's program generates more annual revenues than the National Hockey League. Yet none of these millions are shared with taxpayers who fund the shows. We have had this debate before. We were on the right path to reduced Federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But somewhere along the line this year our course was changed and the appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was increased to $300 million. I do not understand this increase. I certainly do not agree with it. Therefore, I offer this amendment to reduce the recommended appropriation for the CPB by $50 million. That is the amount of the increase, thus keeping the funding for the agency level with last year's appropriation of $250 million. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues have asked me how will you use this $50 million? What is the offset you propose? My answer to this is simple. I just remind Members that we do not have this money to spend in the first place. Furthermore, because the CPB is funded with 2-year advance appropriations, we are discussing money to be spent in 2000. Therefore, an offset is not needed. Our country is operating with a deficit that needs to be reduced. In our strenuous attempts to reduce Federal spending, we have taken pains to scrimp and to save. The funding for many other Government agencies and programs has been reduced this year. So why should the Corporation for Public Broadcasting receive a $50 million increase? If I am not mistaken, breast cancer research did not receive a $50 million increase this year. Maybe they did. Literacy did not receive it. Alzheimer's research did not receive it. I cannot tell my colleagues what we could do for the quality of life for our people in the Armed Services that in some cases are living in Third World conditions around the world in our Army bases, on the committee that I chair, if we had $50 million extra. But we are putting it not into these things, we are putting it into an increase in public broadcasting. Again, my amendment will reduce the committee's proposed funding for the CPB by $50 million so that the Corporation for Public Broadcasting ultimately receives the same amount of money that was appropriated for it last year. Please join me in supporting this level funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, what would be the effect on the public schools if a school choice program resulted in the most motivated kids and the most involved parents leaving the public school in their neighborhood? I ask this question because the question I get most often from those who oppose school choice is: What about the kids that are left behind? Well, Mr. Speaker, my response is increased competition among public schools will, without a shadow of a doubt, have the same effect on schools that increased competition has on the computer industry, the automobile industry, the restaurant business, the supermarket, the construction industry, the financial industry, and on and on and on. Increased competition means that bad schools will shut down, as they should, as more students flee those schools that have failed them. Increased competition means that mediocre schools will feel pressure to improve, real pressure, for fear that their students will go elsewhere. And let me suggest that increased competition, here is a novel idea, increased competition will result in real accountability for the first time. Competition in education will make better private schools and it will make better public schools.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer with every passing day that one would have to dig to China to get to the bottom of all the campaign finance scandals in this administration. Although, come to think of it, I guess one would actually have to go to China to find all the shady characters who fled the country to escape justice. But even all the tea in China cannot force foreign fundraisers to come to the United States Senate and tell the truth. While some Democratic Senators are gleeful that the Thompson committee is having trouble getting people to cooperate, those responsible Senators who actually care about performing their constitutional duty to find out the truth about campaign finance crimes that may have been committed will continue to probe this sleazy affair. Mr. Speaker, my constituents and yours have a right to know if their elected officials really do believe that they are above the law. It is time to get to the bottom of this; it is time to start digging.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, politicians love to make a lot of noise about education reform and better schools. Ever since the report, ``A Nation At Risk,'' came out in 1983, calls for education reform have been part of every politician's repertoire, but nothing seems to change, and parents with children in bad schools have the impression that reformers are more interested in rearranging the deck chairs than they are about serious changes. Mr. Speaker, that is about to change. That is because more and more parents are insisting on real changes in the educational opportunities available to their children. Two ideas that will not go away are school choice and education savings accounts. They will not go away because both ideas are as American as apple pie, freedom to choose and savings for the children's future, and because it is awfully hard to argue with the results. With Milwaukee and Cleveland leading the way, school choice is the wave of the future, and education savings accounts will become part of that movement for greater educational opportunities. The time for talk is over; now is the time for real change.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 695.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, when was the last time that we heard a liberal talk about who pays what share of the tax burden? Now let us think about that for just a minute. I am very curious to know if anyone can think of a single instance in the past 84 years where a liberal Democrat has talked about who pays what share of the tax burden. According to the IRS, and C-SPAN viewers can check these figures for themselves, the top 1 percent of income earners in this country pay 29 percent of the income taxes. Again, the top 1 percent pay 29 percent of the income tax burden. How about this one? The top 25 percent of income earners pay 80 percent of the income taxes. Madam Speaker, I leave it to my colleagues to decide. Are the wealthiest Americans paying their share? And do my colleagues think that maybe those who pay 80 percent of the tax burden ought to get some of the tax relief? My colleagues should decide.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. This project seems to have become the poster child for all those who wish to show that they're environmentally sensitive though fiscally prudent. That though they're willing to make tough choices on spending, they still are moved by the sight of a tree or free-flowing water. In short, it is offered by people who have never been the Four Corners area of the Southwest and are not willing to know the history involved there. This project is intended to deliver water to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe and fulfill a treaty obligation between this country and that tribe. Now it had been charged that the A-LP project would deliver more water to non-Indians than Indians and that this was all a smoke screen. So the people in that area changed the project. They cut the project's cost by $400 million. Two-thirds of the water will go to Indians. it will satisfy tribal water rights claims. Naturally, A-LP opponents still don't like the project. They say they want more time to study the new plan but environmentalists have already criticized it. They can't see why the Indians can't buy water elsewhere and not build a project at all. Sure, let 'em buy Evian water. Lt. Gov. Gail Shoettler has been trying to broker a compromise on the A-LP since January. This amendment would essentially block that from going forward. Which is what opponents want; they certainly don't want a settlement. Instead, they can say they've killed a water project. But lost in all of this will be the Ute Mountain Utes. Their reservation is located in one of the most arid areas of the country. Mesa Verde National Park commemorates the ancient inhabitants of that site. Those inhabitants disappeared, probably because they ran out of water. The Utes now live there and, I think, their tribal unemployment rate is 40 percent. They'd like this water to develop agriculture and improve their standard of living. So, basically this amendment says they should do without this water, just like their predecessors. It says they should be satisfied with tourism and handouts. This amendment's supporters will say they want the Shoettler negotiations to go forward. But don't kid yourself; next year, we'll be back here for another amendment to kill what's left of this project. And its supporters can pat themselves on the back and say they've saved money. But the reality is we'll have broken yet another promise to these Indians and, I suspect, left ourselves open to a lawsuit somewhere down the road. Therefore, I strongly urge your opposition to this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, if we look across the sweep of history, we will notice that the human struggle has been a continuous struggle for greater freedom. From the Magna Carta to the Constitution of the United States, the struggle for greater freedom has been an unending battle against governments in power who fail to resist the temptation to abuse their power. People struggling against government tyranny is a theme that resonates throughout history and across the globe. Political freedom, economic freedom, and religious freedom; the focus of the struggle changes, but the direction of the goal and the inspiration for the cause have always remained the same. The human soul desires freedom from government oppression, freedom to control one's destiny, and freedom to worship one's God. The Republican agenda is an answer to those yearnings for more freedom, lower taxes, smaller government, and the right to express our faith in the public square. This is the direction to more freedom for all Americans.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel like we are surrounded by a bunch of Pinocchios. It appears we have two different groups of Pinocchios. On the one hand we have got some liberals who are calling millions of middle-class families rich by using something called family economic income. Family economic income is a magic formula that some ingenious bureaucrat at the Treasury Department dreamed up that means your income is actually 50 percent or more higher than people think it is. On the other hand we have got some liberals who want, now listen to this one, who want to reduce the income tax burden on people whose income tax burden is already zero. Their ideas of a tax cut is to, and now I am not making this up, is to increase the tax burden on the actual taxpayers to give tax decreases to those who pay no taxes. It is hard to know which group is growing the longest noses. I do not know how to decide which arguments are more absurd, the family economic income liberals or the tax cut to the welfare crowd. Mr. Speaker, this is Pinocchi-nomics.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, an investigation by the inspectors general of the Department of Health and Human Services found that a $15.3 million training program based at the University of Mississippi, underwritten with Federal tax dollars, was only 8 percent effective. The goal of this program was to help participants earn the equivalent of a high school diploma, the GED. Yet, for all the money spent, just 720 of the 4,300 participants even took the GED exam. Of those, only about half passed and went on to receive the GED diploma. The final price tag, now get this, for each GED diploma was $40,584. That looks like the cost of a 4-year stay at a State-run college, rather than a remedial education effort. Why do we keep spending tax dollars on feel-good programs that are not working? It appears these folks could use a little education in the arithmetic category. They simply are not making the grade. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gets my Porker of the Week Award.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would agree that I think it is a shame that we got through that section this morning, and it surprised a lot of us on how quickly we went through that. There were some good amendments that were not able to be considered. So we went to the legislative counsel and had our amendment restructured. We hoped it would be taken care of and would take care of your concern about the point of order. Also in the bill on page 51, beginning with line 9, it says ``for necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by section 205 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986.'' What this tells me is that this is authorized and, as such, the point of order should not be granted.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today because I have LUST on my mind. I think the American people are concerned about LUST as well. Of course, when I say LUST, I am talking about the Leaking Underground Storage Tank trust fund, or LUST, as the program is called. As the gentleman from California knows, the LUST program provides cleanup resources for environmentally hazardous leaking underground storage tanks that have been abandoned, or where the owner cannot afford to clean it up. The money in the trust fund was incurred through a sales tax on motor fuel, and most of it goes directly to the States for cleanup. Recent estimates calculate there are over 165,000 of these sites across the country. That does not include the ones that have yet to be discovered. These contaminated sites are located in both urban and rural areas, areas where our groundwater comes from or mainly where our children play. By increasing the funding level up to the President's request, and I would make a point of that, Mr. Chairman, that I am talking about increasing the funding level in this environmental program to clean up the underground storage tanks to the President's request of $71.2 million, we can continue the progress we have made in cleaning up these sites. And I think every Member of this body would want increased funding for contaminated environmental cleanup back home in their districts. The money would come from a decrease in the committee request for HUD's management and expenses account. When the House voted overwhelmingly to pass H.R. 2, the Housing Opportunity Act, it was under the guise of a smaller HUD bureaucracy, yet we have increased HUD's M&A account by $31 million in this bill. I realize sometimes there are costs involved with downsizing and devolution, but I think most of us would agree that only in Washington does it cost more to get less. Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment gives us the opportunity to do two things we have promised the American people. First it takes money and power out of Washington by giving it to the States and, second, it provides more money for direct environmental clean up rather than further burdensome regulation. I urge my colleagues who voted for housing reform and consider themselves to be environmentally conscious to support this Hefley amendment. Point of Order

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to continue the ongoing discussions in the House concerning the Quadrennial Defense Review. The QDR has emerged as a blueprint for the administration's defense program. The assumptions of the QDR, particularly as they affect budgets, are as critical as the policy choices contained in the review. One of the most often discussed recommendations contained in the QDR is the recommendation for two more rounds of base closures, but the QDR itself says very little about base infrastructure beyond that recommendation. The Congress still does not have a clear understanding how the Department came to the conclusion that it did. That is critically important, because DOD has made assumptions about future Defense budgets based on that recommendation. But those budget assumptions appear to be based on elementary projects of DOD's estimates of costs and savings of the current base closure effort, and those projections may turn out to be wrong. To date, the Congress has been skeptical of Secretary Cohen's rush to judgment on the need for more base closure rounds in the near term. The House version of the Defense authorization bill does not contain such authority. The other body adopted an amendment to its version of the Defense bill offered by Senator Dorgan that gets to the heart of the issue. The Senate bill asks for a comprehensive study and assessment of the true costs and actual savings, not estimates, of the four previous rounds of base closure which we will be implementing through 2001. The actions of both bodies have been misinterpreted. I, along with many other Members, voted in 1990 to establish the Commission process that governed the last three rounds. The Congress has overwhelmingly supported those base closure decisions as I have, even though some of the recommendations cause great unease and I think that perhaps we will regret some of the decisions made from it, but overall I think the process was a good process. We supported this because we thought it was best for the country. We have put aside our own parochial interests for the greater good. But now some have criticized Congress for not adopting blindly the Secretary's recommendation. Why have we not done so? Because those of us who have supported the base closure process believe now is not the time. Why do we believe that to be the case? Some commentators have chosen to focus solely on the President's politization of the process. Clearly, the McClellan and Kelly depot issue will not go away and is a major factor, but it is not the only one, nor is it the most important. Let us review where we are now. Through four rounds of base closure that began a decade ago, we have slashed 21 percent of the U.S.-based plant replacement value of base structure. Ninety-seven major bases have been closed in the United States. We have cut our overseas basing structure by 43 percent, ceasing operations at over 960 facilities. The Army in Europe alone has closed the equivalent of 12 United States major maneuver bases. Taken together, we have gotten rid of 27 percent of the base structure at a very high price, but it had to be done. By 2001, the taxpayer will have spent an estimated $23 billion to close just the U.S.-based infrastructure closing or realigning under the BRAC. Will we save money? I do not doubt that measured over a 20-year period in terms of net present value that money will be saved. But there is a real question about how much. No one knows. Every savings figure is merely an estimate, and an incomplete one at that. I want to cite three examples of where these problems are. In its budget estimates to accompany the fiscal year 1996 budget request, DOD estimated that revenues from the sale and disposal of land from the first three rounds of BRAC would amount to $815.3 million. This year DOD's estimate is $277 million, a 66-percent reduction in just 2 years. DOD projects annual recurring savings after 2001 for all BRAC rounds of $5.6 billion annually. However, that figure does not take into account the expected ongoing environmental cleanup costs or the caretaker cost for property that cannot be disposed of at that point. Those costs are estimated conservatively, in my judgment, at $500 million a year. Approximately 51 percent of the savings which DOD assumes will come from BRAC during the implementation are due to assumed savings in operation and maintenance costs. Much of those assumed savings are due to reductions in civilian personnel. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that now is not the time. We need to do this in a more reasoned and careful manner.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, Mr. Pastor, in introducing H.R. 2138, the Municipal Biological Monitoring Use Act. The purpose of this legislation is to establish for the Environmental Protection Agency new criteria for biomonitoring or whole effluent toxicity tests at local government sewage treatment plants, also known as publicly owned treatment works, or POTW's. Similar legislation applicable to POTW's was introduced in previous Congresses. In recent months, the EPA has also sought to apply WET test limitations to municipal separate storm sewer systems, combined sewer overflows and other wet weather discharges and control facilities. Therefore, this updated version of our bill is also applicable to these storm water-related discharges owned by local governments. Enforcement of biomonitoring test failures is a concern of POTW's nationwide and particularly in the arid West because of the unique water quality characteristics of low flow and ephemeral streams located in that region. The bill we introduce today would retain the use of biomonitoring tests as a management or screening tool for toxicity, while shifting fine and penalty liability for test failures to liability for failure to implement permit-required procedures for identifying and reducing the source of WET when detected. background The EPA regulates wastewater discharges from POTW's through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit program. NPDES permits include narrative or numeric limitations on the discharge of specifically named chemicals. Treatment facilities for these named chemicals can be designed and built in order to assure compliance with such limitations before a violation occurs. Compliance is determined by conducting specific tests for these named chemicals. NPDES permits may also include limits on the unspecified toxicity of the entire sewage plant effluent which is known as whole effluent toxicity. Compliance with these limitations is determined by the results of biomonitoring or whole effluent toxicity, or WET tests. The authority for biomonitoring tests was added to the Clean Water Act by the 1987 amendments. Since then, EPA has issued biomonitoring test methods, permit requirements, and enforcement policies for the use of WET tests as a monitoring requirement or as a permit effluent limitation at POTW's. Biomonitoring or WET tests are conducted on treated plant effluent in laboratories using small aquatic species similar to shrimp or minnows. The death of these species or their failure to grow as expected in the laboratory is considered by EPA to be a test failure. Where such tests are included in permits as effluent limits, these test failures are subject to administrative and civil penalties under the Clean Water Act of up to $25,000 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 also fail. wet test accuracy cannot be determined The EPA recognizes that the accuracy of biomonitoring tests cannot be determined. An October 16, 1995, Federal Register preamble document issued by the agency in promulgating guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis of pollutants 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 CFR part 136, 60 FR 53535, October 16, 1995.) While the agency cannot determine the accuracy of such tests, the EPA still requires local governments to certify that WET test results are ``true, accurate and complete'' in discharge monitoring reports 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 often died during test performance. False positive tests occur frequently. Yet test failures are the basis for assessing administrative and civil penalties to enforce permit limitations for WET. The EPA also recognized that WET is episodic and usually results from unknown sources until they are detected and located through WET tests. 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 municipal users cannot assure against WET test failures. POTW's are designed to control specific chemical pollutants. Treatment facilities are not designed, however, to control WET before detection by biomonitoring test failures because POTW's cannot be assured of knowing the specific nature of sewage influent discharged to the treatment plant. To guarantee against these test failures before they occur, local governments would have to build sewage treatment facilities using reverse osmosis, micorfiltration, carbon filtration, ion exchange or ozone at great expense to citizen rate payers. The Clean Water Act and EPA regulations (40 CFR 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 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 tanks. in the matter of metropolitan-dade county, miami-dade water and sewer authority In practice however, NPDES permits often restrict species for WET tests to a limited, nationally recognized number which may not be representative of the stream-specific conditions to which local facilities discharge. This situation can result in false test results. The failure to allow the use of indigenous test species is a particular concern to POTW's discharging to ephemeral streams located in Western States where nationally uniform species could not survive in any case. POTW's cannot be assured of knowing what substances are discharged to their plants, as can industrial dischargers. They are community systems with thousands or even millions of connections, absolute control over which is not feasible. Requiring POTW's to know the cause of WET failures so that the appropriate controls can be installed before test failures 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. 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 systems. The 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 particularly where an enforcement action is based on one or more permit violations. More importantly, the credibility of any legal requirement that is not built on the principal of fair notice is damaged whether enforcement occurs once or many times. Additionally, third party suits are not subject to the exercise of EPA review and discretion. 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 systems. The 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. More importantly, any legal requirement that is not based on fair notice lacks credibility and undermines 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. 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 counterproductive to preventing toxicity. Nothing in the Clean Water Act requires the EPA to make WET testing an enforceable permit limitation. As originally conceived, these tests should be used as a screening or management tool for detecting WET, rather than for enforcement purposes. Since the 1987 amendments, however, the 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 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 test failures to local government failure to implement a tiered compliance process and schedule for locating and reducing the source of toxicity. Our bill, H.R. 2138, adopts the second alternative and retains use of WET as an enforceable part of the Clean Water Act by: Amending sections 303 and 402 of the Clean Water Act to prohibit the finding of a violation of the act in the case of a biomonitoring or 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 specie as will indicate the toxicity of the effluent in the 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 requiring 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 instream excursion above a narrative or numeric criterion for WET. The bill would also direct that the NPDES permit must allow the permittee to discontinue such procedures, subject the 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 local and reduce toxicity. Our bill, H.R. 2138, would assure the use of these tests as tools to prevent pollution by respecting their technical limitations, eliminating penalties for test failures, preserving the enforceability of procedures to locate and reduce whole effluent toxicity when detected and thereby eliminate the disincentive for their use. We urge your support and cosponsorship of this legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton White House and people like the gentleman who just spoke have criticized Congress' tax cut plans as unfair because they say that the richest 20 percent of the country will get most of the tax relief. Most Americans think of the rich as people like Bill Gates and Michael Jordan. In Clinton's plan it only takes a family income of $56,000 per year to be in the top 20 percent of the earners, or the rich. According to the 1996 census, millions of working families who would never consider themselves rich by any measure are in Clinton's top 20 percent: 2.4 million elementary and school teachers, over half; 1.7 million union members, one out of every 10; 8.1 million Federal, State and local government workers; 120,000 editors and reporters, almost half; 4.2 million mechanics, repairmen, construction workers have family incomes considered rich by the standards of the gentleman that just spoke here. These are precisely the people who deserve the bulk of the tax cuts. Congress wants to make sure they receive those cuts. It is time for Bill Clinton and his cohorts in the Congress to stop misleading the American people.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the debate we are hearing these days about tax cuts for people who pay no taxes is worthy of a scene from Gilligan's Island. One can just imagine Gilligan complaining to the Skipper and asking him why he is not getting a tax cut. At this point the Skipper would have already taken off his cap and smacked Gilligan over the head and cried with exasperation, ``Gilligan, don't be ridiculous!'' Then the Skipper, in his usual condescending way, would try to explain to his slow ``Little Buddy'' that it is impossible to cut taxes for someone who pays no taxes. Gilligan would not need the Professor to explain to him the metaphysical impossibility of such a preposterous proposition, even though Gilligan lived in a fantasy land. All he would need is a good rap on the chest, a little common sense, and the advice, ``Gilligan, don't be ridiculous!''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2016, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1998. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] have described the principal features of this legislation, and I do not want to repeat what they already have said. But as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I would like to elaborate on a couple of points that the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner] have made. This House has been concerned for some time about the serious shortfalls in basic infrastructure, military housing, and other facilities that affect the readiness of our Armed Forces and the quality of life for military personnel and their families, and Congress has taken action to attempt to address those shortfalls. Both the authorization and appropriations committees of jurisdiction were disappointed that the budget requested by the administration for fiscal year 1998 continued a pattern of significant deterioration in the funding programmed by the Department of Defense for military construction, in spite of the very clear and obvious facilities problem that the services confront. This legislation will not solve all those problems, but, if it passes, it will be a further demonstration of the commitment of the House to correct the severe deficiencies that exist at our military installations. I am gratified that the authorization and appropriations subcommittees have continued their close working relationship. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] is correct that all projects recommended for appropriation in the bill have been represented for authorization in H.R. 1119, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1998, which passed the House prior to the recess by a vote of 304 to 120. This House has always responded to the clear and compelling need of the military services. H.R. 2016 reflects a bipartisan consensus on military construction that has already been ratified by the House. I urge Members to keep faith with the men and women in uniform and continue our effort to improve their living and working conditions. I ask for my colleagues' support for this bill.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the last time taxes were cut in the 1980's several things happened. Many people like to call it the Reagan boom. It followed the tough times people faced in the 1970's. During the Reagan boom, 18 million jobs were created; 18 million jobs were created. Manufacturing production increased by almost 50 percent. These are good-paying manufacturing jobs, Mr. Speaker. Incomes went up across the board. Taken together, we can say that prosperity went up. Yes, the deficit also went up, but the dirty little secret that one never ever hears the liberals talk about is that spending went up, and spending increases are what caused the deficit to increase. What about revenues? Why do we not ask the liberals if revenues increased or decreased? They increased. Why do we not ask them to tell us if tax cuts resulted in revenues going up or going down? They went up. Why do we not ask them to explain to us how the tax cuts caused the deficit? They did not. Why do we not learn from experience, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this bill even though it does not go as far as I would like it to. I think our goal should be to get rid of the capital gains tax, to get rid of the death tax. But I look at this package and see what it means to the folks in my home State of Colorado. It means that the hardworking high school student from central Denver who cannot go to college right now will be able to get some help with books and tuition. It means that the middle-class family in Colorado Springs struggling on a two-family income may be able to take the vacation they have not been able to take because they can keep more of the money they have earned. It means that the family farm in LaJunta, the one that has been in the same family for generations, may be able to stay in that family, and that the mom and pop store in Greeley may be able to stay in the family and the kids will not be saddled with unbearable inheritance taxes. Yes, I support this bill because it will create jobs across the State of Colorado and those who have had trouble getting jobs will have a bigger job market and be able maybe to become productive again. Mr. Chairman, that is what this tax bill and this tax cut does to the people of Colorado and for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. America needs a tax break.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, American people are certainly not undertaxed. From the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep, and even while you are sleeping, you are being taxed. When you have your morning coffee, you pay a coffee tax. When you take a shower, you pay a water tax. When you get in a car to drive to work, you pay a gas tax and a property tax. While you are at work, you are accruing an income tax. You pay electricity taxes all day and when you get home at night and turn on your TV, you pay a cable tax. Even when you flush the toilet, you are paying a tax. Americans are tired of paying so much in taxes for a government that is so lacking in accountability and responsibility. Today we have a tax reduction bill. It does not go as far as I would like, but it is the first step toward getting government off the backs of the people and probably the only tax relief bill we will get past the veto pen of Bill Clinton. Mr. Speaker, support real tax relief for all Americans today.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, do you find it amusing that liberals in this House, people who have never created a job in their lives, spend all of their time attacking the very policies that help create jobs? Do you find it downright hilarious that liberals spend their entire lives attacking corporate America, the very same corporate America that is responsible for creating 30 million jobs in the U.S. economy over the last 15 years? Do you find it positively insane, yes, Mr. Speaker, insane that liberals dismiss out of hand the relevance of the very same factors in the economy that are the single most relevant factors that job creators take into account when thinking about starting up or expanding a business? Just why is it, Mr. Speaker, that the liberals simply refuse to learn any lessons from fast-growing economies and refuse to avoid the mistakes of no-growth European economies? Keep the American economic system growing, Mr. Speaker. Let us pass the tax cuts in the balanced budget agreement so that there are more jobs for everyone.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not recall the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] when the President set a date certain when we went into Bosnia that we would be out by November of 1996 saying, ``Mr. President, that is folly for you to set that date.'' We all accepted that date. The President assured me we would be out by that date. That was our commitment. We would be there until November and get the shooting stopped, get the killing stopped, and then we would come out. We also had a commitment to spend $1.2 billion at that time. I want to refer my colleagues to this chart here. By 1998, we will be at $7.3 billion. So do not talk to me about us backing down on our commitments. We have kept our commitments. Recently, at a meeting of the North Atlantic Assembly, it was quite clear to me that all of our allies sitting out there at the assembly were convinced that we were there for the duration; that we were going to be there forever, if necessary; that we were going to have another Korea, if necessary. Fifty years later, we might still be in Bosnia as we are still in Korea. I told them then as I tell Members now, so far as I am concerned, we are bringing our troops home from Bosnia, and we need to set a date certain to do that so that we can do it in an orderly kind of fashion, so it is not precipitous, so that our European allies know that this is what is going to be done, so that they can make preparations. Most of us felt this is primarily a European problem, but we wanted to be helpful. We still want to be helpful. As the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the chairman, enumerated, and I will not go over it, there are many things we can continue to do without having our ground troops on the ground in Bosnia. My colleagues can decide what is the right date, whether the date is December, whether the date is next June, but we need to set a date certain and say at that date our troops are out of there and we are bringing them home.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, those who support most-favored-nation status for China argue that maintaining open trade with China would spur economic growth, as well, and have a consequence of social reform. While I sympathize with this position, I am opposed to extending MFN status to China, and instead favor imposing conditions upon our future trade designation. China has a continuing legacy of human rights violations and oppression of its citizens which cannot be ignored. The events of Tiananmen Square provided the world with a clear picture of the Chinese Government's ruthless and immoral nature. Year after year we have been told, ``Give most-favored-nation status to China and we can win them over.'' We heard that during the Bush years. We hear it during the Clinton years. Let us look at the score card a little bit regarding this strategy. We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue their policy of population planning with forced abortion. We gave most-favored-nation status and they continue not to tolerate any dissent of any kind, and the imprisonments, the torture, and the killings go on. We gave most- favored-nation status and they continue to try to stamp out any religion that is not state-supported religion, and the murders of priests and ministers continue. We gave most-favored-nation status and they throw out the elected legislators in Hong Kong and replace them with handpicked Beijing lackeys. We gave most-favored-nation status and they made plans to invade Taiwan. When we stood in their way of that, they threatened to send nuclear missiles to our west coast. We gave most-favored-nation status and they tried to smuggle automatic weapons into the United States to supply gangs in this country. We gave most-favored-nation status to them, and they have the biggest buildup of nuclear missile development of any country on the face of the earth. Let us look at the score card. Do my colleagues suppose maybe that strategy is not working? How long before we get a new strategy?