Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Chair's approval of the Journal.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, can my colleagues imagine a conversation between George Kastanza and Jerry Seinfeld about tax cuts? The level of absurdity would compare to what I am hearing on the House floor today about trying to give a tax cut to those who do not pay any taxes. Now, everyone familiar with Seinfeld knows that George can have a rather warped view of reality at times and Jerry likes nothing better than to point out his distorted views. Can you just imagine out-of-work George, before he got hired by the Yankees, saying how he feels cheated because he is not getting a tax cut? Then Jerry would ask, ``How could that be?'' He would ask, ``How much taxes do you currently pay?'' And George would say, ``Zero.'' And Jerry would say, ``In other words, you pay no taxes but you want a tax cut.'' And George would say, ``Exactly.'' And that is when Jerry would say, ``Oh, boy.'' And there we have it: Liberal Democrats, meet Jerry Seinfeld.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY

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

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and I agree on most aspects of this. He is just scared to death that Colorado might get something that it does not deserve. I make no argument when the State of Virginia gets help cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, which we did not pollute, but I think it is important that we clean it up. But he seems to be afraid that we are going to get something in the West that we should not have. This amendment mirrors the recommendations of a report delivered to the Subcommittee on Military Readiness in March. That report recommended the transfer and leasing of all three Navy oil shale reserves, the two involved in this amendment and one in Utah. The Energy Department endorsed transfer and leasing because it says in the report BLM management would yield a wide variety of economic and noneconomic benefits to the Nation. The amendment also retains the split, as we have already talked about. Let me explain why this is a good thing. First, it is the law. The Mineral Leasing Act provides an exemption for a revenue split on strategic properties, but the only time the subject has arisen under the Department of Energy involved NPR No. 4 in Alaska in the 1970's. After lawsuits and much negotiations, the two sides settled on the 50- 50 split. Mr. Chairman, I yield whatever time I have remaining to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have an amendment that would transfer the administrative jurisdiction over oil shale reserves 1 and 3 from the Department of Energy to the Bureau of Land Management at the Department of the Interior. It would direct the leasing of oil and gas, natural gas rights on two reserves and the outright sale of some existing equipment. The bill is based upon discussions between the two departments. It embodies four points of agreement between the two agencies. It reflects recommendations of an Energy Department report entitled ``Report and Recommendations on Management and Disposition of Naval Petroleum Oil Shale Reserves.'' This report was a request from the Subcommittee on Military Readiness of the Committee on National Security last year. The Department of Energy would be responsible for 50 acres of cleanup at the NOSR site 3. The amendment specifies that any environmental assessment costs for the leasing program will be funded out of unobligated administrative funds at the Bureau of Land Management. The amendment will allow a continuing revenue stream to the United States Transfer and leasing would, at worst, result in no loss to the Treasury and has the potential to rake in as much as $126 million in Federal revenues over the next 10 years. Even the CBO's conservative estimates give this amendment a positive score of $10 million. The State of Colorado has done a study which appears to show that the Federal share of royalty revenues through the first 5 years of the leasing program could total up to $53.1 million. Later revenues could run that total to $126.6 million. Leasing under my amendment would be conducted under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Precedent has been set for a 50-50 royalty split under that act. This split was developed through negotiations on leasing of oil on National Petroleum Reserve No. 4 in Alaska in the 1970's, and it took 40 years to develop this agreement. The split is also endorsed by the Energy Department. The Committee on Resources apparently has no problem with inclusion in the defense authorization, as long as the 50-50 split is maintained. In conclusion, this is an issue that has been around for at least 8 years that I have been involved in it. Senator Campbell first introduced it over here, and I got a bill in the past two Congresses. Two years ago I asked that it be included in the defense mark. It was believed more study was needed and ordered the Energy Department to study the issue. This spring the Energy Department delivered this report which I showed earlier, and its findings mirrored this amendment. I am trying to do in this amendment what the Energy Department in their study and the Department of the Interior have suggested that we do. Despite these findings, this proposal has not been seriously considered, and despite the fact its central premise is endorsed by the very report the subcommittee commissioned. The amendment offers us the opportunity to benefit the State, private industry, and the Federal Treasury, and that is a rare opportunity. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I ask for the support of the body. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, to quote Ronald Reagan, there you go again. Every year, liberals in this body think we can reach into the defense budget and take money for whatever the good things are that we want to do and our defense can continue to absorb the loss. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] talks about let us spend it on education. Mr. Chairman, let me tell the gentleman, we spend over $300 billion a year on education in this country, more than we spend on the Department of Defense. Let me point out that this is real money that has real ramifications. Let me just talk about the area that I am most familiar with. The Sanders amendment would compel a $457 million reduction in military construction and military family housing. What would that mean? The amount is equivalent to the entire Navy and Marine Corps family housing construction program and the added funds the committee recommends for the Army family housing construction. Take all of that away. This amendment will mean a cut of funding for 3,345 family housing units, or 41 percent of the housing improvements in this bill. Mr. Chairman, a $457 million cut is equivalent to wiping out every American barracks project in the President's request and the entire $2,000 added to committee recommendations for all of the services. It is roughly equal to all of the MILCON provided in this bill for the reserve components, and the added funding recommended by the committee for the Army military construction. This amendment will severely damage the Nation's military infrastructure. It is easy to be cavalier and say, let us get it out of defense, but it does not work when you boil it down to what it actually means in the defense budget. Mr. Chairman, I urge a no, no, no on the Sanders amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act. In the brief time that I have available, I want to discuss the key parts of this bill as they relate to the military construction and military family housing programs of the Department of Defense. The Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, which I have the honor of chairing, continues to be concerned about the serious shortfalls in basic infrastructure, military housing, and other facilities that affect the readiness of the armed forces and the quality of life of military personnel and their families. The budget requested by the administration for fiscal year 1998 continued a pattern of significant deterioration in the funding program by the Department of Defense for military construction, in spite of the very clear and obvious shortfalls. The budget request submitted in February was 16 percent below current spending levels and, in constant dollars, the administration requested 25 percent less in funding for military construction for the coming fiscal year than it sought just 2 years ago. More significant, despite all of the rhetoric we hear from the administration about the importance of improving the quality of life for military personnel and military families, the budget request again this year cut construction funding that directly affects the living conditions of the very soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that the President professes to support. Military family housing construction, for example, would have been cut by one-third, $326 million, from current levels in spite of the fact that 64 percent of the housing is classified as unsuitable. Barracks construction would have been cut by over $130 million, or 17 percent. We owe the young Americans and the young families who volunteer to serve the Nation and defend our freedoms more than that. Just a few months ago the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testified before the Committee on National Security that with regard to housing for the troops and military families, no one can be satisfied with where we are today, no one, he said. He asked us to keep the pressure on, and in this legislation that is exactly what we are trying to do. This bill puts an additional $750 million toward military construction. That amount would restore less than half of the administration's cut to the MILCON top line, but with those funds we have brought back nearly all of the President's cuts to quality of life construction. This bill would authorize funding for 50 new barracks and dormitories, the construction or improvement of 8,400 family housing units, six new child development centers, and other quality of life improvements. It improves public safety and working conditions. This bill also provides additional funding for important operational readiness and training facilities for the active and the reserve components. The House has always responded to the clear and compelling need of the military services. This bill reflects a bipartisan consensus on military construction. I urge the House to keep the faith with the men and women in uniform, and continue our efforts to improve their living and working conditions. I ask for the Members' support of this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just to continue to emphasize what I spoke to earlier, and that is that we have got young Americans in over 40 countries of the world housed, in many occasions, in quarters that are Third World conditions or in some cases worse than Third World conditions. Now, we can say that we understand that when we deploy people in 40 nations of the world, when they are employed, it may not be the best living conditions. But when we have them in the United States, it is shameful, shameful for us not to provide decent living conditions for our young men and women in the services. My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] was a marine. The Marine Corps is 40 years behind in modernizing their living facilities, their dormitories, their barracks, and their family housing. Forty years. They are the worst of any of the services. In fact, I had lunch the other day with the Commandant of the Marines; and I said, ``What is the matter with you guys? Don't you care about that aspect of this?'' And he said, ``Of course we do. But they struggle to get through the process over in the Pentagon.'' What we try to do in this bill is take care of this shame. What we try to do in this bill is to provide, and about 60 percent of all the money that we are putting into the adds that we are putting into this bill in military construction go to take care of the shamefulness of the way we are making some of these people live. We cannot get there from here just with MILCON dollars. We use maintenance dollars. We use initiative force, privatization, and all kinds of things. But if we do not have the MILCON dollars too, we never get there from here. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member and the chairman have been awfully good to help us toward this goal because I think they see this as an important goal, too. But let us not forget this when we are dealing with this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. No, it does not have everything in it that I would like. I think the gentleman from Virginia mentioned an area that we all ought to be concerned about when we talk about military retirees, but I think basically it is a good rule. But there is one item that I wish we had made in order that I had requested, and that is we are required in the area of defense to do more with less now. And so we want every single dollar to be spent in the most effective way possible. I wish the gentleman had made my Davis-Bacon amendment in order so that we could discuss the amount of savings that could come if we exempted from the Davis-Bacon Act military construction. We are over 70 years behind in our infrastructure capitalization in our armed services. In housing alone, depending on the service, we are 10 to 40 years behind. There simply is not enough money in MILCON to get from here to there under the present circumstances. And so we went to Secretary Perry and sat down with him when he was Secretary of Defense and we said, how can we do better? One of the things we did was to set up some privatization of housing on military bases. I think that helped some. But we also said, what are the impediments to getting the most bang for the buck? And they gave us a list of those impediments and we have been trying to deal with those. But one of them was the Davis-Bacon Act that is costing enormous sums more than we ought to be paying. In fact, the estimates are in the billions of dollars of savings if we could simply remove the Davis- Bacon, the Depression era Davis-Bacon, archaic law from the books where military construction is concerned. If we want the most for the money, Mr. Speaker, this is something that needs to be done and we need to consider it in the future even though it is not considered in this particular bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, where are the old Democrats, like President John Kennedy, who favored tax cuts? The truth is that the 1960's changed the Democratic Party maybe forever. And now liberal Democrats and tax cuts go together like Dennis Rodman and the National Basketball Association Commissioner David Stern. So we have to rely on Republicans if average people are to have hope of a tax cut. The liberals were, meanwhile, busy building a great society on the backs of working people. President Reagan gave working people a break in the 1980's and passed tax cuts for everyone who brought home a paycheck. Well, now we have got a President in office that, as a candidate, ran on the idea of tax cuts for the middle class but soon changed his mind after getting elected. This is something that the new Democrats seem to have a habit of doing. So now it is up to the Republican Congress to try to get the same President to get a little tax relief to average American families.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, has anyone noticed that any tax cut proposal made by Republicans is reflexively labeled tax cuts for the wealthy by the liberal Democrats. Given that the tax cuts in the balanced budget amendment are targeted at middle class taxpayers, I interpret this strange reaction in one of two ways: It means that either they think middle class taxpayers are rich, which must be news to a lot of middle class people who live very modestly, or it means that they really do not like the idea of tax cuts at all, because it means that big government programs cannot expand as fast as they want. Of course, there could be other interpretations. It could simply reflect the confusion so common among liberal Democrats about whether tax money already belongs to the taxpayers who earned it, or whether the tax money actually belongs to the politicians who then spend it in Washington in ways designated to get themselves reelected. It could also be plain old fashioned envy, a favorite tool of liberals. Whatever it is, such nonsense should be ignored and the middle class should get tax relief.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the American dream is not a dream about more government. It is not a dream about higher regulation or higher taxes. No, Mr. Speaker, the American dream is about freedom and opportunity. It is about having your children do better than yourself. It is about having your own business and handling your own responsibilities. For the first time since 1969, this Congress is taking steps so that literally millions can again dream the American dream by having a balanced budget. For the first time in 16 years, we will have tax cuts. Cutting taxes is perhaps the most fundamental thing we can do here in Congress to help every American, no matter how much money they make, no matter where they are in life, to dream their dreams with confidence. Mr. Speaker, we will hear that tax breaks will only go to the rich. But remember, the same people that make that untrue argument are the same people who raised taxes in the first place. Let us cut taxes and help restore the American dream.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, today, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, that would help stop what happened on January 3, 1997, when a Georgian diplomat caused a horrible five-car crash at DuPont Circle that killed Miss Joviane Waltrick. As I am sure all of us remember, late in the evening of January 3, a Ford Taurus, which police say was traveling up to 80 miles an hour, plowed into an intersection in DuPont Circle here in this town and caused a fatal car accident. A 16-year-old, Joviane Waltrick, died when a car hit by the Taurus catapulted into her Volkswagen. The accident was caused by this Georgian diplomat who could have escaped prosecution because he enjoyed diplomatic immunity. But Georgia's President took the unusual step and courageous step of waiving the diplomatic immunity. When this happened, my immediate reaction was that, by golly, when we have capital crimes, serious crimes in this country, committed by diplomats, we ought to be able to prosecute those serious crimes. They should not be able to get off. But I found out it was much more complicated than that when we got into it to try to decide how to handle it. And besides, there is a Vienna Convention which deals with this with other nations, and so we could not handle it quite that way. So we did not want to violate that Vienna Convention. Currently, there is an informal agreement between the State Department and local community police forces, and under this agreement, the local law enforcement agencies are to inform the State Department of every incident involving a diplomat. Often local police do inform the State Department and action is taken. Last year, 10 diplomats had their driver's licenses suspended. During the past 4 years, eight diplomats have been expelled for repeated drunk driving. But often, as was in the case of this Georgian diplomat who caused the death of Ms. Waltrick, the State Department is not informed. According to the State Department, the Georgian diplomat had prior instances with local police forces, which included running red lights and driving in excess of 80 miles per hour. I think there was some drunken driving. But through this whole informal agreement that broke down was that the State Department never knew of this diplomat's infractions until after the accident when the State Department started asking local law enforcement officials about him after the crash. Had they known, this might never have happened. In brief, my amendment would formalize the relationship between the State Department and the local police forces by having the local police forces report instances involving diplomats to the State Department; and, in turn, it would have the State Department notifying the offending embassy or mission of the offending diplomat's behavior. Probably the most important aspect of my amendment is that it would have the State Deparment take the necessary steps to educate local law enforcement officials as to the extent of immunity diplomats have, and would have the State Department encourage local law enforcement officials to fully investigate, charge, and prosecute, where they are able to under the Vienna Convention, any diplomat who commits a serious criminal offense within the United States. Mr. Chairman, this simply formalizes what we are doing already, and there is a breakdown in what we are doing already. We can save some lives, I think, and we can keep more people from getting off when they commit serious crimes in our country.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, what do the Americans think of when they hear the statement ``free of Federal subsidy''? What about ``self- sufficiency''? I think these terms refer to programs that receive no Federal funding. It means that the program runs like a business and its survival is dependent upon its business practices and its customers. Madam Speaker, someone needs to tell this to Amtrak. Tom Downs, Chairman and CEO of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, has been frequently quoted as saying Amtrak could become a self-sufficient operation if Congress would give it a permanent source of funding. Amtrak was created in 1970 as an independent and self-sufficient corporation and was given a one-time grant of $40 million. Twenty-seven years and $19 billion later, I would think Amtrak and Congress would realize that a dedicated funding source is not going to help passenger railroads make money or become self-sufficient. But Amtrak continues to cry ``Show me the money.'' Madam Speaker, let us face it. Amtrak is in crisis. The question is not whether Amtrak can reach sufficiency by 2002, as mandated by Congress. The question has become will Amtrak still be in business next spring? As long as the Federal Government is involved in Amtrak it will not survive, and it is not as if we have not seen the light at the end of the tunnel. In 1995, with Congress pushing for a balanced budget and making cutbacks, Amtrak realized that they could no longer depend on the Federal Government for nearly a billion dollars every year. To their credit they did what a number of large corporations have done in the 1990's. They undertook a major corporate restructuring and began to look at themselves as a business. They reduced services on 16 routes across the country and saved about $54 million. They cut staffing and tried to improve service and make rail travel more attractive to the average consumer. Amtrak has shown that if the tough decisions are made money can be saved. Much of the problem, however, is not Amtrak's fault; we are to blame. See, Federal law is prohibiting Amtrak from making the most out of their staffing reductions or forcing Amtrak to provide ridiculously generous severance packages and preventing them from making the truly tough business decisions, and as long as the Federal dollar keeps flowing to Amtrak, we will always attach a fistful of strings. Today I am reintroducing the Amtrak Privatization Act. Some people will call this the Amtrak killer. I call these reforms Amtrak's only chance for survival. My bill will do three very important things that I think will help Amtrak survive. First of all, we need to let Amtrak operate like a business. Congress should not mandate what routes the trains take or where they should stop. Congress should no more force Amtrak to run an unprofitable route than mandate what items a local mom and pop shop stocks. The Amtrak Privatization Act will free Amtrak from those Federal controls and allow them to make the necessary cuts to survive. Some routes may be eliminated. But remember, Amtrak has said it will be out of business by next spring if nothing is done. That means all routes would then be eliminated. So let us say Amtrak eliminates some routes and must lay off some rail workers as a result. Congress has mandated that a laid off Amtrak employee receive up to 6 years full pay, 6 years. Show me another employee who gets full pay for 6 years after being laid off. My bill will allow them to receive a more reasonable 6 months pay after being laid off. Amtrak's labor agreements have got to go. Finally, this bill creates a glidepath toward self-sufficiency in 2002. Until Amtrak gets off the Government till, including stealing gas tax dollars to support rail, Congress will be trying to mandate how it should operate. I contend if we take all Federal control over Amtrak away, including Federal dollars, Amtrak will find a way to survive. If we do not, Amtrak will stop rolling perhaps even next spring.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, why do Republicans and most economists want to reduce the taxes on capital gains? Because it is so important to the economy of this country. Mr. Speaker, this is vitally important to all Americans, even those who do not own a single piece of stock, who do not own their own home, who do not participate in any pension plan, and who do not have a dime in any mutual funds. In fact, I would even argue that this issue may be even more important to those Americans than to those who actually own capital. How can this be? Our economy depends on investment capital to create jobs. The lower the tax on investment capital, the more the economy will grow and the more jobs created, jobs that people in my district need. And it is often those with no capital of their own who are most in need of an expanding economy and more job opportunities. We need to pass a balanced budget that cuts the tax on capital gains. Job seekers everywhere around the country are counting on it.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's first call to prayer came in 1775 when the Continental Congress asked the Colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation. Since then, the call to prayer has continued throughout our history. In 1952 a joint resolution by Congress, signed by President Truman, declared an annual National Day of Prayer. In 1988, the law was amended and signed by President Reagan, permanently setting the day as the first Thursday of every May. Today is the National Day of Prayer. We are celebrating in the Cannon Caucus Room all day, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Military chiefs of staff, Cabinet Secretaries, Senators and Representatives are gathering to ask for prayers from the people. The National Day of Prayer belongs to all Americans of all faiths. It stands as a call to us to humbly come before God, seeking his guidance for our leaders and his grace upon us as a people. Please join me today by stopping by the Cannon Caucus Room to celebrate this great event. It is our prayer that during the National Day of Prayer, America will again remember the trust that made this Nation great.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's first call to prayer came in 1775 when the Continental Congress asked the Colonies to pray for wisdom in forming a nation. Since then, the call to prayer has continued throughout our history. In 1952, a joint resolution by Congress, signed by President Truman, declared an annual, National Day of Prayer. In 1988, the law was amended and signed by President Reagan, permanently setting the day as the first Thursday of every May. Today is the National Day of Prayer. We are celebrating in the Cannon caucus room all day--from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Military Chiefs of Staff, Cabinet Secretaries, Senators, and Representatives are gathering to ask for prayers from the people. You see, the National Day of Prayer belongs to all Americans of all faiths. It stands as a call to us to humbly come before God, seeking His guidance for our leaders and His grace upon us as a people. Please join me today by stopping by the Cannon caucus room to celebrate this great event. It is our prayer that during this National Day of Prayer, America will again remember the trust that made this Nation great.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time to take a cue from Lorena Bobbitt. It is time to slash. We need to slash away at the crushing tax burden that is holding back the American economy, dashing the hopes and dreams of middle class families, and robbing millions of new college graduates of opportunities. We can adopt the audacious strategy of boldness and with one stroke we can slash tax rates across the board, giving tax relief to all working Americans. Or we can adopt a more calculated strategy, and with systematic thrusts we can slash first the death tax, then slash the tax on capital gains, and then, just to be sure, slash the rates on personal income to complete the task. Today, on April 15, is a reminder, it is the season to slash and cut. We must get to work now and slay the giant job-killer, an oppressive Tax Code that threatens us all.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have a problem, and my problem is I cannot decide which foolish, counterproductive, unfair tax I hate the most. I do not like the capital gains tax because it hurts economic growth and it kills job creation. I do not like the death tax because it takes one's life work, the fruit of a lifetime of labor and tells the grieving, ``Pay up now, and if you can't afford to, I'm closing up the family business.'' I do not like business taxes because it takes the taxes twice, and like the capital gains tax, it means fewer jobs for the people who need them most. But perhaps the most odious, offensive and outrageously unfair part of the Tax Code is the personal income tax. The burden is too heavy, the loopholes are too pervasive, and the complexity is simply overwhelming. When we look at the set of volumes that compromise the Federal Tax Code, 36,000 pages at last count, we cannot help but think who designed this thing? It is time to get a grip, junk the Tax Code, start all over, cut tax rates and pass a tax system which is both simple and fair.