Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I come to the House floor today to offer an amendment that is not designed to bash HUD, but instead to offer a common sense reduction and transfer of funds. When the House passed H.R. 2406 on May 9, it was with a promise of consolidating and streamlining HUD's bureaucracy. However, the proposed fiscal year 1997 funding for management and administration is exactly the same as it was before we overwhelmingly passed overall housing reform. With the savings we can get from a modest 10 percent reduction in HUD's M&A account we can put $20 million into solid environmental protection, something I think members on both sides of the aisle would support. Since the leaking underground storage tank, or LUST, trust fund was mandated by the Congress in 1986, it has collected a petroleum product excise tax. The current balance is over $1 billion which is designated for environmentally damaging project cleanup. Let me be clear, this money is not for further regulation or inspection. It is for environmental cleanup only. The funding level proposed for this year is over 30 percent less than was allocated in 1995. The irony of the whole thing is that this fund is financed through a tax on industry then the Congress turns around and tells industry how much of their own money can be used for cleanup. But the really amazing thing is the interest accumulated on the overall fund last year, is greater than the amount appropriated this year. The money we put back into the LUST Program will bring funding back up to the 1995 level and bring it almost in line with the administration's request for this year. Mr. Chairman, this amendment will do three things that I think every Member of this body will want to support: We take money and bureaucracy out of Washington. In other words, we take $42 million out of an almost billion dollar administrative account. We reduce the deficit, which many Members have expressed concern about, by the amount of $22 million of those $42 million. And we provide increased funding for environmental cleanup of these leaking underground tanks in the amount of $20 million. Reduce the bureaucracy, reduce the deficit, and provide environmental cleanup: I think it makes a great deal of sense, Mr. Chairman, and I urge each of the 335 Members who supported H.R. 2406, and also those who believe they are environmentally conscious, to please support this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, after he referred to the Hefley LUST Program, he should yield. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that in 1995 there were 11 States that had more claims than they had balance, and in 1996 there were 19 more States, so that is going the wrong direction for us. And, Mr. Chairman, we are not talking about simply having States keep the program going, we are talking about solving a rather vast and extensive problem that lies out there, and particularly across rural America. To the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], who expressed great and sincere concern about us taking away this amount of money from the HUD management account because they would not be able to complete their job, I might point out, Mr. Stokes, that we are talking about $42 million, which of course is a sizable amount of money, but it is not a sizable amount of money out of a budget of $1 billion, which is essentially what this account has.

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

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

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, one of Bill Clinton's closest advisers, and best friends, Bruce Lindsey, has been named an unindicted coconspirator in the Arkansas trial of two bankers involved in the Whitewater scandal. Unindicted coconspirator? Mr. Speaker, when was the last time you heard that term used in relation to the White House? How about 1974. That is right--Watergate. Mr. Lindsey's designation as a coconspirator is a significant turn of events. What this means is that someone inside Bill Clinton's circle of top advisers has been linked directly to the illegal diversion of funds to Clinton's 1990 campaign for Governor. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton's propensity for unethical, if not blatantly illegal behavior, can no longer be ignored. Whitewater. Travelgate. Filegate. All of these scandals are just now starting to mushroom and they all demonstrate a White House devoid of any sense of ethical proportion.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, in order to help me and the American people decipher the police state tactics of the FBI files scandal, I tried to figure out what an innocent bureaucratic mistake was. I thought it might help to look up the word ``innocent'' in the dictionary. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary states that the word ``innocent'' has the following definition: free from guilt through lack of knowledge. Mr. Speaker, this really did not help, because how could anyone realistically have a lack of knowledge that all of the names in the files in question were Republican White House personnel? Certainly the White House should know our former Secretary of State James Baker, who was on the list, is not really a security risk. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I ask just one thing of the Clinton White House with regard to the new FBI Filegate scandal. It is the same question we have asked with so many of the scandals down at this White House: When are we going to hear the truth?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration is quickly becoming a litany of bureaucratic snafus and mistakes. Clinton responds to all of these mishaps the same way--``I was not aware of any wrongdoing.'' Notice that Clinton never says that the charges are completely false, they are just someone else's fault not his. When Bill Clinton campaigned it was ``I didn't inhale.'' When Whitewater developed, it was ``I am not aware of any wrongdoing.'' Finally, as the X-files scandal has developed, Clinton's response: ``It appears to have been a completely honest bureaucratic snafu.'' Mr. Speaker, I believe it was a completely bureaucratic snafu. But this administration has had far too many snafus to fool the American people into believing that these are all honest bureaucratic snafus. It is time for this administration to start taking a small measure of responsibility for its unethical actions. The people want honesty and integrity from the President.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this morning's New York Times features an editorial that is highly critical of the Clinton administration in it's involvement in raiding the FBI files of former Republican White House employees. Let me just quote some of the questions raised by the New York Times, ``There are deeper questions here. What, for example, were the Attorney General and the F.B.I. Director doing while their control of their agency was being usurped? If Bernard Nussbaum * * * was out of the loop, why was his letterhead weighty enough to unlock hundreds of confidential files at an agency not under his supervision? * * * The FBI and the Secret Service have always been at the center of the review and documentation process. Why suddenly was a temporary employee from the Department of Defense given the task of security vetting of White House staff and visitors?'' The Times concludes by saying, ``These are executive questions of a historically important nature. We would think the current Chief Executive would be first in line demanding answers.''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, during the 1992 campaign, Bill Clinton was asked to sign a waiver that would have authorized the FBI to make public any files that revealed his anti-Vietnam war activity. He refused. In fact here is what his press secretary said at the time: ``It's a personal file. He's not going to do it.'' But after the election, after Bill Clinton was in the White House, suddenly all of his anxieties about looking through other people's FBI files disappeared into thin air. Someone at the White House authorized a search of 341 Reagan and Bush administration employees, including James Baker, the Secretary of State. So, let me get this straight. The President who was morally indignant at anyone wanting to look at his FBI file, is now looking through the FBI files of his political opponents. It makes you wonder, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee of the Whole under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on Resources; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; Committee on Veterans' Affairs; and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have been desperately trying to find out what the Democrat plan to save Medicare was. I have it in my hands here. I have discovered it, the 10 top ways the Democrats plan to save Medicare. First of all, No. 10: Blame it on the Republicans. No. 9: If at first you don't succeed, raise taxes. No. 8: Mediscare and don't worry about the truth while you are doing it. No. 7: Don't ask, don't tell. No. 6: Blame Ken Starr. No. 5: Deny, deny, deny. No. 4: Check the fingerprints on the trustees' report. No. 3: Blame the rich. No. 2: Charge it. And the No. 1 solution of the Democrats to saving Medicare is: Let it go broke, no one will notice.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, just to respond to a few of the comments that have been made, they talk about why do the Germans not do more. We are talking about $5 million that they are willing to put into these projects. Now that is burden sharing. One of the speakers mentioned, well, they can rent apartments for $700 a month. How many enlisted people that these are going to benefit, the lower ranked enlisted people, can afford $700 a month to live on the economy? That might be nice, but who can afford that kind of thing? Yes, there are many projects we could do in America, and we are doing many projects across this country to try to improve quality of life across the country. But realize these are Americans that are in Bosnia now, and their permanent duty station is Germany. So when they come out of Bosnia, they go back to Germany. What kind of living conditions do we want them go come back to when they come back to Germany? Mr. Chairman, as for it not being in the budget plan, as has been indicated by the previous speaker, it was a priority. When we asked the military about the priority, this was one of their priorities. As for the $900 million over the President's request, that is making the assumption that the President was correct with his request. Many of us do not think that he was correct, that he cuts too deep and he cuts too fast and particularly when we are talking about quality-of-life projects. Why was it not in the long-range plans? Well, one of the reasons I think it was not in the long-range plan, it is going to be in the next long-range plan as a matter of fact. One reason it was not in the long-range plans is we had the base closure procedure and we were taking out bases all over Europe that we had, some 400 facilities at one time or another, if I remember the figure correctly, and we did not know exactly where we would be. We know now where we will be. We know what the needs are, and we need to get about meeting those needs.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3517, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997 and I urge my colleagues to support it. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to commend Chairman Vucanovich and Mr. Hefner for their continued cooperation in working with those of us on the authorization committee charged with improving our military facilities. I want to echo Chairman Vucanovich's remarks that this bill fully conforms to the military construction authorizations passed by the House on May 15--just 2 weeks ago. This legislation would continue the strong bipartisan support of the House for initiatives designed to slow the ongoing deterioration of military facilities critical to the Nation's defense and to the improvement of housing and other basic quality of life facilities. Chairman Vucanovich has thoroughly described what is in the bill, but I want to take a moment to talk about some of the important improvements we have proposed to improve the quality of life of military personnel and their families. Those who serve in the Nation's military know firsthand the difficult conditions in housing the military faces. Those who served in the past can often go into a barracks or a military family's home and find that it has not changed much over the years--in many cases for decades. Degraded and crumbling housing is simply unacceptable. Whether they are stationed at home or abroad, we owe the men and women who volunteer to serve this great Nation more than that and we are working hard to change it. I am gratified by the commitment of the Secretary of Defense and the support of the service chiefs for measures to improve the quality of life for military personnel. However, I am disappointed that the administration did not back up that commitment as forcefully as it could have in its budget proposal to Congress. For fiscal year 1997, the administration proposed steep cuts in troop housing, family housing, and child development centers. This legislation, as well as the authorization bill already passed by the House, would take a number of important steps to shore up quality of life with an approximately $675 million package of improvements to the President's budget request. Twenty-one additional barracks projects, benefiting thousands of unaccompanied personnel, will benefit from the added funding. We seek to increase by nearly 5 times the amount of funding put toward new child development centers and we would make additional improvements to housing that will benefit over 3,500 military families. We need to continue to improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families as well as modernize our deteriorating military infrastructure. On a bipartisan basis, the authorization and appropriation committees have developed legislation that emphasizes the priority requirements of the military services and this legislation would put dollars only toward projects that can be executed in the coming fiscal year. These are not imaginary requirements. The military services have indicated in testimony before the subcommittee which I chair that a military construction program that adequately addresses requirements and would begin to buy down the lingering facilities backlog would be two or three times the size of the current program. This bill proposes nothing quite that grand, but it would make a significant contribution toward resolving the problem. Mr. Chairman, on a more personal note, I want to take this opportunity to reflect on the impending retirement of the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Barbara Vucanovich. Barbara, we are going to miss you, I can tell you that from a very personal standpoint. I do not think there has ever been an authorizing chairman and an appropriations chairman that worked any closer than we did, or two committees that worked more closely or two staffs that worked more closely, and that is a tribute to your leadership. You did not consult with me before you made the decision to retire, and I resent that. I would have told you not to do it. We need you here. Good luck to you as you enter a new phase of your life and a new adventure.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The amendment, I think, fundamentally misrepresents the situation on the ground in Germany and is a direct assault on the young men and women that are stationed there, young Americans who are in many cases now deployed in Bosnia. I believe that deployment to Bosnia was supported by the gentlewoman from Oregon, but when we bring those troops back from the miserable situation in Bosnia to Germany, she wants them still to have a miserable living situation, it would appear, when they get back there. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to remind the House these barracks projects have already been considered by the House. Just 2 weeks ago, the House passed the military construction authorization for the coming fiscal year as part of the defense authorization bill. No one challenged these barracks improvements at the time. No one offered an amendment, and these projects have been fully supported on a bipartisan basis throughout the committee process. Moreover, these projects are also included in the defense authorization bill, which is reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee. We recognize the degraded and difficult living conditions of our soldiers in Germany, and so has the Army. The Army has not dedicated any military construction funding to barracks in Germany since before the drawdown began in 1989. Well, the drawdown is over, and we know where these troops are going to remain. On April 10, 1996, I wrote to each of the military departments to determine the high priority unfunded requirements in military construction. Maj. Gen. Frank Miller, the Assistant Chief of Staff of the Army for Installation Management, responded to me on April 18. He indicated that these two projects were high priority unfunded requirements. In testimony before the subcommittee that I chair, I asked Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Economic Security where the department would put additional funding if it became available. Here is what he said: ``I think that were we to have additional funds, the place that really needs the most attention is our overseas bases, and particularly in Europe.'' He went on to say that ``what we are asking of those people and the conditions that they are finding themselves in are pretty abysmal.'' ``Abysmal'' is the word he used.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the minimum wage increase. We have heard all about the conflicting numbers and the studies, but what were we being told in the election of 1994? What was the Contract With America all about? Was it not the message the people were sending this Congress that less government is better government? Were they not saying we do not want any more unfunded mandates? And yet this is an unfunded mandate. Did they not say let us get government out of our lives? We need to lower taxes so that people have more to spend and more to pay and so that the economy will be better. The capital gains tax, for instance, affects 60 percent of the people in America. The minimum wage affects 1 percent. Major regulatory reform would reduce the cost of labor. It is obvious what this is all about. It is about political election year pandering. Vote ``no'' against the minimum wage amendment. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. 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. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the American public has heard a lot from Bill Clinton over the past 4 years on welfare. First, candidate Bill Clinton promised to enact real welfare reform if elected President. Next, after no action from the Democrat leadership in the 103d Congress, President Clinton failed to deliver on his promise the first 2 years of office. Next, after Republicans deliver a welfare package to his desk last December, he vetoed it. And now, Clinton has come full circle and is again playing campaign politics saying he supports strong welfare reform. Mr. Speaker, the only words I can use to describe Bill Clinton's actions on this issue--he's the great pretender--he says he's for reforming welfare, then he vetoes welfare reform, and now he is trying to be seen as the welfare reform leader in this campaign year. Bill Clinton--the greater pretender.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3230. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to focus my remarks on the important bipartisan initiatives we are bringing to the House today concerning the military construction program for fiscal 1997. H.R. 3230 would continue the bipartisan effort of the Congress to rebuild and enhance our crumbling military infrastructure, and I want to express my appreciation to the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas, Solomon Ortiz, for his tireless efforts to help to put this bill together. Based on the hearing record, we know the military services have a steep backlog of construction and maintenance requirements that will take decades to resolve unless we accelerate the program. That backlog has serious implications for operational readiness and impairs the quality of life for men and women and their families who volunteer to serve the Nation. Mr. Chairman, it is unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to this House that 20 percent of the Army's facilities are considered unsuitable due to either deteriorated conditions or an inability to meet mission requirements and that roughly two-thirds of the barracks, dormitories and military family housing units in the service's inventory are considered unsuitable. These are just two glaring examples of the impact of years of neglect. But where is the administration? The President proposes to spend 18 percent less than current levels on military construction and, amazingly, 5 percent less than he told us he would spend in fiscal year 1997 when he submitted budget estimates in February of 1995. In every major category of direct benefit to the modernization of military facilities, the President proposes a cut. This chart shows the problem and how we propose to fix it: MILCON for the active forces and reserve components cut, family housing cut, troop housing cut. troop housing cut. The child development centers, this is one that is truly unbelievable and virtually defunded. It is fashionable in this administration to say it takes a village to raise children. Evidently the President does not believe that sense of community support should extend to our military families. This bill adds funding to every one of these major categories. Even those programs which Secretary Perry has placed great emphasis upon, quality of life, family housing, do not fare well under this President. The next chart will explain the point better than I can. Two years ago, with great fanfare, the President announced a $25 billion plus-up for defense and made a big deal out of his commitment to improve the quality of life for our military personnel. The President said that we ask much of our military and we owe much to them in return. Everyone apparently agrees, except the President's budget does not support that rhetoric. Mr. Chairman, just 2 months ago, senior administration officials were on the Hill trying to defend the budget request. Secretary Perry admitted that it would be a lot easier to deal with the military housing crisis if we simply had more money. Mr. Hamre seemed equally at a loss to explain the administration's position. This is a good bill, I urge the Members to support H.R. 3230.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, for over a decade, the Social Security Administration funneled more than $50,000 in benefits into the bank account of serial killer William Bonin. Known as the freeway killer, Bonin, who was executed February 23, confessed to murdering 21 people in southern California in 1979 and 1980. He had been receiving Social Security disability insurance checks since he was diagnosed with a mental illness in 1972, but the Government failed to cut off the payments when he took up residency on death row in 1982. Federal law prohibits him from eligibility for these payments, but Bonin continued to receive monthly disability checks ranging from $300 in 1982 to $589 last month. For such outrageous and indefensible disregard for their responsibility to the taxpayer, and unfortunately this is a circumstance that isn't new, the Social Security Administration get my Porker of the Week Award.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I hope Mike Royko's column today is a joke, but unfortunately it is not. OSHA is at it again. Apparently, a small business in Chicago recently received a set of instructions from OSHA on how to safely handle water. Yes, water, not waste water, not contaminated water, just water. The instructions include water's boiling point, its freezing point, its weight. The laboratory protective equipment recommended included safety glasses and a lab coat, and instructions include keeping the container lid on tightly closed and how to transport the water and a warning to protect it from freezing. Yes, Mr. Royko points out, however, that OSHA did not document any effects of overexposure to water. Does OSHA not consider drowning a hazard? The bureaucrats at OSHA also failed to identify any conditions to avoid. What about the chance of burning your hand if the water is too hot? Mr. Speaker, the time to reform OSHA is now.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights. I think it is a step we need to take. There are a couple of things I wish had been in it that are not there. One of them, the item that the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has worked so hard on, and some of the rest of us, and that is to change the burden of proof. The other is that the IRS should pay back at the same interest rate that we have to pay if they overcharge us. But Congress, I think, has finally realized what taxpayers have known for years, that the IRS has too much power over the lives of ordinary citizens. This bill contains some much-needed reforms which make so much sense. I have to shake my head and wonder that these protections do not already exist. This bill creates the position of taxpayer advocate. It expands the authority of the IRS to abate interest and penalties, extend the length of time which the taxpayer may fulfill his obligation to the IRS without accrual of excessive penalties and interest. It allows the taxpayer, when they are right, to collect the money in fees and costs from the IRS. I hope we can pass this bill.