Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the most dreaded day of the year arrived yesterday. It was tax day in America. The Republicans tried to make yesterday a little better by passing a constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Unfortunately, the tax and spenders in Congress prevented us from doing that. The liberals praise themselves for having the courage to raise taxes. That's not courage, that's taking the easy way out. That's why we had a record tax increase in 1993. It shouldn't be that easy. A recent survey showed that 1 percent of Americans believe taxes are too low. By preventing us from passing this tax limitation amendment, the tax lovers in this Congress have defied the will of 99 percent of America. We could have made yesterday a little better. Instead, the liberals are trying to ensure that every day is tax day in America.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to announce the introduction of H.R. 3142, a bill known as the Uniform Services Medicare Subvention Demonstration Project Act. This bill is intended to be a companion to Senator Phil Gramm's bill, S. 1487. Mr. Speaker, when we ask men and women to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces, we make them certain promises. One of the most important is the promise that, upon the retirement of those who serve 20 years or more, a grateful Nation will make health care available to them for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, for many 65-and-over military retirees, this promise is being broken. When the military's Civilian Health and Medical Program of the United States [CHAMPUS] was established in 1966, just 1 year after Medicare, 65-and-over military retirees were excluded from CHAMPUS because it was felt they could receive care on a space-available basis from local military hospitals and they would not require health care services from the private medical community. For many years, there were few problems and plenty of available space, but as military bases and their hospitals have closed, more and more retirees are finding it increasingly difficult to receive the care they were promised. Mr. Speaker, on January 19, 1995, I introduced, along with Congressmen Geren, Barton, Condit, and Sam Johnson, H.R. 580, which is a bill to allow the reimbursement to the Department of Defense by the Department of Health and Human Services for care rendered to Medicare eligible retirees and their families in military treatment facilities. This is better known as Medicare subvention. Over the course of the past year, H.R. 580 has received broad, bipartisan support and currently has 248 cosponsors. But despite the overwhelming support for this bill it does not look likely to be able to move it out of the Ways and Means Committee or the Commerce Committee. If this bill did not make it to the floor, the cost of $1-2 billion that CBO has attached to this bill will hurt its chances of passage in the House and the Senate. As many of my colleagues who have cosponsored this bill realize, H.R. 580 shouldn't increase cost to the Federal Government at all. In fact, it may even save money. It would allow the same military retirees with the same health problems to use the same doctors, so it should cost no more to the Federal Treasury regardless of whether DOD or Medicare pays the bill. But, because it is a shift from discretionary spending to entitlement spending, the budget numbers reflect an increase in spending. Mr. Speaker, the bill I introduced on Thursday, March 21, 1996, takes care of this problem. This bill will create a demonstration project of Medicare subvention to DOD to prove the budget neutral stance I, and the 248 cosponsors, have taken on H.R. 580. This new bill, H.R. 3142 attempts to correct the shortcoming of H.R. 580 while at the same time building upon its strengths. This bill should solve the problem we have had in the past with the large CBO pricetag by requiring that DOD maintains the current level of support that it is currently providing military retirees, and having Medicare pick up coverage of additional Medicare-eligible military retirees once DOD has reached its obligated level. This demonstration will not increase cost to the taxpayer because it will ensure that DOD cannot shift costs to HCFA, and that the total Medicare cost to HCFA will not increase. In fact, this too should actually save money. The Retired Officers Association, in a letter of December 15, 1995, reports that: Using 1995 as a baseline, the eligible Medicare population will grow by 1.6 million beneficiaries by 2000. This will increase Medicare's cost by $7.7 billion if new beneficiaries rely on Medicare as their sole source of care. But, with subvention and DOD's 7 percent discount to the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), the aggregate cost increase can be reduced by $361 million over that same time frame. Because health care will be managed, further savings could be realized which could be passed on by DOD to Medicare through reduced discounts. Mr. Speaker, this new legislation makes a good attempt to solve the problems brought on by the CBO cost estimate of Medicare subvention. As DOD's managed health care program, TRICARE, is implemented throughout the country, many military retirees within many of my colleagues' districts will be affected, so I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to become cosponsors.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the manager's amendment offered by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, Mr. Smith of Texas. I want to commend the chairman for his consideration of a technical amendment I suggested to section 112(a) of the bill. The amendment clarifies that the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General should consult with a local redevelopment authority when selecting real property at closed military bases for the pilot program concerning detention centers authorized by the section. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the House that we have placed great emphasis on empowering local communities in working with the Department of Defense to make the best use of military bases closed through the base closure and realignment process. This technical change would not disturb the ability of the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General to establish the pilot program, but it would ensure that an affected local redevelopment authority is consulted as the pilot program proceeds. This change is consistent with other areas of BRAC law. Again, I want to thank Mr. Smith for his consideration of the amendment and his willingness to work with me to bring it to the floor.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, The President has introduced a new budget designed to warm the heart of every liberal in Washington. It contains tax increases, more spending for Washington bureaucracy, and more for entitlements. Also, to the glee of liberals, the new budget has no serious welfare reform, no serious Medicare reform, and no serious entitlement reform, and no cuts in spending until the out years. Yes, Mr. Speaker, Washington liberals should be very proud of this new budget. It avoids touch choices. It protects the status quo, and, it expands big government. I doubt, however, the rest of America will share in the enthusiasm of Washington liberals. The rest of America is tired of picking up the tab for Washington's 30-year Spend-a-Thon. The rest of America, plus all their children and grandchildren, are going to have to pay off the $5 trillion national debt. Mr. Speaker, isn't it about time that Bill Clinton acted in the interest of the American people instead of Washington's liberals.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Times reports this morning that energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary has spent $3.4 million to send 17,000 DOE employees to a self-help workshop called Seven Habits which is based on the book by time-management guru Steven Covey. The 4-day workshops were run by 285 Energy Department Seven Habits facilitators and are designed to help DOE employees cope with the chaos of change. Last month, this same Department furloughed 2,700 of its employees-- without pay--due to budget shortfalls. It is reported that Secretary O'Leary rejected advice to cut from the training and travel budgets to avoid the furloughs. Perhaps it would be more advisable to send Secretary O'Leary to a money management workshop. One of Steven Coveys seven habits is to be proactive. Perhaps the President should be proactive and dump Secretary O'Leary. Secretary O'Leary gets my Porker of the Week Award this week.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, liberals like to wrap themselves in conservative roles, partially at election times. This was the case 50 days ago when Bill Clinton said that the era of big government was over. Fat chance, Mr. Speaker. Liberals are very good with disguises. But they can't hide their addiction to spending other people's money. Recently, the President submitted a request to spend an additional $8 billion for what is, essentially, a reelection pork package. The President wants to spend money on all kinds of Federal programs that will appease his liberal base. But the spending request totally contradicts the President's claim that the era of big government is over. Mr. Speaker, our Government is now responsible for a $5 trillion debt. That debt will be shouldered by our children and grandchildren. It is outrageous that our President would masquerade as a fiscal conservative while asking Congress to add billions more to our debt.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this coming November the American people will have a choice between two competing views of Government. One view holds that Government must be restrained and that we must be fiscally responsible. The other view holds a kind of utopian vision of Government. This utopian view holds that Washington spending and Washington taxes and Washington regulations are the key to a successful America. For instance President Clinton has requested that Congress appropriate $8 billion more in social spending and corporate welfare. The President who gave us the largest tax increase in American history now wants $8 billion for essentially a reelection pork package. Mr. Speaker, the American people are tired of the lavishness of the Clinton administration. They are sick and tired of seeing their tax dollars going to fund liberal programs with these dollars. We must reject this request and put a stop to the arrogant tax-and-spend policies of the Clinton administration.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1124, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. Last evening, the President stood at the rostrum and gave a nice speech. He talked about the challenges facing the country and he urged us to set aside our differences and work together for the best interest of the American people. One of those challenges, he said, is ``to maintain America's leadership in the fight for freedom and peace throughout the world.'' We all know that we can only meet this challenge by providing the Nation with a strong defense--a defense that can meet the threats posed by those who would challenge our interests and those of our allies or would threaten the liberties of our people. Mr. Speaker, speeches and rhetoric are not enough. I regret that the President chose last month to veto the original defense authorization bill. That veto was unjustified. The original bill, like the one before us today, was a bipartisan product. Republicans and Democrats came together to provide the American people with what they expect--that is, a robust defense that could deal with any immediate threat and which looks to the future to deal with the emerging threats of the 21st century. The President vetoed the bill principally because he objected to working toward a viable national missile defense by 2003 and to providing the American people with assurances that the placement of American military personnel under the operational control of the U.N. is in the national security interests of the United States. On these issues, the President is out of step with a bipartisan majority of this House and, more importantly, with the American people. I remain committed to seeing these provisions enacted into law. The President's veto put a lot at risk. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the House that we need an authorization bill. Over 9,200 military families will benefit from housing improvements this bill would authorize and 68 new barracks projects would begin this year. In addition to these significant housing improvements, this bill would provide needed child development centers and medical facilities for our personnel. Hundreds of construction projects in this bill are designed to enhance the readiness of our forces. We are confronting a significant deterioration in military infrastructure. Without an authorization bill, none of these projects will go forward and the housing privatization initiative cannot proceed. The military services, the men and women who serve in them, and the families who support them need this bill. It is my hope that the President will sign this defense authorization bill as soon as it reaches his desk. We should have no further delay. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of legislative history, I want to note the colloquy that I had with the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Porter, on December 15, 1995, concerning sections 2836 and 2837 of H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. In our colloquy concerning those provisions, I gave the gentleman from Illinois some clarification concerning the application of those provisions to the Glenview Naval Air Station, Glenview, IL. Although the President vetoed that legislation, those sections were unaltered in the subsequent conference with the Senate on the defense authorization bill, S. 1124. Sections 2836 and 2837 of S. 1124 are identical to the provisions in the earlier bill and my assurances to the gentleman from Illinois remain unchanged.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would be curious to know if the gentleman listened to the political statement that his party made prior to yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts? There was a political statement made over here, so let us----

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his response. I appreciate that. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I do not intend to object, but under the reservation, I would hope that we are not going to open up the entire defense bill in this new conference. There are a relative few sections that there is a complaint about: ballistic missiles, U.N. control, relative small number of issues that there is a complaint about. Mr. Speaker, I am particularly concerned, of course, about the military construction section, because this is the section where we make gigantic strides in trying to improve the housing and living conditions of our troops. There was no objection to that. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member of the committee, and I have talked about this on numerous occasions. The gentleman has no objection to that. This is the area that I am most interested in, but there are other areas that there were no objections, that the committee was in strong support of. So, I would hope with this reduced number of conferees that we have going to this conference, and I think that is a good idea, but I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we would not open up the entire bill and start over again. An enormous amount of time and effort and energy was put into getting where we are now. I would hope that we would focus on the areas that we need to.

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, balancing the budget: What is it all about? Balancing the Federal budget is about better government. It is about being right and responsible. It forces the Government to live within its means--just like every American family. It means our children will inherit the American dream--not the American debt. It forces our Government to stop spending money it does not have. Balancing the budget is also about a better future. It means lower interest rates and faster economic growth. It means 4.25 million more new jobs over the next 10 years and a 16.1-percent increase in per capita incomes. A balanced budget is about $37,000 in savings on an average 30-year mortgage on a $75,000 home. It means a solvent Medicare system with increased spending per beneficiary. But probably most important of all, a balanced budget is about saving future generations from paying lifetime tax rates in excess of 80 percent. Mr. Clinton needs to know we will settle for nothing less than a balanced budget. No more excuses. No more Washington gimmicks. It is time to do the right thing for our children's future.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in strong support of H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. However, I am troubled to have to rise today for this purpose, not because of the numerous merits of the bill but because the President has chosen to veto legislation that supports military personnel and their families even while he has chosen to deploy those troops thousands of miles from home in a place called Bosnia. It is rare for a President, any President, Mr. Speaker, to veto a defense bill. This President has already signed into law two appropriation bills for general defense and military construction. Yet here we are today debating whether to override a veto on the bill which specifies how these funds will be spent, and I have to ask why. Let us look at the little part of the bill that I had the most responsibility for. On a bipartisan basis, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, which I chair, has worked with the Department of Defense and with the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations to develop a military construction program which makes significant improvements in our military infrastructure and enhance the quality of life for our service personnel and their families. Over 9,200 families would benefit from new construction, as well as improvements to existing family housing units. This bill would also provide for 68 new barracks projects. In addition to those significant housing improvements, this bill would provide needed child development centers and medical facilities for our personnel. Hundreds of construction projects in this bill are designed to enhance the readiness of our forces, and the quality of life. We know there is a military housing crisis. We have worked hard to improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families. We are confronting a significant deterioration in military infrastructure. Without an authorization bill by law, none of these projects can go forward. This legislation also provides for an important reform that, over the long term, will go a long way toward resolving the military housing crisis. Working closely with the Secretary of Defense, we have developed a program to encourage the private sector to develop troop housing and military family housing at installations where there is a certified shortage of quality housing--and we know that there are tens of thousands of such units in our present inventory. The housing crisis is deplorable and we must act to change it. Yet, the President has vetoed an initiative strongly supported by his own Secretary of Defense that can fix the problem. Mr. Speaker, the President has chosen to put critical improvements that would begin to end years of benign neglect of our military infrastructure at risk. Why? As best I can tell it is because this President objects to a reasonable outcome on the question of ballistic missile defense. His view appears to be that if the threat is only realistically a decade away we should do nothing now to prepare for that possibility. Most people I talk to are surprised--shocked--to learn that we have no defense against ballistic missile threats. The President should look to the future beyond his own term in office and help lay a foundation for a strong national defense in the next century. This bill does that. I urge a vote to override this ill-considered veto.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. In the last 30 years under Democrats and Republicans, the Committee on Appropriations and the Congress has always appropriated less money, less money, than all of these administrations had requested. Probably over 30 years, but I know for the past 30 years, we have always appropriated less money than the administrations requested. That includes Reagan and Bush and all the administrations in the past 30 years.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 359.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, well, you have seen the headlines in the New York Times and Washington Post. All I can say is consider the source. Two of the most liberal publications in America today naturally would want to blame the Republicans, someone like the Republican freshmen, for this. What they did not do was watch the news conference of Vice President Gore the other night, two nights ago, when Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole came back to this Capitol to brief us on what happened at the White House. There was a note of encouragement in their voices. It looked like we were on our way to getting something done. At that very moment they were briefing us, Al Gore was in front of the cameras scuttling the whole deal, repudiating everything Gingrich and Dole thought they had heard. Mr. Speaker, if anyone deserves the blame for the budget talks going south, it is Bill Clinton and his liberal Vice President, Al Gore. They refused to deal in good faith. They refused to honor their commitment that they made last month, and now they want to blame freshman Republicans. Absolutely silly. Does this not strain credibility, Mr. Speaker? Bill Clinton and his liberal administration refused to honor their commitments, and they do not deal in good faith.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a prominent American politician: We have to cut the deficit, because the more we spend paying off the debt, the less tax dollars we have to invest in jobs and education and the future of this country. The more money we take out of the pool available savings, the harder it is for people in the private sector to borrow money at affordable interest rates for a college loan or for their children, for a home mortgage or to start a new business. That is why we have got to reduce the debt, because it is crowding out other activities we ought to be engaged in and the American people ought to be engaged in. We cut the deficit so that our children will be able to buy a home, so that our companies can invest in the future, retaining their workers, so our government can make the kinds of investments we need to be strong and smarter and safer. These are not the words of Newt Gingrich, but the words of Bill Clinton on February 2, 1993, in his budget address. He said it. We agree with it. Let us do it. Let us do it now.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. In that case, ``similar use'' could only mean continued use as an air facility.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1530. On a bipartisan basis, the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, has worked hard to produce a military construction program which makes significant improvements in our military infrastructure and enhances the quality of life for service personnel and their families. At a time when Americans are being deployed to Bosnia, we must do all we can to support the troops and their families. This bill does that. Over 9,200 military families will benefit from new construction as well as improvements to existing family housing units. For junior unaccompanied personnel and the Guard and Reserve components, this bill provides for 68 new barracks projects. We have also provided needed child development centers and medical facilities for our personnel. In addition, we also provided important facilities improvements to enhance the readiness of our forces. Without an authorization bill, none of these projects will go forward. The conference report also provides for an important reform that, over the long-term, will go a long way toward resolving the military housing crisis. Working closely with the Secretary of Defense, we have developed a program to encourage the private sector to develop troop housing and military family housing at installations where there is a certified shortage of quality housing--and we know that there are tens of thousands of such units in our present inventory. The housing crisis is deplorable and we must act to change it. This legislation will begin to reverse years of benign neglect of our military infrastructure. It is a good bill and deserves the support of the House and the signature of the President.

Mr. HEFLEY. That is correct. The Department of Defense would have the discretion to apply the provision in that manner.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is disgraceful that Members would get up in the well of this House and talk about cutting the knees out from under our troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. No one wants to hurt the troops. We want to get the troops there out, and we do not want to send any more troops. When we debated Hefley back before Thanksgiving, the Democrats said it is a good idea but it was not the right time. Now they say this is not the right time because the troops are already there. When is the right time to say, Mr. Clinton, this is a stupid idea and we do not want you to do it?