Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would further request that the workload of the adjudication panel, and I have some concerns about the adjudication panel, but that workload be closely monitored. [[Page H 12257]] After several issues are resolved over the next year or two, the role of the panel, I think, should naturally decrease. If that does happen, I would ask that the funding levels be reconsidered and reduced accordingly for 1997 and 1998.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding the time, and also for his tremendous work on this piece of legislation. Also, I would like to extend my thanks to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Molinari] for her work as well. Mr. Chairman, as you know I have been introducing legislation, amendments to appropriations bills, and so forth, over the past 7 or 8 years to abolish our Nation's oldest regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. When I first started doing that, we were almost laughed out of the Chamber. Then, the next year we got a few more votes. Mr. Chairman, I remember the year that it almost passed in this House Chamber. I sat over there on that front row with the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who was a very articulate spokesman in favor of keeping the ICC. I said, ``We did not get it this year, but we are going to get it. We ought to sit down in a reasonable way and figure out how to phase this agency out.'' Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] has done. The gentleman has produced a bill that will reasonably begin to phase this agency out. When several of my colleagues and I started this, like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], who is here and will speak on it today, we thought it was almost a losing battle. Now, the day has come and I am very proud of that day. Mr. Chairman, I do still have some concerns about this legislation. If I might, I would like to engage the gentleman from Pennsylvania in a colloquy just for a moment. Mr. Chairman, I think my biggest concern with the legislation is that it still leaves in place a lot of regulation that could and should probably continue to be scaled down or eliminated. I would like to encourage the gentleman to hold hearings in 1996 concerning further deregulation of the transportation industry. I believe the gentleman indicated earlier that that is what his plans were.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton wants to send 20,000 Americans to Bosnia. He wants to send them there for 1 year, although many experts say if we get on the ground there, we will be there at least 10 years. He wants to send us into a situation where there will be hostile forces on all sides. He wants us to be in the middle of centuries-old animosities. Mr. Speaker, into this cauldron he wants to send 20,000 young Americans. Do not think of this in the abstract. That is too easy. Personalize it a little bit. We must think of it as if they were our children, our brothers, our sisters. Mr. Speaker, I have three daughters. Can I go to Janna and say, ``Janna, it is important for America for you to go to Bosnia''? ``Lori, for a better America, I want you in Bosnia''? ``Juli, the country needs you in Bosnia''? Bill Clinton, look into Chelsea's eyes and say ``Chelsea, for the future of America, we want you in Bosnia.'' Mr. Speaker, if we would not send our own kids over there, we should not send other people's kids over there. The case has not been made for wasting one of these young lives.

Mr. HEFLEY

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. 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, I am deeply concerned about the Clinton administration's continued declarations about its intent to send United States ground troops to Bosnia for so-called peacekeeping operations. The Clinton administration has been completely inept at convincing Congress or the American people that we have a compelling interest in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, the President has an obligation to build a public consensus before committing American forces to these kinds of hazardous missions. And, to term U.S. ground troops in Bosnia hazardous is an understatement. It would be a virtual death sentence for many Americans. I have yet to talk to a single soul who is in support of this kind of deployment. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, Clinton made the promise he would send the troops, with no idea of what they will be doing, how long they will stay, or what the measure of success would be. Last week, we passed a resolution saying come to us before you do that. The next day, the President said, We do not care what they pass down there, we are going to do it anyway. Last night a conference produced a binding resolution which will come to the floor of this House hopefully next week. We will get an opportunity to debate this issue fully and to consider it. Mr. Speaker, when one of our young service men or women comes home from Bosnia in a body bag, how do I tell the parents he died serving his country?

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, recently President Clinton admitted to a fundraiser for his reelection campaign that he felt that he, along with the help of the Democratic Congress, raised taxes too much in 1993. One would assume at a fundraiser for a Presidential incumbent the majority of those in attendance would be wealthy. The President told wealthy Democrats he taxed them too much. But when the Republicans want to cut taxes, Clinton thinks we are giving too many tax cuts to the wealthy. Republican tax breaks, like Clinton's tax increases, touch everyone, including senior citizens, small business, and middle- and low-income families. Many in politics would say President Bush lost in 1994 because of his reversal on his ``read my lips'' pledge. Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is impossible to read the current President's lips when he is on all sides of every issue.

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, they shall not bear false witness--that is what the Democrats have been doing on this Medicare issue. Republicans have a plan to save Medicare. Republicans have a good plan to save Medicare. We want America to see our plan. We aren't afraid to show the American people what we're trying to do, because what we are doing is saving the single most important entitlement program [[Page H 10312]] in society today. Let's look at the facts. Premiums are going up. They are going up $7 so that we can increase spending per beneficiary by $1,900. The tax cuts that Democrats say we're giving to the rich to fund these reforms were passed last spring. They have nothing to do with preserving Medicare. If you don't want to switch plans or service you do not have to. The Republican plan does not require you to change anything unless you want to. Finally, for Democrats to decry that some kind of a backroom deal was made by Republicans to satisfy certain interest groups is absolutely absurd. What's happening is people are finally starting to really look at our plan and they're starting to realize that it's a good plan and that scares the heck out of Democrats.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is going bankrupt. It took a while, but my Democrat colleagues have finally accepted this fact, and they are now presenting a plan to reform Medicare. This afternoon, I would like to compare their plan with ours. The Republican plan provides a long-term solution. The Democrat plan ignores the root of Medicare's problems and simply postpones Medicare's bankruptcy for 3 years. The Republican plan focuses on accountability--it's a fair and realistic plan. The Democrat plan is the epitome of politics as usual-- it offers nonsolutions that fail to preserve the program. In short, the Republican plan saves Medicare from bankruptcy. The Democrat plan saves Democrats for the next election. Mr. Speaker, the list of major senior groups, medical associations, and others supporting the Republican plan grows every day. I urge my colleagues to vote to save Medicare. Vote ``yes'' for the Medicare Preservation Act.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to first thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] the chairman of the full committee, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh], chairman of the Subcommittee on the Postal Service, for allowing H.R. 1026 to be brought up on the Suspension Calendar today. I think it is a fitting tribute to a man who gave so much to Colorado, and particularly to the area of Colorado that I am fortunate enough to represent. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1026, which as has been indicated, will designate the U.S. Post Office building located at 201 Pikes Peak Avenue in Colorado Springs, CO, as the ``Winfield Scott Stratton Post Office.'' Working as a carpenter and as a prospector, Mr. Stratton became wealth after finding gold in Cripple Creek, CO. His sudden wealth allowed him to pursue life's pleasures any way that he would like to do it, but instead he spent much of his life and much of his fortune helping those that were less fortunate. In addition to helping the needy, he also played an integral part in the development of Colorado Springs as a community by providing money for a city hall, a new courthouse, the streetcar system, and perhaps his most generous, important contribution that he made was the Myron Stratton Home, which was a foster home for children and for impoverished elderly. Mr. Speaker, it still exists today. It is an interesting concept in that they had children who did not have parents. [[Page H 10095]] In the early days it was an orphanage, but it was not the image that you have of the Charles Dickens orphanage. It was an orphanage where the kids that went there had many of the things that money could buy in terms of living a good life under the circumstances of not having a family. And he combined that with elderly people to create an intergenerational type of concept that has worked very well even to this day. Especially pertinent to H.R. 1026, is that Mr. Stratton sold the property where the post office is located, and which we are asking to be named today, to the Federal Government for half its value on the condition that they would build a post office there. Mr. Speaker, I did not know Mr. Stratton. He was before my time there. But I have been able to see his work in the Colorado Springs area over the years. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. John Zorack, a former resident of the Stratton Home, who has worked closely with me to see that this fitting tribute be enacted. I would add that H.R. 1026 has the support of the Colorado Delegation and the Colorado Springs City Council. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. McHugh] for his support of this legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the earned income tax credit [EITC], is designed to help workers not poor enough for welfare, and may have been a good idea at first, but it has turned into a bureaucracy out of control. In hearings last year, both the Treasury secretary and the IRS Commissioner admitted that the fraud and overpayment rate in the $20 billion program could be as high as 45 percent. Get that: $9 billion in waste. It should come as no surprise that the IRS actually made the problem worse. The agency's 1992 experiment that gave about $400 million in EITC benefits to those who had not applied but seemed entitled only created a monster: $175 million of erroneous payments. Part of it was poorly recorded paperwork. After all, 90 percent of the benefit checks, up to $2,500 each, go to those who pay no income taxes in the first place-- including illegal aliens and prisoners. For wasting money through a nearsighted bureaucracy, the earned income tax credit get my Porker of the Week Award.

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 House under the 5-minute rule: The Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on the Judiciary, the Committee on Science, the Committee on Small Business, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and there is no objection to these requests.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, liberal Democrats are, I believe, at the end of their rope. They know that action must be taken to preserve Medicare for future generations. But they come to the well and spew the grossest class warfare slogans I have ever heard. Democrats go on and on about tax cuts for the rich. But, least we forget, to a Democrat, anyone who has a job is rich. Anyone who has children is rich. Anyone who pays taxes is rich. Mr. Speaker, there really is no connection between cutting taxes and Medicare. Medicare is going bankrupt--period. That has nothing to do with tax rates, or capital gains tax rates, or what level of income pays the biggest share of the tax burden. But one thing is clear--Medicare is going bankrupt. No matter how hard they cry and scream about tax cuts, Democrats have not lifted one finger to save Medicare. And that is wrong.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817, the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. At the outset, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I want to commend Chairman Vucanovich and the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, Mr. Hefner, for their commitment to working closely with the authorization committee in putting together a military construction program for the coming year that addresses some of the most serious deficiencies faced by the military services. There is no question that critical portions of the military construction program are underfunded. For example, the Army has provided testimony to both committees that indicates they would need $250 million per year over the next 23 years to buydown the problem of inadequate and substandard barracks. Yet, the administration requested just under $201 million for troop housing for the Army in fiscal year 1996. This legislation provides an additional $101 million above the administration's request in troop housing for the Army. The example I just gave reflects the guiding principle of our joint approach to military construction. H.R. 1817 puts a premium on quality- of-life improvements for service personnel and their families. Those improvements will enhance readiness and retention. Some question the level of additional funding the Congress has dedicated to this purpose. There is no doubt in my mind that a careful examination of the extensive hearing record developed by both the appropriations and authorization committees leads to one inescapable conclusion--the military construction program is underfunded, and serious problems have been left wanting. This is a problem with deep roots. Administrations of both parties have permitted the Nation's military infrastructure to deteriorate. We are at a crossroads and this bill is a milestone to begin to turn the problem around. [[Page H 9325]] Despite the criticism of some in this House and the press, the facts are that the dollars added for unrequested projects to the military construction appropriations bill are fewer this year than in the recent past. At the same time, more money has been put toward troop housing, family housing, child development centers, and medical facilities--all of which are needed by military personnel and their families. the quality-of-life package agreed to by the conferees represents 60 percent of the projects added to the bill. What we should not lose sight of is that we have consulted with the services on these projects and they reflect their priorities and their needs--not ours. The conferees have done more with less. They have made hard choices. This legislation is essential to the operational needs of the services. It will provide the funding necessary to conclude the base closure and realignment process. More importantly, thousands of military personnel and their families will have their quality of life enhanced by this bill. H.R. 1817 is a good bill and it deserves the support of the House--and the signature of the President.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman answered the question very well. They were all on the list when we first started out. But there were many groups out there that were trying to pick this as some kind of a closure bill and were saying, well, they are going to close Yellowstone or Yosemite or Grand Canyon, and in order to alleviate those fears, those are national parks. They are the highest level of recognition that you can have in our parks system. They have undergone the scrutiny of the ages. They are not going to be closed, there is no question about that. So we thought in order to alleviate that fear and concern, we just took them off.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are able to bring this bipartisan measure, the National Park System Reform Act, to the floor of the House today. Mr. Speaker, in the past few months I have heard this bill called many things and blamed for many others. Most of these, as well as what we have just heard on the floor, simply are not accurate. This is not a park-closing bill. This is not a base-closing commission. In fact, the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], I think, is arguing against the bill which is simply not before us on the floor of the House today. Maybe it was a concept somewhere [[Page H 9087]] back in the history of this legislation, but it simply is not something that is before us, after many months of working with the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] in trying to massage this bill and make it be something that we could all be very proud of. Mr. Speaker, it is simply not the bill that the gentleman from New Mexico describes. H.R. 260 is a balanced policy initiative that will set the stage for future, reasoned debate on park reform. The bill directs the Park Service to take 1 year to develop both a mission statement and a set of criteria for inclusion within the Park System. Following Congress' approval, the Park Service would then take that criteria, remember that, following Congress' approval, the Park Service would take that criteria, hold it up against the existing Park System, see what is there, what is not there, and possibly on some rare cases what does not belong there. Mr. Speaker, if those rare cases occur, the Park Service would study alternative forms of management which would range from transfer to other government agencies or levels of government or to other interested parties. Only if those prospective managers could guarantee preservation of the resource which made the site significant in the first place, could any transfer take place. So, we are not closing parks with this bill. In fact, we are not making it easy to close parks with this bill. After 3 years of study, the Park Service will turn its findings over to an independent review commission. During the next 18 months, the review commission would look over the Park Service's recommendations and receive additional public comment on them, before passing those recommendations along to Congress. Mr. Speaker, if the Park Service does the kind of job we expect it to, then the commission will serve as little more than a rubber stamp to its findings. But, if it becomes clear after 1 year that the Park Service has no intention of carrying out the review outlined in this act, then the review commission may undertake to review on its own. In this way, the commission may serve as a hammer over the Park Service, or its peer reviewer. The choice is up to the Park Service. Mr. Speaker, whatever the findings of this review, it is up to Congress to act upon them in whole or in part or not at all. This is no base-closing bill. There is nothing in it that says, ``Take it or leave it all,'' about the review in H.R. 260. Title II of the bill tightens the criteria for admission of new units into the Park System. It directs the Interior Secretary to develop a priority system for new units, then submit these priorities to Congress with the annual budget request until action is taken. Further, the bill centralizes planning for new units at Park Service headquarters. If this is to be a system of nationally significant places, then there should be a coordinated effort to identify such places. Let me tell you what H.R. 260 does not do. H.R. 260 does not mandate the closure of any parks. Indeed, the Nation's 54 national parks were exempted. There were those who were saying we were going to close Yellowstone, close Grand Canyon. Of course, not. Those are going to stand up to any scrutiny, as I think most units of the Park System will. We just took those out. That will not even be a question. H.R. 260 does not create an independent commission selling off parks to the highest bidder. The commission can act alone only if Interior ignores the will of Congress. Even then it would be assisted in its review by the Park Service and even then any action on its findings would be left to Congress, which created the parks in the first place. It would not mean the end of urban or Alaskan parks, as has been charged. It is not an outgrowth of the wise-use movement in the West. It has nothing to do with the cutbacks in budget or appropriations, real or imagined. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and I have worked on this bill now for almost 2 years. Last year we passed its 1994 counterpart by a record vote of 421 to zero. This, I think, is a better bill. We have sat down with more people since then. We have 42 or so environmental groups we sat down with and tried to take their concerns into account as we tried to develop this bill. I think it is a better bill now. Yet, H.R. 260 appears to have become a lightning rod for every fear about Park Service matters voiced against this Congress. I hope the membership will push aside the perceptions that have been advanced by a number of special interest groups and, instead, support the reality embodied in H.R. 260. It is a good bill. It is one which will keep our national parks the envy of the world. I urge support for this bill.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern to H.R. 402, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act Amendments. I do so reluctantly and for reasons that have nothing to do with the underlying measure which has already passed the House. Title I of H.R. 402, concerning the settlement of Alaskan Native claims, is legislation which deserves the support of the House. My qualms about this legislation reside wholly in title II which was added by the Senate. Title II of the bill, the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act, raises a number of issues that have not been adequately addressed here in the House. The legislation proposes to establish a system to resolve Hawaiian native claims against the Federal Government in disputes over lands which [[Page H 9073]] were allegedly diverted during territorial times from a Federal homesteading program for native Hawaiians to military use by the United States. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I have a number of serious questions about the legislation sent to the House by the Senate. My two principal concerns involve the conflict between this legislation and the disposal process put into place for excess military property under the base closure and realignment process and the possible effects of title II on the operational requirements for the Armed Forces in Hawaii. I'm concerned that the reuse and disposal of excess property at Naval Air Station Barbers Point will be seriously disrupted by this bill. Title II also holds open the prospect that the Department of Defense, particularly the Navy, could be evicted from certain lands essential for the continued performance of the Department's national defense mission merely to satisfy land claims of possibly dubious merit. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy have expressed grave concern about the enactment of title II of H.R. 402. The Department may have legitimate concerns or the Department may be overreacting. We don't know because there have been no hearings on title II of which I am aware. In my view, we should have a better understanding of the implications of running with the Senate amendment before proceeding. I would prefer sending this bill back to the Senate without title II. That would allow the underlying measure concerning Alaskan Native claims to proceed, but would also allow us some time to take a look at the Senate amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond also to my friend from Montana [Mr. Williams] for just a moment. The gentleman acted like with the advent of the new Congress that ideology just was born in this House of Representatives. I might point out to him that the previous Congress was run by the ideological left, and I might say the ideological far left. So I am sure that any change that has occurred in this Congress must make him feel like we have moved to the far right. I hope we have moved to the right. I hope we are not where we were a year ago. I do not think maybe we are as far out of step with the American public as his statements would seem to indicate. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate so far, and I have heard the numbers and the studies used, but I think the real issue here is this: The Clinton administration is not getting the money they want for their social welfare agenda. so they are attempting to force investors, in this case pension fund investors, to do the job. The American people are tired of writing checks for big government programs and projects that do not work. The desire of the Republican-controlled 104th Congress to give the American people a balanced budget has significantly cut and will significantly cut, I hope, the funding for many of the Clinton administration's welfare state programs. This bill simply prohibits the Department of Labor or any other Federal agency from encouraging private pension funds from investing their recipients' hard-earned retirement moneys into investments that produce benefits for the larger community as the goal, even if it might be unwise investment policy. Who decides what the community benefits are? The taxpayers, or some bureaucrat down at the Labor Department? Mr. Chairman, this is Socialism 101. This whole concept flies in the face of the mandate set by the American people last November that they do not want big government interfering in decisions that are none of big government's business. If this legislation is not enacted, we are essentially missing the point. We want pension fund investors to make money for their funds. This is the first criteria. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 1594.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. [[Page H 8687]] Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Joint Resolution 102 and I urge my colleagues to vote against it. I supported the establishment of the current base closure process in 1990. I believed then, and I continue to believe, that the disposal of unneeded military infrastructure and overhead would save scarce resources. I think we have come a long way in that regard. Frankly we have closed bases through this process that I never thought would ever be closed--and we have closed some that we may ultimately wish we had not. Personally, I was opposed to the closure in previous rounds of facilities such as Lowry Air Force Base and Pueblo Army Depot in Colorado. I fought to keep them from closing, but when faced with the decision to accept or reject the entire list produced by the Commission, I concluded that the Commission had acted appropriately, and that in an era of declining defense dollars the national interest had been served. This year I feel the same way, even though Fitzsimons Army Medical Center is on the list. I want to briefly say a word about the ultimate reuse for facilities such as Fitzsimons. One of our goals throughout this process has been to get installations slated for closure as quickly as possible into reuse by the local community. I have been impressed with the speed and dedication with which the city of Aurora has approached redevelopment. Working with the University of Colorado, an impressive reuse plan is already taking shape for Fitzsimons. I want to encourage the Department of Defense, particularly the Department of the Army, to do what it can to facilitate a rapid transition of the facility and related property to the local redevelopment authority so that the people of Aurora and Colorado can benefit from reuse as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, since the first round of base closures in 1988, over 100 major U.S.-based facilities have closed, and plant replacement value has been reduced by 21 percent. The Commission's 1995 recommendations will raise the number of major U.S.-based installations closed to about 130, and plant replacement value will have been reduced by another 6 percent or so. Although not covered by BRAC, unneeded overseas infrastructure has also been reduced substantially. During the BRAC period, the services have closed or reduced operations at over 950 bases overseas--a plant replacement value reduction of 43 percent. Despite all the rhetoric from some quarters, including from some in the administration who periodically suggest that we have not done enough, I believe this process has resulted in a significant downsizing of our military infrastructure. In my judgment, the military services need to adjust to the sharp base and installation reductions they will have to absorb. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I have been approached about the possibility of authorizing another round of base closures in 6 years of so. Indeed, that was one of the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. There may be a need in the future to resurrect this process, but I believe that authorizing another round now would be a mistake. The services need time to adjust to a post-BRAC environment. Some units have moved as many as three times throughout the final phases of BRAC. Once force structure and installations infrastructure have stabilized, and once we have a clear understanding of the actual costs and savings balance from BRAC, Congress will be in a better position to assess whether any further rounds of base closure are necessary. While I have great respect for the Commissioners, particularly Chairman Alan Dixon, I would not support authorization of a future round at this time. There is no doubt that there are problems in the BRAC process. It is clear that the upfront costs of base closures and realignments have been substantially more than anyone expected. It is also true that revenues from disposal have not been realized, and realized savings have fallen far short of original estimates. This does not mean that the process has not worked or that it has collapsed. It is an indication of just how difficult the implementation of BRAC, with its huge upfront costs and hidden environmental cleanup costs, has proven to be in practice. Mr. Speaker, the first hearing the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities held in this session concerned the BRAC process. I want to assure the House that the subcommittee will continue its commitment to oversight of BRAC implementation even after the formal Commission process ends this year. The Secretary of Defense estimates that $40 billion will be saved as a result of action taken in all four phases of base closure. He may be right. I hope he is; but even if savings fall short of expectations, there is no question that we must complete the process we began 7 years ago. I urge my colleagues to support the judgment of the National Security Committee and vote ``no'' on the resolution of disapproval. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].