Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Allard].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me say I have offered similar amendments over the years to abolish EDA and in the past it is not the easy thing to do, because it is the kind of amendment that strains friendships. Each of my colleagues has their own experiences about how EDA has helped their communities. Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute that the EDA has done some good things, but it cannot be disputed that the EDA has had many, many failures as well. To top that off, the financial management of the EDA, according to the Department of Commerce inspector general, is in absolute shambles. But, Mr. Chairman, the debate is not about whether a particular project is beneficial or not. The debate is whether the EDA is the best use of taxpayers' dollars and it clearly is not. The EDA's influence on the economy is highly overrated. On a good month, the U.S. economy creates more long-term jobs than the EDA has created in its 28-year history. The best economic performance this country has experienced in the past 28 years was when the EDA's budget was at its lowest. Let us face it, the EDA has been on the chopping block for years. It has survived for the simple reason that it makes Representatives and Senators look good. Mr. Chairman, I contend that balancing our budget will do more for all of our reputations than all of the successes of the EDA. We need to bring these taxpayers' dollars back to do what they should be doing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I was going to come here today and tell my colleagues what I think about the Economic Development Administration, but I have decided I am not going to do that. After all, I am not the one who audits the EDA's books. In order to assess the effectiveness of the EDA, I should be telling Members what the Department of Commerce inspector general says about the EDA. Let us start with the March 1995 report. The inspector general said that the CPA firm was unable to express an opinion on the revolving funds statement of financial position because of multiple, material weaknesses in EDA's internal control structure. The IG went on to note that the nature and extent of the internal control deficiencies reported by the CPA firm indicate serious problems in financial mismanagement at EDA. Several of these issues were previously raised by the inspector general in the past. However, little progress has been made since the survey report was issued 2\1/2\ years ago. Here is a list of the audit headlines in the March 1995 report. In order to be fair, I will read the positive results first. South Carolina city earned full Federal funding of public works project. City in Texas properly managed public works grant. Those are the two positive reports. Let us get to the negative ones. Michigan county committed serious grant violations, $1,285,000. A New Jersey public works project not financially feasible, $34,000. Revolving loan fund created to relieve impact of Hurricane Andrew, not needed, $1,900,000. Grant to Michigan organization should be terminated, $243,000. Louisiana grantees mismanage revolving loan fund, $388,000. Indiana recipient violated Federal regulations and grant requirements, $475,000. Cost question on South Carolina public works project, $120,000. Iowa recipient mismanaged grant funds, $1,500,000. And in September 1994, the IG report said more of the same. Georgia revolving loan fund operator directed to return $3 million in overcharges and excess cash, $3 million. Ohio revolving loan fund grantee violated EDA approved plan, $90,000. Grantee mismanaged Tennessee revolving loan fund, $34,000. City of South Carolina inadequately accounted for revolving loan fund, $238,000. And get this, this money is still missing. Arizona public works project, jeopardized by grantee mismanagement, $504,000. Unneeded public works project in New Mexico should be terminated, $400,000. Texas grantee improperly solicited matching share from borrower, $50,000. Audit of proposed grant reveal need for clearer definition of demonstration projects, $4,300,000. My state is not immune either. In fact one EDA grantee in Colorado faced felony embezzlement charges before settling out of court for the money that she owed. Mr. Chairman, that is over $14 million of problems discovered by the inspector general. There are hundreds of more grants out there just like these, but they will probably never be discovered or investigated by the Department of Commerce inspector general. I have not read a report this bad since Price Waterhouse left here a few weeks ago. It is time to put an end to this outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars, support the Hefley-Solomon-Goss amendment, and let us put an end to the EDA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is going broke. If we do nothing about it, in 7 years it will be totally bankrupt. But instead of backing reforms, some Members in this body want to play politics with this very important issue. Let me share with you a letter I just received from a constituent: I am sending the enclosed to you to add to your file of examples of the foolish and wasteful application of government personnel and funds. I would be embarrassed to present this check to my bank for processing. And here is a check for 1 cent, sent to him as a Medicare B payment. The Republican Party is determined to save Medicare. Mr. Speaker, we intend to create a Medicare system that offers the best care at the lowest cost. Together we will improve Medicare so that it can be protected and saved.

Mr. HEFLEY

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. Mr. Chairman, on June 16, 1994, Congress voted 234 to 192 to eliminate funding for the Interstate Commerce Commission. The task of the 104th Congress is to transfer any remaining necessary functions to the Department of Transportation. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will cut $3 million in operating expenses for carrying out these few functions. Some would have us believe that this would cripple the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's ability to legislate how these functions would be carried out by DOT. Mr. Chairman, the simple fact is that in 1995, we spent about $31 million on the ICC. Let us remember that figure, $31 million in 1995. This year we are going to spend over $22 million to carry out far fewer regulations without the cost of operating a large independent agency; a 27 percent cut for something that is being eliminated. Mr. Chairman, my amendment still only brings the cut to 36 percent. It does not appear we have eliminated the idea of an ICC at all; we have only renamed it. I understand that the ICC will still exist for about 3 months into the new fiscal year. I am not touching any of that money. I also understand that closing the ICC will cost money. I am not touching any of that money either. But what I am going after is the $8.4 million for three-quarters of a fiscal year for carrying out functions that even many industry experts say should not cost $5 million for the full year, and this is just for three-quarters, $8 million, just three-quarters. Let us take a closer look at these numbers. The $8.4 million for 9 months comes out to over $11 million for the full year. The rail industry suggests a strong regulatory structure within DOT may cost $5 million to $7 million for the year. That is at least $4 million too much for a full fiscal year, or about $3 million for three-quarters of a year funding. I believe I left enough money in the appropriation for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to decide what sort of structure is necessary. There are some who say my amendment does not go far enough, but I would like to believe that when all is said and done, when deregulation is complete, we will not have a successor to the ICC as the appropriation language indicates. We will have very few people carrying out very few functions. The 104th Congress is about change. It is about reform and less government. We say we are eliminating the ICC, but are we simply changing its name? Mr. Chairman, a vote for my amendment is not only a vote for fiscal responsibility and common sense, it is also about the new relationship Congress has with the American people. We say we want our Government to make do for less. So let us really do for less. It is called telling the truth to the American people. I would encourage an ``aye'' on the Hefley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I hate to be in opposition to my good friends here on this. We are all in agreement that the ICC needs to be eliminated. When I, years ago, started this, I could not get enough votes to fill a phone booth in here. On this last year, we passed the idea of elimination. Now, everyone is in favor of elimination, but the talk is that I am trying to devastate it so it cannot be done in an orderly fashion. We are still putting $22 million in it, and many of the groups that are against this amendment are concerned about the motor carrier regulations. But the Committee on Appropriations assumes the fees collected will cover the expenses to administer any carrier function which remains. The ICC wants to keep 60 people for this and transfer them to the office of motor carriers within the DOT. Even the appropriations concede this is excessive, arguing the need for only perhaps a handful of motor carrier experts for the ICC need be retained. For the rail functions, the ICC wants to transfer 180 people for a commerce board. Again, the appropriations agreed this is excessive, contending that only 140 are needed. The administration believes only 100 people are needed. The rail industry believes, say maybe 50 or 60 will be enough for the board. So, in my opinion, we are trying to do this in an orderly way. We are not trying to devastate their ability to function until it is time for them to phase out. The idea is, though, when they do phase out, we want them to phase out. We do not want just a name change. So, again, I would encourage support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I would like to tell you about the National Institutes of Health and its multimillion-dollar grant to the University of Colorado. This multimillion-dollar grant is not for cancer research, as one might expect, or for AIDS research, or aid to children in developing countries, or for juvenile diabetes, or any of the things you might think this kind of money would go for. But what it is for is to study why people get fat. Now, it does not take this kind of money, it does not take any money, to figure out what will result from too many trips to the refrigerator. In fact, you could spend a fortune just buying the magazines and books that contain the already countless studies on this subject. Thousands of them have been done. Sure, it does appear that there is a certain medical explanation for some obesity, but most of the studies seem to indicate that the way you eat and the way you exercise explains most of the problem. It is ironic that this study is being done in Colorado, which has the lowest percentage of overweight people in the Nation. So the National Institutes of Health gets my porker of the week award this week.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, in March 1992, then Gov. Bill Clinton was quoted regarding the issue of normalizing relations with Vietnam as saying: The president should not just state that the resolution of the issue is a ``national priority,'' he should make it the national priority, and direct that all agencies cooperate and resolve it. . . . Before I would normalize relations or provide assistance to any of the countries involved, they would be required to open their files and actively assist in solving this issue. And then in October of that same year he said: It would be ``putting the cart before the horse'' to normalize relations before receiving a full accounting of the prisoner situation. . . . I ask where is that full accounting President Clinton promised before normalizing of relations would occur? Where is it? President Clinton has indeed put the cart before the horse. He has normalized relations with Vietnam in return he got nothing.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. We all know, Mr. Speaker, what it is that Bill Clinton does best. Unfortunately for the American people it is not foreign policy, it is not solving Medicare problems, and it certainly is not balancing the budget. No, it is not governing that Bill Clinton does best, so he is going to use the White House to do what he does best, to campaign. He is going to use the people's house to raise money for his campaign. But from the President who claims to ``feel your pain'' he is not going to pay a visit to the average Americans that tour the White House on a daily basis. Instead he is selling himself to a privileged few for up to $100,000 per person. Now our friends on the Democratic side of the aisle would be going nuts if this was a Republican President doing this. I wonder where those voices of righteous indignation are today. Unfortunately it is too bad that the President cares more about money for his reelection than earning the people's trust.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, recently House Democrats have been posting signs outside their offices that read ``Not For Sale.'' I guess their reasoning for doing so is to distance themselves from the current administration. Democrats might argue that it's in reference to their blatant hypocrisy over a committee seat, but since the White House has begun selling access to the open ear of the executive branch, I think it's because it looks bad back home. The reason it looks bad, is because it is bad. This administration claims to be the party of the poor and working class. Mr. Speaker, I ask how many factory workers, teachers or civil servants you know who could afford to spend $100,000 for a couple of meals at the White House. This administration has claimed to be the party of change and I guess it's true because $100,000 is a lot of change.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am holding a copy of the administration's newest initiative regarding OSHA. It is bound in red, white, and blue, and is filled with lots of rhetoric about changing the way OSHA thinks. In past Congresses I, and many of my colleagues have criticized many of OSHA's ridiculous regulations. We watch OSHA deny the regulations exist at the same time they are scrambling to change them. I want to believe this is an honest attempt at reform. I would like to believe that OSHA tuned in to C-SPAN one day and said, ``By golly, those Republicans are right. We've got to change our emphasis.'' But I do not think that is how it happened. November 8 happened. For OSHA, this document is a matter of self preservation. I brought another document to the floor with me today. This is the one the administration would like you to forget. In the 103d Congress, the administration's idea of OSHA reform was H.R. 1280. OSHA supported the Comprehensive OSHA Reform Act of 1994. The legislation which increased penalties, regulation, and paperwork. This is dated October 3, 1994. Let's compare these documents: In 1994, OSHA wanted to impose $62 billion in new costs on the private sector. In 1995 OSHA is backing down from strict new standards on ergonomics. In 1994, OSHA wanted to redefine occupational safety health standards in order to justify costly new mandates. In 1995, OSHA plans to ``improve, update, and eliminate confusing and out of date standards.'' In 1994, OSHA wanted to mandate even more paperwork requirements on even more businesses. In 1995 OSHA wants to decrease redtape and paperwork. In 1994, OSHA was willing to put their ideas into law. In 1995 OSHA is not so willing. These two documents represent one of the great flip-flops of this administration. If the administration wants to change OSHA's approach, why don't they put the change into law? [[Page H 6740]] OSHA's new approach means nothing if we leave them the ability to change back to their old gestapo attitude whenever the political climate will tolerate it. Meanwhile, OSHA's absurdities continue: We heard about the specially designed rubber gloves used by Secret Service officials at the White House. It was OSHA which cited serious violations of workers safety at Secret Service guard stations. In speaking with over 15 guards at our own capitol buildings, I failed to find a single officer who had ever been cut or injured, or that had ever heard of an officer being cut or injured, while searching someone's belongings. They do have rubber gloves, but are allowed to use them at their discretion. But that's not all. Back in my home district, a dental office was recently cited with 11 violations, all of them serious and most of them for paperwork violations. One violation included the office's written hazard communication. The office took the OSHA approved guidelines from another dental office and used them. OSHA cited them because they had scratched out the name of the dentist that originated the booklet and wrote in their office name. To come into OSHA compliance the office had to retype the 65 page document, word for word. In other citations, OSHA took the word of a disgruntled employee and made citations based on her accusations. The dentist was cited for bloodying gloves while working on one patient, and then using the same gloves, still bloodied, on another patient. It is difficult to believe that any dentist, or any patient for that matter, would allow that to happen. He was also cited for putting used gloves in the same container as new gloves, even though OSHA found no evidence of either of these practices actually occurring. It's time for OSHA to use a little common sense. It's time for real, permanent, and radical OSHA reform.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1141, the Sikes Act Improvement Amendments of 1995. H.R. 1141 would enhance and improve natural resource management practices on military installations and lands under the control of the Secretary of Defense. This legislation has received overwhelming bipartisan support by the Committee on Resources and the Committee on National Security. At Fort Carson, CO, the Army's premier tank training ground, the concept of wildlife management and training going hand-in-hand is put to the test. On the Pinon Canyon maneuver site at Carson, red fox holes are roped off, the division-size maneuvers are conducted around them. This is just one example of how the Army is striking the balance between environment and military training. This legislation will improve the ability of Fort Carson and all other military installations to preserve this balance. H.R. 1141 strikes an appropriate balance between natural resource management and the defense mission conducted at all military installations. The bill is fully supported by the Department of Defense. As a member of both committees of jurisdiction, I have had an opportunity to pass judgment on H.R. 1141 on a number of occasions this year. I can assure the House that the bill is worthy of each Member's support. I am pleased to recommend this legislation and urge it adoption.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment offered as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to the substitute which cut the appropriations to the former Soviet Union from $595 million to $296.8 million. For those who have been talking about how the $30 million cut is too drastic, it is going to seem very, very drastic. The way we arrived at these figures is to look at last year's. It is a little difficult to get at, because it is difficult in the bill to know exactly where these dollars are going to go. However, the way we arrived at it was to look at the expenditures last year, and some of the programs that we thought were foolish expenditures, and subtract from that. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], for his efforts in putting together a bill that is significantly better than the foreign operations bills of the past. The gentleman has worked hard to focus American taxpayer dollars on regions that will most benefit from U.S. assistance, and prioritize them according to our own national security interests. The former Soviet Union is such a region. I agree with the committee's views that no relationship is more important to the long- term security of the United States than the strategic relationship with the former Soviet Union. If reform fails in the former Soviet Union, the potential of nuclear confrontation will increase greatly. If I believe this to be true, how could I stand here and promote slashing U.S. aid to the newly independent states? Let me tell the Members why, because much of the aid we have given, and that which we will give again this year, has been a total waste, I think, of taxpayer dollars. When we think of the aid to the former Soviet Union, most of us think of humanitarian aid, or aid to promote free market, or we think of strengthening democracy there. However, when we think of aid to the former Soviet Union, do we envision Planned Parenthood of Northern New England? That is right, Planned Parenthood of Northern New England has received over $200,000 of these tax dollars to develop a Center for the Formation of Sexual Culture in Russia. I do not know about the Members, but that is not high on my list of aid to the Soviet Union priorities. Mr. Chairman, we give money intended to implement structural changes in Russia, but instead some of this money went to the Center of Love and Support, a program to teach employees in Russian hospitals a good bedside manner. I wonder how many [[Page H 6356]] Russian children could have been immunized with the $200,000 that was spent on that? What bothers me most and should bother all of us, I think, is the amount of money we are wasting in the so-called aid to the Soviet Union. Billions of the dollars we expended in the past has not been wisely spent, much of it because between 50 percent and 90 percent of the money in these aid packages has not reached the pockets of a single pro-democracy, pro-market, pro-reform foreign citizen. Instead, this money found its way into the pockets of consultants and beltway bandits, and the going rate for a Western consultant to the former Soviet Union is about $800 a day, and a lot of them are collecting on that rate. My constituents are outraged, and I think the gentleman's are, too. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to cut aid to the former Soviet Union. This amendment is intended to zero out many programs which are simply so inefficiently administered as to render them useless, or are programs we do not need to be involved in, or are programs we simply do not have good accountability on. We do not know where the money has gone, and we do not know whether it is being spent well or not. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] for yielding. I have great respect for your judgment in this. You are certainly more knowledgeable than I am. It is not just the Ukraine that is getting this money. Booz, Allen & Hamilton is getting this money. Paine Webber is getting this money. Ernst & Young is getting this money. Some of you speak as if I am cutting the whole thing out. We still have $300 million in here. You say we have come down a great deal, and we certainly have since we started doing this, but is this something, do we take them to raise forever? Is this something that is going to go on and on forever or are we going to see the day when we are not putting any money into the former Soviet Union?

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today the House is going to debate the foreign operations appropriation bill. During the debate on this bill I think we should work to spend this money wisely and responsibly. While the bill today is better than in past years, many of us have been concerned about the spending that has gone into foreign aid in the past, particularly aid directed at the former Soviet Union. Mr. Speaker, we have given the former Soviet Union billions of dollars in foreign aid and wonder how wisely this has been spent. I am convinced that much of it has not been spent wisely at all. That is because between 50 and 90 percent of the money in these aid packages has not reached the pockets of one single pro-democracy, pro-market, pro-reform Russian. Instead, much of the money has been found in the pockets of consultants right here in the beltway, the ``beltway bandits,'' and much of the rest of it has just disappeared into the former Soviet Union without any real accounting of where it went or how it was being spent. Too much of it has been given to consultants, too much of it has disappeared, too little of it has gone to solid pro-democracy reformers in Russia. Therefore, my colleagues, let us look at this Russian section of the foreign aid bill very carefully today.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Let us wait just a minute, folks, with all the screaming and wrapping of the righteous robes of indignation around your bodies about what happened here yesterday. The rule was established at the outset of this session. We are not going to do it like we did in the old days. We are not going to slop over for 30 minutes on the votes. We are going to have 15-minute votes. Those 15-minute votes, because sometimes there are unexplainable circumstances, those 15-minute votes sometimes will wait until 17 minutes. The vote yesterday was 17 minutes. But I guess some Members are slow learners and they habitually wander in here after the 17 minutes and say, one more, one more, let us vote. We were here. Where were those two Members when everybody else had voted within the 17 minutes? Where were those two Members who feel like they were so wronged yesterday? They had the same time we did. I guess they had things that were more important to do than to be on this floor and vote within that 17-minute limit. We are here to try to change Congress and change this country. You are just trying to change the subject.