Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today, at least I assume it will be today, the House will begin debate on the Legislative Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. With passage of this bill, Congress can show the American people that we are serious about cutting spending and downsizing the Federal bureaucracy. Over $155 million in spending cuts in this bill; one-third cut in overall committee staff; elimination of some of the offices, the folding room, the flag office, the ice distribution to Members' offices. Mr. Speaker, around this town some may believe that $155 million is not much money, but this Member of Congress, as well as the American taxpayers, think it is a lot of money. I have always felt that if we are serious about reaching a balanced budget, we should start first with our own selves here, our own legislative budget. Maybe today we will take that first important step.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will not take the full 5 minutes. As chairman of the authorizing committee, we looked at this very, very carefully, and I would concur with what the gentleman from California had to say about the training facility. It is the premier training facility of its kind probably in the entire world. I like to say that about the training facility at Colorado Springs, and they say, ``Yes, it is, but the one in California, that is the one that here the premier facility of its kind.'' And we do bring, the figure was used, 60,000 troops, plus or minus a few, in there every year to rotate in for training, and we need the kind of facilities necessary to get them in and get them out safely. So I think what we are talking about here distance. The idea of moving them in and taking them for 4\1/2\ hours on a bus, this number of people simply makes no sense whatsoever. I think it is a matter of time, and I think it is a matter of safety. So I would hope that we would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have to take a back seat to anybody for coming down here time and time again with amendments to strike things that I think are pork in appropriation bills, and we will do it some more, probably. That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, that, as I assumed the chairmanship of the authorization committee for Milcon, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and I worked very, very carefully together to systematically make sure that we had very strict criteria, because we know these particular bills are bills that are subject to pork enough. We did not want that to happen. We wanted to make sure that did not happen. We were very careful to do that. The bill that we produced and that we passed here last week and the bill that we are considering today, are mirror images of each other. There is nothing in this bill that we are considering today that was not authorized in the bill last week. Mr. Chairman, on these two projects we are talking about, I think the gentlemen that have spoken before me have made the case pretty well that the propeller shop is something that is absolutely crucial, It is the only facility of its kind that we have in the United States. Yes, it was not requested this time because this is a phase 3 project. This is the third phase of three phases of a project, and it is a very crucial project. As for the physical fitness facility out in Washington, there was a great case made for that physical facility out there. Mr. Chairman, these things, even though they were not requested this year, they were on the priority list. I would like to note that I also have the request from last year of the gentleman from California [Mr. Royce], and not only were these not requested last year, but they were not on anybody's priority list last year, and yet the gentleman from California felt they were very important. They may have been very important. I have not looked into it to see if they were or not. However, the ones we did, they had to be on a priority list or they did not get funded. These were on the priority list. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members to vote ``no'' on the Royce amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say I am a little surprised that the gentleman does not seem to understand the chain of command in the military. It is not because they are sniveling cowards or they are not courageous. They fight like crazy for what they think is important over there inside the building. But they have bosses all the way up to the President of the United States. If the President of the United States says this is the level and it does not come out of the building, then they cannot request it, even if it is a high priority. It has to do with the chain of command. That is why you get these kinds of situations, high priorities, not requested, because they have limitations put on them by the boss.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, this is, as the gentleman has indicated, an add on. It is an add on that was not requested by the President, but for crying out loud, we said in the Contract With America that the President is wrong in the level with which he wants to cut back the defense of this country, and that we were going to make some changes in that. We tried to make some changes, both in the authorization bill and now in the appropriation bill, to correct some of the things. Yes, some of the things that are in here are not things the President requested, but of the add ons, over 70 percent of them are things just like Members see here, foundations in family housing being held up by jacks, and screens and doors coming off of windows. Over 70 percent are those kinds of things. Mr. Chairman, if it was something that are not a quality of life or housing type of thing, we had to be absolutely, thoroughly convinced it was meaningful and significant, and that they could do it and it was on their list of high priorities, even though they did not ask it. This was one of those projects. It was on their list of priorities. They had not requested it because they simply were not allowed by the orders they had from above to request everything on their priority list, but it was on their list of priorities. They convinced us that it is something that they very badly needed for readiness, and we supported it and felt very good about supporting it. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Members to vote against this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, last month 238 employees of the National Immunization Program held a conference at the luxurious Century Plaza Hotel in downtown Beverly Hills. The event cost $1,015,900. This money could be used to immunize 13,500 babies. But I suppose a conference among bureaucrats in beautiful Beverly Hills was more important. I am told the conference organizers selected Beverly Hills because of a recent outbreak of measles in Los Angeles. I wonder how many of the infected were in Beverly Hills at the time of the conference. For whittling away taxpayer dollars so that bureaucrats can live high on the hog, the National Immunization Program gets my Porker of the Week Award.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1817, the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1996. Just yesterday, the House passed H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for the coming year. Three hundred Members supported this measure. The House should also give similar support to this bill. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the House that this bill squarely addresses one of the most serious problems confronting the Department of Defense and the people who serve in our Nation's military services. That problem is the quality and availability of adequate troop housing and military family housing. There is no question that there is a crisis in military housing. Over 600,000 single enlisted personnel are assigned to on-base troop housing facilities. The average age of barracks and dormitories is over 40 years. One-fourth of these facilities is considered substandard. The situation in family housing is not much better. Approximately 218,000--or two thirds--of the homes in the housing inventory of the Department of Defense are classified inadequate. One-quarter of the homes in the DOD inventory is over 40 years old and two-thirds are over 30 years old. This aging military family stock has extremely high maintenance and repair needs. To put something tangible behind these dry statistics, I have here some examples of the problem we are trying to fix. The first photo was taken at the U.S. Air Force Base in Incirlik, Turkey. This is military family housing. If anything this illustrates what we are trying to deal with here. This is a picture of family housing for junior enlisted personnel at NAS Lemoore in California. These homes are about 40 years old and are structurally unsound. This is family housing at the Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL. It look like a country that has been controlled by communism for 40 years, does it not? The buildings are falling apart, the wires are exposed. Again, this is family housing for our people we ask to serve in the armed services. If you are in the armed services, where would you like to be stationed? The garden spot? Would that be Hawaii? Would you like to go to Hawaii to serve if you are in the armed services? If you do, this may be the way that your family is required to live. This is housing in Hawaii. Is there any doubt that the present military housing situation is unacceptable? The Secretary of Defense has recognized that; the authorizing committee has recognized it; and so does the Appropriations Committee. Together, we are determined to put us on a path toward fixing the problem. Mr. Chairman, I just received a letter from the Secretary of Defense, Dr. William Perry. Let me just share this with the Members: In light of the House completion of its consideration of fiscal year 1996 DOD authorization bill and today's debate on the fiscal year 1996 Military Construction Appropriations Act, let me again express my personal appreciation for the Members' support of your housing improvement initiative. Your leadership has been invaluable in moving this important program forward. Our effort to improve family housing is the cornerstone of our effort to enhance the quality of life of those men and women who serve so valiantly in our armed forces. Your actions and those of your Committee on Appropriations counterpart have given us the momentum we need to address the serious deficiencies that exist today. Mr. Chairman, at the outset of the session, Chairman Vucanovich and I agreed that improving the quality of life for military personnel and their families would be our top priority. We also agreed that there would be no--and I stress no--unauthorized appropriations in the military construction budget. Working with our colleagues on the two subcommittees, especially Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Hefner, the two ranking members, we settled on a series of tough criteria to judge proposed projects. Even more importantly, we reached a joint agreement on Milcon for the coming year which we have recommended to the House. The authorization bill is the appropriations bill. The degree of coordination, cooperation, and bipartisan spirit with which we have approached our work is unprecedented since I have been in Congress. This has not been a business-as-usual process; and this is not a business-as-usual bill. Working with the military services, we have identified a number of unfunded and badly needed quality of life improvements in housing, child care, and health care facilities that can be executed next year. We have funded solely those projects where the need is the greatest and the dollars can immediately be put to use. We have agreed on a strong quality of life package, and I would encourage every Member of this body to support this package. It does a great deal for those we ask to defend our Nation.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to remember here what we are talking about is, and the chairman would understand this, Mr. Chairman, being from Nebraska, what we are talking about is planting seed. We are talking about $14 million here that is the seed to go into the ground, to grow and flourish to become a beautiful plant that we can all be proud of somewhere down the line. The question is, Do we believe that museums to honor our heritage and our history are important? I happen to think they are important, so I am opposed to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have gone to many of the Army museums around the country that have been mentioned here today. They are little divisional museums of one kind or another, and I am excited about them. I am the kind of guy that can get emotional walking up and down the historic Halls of this building. I go on the battlefield and I can smell the smoke and hear the guns. I love that kind of thing. Yet, here we have a nation, the only nation in the world, only major nation in the world, that does not have some kind of an Army museum; not a dozen divisional museums, or 40 divisional museums, but a museum for the Army of our Nation. Mr. Chairman, I fly in every week, practically, into Washington, DC. When I come into National, many of the Members have had this experience, when I come into National, if I am on the left-hand side of the airplane I look out and I see the wonderful monuments honoring the freedom and liberty and history of this country: The Washington Monument, the Lincoln Monument, Jefferson Memorial, all the way up to the Capitol of the United States. However, if I am on the right side of the airplane, I see acre after acre of stark white tombstones. What this tells me is what I have on the left-hand side of the airplane was bought with a price from what is on the right-hand side of the airplane. I think that is what the Army museum is all about. It is telling us the price that was paid for this country's freedom and liberty. I think we ought to honor it. I think we ought to support that museum. It is a small portion of the $72 million that will be raised privately. It is a partnership between the seed that we put in and the private money which comes. Support the Army museum. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the defense budget has not been a high priority for Mr. Clinton. I think it is important, however, for us to remember that the greatest portion of the defense dollars that are spent are not spent on SDI nor on the B-2 bomber. We spend the biggest share of our defense dollars on people, the young enlisted personnel who catapult the F-14's off carriers, control military satellites, man Patriot missile batteries, and land on beaches from Normandy to Somalia. These men and women who travel in harm's way for our sake are the ones who are hurt by inadequate defense spending. We have begun yesterday and again today the process of rebuilding our national defenses. Because of our fiscal crisis, it won't be as much as some of us would like but it is a down payment. Remember, most defense goes to the men and women who protect us every day. That is what you will find in today's military construction appropriation bill. Mr. Speaker, history has proven to us that when we see the daylight of peace on the horizon, we tend to disarm and bask in the sunshine. We need to remember that the darkness of war can be only a few hours away.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just say briefly that the comptroller of the Department of Defense disagrees with every single figure the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] gave just a moment ago. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Shays and Mr. Frank. In my judgment, this debate is not about burden- sharing--every Member is for burdensharing. This debate is about the integrity of our forward-deployed presence in Europe. This amendment is little more than a thinly disguised attempt to reduce force structure. The amendment ignores the current statutory framework for burdensharing. To listen to the proponents of the amendment tell the story you would get the impression that the allies are doing virtually nothing to share the burden. These are the facts: The 1995 defense authorization bill contained a target for our European NATO allies to contribute to our stationing costs in Europe. The Department of Defense expects to meet, and exceed, the 37.5 percent target by the statutory deadline of September 30, 1996. In fact, by fiscal year 1997 DOD expects the allies to pick up over 40 percent of those costs. The Shays-Frank amendment mandates that for every 1,000 ground troops required to be withdrawn from Europe, half will be discharged. The amendment could result in thousands of involuntary separations. Adoption of the Shays-Frank amendment would negate the permanent authorized end strengths contained in the bill before the House. This amendment would harm the ability of the United States to respond to crises in Europe, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa. The sharp reductions in force structure contemplated by the Shays-Frank amendment would not have permitted us to prosecute Operation Desert Shield/Storm in the manner we did. The fig leaf of Presidential wavier authority in the event of an emergency cannot hide the fact that our forward- deployed presence in Europe serves an American national purpose. Our forces are not some form of European welfare. The amendment ignores the careful, prudent, and fiscally responsible drawdown we have already undertaken in Europe. As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I have monitored the drawdown in Europe. Since 1990, we have closed 878 installations--a 63-percent cut--and reduced our troop presence by over 200,000--a 69- percent cut. The Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. George Joulwan, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, and Gen. Gordon Sullivan, the Army Chief of Staff all oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to reject this relic of the past.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, many Members may ask themselves, why should I support a defense against ballistic missiles when the cold war is over now? The answer, I think, lies somewhere both in the past and in the future. If we had a better defense against ballistic missiles, American servicemen would not have died in the barracks in Saudi Arabia. If we had pursued more strongly ballistic missile defense, perhaps Israel would not have sat in terror night after night waiting for Scuds as they rained down on them. Make no mistake. We should have learned our lesson in the Persian Gulf war about missile attacks. Many Members will try to tell us that the threat is gone, that there are no bad guys anymore. There are approximately 30 countries with ballistic missile capabilities. Some of these nations are our allies. Many are unfriendly: China, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, North Korea. Of the 30 nations which have ballistic missile capability, 8 are in the Middle East, and there are hot spots around the world where our troops could be deployed and are being deployed which are in the range of ballistic missiles from hostile countries. There are currently two nations which have the ability, and sometime in the future might even have the will, to launch an attack on the United States. Both Russia and China have this kind of ability. I used to chuckle out of seeing a bumper sticker that the old nuclear-freeze crowd used to paste on their car. It said, ``One nuclear weapon can ruin your whole day.'' That is the only thing probably that I agreed with them on, but is it not interesting now that the Soviet threat is reduced these nay-sayers maintain that we do not need defense against that nuclear weapon that could ruin our day. Rest assured, in the future an enemy can strike either U.S. troops or the U.S. mainland. It has happened before; [[Page H5939]] it will happen again. Be assured that our conscience, those of use that have fought for ballistic missiles defense, should be clear. I hope my colleagues' is, too. Vote against the Dellums-Spratt amendment. Vote for a strong ballistic missile defense program.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Geren]. (Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. (Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Sisisky].

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1530, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996. I would like to say, this is my first time to be a cochairman of this committee or any committee in Congress for that matter. And it was an experience, and I could not have asked for a more cooperative or helpful ranking member than the gentleman from Texas, Solomon Ortiz, who I thought did a super job. This was truly, at least our part of it and I think most of the bill, was truly a nonpartisan or bipartisan product. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, I can assure the House that this bill squarely addresses one of the most serious problems confronting the Department of Defense and the people who serve in our Nation's military services. That problem is the quality and availability of adequate troop housing and military family housing. There is no question that there is a crisis in military housing. Over 600,000 single enlisted personnel are assigned to on-base troop housing facilities. The average age of barracks and dormitories is over 40 years. One-fourth of these facilities is considered substandard. At current levels of funding, improving on-base housing for single enlisted personnel cannot be accomplished, depending on the military service, for years or, in some cases, for decades. The situation in family housing is not much better. Approximately 218,000 or two-thirds of the homes in the housing inventory of the Department of Defense are classified as inadequate. One-quarter of the homes in the DOD inventory are over 40 years old and two-thirds are over 30 years old. This aging military family stock has extremely high maintenance and repair needs. If nothing changes, fixing the military family housing problem will take over 30 years. The present military housing situation is unacceptable and the Committee on National Security is determined to put us on the path toward fixing the problem. H.R. 1530 contains critically important short-term and long-term remedies to this problem. Working with the military services, we have identified a number of unfunded and badly needed quality-of-life improvements in housing, child care, health care facility that can be executed next year. We have funded solely those projects where the need is the greatest and the dollars can immediately be put to use. Equally of importance, we coordinated these recommendations thoroughly with our colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations so that we are singing from the same page of music. And we have agreed, both of us, to a strong quality of life package. This bill funds over $630 million in new construction improvements for barracks and dormitories at 63 installations, including projects at 25 installations which the committee identified as priority requirements for military services which were unfunded in the department's budget request. The bill also provides approximately $900 million in military family housing construction and improvements. These funds will provide quality housing for about 9,400 military families, over 2,000 more than the Department's request, and will ensure that other badly needed neighborhood improvements are undertaken. I want to stress again that this bill funds only those projects which can be executed in fiscal year 1996. This is not a hollow program. But beyond the important quality of life improvements we are recommending to the House, the committee has also taken a longer term view of the problem of fixing the military construction problem. We are providing for an opportunity for private sector involvement in this and have set up a structure that gives the possibility for that to take place at bases around the country. We are going to develop pilot programs this year, and I think this is the only way you can get there from here in terms of actually solving this problem. So in conclusion, let me say, I strongly support this piece of legislation. I think not only in this particular area that I have talked about but throughout the bill, we make giant strides.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, Congress is a master at creating Federal programs based on good intentions rather than sound economic sense and for which the tax becomes their lifeline for survival. Amtrak--the idea--was a good one. Amtrak was created in 1970 with a one-time grant of $40 million. It was a 2-year, Government-assisted program that would become an independent and self-sufficient operation. The reality, however, tells a different story. Amtrak has cost taxpayers over $15 billion since 1970. Although Amtrak carries only 0.3 percent of all intercity travelers, it is the most highly subsidized form of intercity transportation. GAO figures indicate Amtrak could need as much as $10 billion over the next 5 years to maintain its current level of service. Since 1990 the Amtrak situation has gotten even worse. Between 1989 and 1993 Amtrak lost an average of $706 million per year, and it's not going to get any better. Revenues have fallen well short of estimates for the last 4 years. In 1994, Amtrak forecast revenues of $1.1 billion, while actual revenues were only $880 million, a difference of over $200 million. Since 1990, passenger revenues have fallen by 14 percent in real terms. The gap between revenues and expenses continue to grow. Why have the 1990's been so bad for Amtrak? Deterioration of tracks and trains--23 percent of Amtrak's cars are over 40 years old, and 70 percent of the cars are almost 20 years old. With shoddy track and old cars, Amtrak is not a comfortable way to travel. Increased accidents are causing people to question the safety of Amtrak, and rightfully so. Amtrak's labor structure is costing them a fortune. Their labor structure makes it darn near impossible for Amtrak to make a profit. Amtrak is required, by law, to have a 6-year severance package for displaced employees. This benefit gives them 6 years of pay equal to the rate they received while working. This constitutes a liability of over $2 billion. In the cuts announced in December, Amtrak will be required to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to pay labor protections nobody else gets. Amtrak is renegotiating their contract with labor this year. Amtrak's wages paid could increase by about $200 million over a 5-year period. Increased competition with other modes of transportation. Most intercity trips are made by private vehicle. Cars account for about 80 percent of total passenger miles. Falling gasoline prices encourage people to drive. [[Page H5761]] Since 1990, the real price of unleaded gasoline has dropped by 10 percent. With the increased fuel efficiency of today's cars, driving continues to be an inexpensive way to travel. Airline tickets and bus fare prices are falling as well. Increased dissatisfaction among Amtrak passengers. Volume of complaints has risen from 30,000 in 1989 to 70,000 in 1994. It is not totally uncommon for an Amtrak train to break down, and the passengers must walk to the nearest stop to catch the next train. It's no wonder people don't want to ride Amtrak. What's the answer? I've proposed legislation to privatize Amtrak by phasing out its taxpayer subsidies over a 4-year period and relieving it of its burdensome labor regulations and route requirements. My legislation would enable Amtrak's management to make decisions as in any private corporation. Slowly phases out subsidy. This year Amtrak will receive $972 million from the Federal Government. H.R. 259 will reduce the taxpayer subsidy to Amtrak by 25 percent each year for 4 years. This will phase out the Federal subsidies. Immediately eliminates congressional micromanagement. Amtrak is told by Congress how to operate and where to operate. H.R. 259 eliminates this meddling and allows Amtrak to focus its resources on its most promising routes, not the ones that Congress tells them to focus on. Immediately reduces excessive severance packages. Amends the Rail Labor Protection Act to reduce the current 6 year severance package to 6 months. By freeing Amtrak from these excessive costs, they will be able to make the tough business decisions other managers are free to make. We face a critical decision this year. We can continue to increase our annual subsidies while ignoring Amtrak's fundamental problems, or we can enact necessary reforms to save Amtrak.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I listened yesterday with interest as the whining and moaning voices from the other side of the aisle criticized the Speaker of the House. What were they criticizing him for? He wrote a book. He was doing a book tour. Actually, he might get paid for that book. They acted like there was something unusual or unethical about what he was doing. I would just ask, Mr. Speaker, where were those same voices in 1990, when Senator Gore received $33,300 in book royalties? Where were they in 1991, when Senator Gore received $66,700 in book royalties? Where were they in 1992, when Senator Gore took a 35-city book tour and received $546,260 in book royalties? Where were they in 1993, when Vice President Gore received $310.84 in book royalties? There is a difference, however, Mr. Speaker. Senator Gore received a $100,000 advance. Speaker Gingrich received $1. Stop the hypocrisy; it does not play well.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, when the House resumes debate today on H.R. 1561, the American Overseas Interests Act, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle will remind us that President Clinton doesn't like this bill and has said he will veto it. Of course Bill Clinton doesn't like this bill. It kills three Federal agencies and cuts spending by $3 billion in the next 2 years. It is not his style to support such cuts. But it also focuses on vital American interests by supporting peace and stability in the Middle East. This bill is about getting nuclear weapons out of Russia and the other former Soviet States--and locking in the gains of the cold war by supporting nations that want to join NATO. It recognizes our enemies by cutting off aid to countries that supply weapons to terrorist states--that give aid to Cuba--or that consistently vote against us in the United Nations. So what if Bill Clinton is threatening to veto the American Overseas Interests Act? We should still support it. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting yes on final passage.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the speed with which liberal Democrats are able to rattle off class warfare rhetoric. It is as if liberal Democrats get up every morning and drink a specially concocted bromide which enables them to spew forth class warfare epitaphs with machine-gun like rapidity. The most recent example was yesterday when Republicans offered our plan to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. But what was the response from the liberals? Well, they just about tripped over themselves to get to the floor to denounce our plan as a devious plot to benefit the rich at the expense of children, the elderly, and the poor. Mr. Speaker, the liberals are not fooling anyone. Even President Clinton's own Cabinet members admit that Medicare is going broke. And nobody denies the existence of the national debt. But what have the liberal Democrats offered? Nothing but a few well- rehearsed class warfare epitaphs. I only have one question for my friends on the other side. You know the problems we face--where is your plan? Where is it?

Mr. HEFLEY

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