Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. It is amendment No. 5.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. I just wanted to say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], I am not sure what this amendment does, if it really does anything. You say if it is not certified by the Secretary of Defense that we are ready. And what does he do every time he comes before our committee? He certifies that we are ready. We know that we are not ready. The gentleman cited the litany of deficits that we have and yet every time the Secretary of Defense comes down there, he says we are ready. The reason he says that is because the Commander in Chief tells him to say we are ready because the Commander in Chief wants a certain level.

Mr. HEFLEY. When Les Aspin was before us, when he was Secretary of Defense and we asked him about the Bottom-Up Review if it came out of the air or if it was a threat assessment, he looked at the ceiling a minute, and he said, ``Well, it really came out of the air.'' Then when we got the Bottom-Up Review finished, we discovered that it complied with his initial estimates of that. So they are going to certify that we are ready, so I do not know what good this amendment does.

Mr. HEFLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, many of us feel that defense cuts proposed by the Clinton administration during these last couple of years are leading us to a hollow force again. That is the reason for this bill. We want to make a statement that we do not want a hollow force, that defense is an important part of our national security. There is a perception that defense spending has not been reduced. But nothing could be further from the truth. In 1992, candidate Clinton called for $60 billion in additional defense cuts beyond the cuts President Bush proposed. This year's represents the 11th straight year that we have decreased defense spending. What we are going to do with this bill, I think, is to make a statement that we are going to have a strong national defense in this country. Now, it is not the end-all of bills. I would like for it to be much stronger. I would like for it to speak more to the force strength and that kind of thing. But the National Security Restoration Act is a down payment on the Republican promise to restore national security. It does not do all that is needed, but it does begin to add to the blueprint. I would urge support of this legislation.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard the saying, ``If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.'' Unfortunately, the sad fact is that if you commit a violent felony there is only a 3- to 4-percent chance you will do any jail time. Looking at that another way, 96 to 97 percent of the time a violent criminal never sees the inside of a jail. No wonder Americans have said that they have had enough and want their streets back. When people are afraid to step outside their doors at night something is wrong. When people are afraid to sit on their porch, something is wrong. When fear of crime prevents many Americans in our inner-city areas from taking a night job or going to night school, it hurts all of us. Even the wealthy who live in guarded, gated communities feel an immediate need to do something about violent crime. But for middle class and poorer Americans, who bear the brunt of violent crime, this is a life-and-death issue that affects them every day. If nothing else, we owe the working men and women of our country, the ones who pay the bills, safe streets.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget is a microcosm of his entire administration: too little, too late. Sure, he has some spending cuts. But those cuts are not enough to satisfy the American people, or get the job done. He may have sprinkled in a few tax cuts, but they are far too late for the middle class. Mr. Speaker, the President's budget may not be dead on arrival, but it is on a respirator. Republicans will take up many of the President's cuts, while adding billions more. And we will look carefully at his other proposals. But clearly, the President has not gotten the message of the last election. We need a fundamental change in the Federal Government, not just tinkering around the edges. With his budget, the President has offered only a modified status quo. For many of us that simply is not good enough.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are doing something today that the Democrat-controlled Congress over the past 40 years could never bring itself to do. Today we are going to vote on a line-item veto to give the President, regardless of party affiliation, the ability to control spending and Government growth. The President will finally be able to exert the same power that 43 Governors already enjoy--the line-item veto. I am proud to stand here today in support of this important budget- control issue. It finally took a Republican majority to bring this item to the floor for a vote. Let us pass the line-item Government spending. Happy birthday, President Reagan. You are finally getting the present you dreamed about.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, every year someone invents a new term for the line-item veto. We have had enhanced rescission authority, we have had impoundment control, we have had expedited rescission, and other names too numerous to list. But while the names have changed, there is one factor that has remained the same. That is that the big spenders in Congress have always been opposed. That is because the big spenders know that the line-item veto by any name means less ability to turn over the legislative rock and expose all the pork provisions and midnight deals to the light of day. Once exposed, they simply will not survive. By enacting the line-item veto, we can trim billions of dollars off the deficit and restore accountability to the legislative process. Combined with the balanced budget amendment, it will force Congress to make those tough decisions we have avoided for years. It is one more tool in the fight against the deficit.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, those of us from the ski country, U.S.A. can rest a little easier right now because the U.S. Government is on the job. The U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission has just released a report which concludes that most snow boarding accidents result from falling. Wow. That is deep, Mr. Speaker. You put someone on a board, strap his feet to a board, put him on a slippery slope and let him go down the hill at 55 to 60 miles an hour and they might get hurt--but only if they fall. This Christmas, Anna in my office tore up both knees skiing, and we have no idea how it happened or what caused it. Absolutely no idea. Well, I am going to go back to her and I am going to tell her, ``Anna, we figured it out, the Government helped. You hurt your knees because you fell.'' Mr. Speaker, Americans are tired of Federal nursemaids wasting their money and insulting their intelligence. If I may quote my friend, Mr. Traficant, ``Unbelievable.''

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the main goal of the Contract With America is to make Government smaller, less costly and less intrusive. And there is probably no better way to do this than to address the question of OSHA. When OSHA first issued its safety regulations in the 1970's one provision required workers on bridges to wear orange life vests. As Dr. Kip Viscusi commented in 1983, ``The ineptness of OSHA's enforcement is epitomized by the fact that one company fined for violating this standard maintained that this requirement was unrelated to worker safety because the channel under the bridge had been diverted.'' There was no water. It was dry. Yet the company was fined because these workers did not have life vests on. But they needed a trampoline, not a life vest. Some idiot at OSHA decided they should fine the company anyway. Listen to the concerns of America's employers and workers, and it is obvious OSHA has not improved since Dr. Viscusi wrote those words. In this Congress I introduced a measure in order to do this. It is time for real OSHA reform now.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, every year, we hear the same arguments used against the balanced budget amendment: it is unnecessary, binding, and a blot on the Constitution. We are told we need to tighten our belts, make the tough choices, stand up to special interest groups. There is one word you'll never hear used against the amendment though: commitment. That is because opponents here in Congress do not share our commitment for cutting spending and reducing the deficit. As Robert Reich made it clear last week, neither does the administration. It is just not important to them. But it is important to the American people. It is important to our future. It is important to our children. Mr. Chairman, Congress does not lack for choices, it lacks commitment. The balanced budget amendment represents a commitment to the American people to make the tough choices and cut spending. It's the one budget agreement Congress can't repeal. As a long-time cosponsor of the balanced budget amendment, I am excited this legislation is before us, and I look forward to successfully passing it, here and on to the States for ratification. Last night, Bill Clinton told America that he was working to cut spending and reduce the deficit. He said his budget would cut $130 billion over the next 5 years. What he did not say was that spending will continue to rise and the deficit will continue to climb. In fact, the legacy of the Clinton tax increase of 1993 is higher spending, lower growth, and higher deficits. The 1993 reconciliation bill was just one in a long line of budget agreements designed to balance the budget through tax increases and spending constraints. Each time, the taxes were gathered, but the spending cuts never materialized. We are presented today with the unsavory picture of Congress and the executive branch piling fiscal failure upon failure. The situation is intolerable and it cries out for change. In my mind, that change can begin with passage of the balanced budget amendment. Not an end unto itself, the BBA will create a bulwark of fiscal discipline to the congressional budget process, beyond which neither Congress nor the President can tread. The BBA will reform the budget process by forcing Congress to make decisions between increasing taxes and cutting spending. If the tax cap provisions are included with the BBA, then Congress will have no choice but to prioritize its spending decisions. Even without the cap, however, the BBA will provide a line of defense for the American taxpayers that simply doesn't exist today. A balanced budget amendment is an idea whose time has come. While it is not the final answer to our fiscal problems, it will provide a measure of discipline that does not exist now, and it will instigate reforms that otherwise would not occur. For that reason, I applaud this effort and support the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, the game works like this: Congress comes up with an idea which is supposed to help people, but Congress is broke, and so Congress passes a bill anyway and sends it off to the States and falls all over itself claiming credit for a job well done. Meanwhile, State and local governments which had little or no input into the issue find this new law waiting on their doorstep delivered c.o.d. For them, the real work just began, deciphering the new rules and figuring out how to pay for them. I served in the Colorado State Legislature, and I know the frustration felt by local and State officials. [[Page H340]] Unfortunately for our Federal system, that frustration is growing. According to CBO, Federal regulations enacted between 1983 and 1990 cost State and local governments over $12 billion. In the last Congress we considered at least 60 bills which contained some form of mandate. In my State of Colorado, a recent survey identified 195 Federal programs containing mandates for State and local governments. These mandates consumed 12 percent of the total State budget. You know, I would encourage support for this rule. I cannot believe the arguments against an open rule. Support it.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to reintroduce the National Park Reform Act of 1995. Except for three small changes, this bill is identical to H.R. 4476, which passed the House by a vote of 421 to 0 last year. Over the past few months, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], has generated a great deal of comment in the West by suggesting that some of the Nation's 368 national parks are not worthy of being in the Park System and that, perhaps, we should look at unloading some of them. His suggestion has not been entirely well received and he is now being charged with trying to destroy the Park System. But, to play the devil's advocate, hasn't he got a point? habit of willy-nilly creating national parks. So many, in fact, that some of the newer ones have never been funded while others, some the crown jewels of the National Park System, must bear up under a multibillion backlog. As a result, we have a leaky roof and failing electrical system at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, poor road conditions along Skyline Drive in Virginia and park rangers living in what NPS Director Roger Kennedy terms ``Third-World conditions.'' Meanwhile, we have designated park sites without historical merit and have created others more for urban economic development that for preserving the natural and cultural fabric of the United States. Something must change and this bill is a step toward doing that. The National Park System Reform Act gives the NPS director 1 year to develop a plan to carry the Park Service into the next century--a plan which includes goals and objectives, an inventory of what is represented and criteria for selection and numerical priorities for both urban and non-urban parks. It requires the Park Service to review its holdings, ensures that everything there belongs there and examines alternative forms of management for those that do not. If the Park Service fails to carry out this mission within 1 year, a blue-ribbon panel, similar to the base-closure commission, will be appointed for a 2-year period to develop its own report. Three changes have been made from last year's bill, the first, a minor change adding open space preservation to the Park Service study, and two others, dealing with compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act. Now I suppose, if one wanted to dwell upon the negative, one could label this a park-closing bill. But that would be ignoring the positive aspects of this legislation. Successful implementation of this bill might result in the closure of a handful of parks and could realize significant monetary savings and would ensure a Park System whose holdings are meaningful--the result of a careful screening process, not political clout. In short, it would ensure that taxpayers got their money's worth from the Park System. Could this bill be more stringent? Yes, but is it necessary to be more stringent. There has been some skepticism that the Park Service can clean its own house. That is for the hearing process to decide. But here we have a truly bipartisan bill, the result of sometimes arduous wrangling between the House Natural Resources Committee and the Park Service and between the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] and myself. This is as true a bipartisan bill as you are likely to see in your lifetime. If we need a stronger posture, then this bill can be amended. That is what the hearing process is for. In any event, we must not wait to start. I feel strongly that the National Park System Reform Act is something we should enact quickly, before the end of the 100 days. With every passing day our Park System, the world's object of envy, grows more pallid for lack of sufficient funds. We are in danger of loving our parks to death. But if you truly love parks, you will work to make them the best they can be. The National Parks System Reform Act will do this. I strongly urge your support and your cosponsorship.