Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I came here in 1987. I was worried about the slide into bankruptcy. I have been in business. When you are in business, you have a problem; you get at it, fix it, and move on to the next one. But we did not do it, and I blame myself as much as I blame anyone else here. But my worry now is we are going to get tangled up in partisanship and personalities and be thumbing our nose at one another and not get the job done. You cannot look at the economic and budget outlook report of the Congressional Budget Office, you cannot look at the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform, and not realize we are really in bad shape, because now we should be building a surplus. And why? Because of the baby boomers. We have everything working for us. We have the demographics, we have the Depression babies, we have the peace dividend, we have got the economy. But we are not doing it. We are borrowing, at the very time we should be building a surplus. Some will say there is a better way, and I am sure there is a better way. But there has always been a better way. That has been our problem. I think we ought to get at this, and I do not think we should duck the issue. Why not now?

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take long. All the arguments have been made. I will try to be brief, but let me just say this. I may be the only person on our side of the aisle who is speaking against this amendment. I do it because I feel very deeply about this issue. Mr. Speaker, I understand all the worries that were incorporated here about signaling the use of American troops before there is more of a resolution of the problems being solved, and all the other horrible things; about extraction of our troops and who is in charge of the military. But, Mr. Speaker, I am going to oppose this resolution; not that I disagree with the words. Frankly, I may even vote against the use of troops. I could very well do this. But If we could pick a horrible time to pull our hand in this particular negotiation, this would be it. I have talked to Cy Vance and I have talked to Brent Scowcroft and I have talked to Larry Eagleburger and all those people who are very wise on issues like this. I think they come down and say two things. ``It is a mess. We understand your worries. There is no question about this. It is not clear. But if you are going to do something do not do it now.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a horrible time, and as a result I am going to oppose this particular motion.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on a matter near [[Page E 2151]] and dear to my heart--the state of democracy in Nicaragua. President Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, who is a dear friend to me and my wife Priscilla, visited our country in September and delivered two speeches--one at the Department of Commerce, and another at the Center for Democracy. I'd like to submit the text of those speeches into the record, and ask that my colleagues take a look at them. Mr. Speaker, I testified before the subcommittee to emphasize that Nicaragua is well along in the process of turning itself around. Are there problems in Nicaragua? Absolutely. It has only been 5 years under Democratic rule. The road is still long. There will never be an absolute destination. But under the leadership of President Violeta Chamorro, Nicaragua has undergone wrenching changes of which any one of us would be proud. Speech Before the Center for Democracy Mr. Kelly, President of the Board of Directors of the Center for Democracy, Professor Allen Weinstein, President and Executive Director of the Center for Democracy, Members of the Government of the United States of America, Honorable Senators and Representatives, friends: I would like to thank you for your invitation to share with you this evening in the celebration of the Tenth Anniversary of the Center for Democracy. I would like to express to you my sincere recognition for all the support you have given the democratic process in my country. This support has included observing the historic elections of February 25, 1990 and supporting the National Assembly on legislative matters. I am thrilled to be at this forum, where dialogue is practiced and promoted with the joint action of parties and countries that favor both democracy and the well-being of the persons of the world. The Center for Democracy is expanding the frontiers of freedom in diverse continents, helping societies in transition build a legal framework based on the Rule of Law and a market economy. I can tell you that Nicaragua is one of these examples. Building democracy in Nicaragua has been a very difficult and misunderstood task. Upon beginning my presidential mandate on April 25, 1990, I found a country that was destroyed by war, a result of the ideological imposition that the Sandinista Government attempted in my country. Our democratic transition took place in the midst of weapons. I found any army of more than 90,000 members facing another 22,000 combatants. The civilian population had more than 200,000 weapons of war in its possession at that time. Exile, imprisonment and confiscations of goods were the means with which to confront the opposition to democracy. Freedom of the press and political rights were suppressed. I inherited a collapsed economy. State centralization practically did away with the initiative of the citizenry and the benefits of a free market. Under the economic model of the Sandinista decade, the State took over commerce, banking, insurance and production. The result was an economic regression that took us back to the 1940s, and left us an enormous foreign debt, one of the highest in the world in relative terms. Rationing cards, weekly devaluations, confiscations and long lines at supply centers were coupled with the lack of liberties and because the main symbols of that time. As part of this sad outlook, we Nicaraguans inherited a culture of violence. Dialogue had been the absent protagonist in our history. My first mission as President was to reestablish public liberties, abolish compulsory military service and foster a true reconciliation and unity among the Nicaraguan family in order to heal the wounds of war. Today, political debate takes the place of gunshots, our Branches of Government are truly independent and we have managed to subordinate military authority to civilian authority. The gigantic army I inherited has been transformed to a force of 14,000 people, the smallest in Central America. We have approved a new Military Code that establishes the national and apolitical nature of the army. For the first time in the history of our nation, a head of the army abandoned the post peacefully. We took the school textbooks that taught addition by means of weapons and tanks and replaced them with books espousing civilian and patriotic principles. Many military installations were transformed into schools and universities. The reconciliation, that I do not tire of asking from the Nicaraguan people, has allowed us to incorporate in the National Police, militants of the former Nicaraguan Resistance. The armed and security forces that formerly carried the name of the Sandinista party, today have become the National Army and National Police. Thousands of weapons that previously were in the hands of civilians have been recovered, destroyed and buried. Economic reforms have put an end to a Centralist State. Private initiative has assumed the role and the challenges that make it the main agent of development. Since 1991, 10 new private banks, one Stock Exchange and one Commodities Exchange have been established in our country in a show of confidence and the entrepreneurial spirit of the Nicaraguan people. Three hundred fifty private enterprises, which constituted close to 30 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, have been privatized. We have been successful in eliminating the hyperinflation we inherited and in maintaining one-digit levels in price increases. We have also reduced our foreign debt or restructured it to increasingly more flexible terms. Given the conditions of poverty I inherited, we are concentrating our efforts on children and women, who carry most of the family burden in our country. I have given special priority to primary education and preventive health, while integrating community participation and that of civilian society in these tasks. I would like to clearly underscore that Nicaragua today has an economy with great potential. For the first time in 11 years, our Gross Domestic Product grew by 3.3 percent in 1994 and this year we will have a greater increase. Nicaragua now has appropriate and firm legislation for the protection of foreign investments. We have subscribed to bilateral treaties for the promotion of investment with different countries, including the United States of America. These important achievements have only been possible thanks to the solidarity we have found in friendly countries that have not deserted us. I would like to especially acknowledge the broad bipartisan support that the United States has shown us. By such support, you understood that democracy in Nicaragua is irreversible. Those who compare the Nicaragua of the past with the Nicaragua of today, transformed as it is by democracy, may appreciate how costly it has been to arrive to where we are today. We need to continue receiving support for our democratic process in order to meet the great challenges that face our society today. We will continue strengthening our economic development, confronting absolute poverty and perfecting our democratic institutions. Upon completing my term, on January 10, 1997, I would like to leave the property issue resolved, which is one of the most difficult and complex problems that I inherited from the previous regime. The property issue affected more than 170,000 families and close to 25 percent of the arable land in Nicaragua. Today I can tell you that we have taken significant steps to finding solutions to this situation. My dear friends, we Nicaraguans are entering a new era in our history. We are heading toward an electoral process in 1996 that will enable us to take one of the most important steps in the consolidation of democracy. The challenge we face is to preserve peace, strengthen justice and the rule of law and further establish economic and social development, eliminating extreme poverty and fighting unemployment. Only absolutely free and honest elections can lead us to a true consolidation of democracy. I call on the international community to support us in the diverse aspects of the elections we will be holding towards the end of 1996. We are confident that we will continue to count on the support of the United States and the leaders of the Center for Democracy. I would like to conclude by saying that the bipartisan consensus that the Center for Democracy has promoted in relation to Nicaragua has not been in vain. This celebration of the Tenth Anniversary of the Center for Democracy is also a source of great pride and satisfaction for my country. I would like to offer you a simple yet significant gift of a destroyed weapon, which symbolizes the peace and reconciliation of Nicaragua. May God bless the friendship between our two peoples. Thank you very much.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] was up here a little earlier talking about suggestions that his father had made to him in his early years, one was to give and not take, and the other was to leave the world better than when he found it. He might have added another thing. Do not spend it unless we have it. This bill gives us an opportunity for the first time I have seen since I have been down here to spend within our means. President Reagan used to talk about morning in America. I really feel we can extend this to this is morning in America for our children. No party has a lock on caring. No party is trying to hurt our children or our mothers or our nursing homes or our seniors. It is all our jobs to protect them. Mr. Chairman, most Republicans and Democrats, I would like to feel, with the possible exception of some of the fire brands, are going about the task of doing this thing quietly and carefully. Let me give Members an example. There is a thing that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] has been working on with me called the work opportunity tax credit. People come off welfare, they need jobs, this is a way to create incentives for those people who are willing to offer them jobs. It is a wonderful program. It hires those people who have not had jobs and also it helps retain them. Is it going to solve all the problems in welfare? Certainly not. But it will help. This is not a perfect bill, Mr. Chairman. I have never seen any bill which is perfect down here, but it is a good bill and I support it. Mr. Chairman, on another issue, I hope this legislation will foster the development of provider networks, including specialty networks. They would assure seniors that they will have choices relating to behavioral, rehabilitation and any other specialty care services. The private sector has engaged in direct contracting with specialty networks in order to lower costs and improve access to quality treatment as well as expand choice for consumers. The Medicare program should also explore the utilization of these specialty networks for the same reasons. I believe the Health Care Financing Administration has adequate demonstration authority under current law to test the feasibility and desirability of permitting specialty provider sponsored networks to serve the new Medicare market. A demonstration project would serve to determine whether seniors have access to the most cost effective quality treatments for specialized services.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of emotion in this issue, and I can understand it. It is a very important issue. I always think of what Wilbur Mills said, that there are probably more votes changed in the House Chapel than there are on the House floor. I am not going to try to convince anybody, but I am just going to tell you where I am coming from. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Brown] has thrown around a lot of numbers is terms of how many cuts will be in people's hospitals. I would question those numbers. I have seen those numbers myself as far as my own district is concerned and I question the authenticity of them. Second, I think the issue is are we going to face up to this thing or not? Everybody agrees we should. The President agrees, the Democrats agree, the Republicans agree. How are we going to do it? It is a matter in terms of timing and numbers. Also, there always is a better way. I can devise a better way. I am not sure this plan is exactly the way I want, but it is a good plan. The next point is that there are no eternal fixes for the Medicare problem. We never can go asleep. We are always going to have to be on top of this thing. The question is are we going to have a short-term or longer term approach to this thing. Let me talk a little bit about cuts. If I spend $1 today and I spend 90 cents 7 years from now, that is a cut. If I spend $1 today and I spend $1.45 7 years from now, that is not a cut. Those are the relationships we are talking about. Let me talk a little bit about taxes. I did not vote for a tax cut. I did not think it was appropriate, I did not think it was the right timing. However, the Republican Party has felt that is important, the President has felt that is important, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the minority leader, has felt that is important. It is a fact we deal with everyday. Why can we not get together; why can we not, if our philosophy is the same, do something which is important as far as this overall Medicare issue is concerned?

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, every so often, a member of our society goes far beyond the normal call of duty, and deserves special recognition. One of my constituents, John Van Wicklin, is such a person. In November of 1994, John shared with me his vision of holding a weeklong summer camping program for abused and neglected children in rural Allegany County--one of the poorest counties in New York State, if not the Nation. He set up a chapter of the Royal Family Kids' Camp [RFKC], a nonprofit organization founded by Wayne Tesch of Costa Mesa, CA. The main objectives of RFKC are to provide abused and neglected children (ages 6-12) with a safe haven from the horrors of abuse, a fun-filled week, a host of positive memories and role models, and a context of basic Christian values. His goal was to raise $11,000 to cover the costs of running the camp. Whatever he couldn't raise, he was prepared to pay out of his own pocket. John worked directly with Commissioner Joan Sinclair, Ben Fanton and others in the Allegany County Department of Social Services to identify the 28 hardest cases in the county's system. As they identified these children, the hard work of raising the necessary dollars and recruiting volunteers of all different backgrounds and interests began. Scores of people answered the call by volunteering their time, energy and resources to make John's vision a reality. People from all walks of life pitched in--many community members donated materials; a local medical doctor, Doug Mayhle, took time out of his busy schedule to be a camp counselor; a player from the Buffalo Bills signed autographs and sent a message to each kid; and the faculty, staff, administration and students of Houghton College were a huge help. Also, thanks to many gracious donors, his financial goal was comfortably surpassed. In the end, everyone's hard work paid off, and the camp was a tremendous success. John sent me a letter in July of 1995, to relay a story from the camp. There are many stories. Each one starts with a young child who was in some way denied part of his or her childhood. Each story ends with a child who was given the chance to be a kid again, in an environment without the terror of being physically, sexually, or mentally abused. Children with dreadful worries--much greater than any child should ever have--were seen laughing and smiling with other children of similar backgrounds, and a group of dedicated adults whom they learned to trust. John plans to hold another camp in 1996, and increase his budget to accommodate more children. From what I understand, people are already lining up at John's doorstep to get involved. Mr. Speaker, my hat's off to John Van Wicklin. I hop you and all of my colleagues here in Congress will join me in saluting him and the many friends and volunteers of the Royal Family Kids' Camps around the Nation. Their spirit and dedication are much appreciated.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], which served the Congress with such great distinction for more than 20 years, will close its doors on September 29, 1995. On behalf of all the Members of this body, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the more than 200 dedicated and talented individuals at OTA who have served us so selflessly. And I want to share with you a brief summary of their accomplishments. As you know, OTA's job was to provide the Congress with an objective, thorough analysis of many of the critical technical issues of the day. And that it did, examining cutting edge science in medicine, telecommunications, agriculture, materials, transportation, defense, indeed in every discipline and sector important [[Page E 1869]] to the United States. The agency appraised the costs and benefits of diverse technological systems: The computerization plans of Federal agencies; satellite and space systems; methods for managing natural resources; systems for disposing of wastes. The list is endless. But to mention just a few more: OTA evaluated the environmental impacts of technology and estimated the economic and social impacts of rapid technological change. The agency offered sound principles for coping with, reaping the benefits of, that technological change--in industry, in the Federal Government, in the work-place, and in our schools. The agency took on controversial subjects, examining them objectively and comprehensively for our benefit. It help us to better understand complex technical issues by tailoring reports for legislative users. It provided us with early warnings on technology's impacts and it enabled us to better oversee the science and technology programs within the Federal establishment. While pulling issues down to practical grounds, OTA has usually erred on the optimistic side. For example, OTA regularly spelled out its belief in the power of technology to improve our lives and help solve the Nation's problems. It worked through a basic understanding of how technology works, how institutions need to change to accommodate new technology, how resistant to change such institutions can be when the conditions are wrong, and how swiftly they can adapt when the conditions are right. OTA helped us discover the conditions for change. A Scope Wide and Deep Once OTA was well underway, it had 30-60 projects in progress, published up to 55 reports, and started approximately 20 new projects each year. Its work ran the gamut of subject matter, with approaches tailored for each topic and congressional request. For example: In 1975, one OTA program began a comprehensive policy analysis of the Nation's energy future, which it provided incrementally throughout the energy crisis. Between 1975 and 1980, another OTA group set the stage for today's booming industry in the technology assessment of health care by demonstrating the inadequacy of information on which decisions about technology were made; laying out the strengths and weaknesses of methods to evaluate technology; and crystallizing the process by which economic tradeoffs could be incorporated in decisions. In 1979, OTA expanded its work in agriculture to include all renewable resources and laid the foundation for others' efforts on sustainable development and, later, ecosystem management. One OTA group examined each key mode of transportation in turn, focusing especially on urban transportation; better and less expensive ways to move goods; and technologies which used less petroleum. Another OTA program tracked materials through their total life-cycle--from exploration and extraction through production to use, reuse, and eventual disposal. A third investigated policies related to the private use of Federal public lands and other resources, addressing questions of public equity, the responsibility of industry, and the long-term protection of the environment. In sum, OTA brought new, old important science into the center of many congressional discussions. At times, OTA took part in high-profile debates on major pieces of legislation such as the 1980 Energy Security Act; Superfund; the Clean Air Act; and the Foreign Assistance Act. Also, the agency contributed to specific technical issues that puzzled nontechnical congressional staff--from risk reform to long-term African development; from acid rain to dismantling nuclear weapons; from the Strategic Defense Initiative to policy body armor. One study on global climate change helped Congress evaluate more than 131 pieces of legislation. At its busiest, OTA's testimony for various committees averaged more than once a week. The executive branch and State governments were not outside the OTA reach. OTA published the landmark work on computers in schools. This eventually led to support for teachers as the way to make the best investment in technology--a key policy change in education. OTA's repeated work on the farm bill prompted important changes in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And OTA's comprehensive series of analyses on nuclear waste management set out issues of technology and policy for both industry and the military. careful analysis, shared with the world In the course of every study, OTA accumulated vast amounts of raw information. By a project's completion, OTA had created a report with ``value-added.'' OTA staff excelled at identifying the principal strands of analysis, weighing the evidence of each, and synthesizing essential pieces. The creed of OTA was to come as close as possible to objective analysis. It was a point of pride when reports were cited both by an issue's defenders and its detractors, as happened most recently in debates regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement and Oregon's Medicaid program. The public and private sectors have recently discovered the benefits of organizing work around functional teams. OTA started with this model. It was used in every project. Team members came from different disciplines and backgrounds, with different experiences and perspectives, yet they always seemed to share a commitment to their product and not incidently to the American people. When work took OTA into new subject areas, staff broke ground for new intellectual pursuits. This was true in risk policy. And it was true when OTA developed the analytical methods to identify priorities for agricultural conservation. During OTA's lifetime, ``international interdependence'' changed from slogan to reality. OTA was ahead of the curve, conducting international case studies and exploring previously ignored aspects of international security. In fact, between 1985 and 1990, OTA's studies of the impacts of technology on the economy, environment, and security of the U.S.S.R. and Eastern Europe made clear that the demise of centrally planned economies was inevitable. As a result of all this, OTA gradually became recognized worldwide as the top institution of its kind. Representatives from about one-third of the world's nations visited OTA one or more times to learn how OTA worked; how it became so valuable to Congress and the American people; and how these foreign nations might develop their own ``OTA's.'' Austria, Denmark, the European Community, France, Germany, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Sweden have copied or adapted the OTA style. Similar organizations are being discussed or formed in Hungary, Japan, Mexico, the People's Republic of China, Russia, Switzerland, and Taiwan. The above is simply the most visible aspect of OTA's international impact. Visitors from other countries stopped by OTA almost every week to discuss specific technologies or technology-related issues. Several OTA staff spoke frequently about OTA in other countries. A number accepted temporary details to academic or government positions overseas. And still others traveled abroad to teach short courses on technology assessment. the written word In its 24 years, OTA published nearly 750 full assessments, background papers, technical memoranda, case studies, and workshop proceedings. OTA reports were recorded as being ``remarkably useful,'' ``thorough,'' ``comprehensive,'' ``rigorous.'' At their best, OTA reports were among the most cited references on their subjects. ``Landmarks,'' they were called, ``definitive,'' and the ``best available primers.'' From 1992 to 1994, twelve assessments won the National Association for Government Communicator's prestigious Blue Pencil Award, successfully competing against as many as 850 other publications in a single year. In the same 3 years, 12 additional reports were named among the 60 Notable Government Documents slected annually by the American Library Association's Government Documents Round Table--representing the best Federal, State, and local government documents from around the world. In typical comments, the journal Foreign Affairs claimed that, ``The Office of Technology Assessment does some of the best writing on security-related technical issues in the United States.'' A former Deputy U.S. Trade Representative called OTA's 1992 report on trade and the environment, ``the Bible.'' A Senator described OTA's work on the civilian impacts of defense downsizing as `` * * * a superb study and the standard by which all similar efforts will be judged.'' And the head of one state's plant protection agency described OTA's study of non-indigenous species as `` * * * a benchmark which will be the most heavily referenced document for years to come.'' OTA's reports were often bestsellers at the Government Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service: GPO sold 48,000 OTA reports in 1980 alone. Commercial publishers reprinted at least 65 and translated two reports all or in part. The Superintendent of Documents selected 27 OTA reports to display in the People's Republic of China in 1981. And OTA itself reissued reports that had unusual staying power. For example, OTA's 1975 report on tanker safety and the prevention of oil spills was reissued in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez accident. Likewise, OTA combined the summaries of two particularly popular reports--on tropical forests and biological diversity--and reprinted them in 1992. the people behind the projects OTA staff represented every major field of science and technology, ranging from board-certified internists to Ph.D. physicists. OTA staff were sought out to serve their respective professional associations. A number were elected to offices or boards--the International [[Page E 1870]] Society for Technology Assessment, the International Association for Impact Assessment, the Association for Women in Development, the Ecological Society of America, etc. Two staff formed the Risk Assessment and Policy Association and others went on to found their own companies. Above all else, OTA staff were teachers. As a result of their efforts, hundreds of thousands of people are better informed not only about science and technology but also about the structure and function of Congress. OTA served 30-60 congressional committee and subcommittees each year. Thirty-one Senators and Representatives had the privilege to serve on OTA's Technology Assessment Board and we became among the Congress' most knowledgeable members on issues of science and technology. Each year, at least several hundred advisory panelists and workshop participants also took part in OTA's work. Some years, OTA tapped as many as 1,500 leaders from academia, non-governmental groups, State and local governments, and industry. OTA's advisors valued the experience and said it made them more fit for decisionmaking in their own fields. Some were experts; some were stakeholders. Still other were members of the larger public. As early as 1975, OTA incorporated public participation and stakeholder involvement into a major study of offshore energy development: Nearly 15,000 people were involved. Later approximately 800 African farmers and herders were included in an evaluation of the United States-funded African Development Foundation. In addition, OTA provided 71 scientists and engineers with a challenging and memorable year on Capitol Hill as Morris K. Udall Congressional Fellows or congressional fellows in health policy. Many of OTA's younger employees gained a taste for research--and for public service--at OTA and went on to graduate school to become the next generation of business leaders, scientists, engineers, and policy analysts. OTA's record depended upon remarkable support staff as much as it did on the agency's analytical staff. Their work was the standard against which other Government agencies were measured--and often found lacking. People came from around the world to attend OTA meetings--and often commented that OTA's workshops were the most well supported, best organized, and most productive they had ever attended. Contractors were gratified by the ease with which their travel arrangements and invoices were handled. OTA processed hundreds of security clearances efficiently and without incident--without which OTA could not have done its work in national defense. Reports sped through OTA's publishing process and grew steadily more attractive through the years. The staff of OTA's Information Center could find even the most obscure research material-- and provided a friendly agencywide gathering place. The Information Center, the technical support office, and the agency's electronic dissemination program kept OTA at the cutting edge of technology for research and for public access to the agency's work. OTA was a small agency. It was a generous place. For some, colleagues became like second families and these relationships extended to committee and personal staffs. Friendship, joy, and grief seemed to be shared without regard to job description. Many at OTA value this legacy as much as any other. But of course, OTA was not perfect. At times, its greatest strengths--flexibility, tolerance, the preponderance of technical skills--became its biggest weaknesses. One outsider looked at OTA's work and commented, ``You must have just about the most interesting job there is.'' I know that many at OTA, for much of their time, felt exactly that way. Although OTA closes on September 29, 1995, the Congress will continue to benefit from its work. Stark evidence of the dedication of OTA staff is the fact that they continued working to the end. More than 30 reports will be delivered to requesting committees even after the doors are closed. OTA soon will be a memory, and we will discover what is lost. But we can salvage something. Those of us who have used OTA reports know that most of them have long shelf lives. The really important issues--the issues OTA worked on--do not get solved and go away in one Congress. In January 1996, all of OTA's reports will be issued on CD-ROM--OTA's final legacy. We should be proud of it.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words and rise in opposition to the amendment. I will not speak for 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman, but I appreciate your letting me speak at all, since I have already spoken on this issue. I would like to talk about the Moran amendment for just a minute. I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran]. He is one of the outstanding Members of this body. The key issue here is fair representation without challenging management rights, and we do that through a secret ballot, and we do it through a secret ballot because we want to get the right people. I understand that. I understand what the gentleman is driving at. Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer], and I voted for his amendment, but I think this is wrong, and I tell Members why. I cannot really talk about offices too much but I can talk about factories. There are certain dynamics and culture on the factory floor which cannot be regulated this way. Therefore, I think, from a practical standpoint, it will not work. Frankly, in the long run, I do not think it will be fair.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I do not have any time to reply. Maybe I can do this individually afterward. I do not agree with that statement.

Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Vermont.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder sometimes about the arguments in this House floor. We tend to put such a fine point on our issues. We tend to marshal our forces and it is team A against team B. I hope this is not going to be the case here. Mr. Chairman, I will say in all candor, and I think I am right, I have probably, with the exception of one or two people, helped organize more unions and helped put more unions into plants than anybody in this House. I believe in unionism. I put them in all the plants that I have had anything to do with and have urged others to do this. But I find now that all the sudden it is union versus nonunion. It is management versus people, and I think that is a shame. [[Page H 9527]] The argument is that employers can do now what the bill already says. That is true, if it is interpreted properly. But it has not been interpreted properly. Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons that I have felt that this is so important, because of the concept of working together, we have lost that in this country. I remember when I first started to work, somebody said, ``Do not you forget, just because you are out of management school, that you are going to make the big decisions. You are not. The people on the floor who make the product are going to make the big decisions.'' And so, therefore, I have always realized the potential of bringing people together and working in teams. If my colleagues would take a look, and I am not going to wax eloquent about this country, but if the value of the currency, if the value of a piece of America is to be solidified and straightened out, it is going to be because of increased productivity and that is going to be because of what we are talking about here. The role of management is to make decisions, but they cannot make decisions on their own. They must go to a variety of different people, the critical people they must go to. They must go to the people who do the work. That is the critical issue here. In a union shop, the protection against abuse is the union. In a nonunion shop, the protection here is if a management abuses this privilege, it will become unionized. So, therefore, I think there is sort of a self-correcting process that goes on. In a company there are stockholders, there is management, there are employees, and there are the unions. Frankly, this is not a stockholder, not a management, not a union. This is an employee's bill. I see it work. I think there is protection here, and I would hope that H.R. 743 would be approved.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark] in introducing the Exempt Organization Reform Act of 1995. This is an important piece of bipartisan legisaltion that would help solve a problem that we have attempted to address a number of times in the past. Basically, the issue is one of private inurement involving tax-exempt organizations, where the organization's insiders are using the charity's asserts for their own personal benefit. The problem is how to handle abuses in that area, short of revoking the tax-exempt status of the organization. At the present time, the only tool normally available to the Internal Revenue Service, in private inurement situations is revocation. Revocation is often too severe and does not punish the illegal acts of the insider. Intermediate sanctions are needed to prevent organization insiders from using a charity's assets for their own personal benefit. In the 103d Congress, the Oversight Subcommittee and the full Ways and Means Committee made a number of attempts to address the issue. Most recently, a bipartisan proposal was suggested by Ways and Means members as part of the GATT implementation legislation. Unfortunately, it was not included in the final conference report by the House and Senate. Both in the past and currently, the Treasury and IRS have continued to urge that legislation be enacted to fix this problem. The bill would include provisions to: First, extend the current law prohibition on private inurement applicable to charities to social welfare organizations (section 501(c)(4) organizations), second, provide for intermediate sanctions in the form of penalty excise taxes where the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction; as well as imposing dollar sanctions on certain disqualified individuals-- for example, insiders--who improperly benefit from such a transaction, and third, require reporting of excise tax penalties imposed so that contributors can make an independent judgment on supporting the organization, and provide for public availability of annual reports. These changes are designed to solve the current problems resulting from the lack of a range of enforcement tools. This legislation will also improve the ability of contributors to scrutinize the activities of organizations they support. We welcome the support of our colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Ladies and gentlemen, in general, I think that this is a magnificent step forward, but I would like to concentrate on the Achilles heel of this bill, and that is the manager's amendment. The whole point, to me, of this telecommunications bill is that it will encourage investment. If it does not encourage investment, I do not think it opens up the opportunities for this country, and, frankly, has this tremendous job creating potential which is there. Originally, Mr. Chairman, the wording was that the RBOCs were forced to have actual competition in their local areas before they reached out for the long-distance. Now that no longer is there, and that worries me. I think that is a mistake. I think it is counterproductive. To prove my point, here is the report from Merrill Lynch, which talks about the wonderful opportunities for investing in some of the RBOCs, because the cash will be up, the earnings per share will be up, the dividend potential is up, and, therefore, it is a good opportunity. And why? Because investors should know that, quite positively, capital expenditures could decrease by as much as around 25 percent. That is not the point of this bill.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I do not know why we are whipping this horse again. The House voted a few days ago to phase out the NEA in 2 years, period, paragraph, end of story. I do not agree with it. I do not think it was a good idea. But that was the vote. Now we are going at this thing again. It is absolutely crazy. Is an agreement an agreement? I do not know around here anymore. I would like to feel that vote last week was an agreement. We ought to hold to it. I do not think the Stearns amendment is worthwhile approving.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this, you take the coldest, hardest financial analyst or investment analyst and you say, you give me $1 and I will create $100 for you, it is not a bad return on your money.

Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that we really have to spend all this time on this particular amendment. I just do not know why we are even discussing this. This has such tremendous leverage. It had such impact. We have so many things to do in this Congress. To eat up time this way discussing something like this, I think it is too bad. But the reason I do stand up here, because I think it is important and it has got leverage. Let me make sort of an autobiographical comment. I come from a small town. That town was dying. That town was resuscitated principally because of a grant from the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That grant alone contributed at a minimum of $100 in private funds to that $1 that was given here. That is far in excess of many of the small-time programs. But that is what it was. Main Street USA is struggling. The soul of a community is in downtown, small town America. This helps. There is no other fund like it. I strongly oppose this particular amendment.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I think we have beaten up on the gentleman from Wisconsin, [Mr. Klug] a little too much. This fellow is doing a great job in trying to cut the expenses. I do not happen to think this is a great idea for a variety of reasons.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, absolutely. His amendment is not a good idea. I obviously support the ARC. But the thing that I want to mention is that there are two categories of expenses. One is an expense expense; the other is an investment expense. This is really an investment expense.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to speak on the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like, if the gentlewoman from Colorado would just hold on a minute, I would like to get specifically to this issue that she talks about. Then I would like to talk on the general amendment. As I understand it, there are three areas the money for this Houghton-Hall amendment would come from. One of them is the economic development assistance program. There are a variety of areas in there. There is economic development. There is environmental development. There is the population issue. And then there is the basic education. In talking to the people in that specific area, they said they were going to spend on basic education, this is out of a fund of $669 million, $14 million, so all we are doing is taking that $14 million, making sure that it is spent for basic education, not taking it out of anything else, so the remaining amount of money is going to be spent exactly as it was before. [[Page H 6351]]

Mr. HOUGHTON. It probably does not, but this is according to the people who would be allocating and spending the money. I think I am sort of running out of the 5 minutes, but I thank the gentlewoman very much. I would like to say in conclusion that I support what the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] is doing. I respect him. I think it makes a lot of sense. The agony is when you shift funds at all. Absent that, this would be an absolute no-brainer. But I think it is the right thing to do, and I can give you chapter and verse out of my own experience, and I hope this will be supported.

Mr. HOUGHTON. It was $840 million. Now it is $669 million.

Mr. HOUGHTON. It has already been cut. None of us are particularly happy about that, but with the amount of money remaining, the basic education, according to the people who are running the program, would be $14 million. All we are doing is taking that out. That would not have affected the population or environment or economic development funds anyway.