Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton in his recent State of the Union Address proposed one more Federal education program, this one to provide merit-based scholarships to the top 5 percent of high school graduates, but the fact is there are already 47 scholarship and fellowship programs operated by the Federal Government, and this highlights a point made by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] at a press conference last week. He pointed out that our committee has discovered over 760 Federal education programs spanning 39 different agencies and departments. Many of these programs were designed to meet exactly the same goals, they overlap, they duplicate, and each has its own application process and its own set of regulations. So why does President Clinton propose one more education program, program 761? Is it to improve the education of our children or merely to make us feel like we are educating our children by spending more money on more programs? What we must do is shift education decisions from Washington bureaucrats to parents and local school boards. We can and we must do better.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, my friends, in the midst of this budget crisis, the crisis of a generation, we are afforded an historic opportunity to transform a flawed welfare system that has been destroying families, eroding hope, and shredding the social fabric of this country for a generation. If you are for welfare reform today, you have an opportunity, a chance to prove it. No more excuses, no more demagoguery, no more rhetoric about how it is tough on children, no more rhetoric about pulling the safety net and all of the rhetoric about it being cruel and mean. I do not know, I have lost track of how many times the word cut has been used from the other side. So let us set the record straight. This chart demonstrates it conclusively: Spending in this bill increases, increases, increases, at 4 percent a year. Perhaps more importantly, spending per person in poverty, the individuals whom we are most concerned about, increases to the point that it will be the highest ever in the history of this republic. I challenge anybody on the other side of the aisle to dispute these facts. Spending goes up in this bill. The safety net is secure. This bill, in fact, has been so tempered in conference that only the most wild-eyed liberal could possibly oppose it. It gives States new, broad authority to design their welfare programs. You say, well, they might not do it right. And I say they could not possibly do it worse. It has real work requirements. It has a real time cutoff on welfare benefits. I am from Arkansas. I know President Clinton is an advocate for welfare reform and, I believe in the end he will do right and he will sign this bill. We will have real welfare reform.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield my time in just a moment, but I do want to respond to the previous speaker. We repeatedly hear this demagoguery that there are tax cuts for the wealthy, and repeatedly during his comments when I asked an opportunity to enter into a colloquy, we heard that these tax benefits are for people making over $100,000 per year. Well, I have had a lot to do with that $500 per child tax credit. It is something that I have worked on from day one when I entered this Congress, something I totally believe in, because the American family is overtaxed, squeezed to the limit. For the family making $30,000 a year, I say to the gentleman, to the family making $30,000 a year with two children, they will see their Federal tax liability cut in half. That is not a tax break for the wealthy.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. No, sir, I believe I have the time and since you would not yield to me, I would like to complete my statement. The family making $30,000 a year with two children will see their Federal tax liability cut in half. That is a tax break to the wealthy? That family with $30,000 income and two children? I suggest to you no. They are not wealthy at all. Mr. Speaker, they are the very people who most need tax relief. For that couple with two children making $25,000 a year, they will see their entire Federal tax liability eliminated. I suggest to you that there are millions and millions of families out there right now who are desiring this tax relief to become a reality. In fact, I was on a radio talk show this morning, one call after another saying, please, do not let the liberals back you down on family tax relief. They need it. We need it. America needs it. I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, recently the House passed H.R. 1804, which would name the Federal building in Fort Smith, AR, after Judge Issac Parker. While this legislation was overwhelmingly supported by 373 Members of the House, there were 40 Members who voted against H.R. 1804. It was subsequently reported that a number of Members who voted against the bill did so because they believed Judge Parker was a racist and one was even quoted as saying Parker ``Hung blacks because they were black.'' This past year our country faced the issue of race in ways it never had before. It is a sad and unfortunate fact that racism is alive and well in our society today. It is also a fact that racism knows no color or ethnic boundaries. People of all races are subject to their own prejudices. We must all fight to overcome our own personal prejudices and biases. That is why I cannot allow the statements about Judge Parker to go unanswered. I think it is important for people to know the real Judge Parker and the man that he was. He was a man who was ahead of his time. He was a man who freely gave of himself to his community. He was a man who had a deep respect for the law and a deep concern for those who came before his court. His reputation is so respected that 100 years after his death the citizens of Fort Smith, AR still want to honor him and his legacy. I would, therefore, bring to your attention letters which were sent to me from the Department of the Interior the day after the vote on H.R. 1804. One is from the superintendent of the Fort Smith National Historic Site and the other is a letter to the editor by the park historian. I hope this information is helpful to Members' understanding of the real Judge Parker. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Fort Smith, AR, December 6, 1995. Hon. Tim Hutchinson, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Hutchinson: We have been following your efforts over the last few months to rename the Fort Smith federal building in honor of Judge Isaac C. Parker with great interest and support. I read the news article in this morning's paper and was surprised and disappointed to read the statements calling Judge Parker a racist and the unsubstantiated remarks that he hanged blacks ``just because they were black''. There is no historical record supporting these statements. In fact the record proves just the opposite. Our historian has written the attached letter to the editor to hopefully clarify the issue. She also received a call today from the AP service in Little Rock about this and she provided the same information to them. We are forwarding similar letters to Senators Bumpers and Pryor in the hopes that they will also support your efforts. I am sorry that we did not offer you more substantial support earlier in the process. I was frankly surprised that there would be much protest. If we can provide you any further details or information please call on us. Thank you. Sincerely, William N. Black, Superintendent.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the previous speaker that it is not a game at all. The reason we are in the situation that we are in right now is because President Clinton determined that he would veto a very good and very fair veterans' appropriation bill. We did our job. We are faced with the dilemma we are tonight faced with because he chose to veto that bill. A previous speaker referred to this as a game of brinksmanship. It is not a game of brinksmanship. It is not a game of dare. It is not a game at all. There are very high stakes about what this is all concerned with. That is the future of this Nation, the future of our children, the future of our grandchildren, what kind of hope we are going to give them, what kind of life and what kind of standard of living our veterans are going to have. It has saddened me deeply that the President, who hails from my State, has chosen, has gone to the lengths of using every vulnerable part of our society as pawns in this budget debate: little children and their school lunches; students and their loans; the disabled, as if they are going to be thrown in the streets; senior citizens, as if they are going to lose their Medicare; and now, the veterans of this Nation, used as pawns. Tragically enough, the usual bipartisan support that has existed for veterans of this country has begun to unravel as the VA has become more and more politicized, attacking those in good faith who want to tend and care for our veterans, a concerned campaign to scare the most vulnerable. There was a veto. Had it not been for that veto, we would not face this situation that we face right now. We would have the veterans cared for. What was vetoed was this: An appropriation bill that in 1996 would have provided $399 million more for medical care than the 1995 level, a total of $16.5 billion; medical research would increase $5 million, to $257 million. During the next 7 years, more than $275 billion will be spent on veterans' programs under our appropriation bill. That is $40 billion more than was spent during the last 7 years. We increase veterans' programs by $40 billion at a time that the VA population, the veteran population, will be decreasing. That reflects a deep commitment for the welfare of our veterans. In spite of that appropriation bill being vetoed, tonight we will do the responsible thing and we will pass this CR to ensure that not one veteran's benefit check is delayed even 1 day, in spite of the President's veto. I urge support.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman who just spoke that there is nothing that we can do for our children that is more important than balancing the budget. If you want to talk about pitting something against the young people of this country, then please talk about the crushing load of debt that we are transferring to them because of our selfishness. Talk about the $187,000 in taxes that they are going to pay during their lifetime to pay for our profligacy and our unwillingness to discipline ourselves. I say to my colleagues there is nothing more proveteran than balancing the budget. They know what it is to serve this country, and they could use the 2-percent lower interest rates that a balanced budget will mean. One of the speakers on the other side referred to the veterans of this country, the 2.2 million veterans who are going to be affected by this resolution this evening, as a narrow band of our society. Well, 2.2 million veterans are not a narrow band, and they are the most deserving constituency in this country. What we are doing is right, and what we are doing is responsible. Mr. Speaker, 2.2 million veterans receiving compensation for their service-connected disabilities; 308,000 widows, children, and survivors of veterans who have died of service-connected disabilities; 450,000 veterans receiving pensions for their wartime service; and thousands of veterans receiving the Montgomery GI bill payments each month, that is no narrow band of our country. It is a shame, it is a crying shame that what we are doing this evening is even necessary because this Congress did its business, it did its duty, it passed a VA appropriations bill, one that was good and fair to veterans, increasing veterans' spending over the next 7 years by $40 billion more than the last 7 years at the time that the veteran population is going down. Let us support our veterans.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I have never been as disappointed in the President, my President, as I was this past Friday when it became clear he had reneged on his pledge to a 7-year balanced budget. Mr. Speaker, a deal is a deal, a commitment is a commitment, and a law is a law. The last 30 days have been spent reinterpreting the language of the agreement that the President made to Congress and to the American people. This resolution's sole intent is to confirm once again Congress' commitment to balancing the budget by the year 2002 using real numbers, numbers that both the Congress and the administration have agreed to use. I join my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], in asking where is the President's plan? This is not a game of dare. In fact, it is not a game at all. It is a fundamental debate over whether this Congress will ever again have the discipline to balance its books. And what is at stake is enormously important, and that is the economic future of America. It is the future for our children and our grandchildren. Support this resolution.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, under this conference agreement, VA medical care is increased by $400 million. Increased. A real increase of $400 million at a time when the word ``increase'' is becoming a rarity. It comes at a time of declining veteran population and a decline in the utilization of VA hospitals. In addition, medical research is increased by $5 million over last year's level, and the minor construction program is increased by $37 million over last year's level. The VA-HUD appropriations agreement is fair to veterans' programs. In fact, the VA-HUD Act reflects cuts in virtually every agency program or account except VA's medical care account. This increase comes at a time in which the veterans' population will decrease by 2.5 million and the VA hospitals, it might surprise my colleagues to know, on any given day has between 23 percent and 50 percent of all beds in those VA hospitals lying vacant. Mr. Speaker, this bill, the adoption of this agreement, is integral to our balanced budget plan. And what will a balanced budget mean to Arkansas' veterans, my home State? With a balanced Federal budget, according to a recent study, interest rates will drop 2.7 percent. For an Arkansas veteran that means, on the average mortgage, $1,591 per year that they will save. That is for an Arkansas veteran. On a school loan, on an average 10-year student loan in Arkansas, they will save $645 when we do this. They will save $148 per household because of the decreased cost of local and State governments. A balanced budget is good for veterans and this is a step toward that balanced budget, which we need. Mr. Speaker, the Republican plan invests dollars and dignity in veterans' programs. It also makes a commitment to future veterans that America will be anchored on a sound, strong financial basis. This bill is pro veteran. I urge support for it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, let me first say I appreciate your assistance in bringing this bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank Chairman Shuster, as well as ranking member Oberstar and subcommittee ranking member Traficant for their assistance. This bill, H.R. 1804, would name the Federal building in Fort Smith, AR, after Judge Isaac Parker. Judge Parker is a great figure in Arkansas and the surrounding States. He was a soldier, a Congressman, a lawyer, and a judge. In 1875 after his retirement from the U.S. Congress, President Grant appointed Isaac Parker as chief justice of the Utah Territory. However, at the request of the President, Parker resigned to accept appointment as judge of the United States Court for the Western District of Arkansas. The court had fallen into disrepute because of the actions of Parker's predecessor. The President asked Parker to ``stay a year or two in Fort Smith and get things straightened out.''--Ended up staying 21 years. When he assumed office Judge Parker dedicated himself to the reestablishment of the court as a power in the land. The court calendar tells the story. It was a court of no vacations except for Sundays and Christmas. During his service the court disposed of a grand total of 13,500 cases, of which 12,000 were criminal. Of the 12,000 criminal charges 8,600 resulted in convictions. However, Judge Parker is best known for his reputation as the ``hanging judge.'' He unquestionably sentenced more men to the gallows than any other jurist in United States history. His nickname is particularly interesting in light of reports that Parker himself did not believe in capital punishment. But he did believe in the laws, and is quoted as having said, ``I've never hanged a man. It is the law that has done it.'' Off the bench, Judge Parker was known as a humorous and friendly man, devoted to his family and respected by all as a man of incorruptible integrity. He was active in local affairs and served for several years as president of the Fort Smith School Board. The year or two that President Grant requested him to stay stretched out to 21, until his death in 1896. He had accomplished the goal of the President, as well as his own, to restore respect to the court and the law of the land, and to safeguard the citizens of his jurisdiction. Judge Parker is buried in the national cemetery in Fort Smith near the court that he had so faithfully served for over two decades. Perhaps nothing illustrates the legacy of Judge Parker more than the request of the citizens of Fort Smith, almost 100 years later, to name the Federal building in his honor. This is a remarkable and fitting tribute. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to another Arkansan, Mr. Larry Degen. The city of Fort Smith is currently planning events to mark the 100th anniversary of Judge Parker's death. The naming of the city's Federal building is one of the main initiatives that is being planned in connection with this anniversary. Larry Degen was a very active leader in planning this celebration. In particular, he was one of the first people who contacted me requesting legislation to name the Federal building in honor of Judge Parker. Larry continued to call and write me, encouraging Congress to move forward with this legislation in time for the anniversary. His last call was on October 27th. Tragically, Larry died on October 31st at the very young age of 47. A businessman, church member, community activist, father, and grandfather, Larry Degen represents the true spirit of the people of Fort Smith. I am sure Judge Parker would've been honored to know that a man of Larry's caliber worked on the legislation that honors his name. I would urge my colleagues to support this measure. [[Page H 13962]]

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, as a staunch defender of both veterans and the balanced budget, I want to set the record straight on how veterans are being treated under the GOP's 7-year plan. Under the conference agreement for VA/HUD appropriations, VA Medical Care is increased by $400 million over last year's level. Medical Research is increased by $5 million over last year's level and the Minor Construction Program is increased by $37 million over last year's level. Through responsible deficit reduction measures, we seek to preserve the dignity of veterans and the standard of living for future generations. The VA/HUD Appropriations Act is very generous to veterans' programs. In fact, the VA/HUD act reflects cuts in nearly every other agency program or account except VA's Medical Care Account. This increase comes at a time of a declining population and declining utilization of VA hospitals. It might interest you to know that on any given day between 23 percent and 50 percent of all beds in VA hospitals lie vacant. The money used to staff, and heat empty beds could be better used in the actual delivery of services to veterans. According to GAO, if the VA were to analyze the President's budget using the same assumptions the Department used when it analyzed the budget approved by the Congress, the VA would find that veterans are better off under the congressional budget than under the President's own plan. When the Secretary of Veterans Affairs was asked if veterans would suffer more under the Clinton administration's plan he said, ``that's absolutely right.'' The Republican plan will preserve and fund VA health care at a level that ensures the quality that veterans have come to expect. But it also tasks the system to become more efficient and deliver care in a more cost-effective manner. VA spends more than $5,000 per patient per year. This is $1,800 more than Medicare and a whopping $3,800 more than the private sector. Looking at these numbers, there must be ways for the VA to become more efficient. Health care is changing rapidly and VA must be part of that change. We need to question the need for more buildings and instead look for ways to provide more care. VA has historically been an institutionally based system that now is forced to support an aging network of 173 hospitals, 376 outpatient clinics, 133 nursing homes, and 39 domicilaries. We need to seriously examine what, where, and if VA needs to build in order to better serve veterans. The approach taken by this conference bill is a step in the right direction by asking the VA to assemble a long-term plan for its infrastructure and construction needs. The VA, must begin to plan strategically like the private sector, taking into consideration such factors as an increasingly constrained budgetary environment, a declining veteran population, shifting demographics, and the rapidly changing health care market. Today, when 9 out of 10 veterans have access to private health insurance, and 10 percent of current VA users are leaving the VA system to use Medicare, we seriously have to question the need for more facilities. The major construction level of $136 million and the minor construction level of $190 million reverse the historical trend of anchoring the VA in bricks and mortar. Today's health care is becoming less and less institutional. The VA must be part of that trend. It must have the flexibility to go to the veterans instead of requiring the veteran to travel long distances to procure health care in often aging and obsolete facilities. I believe that veterans and taxpayers will be better served by a VA that is more efficient and provides more accountability to those who provide the basis of its support. This bill is pro-veteran. It shows that Republicans are committed to putting veterans first.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, considering the high level of interest in the President's plan to deploy 20,000 American servicemen and servicewomen to Bosnia, I thought my colleagues might find the accompanying article of special interest. It should be noted that Jim Webb, a former counsel on the Veterans' Affairs Committee, was a highly decorated marine in Vietnam, as Assistant Secretary of Defense, as well as Secretary of the Navy. [From the New York Times, Nov. 28, 1995] Remember the Nixon Doctrine (By James Webb) Arlington, Va.--The Clinton Administration's insistence on putting 20,000 American troops into Bosnia should be seized on by national leaders, particularly those running for President, to force a long-overdue debate on the worldwide obligations of our military. While the Balkan factions may be immersed in their struggle, and Europeans may feel threatened by it, for Americans it represents only one of many conflicts, real and potential, whose seriousness must be weighed, often against one another, before allowing a commitment of lives, resources and national energy. Today, despite a few half-hearted attempts such as Gen. Colin Powell's ``superior force doctrine,'' no clear set of principles exists as a touchstone for debate on these tradeoffs. Nor have any leaders of either party offered terms which provide an understandable global logic as to when our military should be committed to action. In short, we still lack a national security strategy that fits the postcold war era. More than ever before, the United States has become the nation of choice when crises occur, large and small. At the same time, the size and location of our military forces are in flux. It is important to make our interests known to our citizens, our allies and even our potential adversaries, not just in Bosnia but around the world, so that commitments can be measured by something other than the pressures of interest groups and manipulation by the press. Furthermore, with alliances increasingly justified by power relationships similar to those that dominated before World War I, our military must be assured that the stakes of its missions are worth dying for. Failing to provide these assurances is to continue the unremitting case-by-case debates, hampering our foreign policy on the one hand and on the other treating our military forces in some cases as mere bargaining chips. As the past few years demonstrate, this also causes us to fritter away our national resolve while arguing about military backwaters like Somalia and Haiti. Given the President's proposal and the failure to this point of defining American stakes in Bosnia as immediate or nation-threatening, the coming weeks will offer a new round of such debates. The President appears tempted to follow the constitutionally questionable (albeit effective) approach used by the Bush Administration in the Persian Gulf war: putting troops in an area where no American forces have been threatened and no treaties demand their presence, then gaining international agreement before placing the issue before Congress. Mr. Clinton said their mission would be ``to supervise the separation of forces and to give them confidence that each side will live up to their agreements.'' This rationale reminds one of the ill-fated mission of the international force sent to Beirut in 1983. He has characterized the Bosnian mission as diplomatic in purpose, but promised, in his speech last night, to ``fight fire with fire and then some'' if American troops are threatened. This is a formula for confusion once a combat unit sent on a distinctly noncombat mission comes under repeated attack. We are told that other NATO countries will decline to send their own military forces to Bosnia unless the United States assumes a dominant role, which includes sizable combat support and naval forces backing it up. This calls to mind the decades of over-reliance by NATO members on American resources, and President Eisenhower's warning in October 1963 that the size and permanence of our military presence in Europe would ``continue to discourage the development of the necessary military strength Western European countries should provide for themselves.'' The Administration speaks of a ``reasonable time for withdrawal,'' which if too short might tempt the parties to wait out the so-called peacekeepers and if too long might tempt certain elements to drive them out with attacks causing high casualties. Sorting out the Administration's answers to such hesitations will take a great deal of time, attention and emotion. And doing so in the absence of a clearly stated global policy will encourage other nations, particularly the new power centers in Asia, to view the United States as becoming less committed to addressing their own security concerns. Many of these concerns are far more serious to long-term international stability and American interests. These include the continued threat of war on the Korean peninsula, the importance of the United States as a powerbroker where historical Chinese, Japanese and Russian interests collide, and the need for military security to accompany trade and diplomacy in a dramatically changing region. Asian cynicism gained further grist in the wake of the Administration's recent snubs of Japan: the President's cancellation of his summit meeting because of the budget crisis, and Secretary of State Warren Christopher's early return from a Japanese visit to watch over the Bosnian peace talks. Asian leaders are becoming uneasy over an economically and militarily resurgent China that in recent years has become increasing more aggressive. A perception that the United States is not paying attention to or is not worried about such long-term threats could in itself cause a major realignment in Asia. One cannot exclude even Japan, whose strong bilateral relationship with the United States has been severely tested of late, from this possibility. Those who aspire to the Presidency in 1996 should use the coming debate to articulate a world view that would demonstrate to the world, as well as to Americans, an understanding of the uses and limitations--in a sense the human budgeting of our military assets. Richard Nixon was the last President to clearly define how and when the United States would commit forces overseas. In 1969, he declared that our military policy should follow three basic tenets: Honor all treaty commitments in responding to those who invade the lands of our allies. Provide a nuclear umbrella to the world against the threats of other nuclear powers. Finally, provide weapons and technical assistance to other countries where warranted, but do not commit American forces to local conflicts. These tenets, with some modification, are still the best foundation of our world leadership. They remove the United States from local conflicts and civil wars. The use of the American military to fulfill treaty obligations requires ratification by Congress, providing a hedge against the kind of Presidential discretion that might send forces into conflicts not in the national interest. Yet they provide clear authority for immediate action required to carry out policies that have been agreed upon by the government as a whole. Given the changes in the world, an additional tenet would also be desirable: The United States should respond vigorously against cases of nuclear proliferation and state- sponsored terrorism. These tenets would prevent the use of United States forces on commitments more appropriate to lesser powers while preserving our unique capabilities. Only the United States among the world's democracies can field large-scale maneuver forces, replete with strategic airlift, carrier battle groups and amphibious power projection. Our military has no equal in countering conventional attacks on extremely short notice wherever the national interest dictates. Our bases in Japan give American forces the ability to react almost anywhere in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, just as the continued presence in Europe allows American units to react in Europe and the Middle East. In proper form, this capability provides reassurance to potentially threatened nations everywhere. But despite the ease with which the American military seemingly operates on a daily basis, its assets are limited, as is the national willingness to put them at risk. As the world moves toward new power centers and different security needs, it is more vital than ever that we state clearly the conditions under which American forces will be sent into harm's way. And we should be ever more chary of commitments, like the looming one in Bosnia, where combat units invite attack but are by the very nature of their mission not supposed to fight.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, far too often the work of the men and women who choose to volunteer their time and talent goes unnoticed. These individuals, most of whom are busy with families, full-time jobs, and daily tasks, are rarely recognized for the invaluable service which they provide to their communities. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to seven such individuals from my own congressional district of northwest Arkansas, who are better known to the folks back home as ``The Fabulous Seven.'' All local residents of Lakeview and Bull Shoals, AR, Mr. Pete Ehmen, Ms. Shirley Spitzer, Mr. Bob Olmo, Mr. Curt Schlueter, Mr. Bob Koenig, Mr. Carl Wilhelm, and Mr. Neil Underhill took precious time out of their already-busy summers to conduct guided tours of Bull Shoals Dam, when Federal budget constraints threatened to end public tours of the local Corps of Engineers dam. Mr. Speaker, I commend these individuals for coming forth with such a brilliant solution and putting it into action! At a time when Federal downsizing is necessary, and Federal funds are very limited, citizen volunteers are indispensable in keeping the wheels turning in our communities. Throughout the entire summer, over 7,000 tourists had the opportunity to see things, which otherwise would not have been possible, without this ``Fabulous Gang of Seven.'' According to Mr. Bill Self, Chief of the Corps of Engineers' hydropower facility in Mountain Home, it was quite routine to hear tourists exclaim, ``This was the best tour we have ever been on!'' after their tour of the dam. Mr. Self is particularly proud that his office did not receive one complaint all summer regarding the tours. Mr. Speaker, while I am recognizing these individuals today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, I would also like to point out that the corps formally honored ``The Fabulous Seven'' this fall with a brunch, and presented them with certificates of appreciation for their invaluable contributions throughout the summer. In the very words of Mr. Self, ``The volunteers did a fabulous job this year!'' To ``The Fabulous Seven,'' thank you for your dedication and hard work for Bull Shoals Dam, for northwest Arkansas, and for our great State of Arkansas.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I know we are in a hurry, but I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] say that in effect, all we are doing in this CR is to ratify what the President has already done. In fact, that is not the case. The President issued an Executive order, and I am particularly concerned in the area of the veterans, but all his Executive order did was to authorize the processing of new claims. He could not send out the checks, he argued. We have checked with the Veterans' Administration. They argue that without this CR they cannot send out the veterans benefit checks. It is wrong for us to hold them hostage. It does not matter how much more should be done or what arguments we might make. This needs to be done on behalf of the veterans of this Nation. It is in fact a legal dispute as to whether or not the President has the authority as a veterans entitlement to send those checks out without us doing a CR. That is a disputed point. Had I been the President, I would have opted in favor of the veteran and said, ``Send those checks out, let's do it.'' In fact the Veterans' Administration has said, ``No, we aren't going to do that without Congress authorizing it.'' Therefore, we have come back with this CR, which is very much needed for the veterans of our country.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I was responding to Mr. Moakley's comment that the President has resolved the situation. He has not. This is necessary.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I would say again that if veterans are being held hostage, it is not this Congress that is doing it. We have checked with legal experts who say this is a disputed point as to whether or not the President has the authority to order this as a veteran entitlement and have the checks go out on time. He has opted not to do that. We are, therefore, going to solve the problem with this CR so that there is no question those checks will go out in a timely manner.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this continuing resolution. It is critical for our Nation's veterans. The chairman of the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care and I are vitally interested in their welfare. The 2.2 million veterans receiving compensation for service-connected disabilities will know their checks will arrive on time when we do this today. The 308,000 widows, children, and other survivors of veterans who have died of service-connected disabilities will receive their checks on time this December when we pass this continuing resolution. The 450,000 veterans who served during wartime receiving pensions will get their checks on time when we pass this resolution. It is very, very important. It also provides that needed medical care and services will be available to our veterans and our veterans' hospitals. I agree with the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], the distinguished gentleman, I wish the GI bill had been included in this. I hope that can be taken care of quickly. Because that is not in here does not mean we should not go ahead and take care of these veterans. One of the very sad chapters in this whole dispute over veterans has been the politicizing of the VA, Veterans' Administration, by the Secretary, I believe, in scaring veterans, in causing them to believe they are not going to get those checks. There is a legal dispute as to whether or not the President could have done it. Let us make certain, let us reassure our veterans today this Congress cares about them and that we are going to ensure that they are protected. Our veterans have already sacrificed. We need not ask them to sacrifice again. The President could have solved this easily with the stroke of his pen, I think, a very clean CR with only the commitment to the 7-year balanced budget with real numbers. This is not a silly spat as some have suggested. This is a serious debate over serious issues confronting our country. But let us not let those most vulnerable suffer the pain. Let us mitigate it where we can. We will do that by the passage of this CR today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, families are important, and this Balanced Budget Act recognizes that. The $500-per-child tax credit for middle income Americans is a deserved dividend from our budget balancing effort. Families deserve a rebate on that huge 1993 tax increase that we imposed upon them, and this bill gives it to them. If it is a family with two children making $30,000 a year, this Balanced Budget Act will cut their Federal tax liability in half. If they are a family with two children making $25,000 a year, this Balanced Budget Act will eliminate their Federal tax liability. So if you do not think families are as important as they were a generation ago, then oppose this rule and oppose this budget. But if you believe that families are the foundation of society, if you believe that middle class families are squeezed to the breaking point, if you believe that parents are better custodians of their resources than politicians, then vote for this rule and vote for this Balanced Budget Act of 1995. It is pro-family, and the families of America deserve it.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the Callahan amendment represents a proposed compromise with the Senate on the codification of the Mexico City policy, a policy that is supported by the vast majority of the American people. I think it is important to note that this language does nothing to reduce U.S. funding of international family planning programs. It merely prevents taxpayer money from going to fund promotion or performance of abortion. What we are trying to do in this amendment is to stop clouding the issue. To talk about private funds being used and no taxpayers' dollars being used is really quite deceptive. It does not really fool anybody. It is a shell game being played by these organizations. The American people do not want their taxpayer dollars being used to promote, perform, and support abortion policies around the world. Since rescinding the Mexico City policy, the Clinton administration has committed over $75 million to International Planned Parenthood which performs and promotes abortion as a method of family planning, and they have refused to sign because of their radicalism to the Mexico City policy.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 752, I was inadvertently detained and missed the vote for final passage of the conference report on H.R. 1868. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Limiting Debate on Motion Made in Order by House Resolution 249 to Dispose of Senate Amendment 115

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate, Charles, your leadership on this very, very difficult subject. I know it is not pleasant and I know this discussion this evening has not been easy and this has been difficult for you and that you do sponsor this and take the lead on this out of a deep sense of conviction. I admire you for it. Make no mistake about it, this hideous procedure should be outlawed and it should be outlawed now. It is a procedure that is predicated on stabbing the partially born baby's skull with surgical scissors and suctioning the child's brain out and it should not be tolerated in what professes to be a civilized society. The description that Mr. Smith from New Jersey gave is horrible but the reality as we know is far more horrible. Beyond the most important aspect of what we are doing in this legislation, in saving the lives of several hundred unborn children at least, the education benefit of this debate and what will happen tomorrow or Wednesday is also, I think, tremendously important. This method of abortion is simply indefensible, it is a late-term method used on unborn babies that can surely feel the pain of what is happening and are utterly defenseless. With an estimated 80 percent plus of these grisly late-term abortions being elective in nature, with hundreds of these repulsive procedures being performed in the United States annually, it is time for all people of decency to unite in passing this legislation. William Wilberforce, the great 18th and 19th century reformer who spent his life fighting the horrors of the slave trade said concerning slavery in his day, ``Our posterity looking back to the history of these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long, a disgrace and dishonor to this country.'' Madam Speaker, I believe someday history will look back to our so- called enlightened times and they will scarce believe that we have suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country. It is time that we pass H.R. 1833.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Those are not rich people. They will not owe anything at that wage level.