Tim Hutchinson

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. They are suddenly going to discover, when this becomes a reality next year, that they are the rich people that people said we were cutting taxes for. I might point out, I want to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for his efforts on insuring that the earned income tax credit for even lower-income working Americans, those making $12,000 to $20,000, to insure that this budget reconciliation will make them a winner as well, that there will be no working Americans with children who will be net losers because of this budget reconciliation bill. I think that is very important. We want to reward working Americans and working American families. That is what this budget reconciliation can do. The issue is who can spend it better. For years, for a generation now, we have confiscated the taxes, the wages of hard-working Americans, brought that money to Washington; we in our wisdom in the Washington-knows-best mentality decided where it should go, sent it back to them in the form of entitlements after we took out a huge surcharge back in Washington. Back in Arkansas, we kind of have the notion God made the family to be the primary caretaker of their children, not the government, and that the moms and dads of middle America will know better how to use that money for the benefit of their children and their families than bureaucrats in Washington, DC.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That will be the effect.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. My colleague is exactly right. The liberal solution has always been raise taxes. But the interesting thing is that the Joint Economic Committee that produced a report in 1992 demonstrated that during the last 40 years, every time Congress raised taxes $1, they increased spending $1.59, which I think is the clearest evidence that raising taxes is not the solution to deficit spending. Rather, it is to control spending and that is what this Congress took a big step toward today. Ronald Reagan said, ``Never give a big spender a bigger allowance.'' That is what we have been doing for too long. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about tax relief. Back in my district, there are some awfully patriotic people. They say, We would like to have a tax cut, but why cut taxes if this is the time to balance the budget? I think the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood] said it well. He explained the situation that we face appropriately. They deserve a dividend out of the savings that we are generating. The tough choices that we have made, they deserve to get a dividend on that. There is nothing I have worked harder on than this $500-per-child tax credit. My Senate colleague from Minnesota, Rod Grams, and I worked very hard to get it into the Republican budget 2 years ago when the Republican budget did not seem anything more than a symbolic gesture. It became part of the Contract With America, and now it is passed today. In 1948, the average family paid 3 percent of its income to Uncle Sam and today that same family pays 24.5 percent. When we combine it with State taxes, local taxes, the cost of government regulation, the average family pays 52 percent of its income to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, that is more than they pay for clothing; more than they pay for food; more than they pay for recreation; more than they pay for health care. All of those things combined, they are paying more to the Federal Government in taxes. Then they say, ``You are cutting Medicare so that you can give breaks to the wealthy.'' Who are we really giving relief to? That $500-per- child tax credit will benefit most the middle-class working person who has seen his lifestyle squeezed over the years. If he makes $30,000 and they have two children, that couple is going to see their Federal taxes cut in half. If they make $25,000 a year, two children, that $500 per child tax credit will mean that they owe nothing.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Until today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is her paying for our luxuries and what we wanted to consume during our generation. Let me illustrate it a different way. It is not a partisan issue. There was a bipartisan commission on entitlements. It was chaired by Democrat Senator Kerry, and it made this observation. In just 17 years, the year 2012, Federal mandatory spending, that is entitlements, plus interest, that is mandatory spending, entitlements plus interest, will consume all of the total amount of revenues collected. Not a penny for roads; not a penny for courts; not a penny for Head Start; not a penny for drug enforcement; not a penny for the FBI, national defense, and on and on we go. All of it consumed on entitlements and on interest.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join my friend and colleague on a truly historic and monumental night. I have admired the gentleman's contribution for many years back when he was in the gang of seven in his first round in Congress, and I think he had a great deal to do with bringing this day and making it a reality. Mr. Speaker, I first got into public life and ran for public office back in 1984. We had a business and I have been involved in education. People asked me, ``Why would you get into politics and go into the State legislature?'' I served 8 years in the Arkansas State Legislature with Bill Clinton as the Governor. My answer was very simple. I had one motivation. I had three boys who at that time were pretty young. I had twins who were 12-years-old at the time and I had an 8-year-old. I looked at where our country was headed and even then 12 years ago at the kind of debt that we were accumulating in this country and the burden that we were placing upon them. I wanted to be able to look them in their eyes and say, ``You guys, the Nation that I am leaving you, the heritage that I am leaving you may not be what I wanted it to be, but I did what I could to reverse that.'' Mr. Speaker, here a dozen years later it is so gratifying to know that all across this country there were people who were feeling that same way and who took the step to get into public life and who have made this day a reality. For the first time in 25 years, we passed a reconciliation bill that leads us to a balanced budget in the year 2002. I suppose if it had been easier, there would have been a Congress that would have done it before. It has taken courage and there were some choppy waters out there, but today we cast the right vote. In the midst of all the debate and statistics and rhetoric today, I am afraid it could be easy to forget that the real winners in this vote today, the real winner is the American family. And that is the purpose of this, and I appreciate the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] for organizing this special order to remind us that the real victors today were the families. The gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] a moment ago had the chart up, the marching orders for Congress: Balanced budget, tax relief, welfare reform, and Medicare reform. When we really look at those issues, they come right back to the American family. There is nothing more that we could do for the American family than balance the budget. My district director has a 2-year-old little girl, Abby Deatherage, and we have all fallen in love with her. When Abby was born 2 years ago, she inherited $18,000 worth of debt and she is going to pay $187,000 over her lifetime just to pay her part of the interest on the national debt, and it has gotten worse every day. Mr. Speaker, we finally have started to change that with this historic vote today.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, when the gentleman on the other side will stand and say that someone in my district is going to pay higher taxes because of this reconciliation bill, he is mistaken. Anyone who claims that EITC reform is a tax increase is either misstating the situation, being deceived or simply does not understand how the program works. The fact is that 85 percent of current EITC spending is considered outlays or direct government payments just like AFDC. Six out of seven dollars being spent on EITC is above and beyond, as it is returned to that taxpayer, is above and beyond the aggregate taxes paid. Less of an increase is not a cut. It is not a cut in Medicare spending, and it is not a cut in the EITC spending. In addition, in this reconciliation bill encompassed is tax relief for millions of hard-working Americans in the $500-per-child tax credit. The family making $30,000 with two children sees their taxes cut in half. A family making $25,000 a year with two children sees their tax eliminated. Every hard-working American family in this country will be better off because of this reconciliation bill. That is the fact. For those who listened yesterday on this floor, I had a colloquy with members of the Committee on Ways and Means, with leadership Members in this body who made a flat commitment that we would work to ensure that all American families, all working American families will be better off under this program of tax relief than they were last year. That is a commitment and that is the truth. All of this bogus talk and bogus figures about tax increases is simply misrepresenting the reality of this reconciliation bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] to join me in a colloquy on the earned income tax credit. Mr. Chairman, first I would like to commend you and the members of the Committee on Ways and Means for your outstanding work on reforming the EITC. It is a program that has grown way beyond its original scope and intent, and is in dire need of review. Having said that, I am very concerned that we have inadvertently devised a formula that could result in a number of low-income working families actually being a net loser compared to current law, even after the enactment of the $500 per child tax credit. I know that the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] is strongly committed to helping the working poor in our country. The gentlewoman has labored diligently for some time now in welfare reform legislation, and I believe that reform of the EITC program goes hand in hand with this work. I believe this EITC problem can be fixed with a very slight modification of a technical change, and I would like to work with the gentlewoman and members of the committee to accomplish that.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, the theme of this reconciliation bill is controlling spending. As Republicans have been saying for years, the Federal deficit is driven not by low tax revenues but by too much spending. A 1992 study by the Joint Economic Committee demonstrated beautifully and tragically that over the last 30 years, every time Congress raised taxes $1 we increased spending $1.59. That demonstrates the problem. So where is all the spending going? Some will argue that it is coming primarily in the defense area. But guess what? Ten years ago, in 1986, we spent $273 billion on defense. This year we are spending $272 billion on defense, a billion dollars less than in 1986. And if we factor in inflation, defense spending has actually declined by $73 billion, or 27 percent in real terms in the last decade. Mr. Chairman, if the spending increases are not in defense, where are they? A big part of the answer, as shown on this chart, is in the area of Federal spending on means-tested programs that increased dramatically for more than three decades. In constant dollars it grew from less than $10 billion in 1950 to the incredible sum of $262 billion this year. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is an increase of 2,600 percent. That is right, 2,600 percent. Mr. Chairman, according to the bipartisan Kerrey Commission, in their report, they said unless we do something about entitlement spending, in just a few short years entitlement spending, plus interest from the national debt, will consume the entire Federal budget. That is right, not a penny for the three E's, as the gentlemen said. Not a penny for the environment. Not a penny for education. Not a penny for the economy. Not a penny for school loans. Not a penny for defense. Not a penny for our veterans. Not a penny for any of it in the discretionary area unless we deal with the explosion in entitlement spending. The conclusion to be drawn from these numbers, Mr. Chairman, is understood by almost everyone in America. There are only a few on the other side of the aisle that still fail to appreciate it. The Nation's budget deficit is caused by wild spending increases. These increases have been going on for three decades and it is time to stop them. This reconciliation vote and this bill is not about the future of the GOP, it is not about the future of the Democratic Party, it is not about the future of who will control this body, but it is about the future of our children. It is about the future of this country. It is about the future of our grandchildren and what kind of opportunity they are going to have and whether they will be saddled with debt. We have the opportunity in this bill to begin to control spending, to control our destiny once again. We have that opportunity within our grasp, let us not let it slip away.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from California, who has worked very diligently on this problem.

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to be the second person to publicly express my sadness at the decision of the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, longtime chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not to seek reelection. There surely will be no Member more missed around this place than Sonny Montgomery, a great champion of veterans and a great patriot. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 1384. I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], for bringing this bill to the floor this morning. I also want to thank the ranking member on our subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], for his assistance. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation which I introduced to exempt certain VA health care professionals from restrictions on remunerated outside professional activities, and urge its immediate passage. Mr. Speaker, this legislation would lift the moonlighting ban on professional registered nurses, physicians' assistants, and dental auxiliaries. This outdated law, enacted in 1946, nearly 50 years ago, was written at a time when nurses were expected to be on call 24 hours a day. The role of nurses has changed from one of physician's handmaiden to that of independent practitioner, necessitating a changed work schedule for nurses by removal of the expectation of 24-hour-a-day availability. Additionally, physicians' assistants and dental auxiliaries work at a set schedule and are not required to be available 24 hours a day. The law maintains the restrictions on VA health care professionals, such as physicians, who continue to be on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the pay structure for nurses has changed through the years. No longer are nurses paid with the expectation of nonstop availability for duty. Instead, they are compensated at an hourly rate with a possibility of overtime pay. Thus, nurse staffing problems caused by moonlighting have become virtually nonexistent. Economic realities are the driving force behind the need to find outside employment. Quite simply, many families need to moonlight in order to make ends meet, and will make an employment decision based on the ability to work two jobs. The removal of this ban can only help in the recruitment and retention of qualified personnel. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is strongly supported by the Department, professional organizations representing the affected groups, and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Both the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, of which I am the chairman, and the full committee unanimously reported out this measure. Once again, I am in strong support of this legislation and urge its immediate passage.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr] for yielding this time to me. I compliment the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing], and the gentlewoman from Missouri [Ms. Danner] for their hard work on this bill, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 436, the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. This commonsense, risk-based approach to regulation embodies what the Speaker had in mind when he established the Corrections Day Calendar. This well-crafted, noncontroversial bill simply requires [[Page H 9758]] Federal agencies to differentiate between animal fats and vegetable oils on the one hand and petroleum-based on the other. The Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 are the two primary statutes addressing discharge of oil into the Nation's waters impacted by this bill and to a lesser extent the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Due to these statutes' broad definitions of oil and the lack of explicit guidance from Congress, the regulatory agencies have not adequately differentiated between animal fats and vegetable oils and other oils, including petroleum. Regulations that do not make these commonsense differentiations could impose costly, unnecessary burdens on handlers, transporters, and others involved in the edible oil industry. The animal fat and vegetable oil industry handles, ships, and stores over 25 billion pounds of product annually in the United States. These agricultural substances are essential components to our Nation's economy and diet. The record is filled with documented examples and justifications for treating animal fat and vegetable oil differently from other types of oil. For example, these edible oils simply do not present the same type of risk to the environment that other oils do. When Congress enacted the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, it did not intend to apply the same response planning, liability, financial responsibility, and cleanup requirements to edible oils to the same extent as to crude oil and petroleum-based substances. Comparable versions of H.R. 436 have already passed the House in two bills this year: H.R. 1361, the Coast Guard authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 and H.R. 961, the clean water amendments of 1995. Both versions moved through the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the committee on which I served which the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] chairs, the committee with jurisdiction over the Oil Pollution Act and the Clean Water Act. The committee has an extensive record of testimony and other data affirming the need for the legislation. The bill before us combines the views of the three committees involved: the Committee on Commerce, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It includes a broad mandate for common sense: generally all Federal agencies are required to differentiate between animal fat and vegetable oils on the one hand and petroleum-based oils on the other. It includes provisions to take into account the special nature of food and drug regulations that do not relate to environmental discharge. H.R. 436 is an important, noncontroversial solution to a regulatory situation that needs correction, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1536. I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] for his work on this bill and for bringing it to the floor today. Again, I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], for his work on this bill, along with so many on behalf of veterans. I also want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, for his kind words earlier and for his good work and for how easy it is to work with him on behalf of all veterans. This is another one of those bills, as Mr. Edwards said, that will not be on the evening news, but it is an example of the way Congress ought to work. Mr. Speaker, members of this committee, Mr. Stump, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Edwards, and the other members of our committee, Mr. Kennedy, we have very strong differences on many issues. We certainly are no less loyal to our political parties, but what makes this committee work so well is a greater loyalty to our veterans. While we feel strongly about our particular issues, we feel even stronger about the need to work together on behalf of the veterans of this country. So it is a great committee on which to serve. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this legislation to extend the expiring authority to determine locality pay for VA nurse anesthetists and urge immediate passage of the bill. The bill continues the VA authority to use salary data from any employee of nurse anesthetists as a means of setting appropriate locality pay rates to December 31, 1997. This authority was made necessary because of a quirk in the Veterans Affairs Nurse Pay Act of 1990 which established a locality pay system for VA nurses, but failed to provide an adequate means for determining the rates of pay for nurse anesthetists. The legislation passed unanimously in both the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care and the full Veterans Affairs' Committee. It is supported by the VA, and CBO has concluded that the legislation has no significant cost to the Federal Government. So once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge quick passage of H.R. 1536.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. In Arkansas, my home State, we have an unborn child amendment that was adopted by a vote of the people of Arkansas. It is in our State constitution. It prohibits the spending of public money for any abortion unless the procedure is needed to save a woman's life, a decision by the voters of the people of Arkansas. Regardless of how you feel about that decision, it was the people's decision. The issue in the debate this evening is not abortion, it is not abortion funding, it is not rape and incest, and everybody would like to cloud the issue. The issue is, do the people of a sovereign State in this country have the right to rule and to pass their own laws and to make their own constitution? For over a year and a half now my State has been in litigation over this. The effect of that litigation is that the courts have taken the ruling of bureaucrats in Washington in HCFA, and they have allowed those regulations passed by HCFA to overrule the constitution of the State of Arkansas, an amendment adopted by the people of Arkansas. What we are doing in the Istook amendment is absolutely in accord with the whole sentiment of this Congress. We have said the States ought to have more authority in welfare. We have said the States ought to have more authority in crime. We have said the States ought to have more authority and control in the area of education. Why in the world would we reverse that and say in this particular area that we in Washington have more moral authority than the people of my home State? Why should we say that we have a right to overrule what they, not by a poll, not by the State legislature but by a vote of the people. I urge Members to support the Istook amendment and to defeat the Kolbe motion to strike.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I especially commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], my chairman, for his outstanding statement a few moments ago in which he gave a clear rebuttal for the mindless political rhetoric, that we hear over and over again, in which the opponents of this bill recite like a mantra the phrase ``tax breaks for the wealthiest in our society.'' Mr. Chairman, are the wealthiest in our society like that couple in my district that makes $25,000 a year with two children who are going to find, with the $500 per child tax credit, that their Federal tax liability will be eliminated altogether? Or like my wealthy friends, the grandmother and the grandfather who have worked for 30 years on a farm in northwest Arkansas and as they reach retirement age and want to move in town, to get close to quality health care, discover they cannot afford to sell their farm because of exorbitant capital gains tax rates? Mr. Chairman, yes, these are the wealthy friends that we want to help in our society. My colleague says that, yes, 90 percent of the American people support higher investment in education. I believe that. I believe my constituents do. But they want to invest it where it will work and it will work when we invest that money locally, not when we invest it in more Federal spending on education. Mr. Chairman, Americans last November rejected the ``government- knows-best'' philosophy that has held sway for far too long. Goals 2000, which we defund in this appropriation bill, is a manifestation of that very failed philosophy. What Goals 2000 does is lay the groundwork for all future Federal experimentation with education, which takes control away from parents and local school districts where it belongs. It increases the Federal role by imposing a congressional formula for reform on any State, school district, or local school that wishes to receive funding under the act. Only 40 percent of the money appropriated for Goals 2000 ever reaches the schools. The other 60 percent constitutes the bureaucratic skim that is being used at each level to create the new framework for the educational system. The American people did not buy into the misguided idea of national health boards in the last Congress, and they do not want national school boards. If the past 30 years have taught us anything, it is that national solutions do not solve local problems. It is amazing to me my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can stand and defend the status quo. The past three decades, American taxpayers have been pouring money into the public school system with almost no encouraging signs that this money is buying better education for our children. Who knows best what children need but their parents and people who are in contact with them every day? This appropriation bill begins to put the focus back upon the local schools, empowering parents to control the education of their children. There were originally six national goals that were developed in 1989, hand in hand with the States, but they now have been increased to eight. The two additional goals differ from the States' original intentions, leading us even further away from the direction that education in this country should be taking, which is back to the parents. We can, in defunding Goals 2000, as we do in this appropriations bill, we can take a decisive first step in returning education to the State and to the local school boards and empowering parents to participate and to control the education of their children. I urge support of this Labor-HHS appropriations bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman on his leadership that he has displayed on this very fine appropriations bill. I also want to commend my chairman on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], for the work that he has done on OSHA reform. We have had a number of OSHA hearings in recent months in which we have heard repeatedly the kind of horror stories of OSHA overkill. So I am very glad to support this bill, particularly because of the OSHA provisions in which we reduce funding for enforcement, investigation and imposition of penalties by 33 percent while increasing compliance assistance by 20 percent, as we can see on this chart. This bill simply redirects OSHA's current philosophy of assessing excessive fines and penalties to one where OSHA will be required to work with and assist small businesses in their efforts to promote health and safety in the workplace. So we reduce the funding by 33 percent on the enforcement side while increasing funding by 20 percent on compliance assistance. Surely it is not too much to ask of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to work with small businesses to ensure the health and safety of their employees. After all, that is why OSHA was created. We heard so many stories, but this story was faxed to me, and it is very typical of the kinds of stories we heard on OSHA overkill in our hearings. This small businessman operated for 21 years. None of his employees ever had a lost-day injury, not one. No workmen's compensation claim was ever paid. Yet after 21 years, that OSHA inspector came in, filed 21 alleged violations. He said the allegations were that he was exposing his employees to hazards such as not having a crane operators manual, and not having instructions on how to pour diesel fuel, and not having a list of hazards on how to handle gasoline, grease, and concrete. I will make a long story short. That happened in 1991, 4 years. After he contested the allegations, after he contested the citations, 4 years later and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs later, all of the citations were vacated. Would it not make a lot more sense had that inspector simply said, you have got 30 days to make the corrections on where we see violations and where you are out of compliance? The small businessman makes those corrections, and we go on with a good, safe workplace, saving the taxpayers of America hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation costs. That is what this bill moves toward. It refocuses its priorities toward assisting businesses in having a safe workplace. OSHA inspectors are simply misguided in their efforts to promote a safe workplace. In recent years, eight of the 10 most cited standards by OSHA have been paperwork violations. With OSHA, it is regulation, inspection, citation and fine, fine, fine, and we want to change that. We have heard that the 11-percent cut overall in Labor-HHS appropriations, the sky is falling, you have heard apocalypse now. You has heard, as one speaker said, that it is a declaration of war on the children. There has been a lot of talk about hurting our children. They say they are worried about our children. I want to say I am worried about our children. My son, about a year from now, will be getting married to a wonderful, wonderful bride. A few years from now they will be starting a family. His first child will be my first grandchild, and I am worried about them. I am worried about the future we are giving them. I am worried about the $18,000 debt that that little grandchild will inherit, the day he is born or she is born. I am concerned about the $187,000 that they will pay in taxes just to pay interest on the national debt. So, when we talk about the children and the impact of this bill upon the children, please think about that. Think about the burden that we are imposing. And you will hear, as we have heard, that the minority leader said this bill is a dagger aimed at the heart of the children. No, it is not. It is a dagger aimed at the heart of runaway social spending. You heard that it is a war on American workers. No, it is not. It is not a war on American workers. It is a war on job-killing deficit spending. It is time we made the start. This bill does that. Let us pass a good Labor-HHS appropriation bill.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in strong opposition to the Stokes amendment. We simply should not undo and undermine our Clean Water Act, H.R. 961, by adopting this amendment. We passed it by a large bipartisan majority, 240 to 185. We beat down weakening amendments time and time again. It was openly and publicly debated at length, and this amendment would destroy those reforms. Let there be no doubt it will destroy the reforms that this House adopted in our Clean Water Act. We should not fund unauthorized programs, but we especially should not fund unauthorized programs that do not work, that are broken. The current Clean Water Act does not work. One example: The wetlands provisions, which started in 1972, is a very narrow regulatory program, now regulates over 75 million acres of privately owned property. Mr. Chairman, there is precedent for what we are doing. In the last Congress we included similar language to fence in funds until the Clean Water Act was reauthorized. We are doing that again and we should do it. We can and we should, by rejection of this amendment and passage of the VA-HUD appropriations, nudge, drive, push the Senate and this Congress to a responsible reauthorization of the [[Page H 7947]] Clean Water Act. So let us reject regulatory excesses by rejecting this amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the authorizing committee, I rise in strong opposition to the Coleman amendment. Section 13(c) protective arrangements provide transit workers, depending on their length of employment, up to 6 years of their full compensation and benefits. That is outrageous. If we want to talk about workers, we want to talk about the rights of those who are employed and laboring in this country, let us think about those who are riding the transit, those who are paying the fares, and let us think about their higher costs because of the waste and the inefficiency caused by 13(c). Section 13(c) labor protection is a costly, antiquated and burdensome component of the Federal transit program that has impeded innovation, it has impeded efficiency and growth in the provision of our transit services. Increasingly, expensive labor protection requirements imposed by administrative fiat and often without legal basis has imposed significant costs and unnecessary restrictive conditions on transit services. The complete absence of any procedures with definitive time limitations governing 13(c) negotiations by the department has led to inexcusable delays in the receipt of transit funding. For instance, the American Public Transit Association found the average delay in the 13(c) certification process was 25 weeks, and a negotiation of new 13(c) protection typically consumed 30 weeks' time. The Department of Labor acknowledged at one point in 1994 that almost $300 million in grant funds had been delayed for over 6 months due to 13(c) processing. The central Arkansas Transit Authority in my State, its very future was jeopardized because of 13(c). 13(c) also affords labor interests a second bite at the apple by providing opportunity to achieve rights and benefits unions are unable to achieve at the collective bargaining table. Cost savings inherent in contracting out services, using part-time workers, are lost because of 13(c). Vote to ensure lower costs for workers by rejecting the Coleman amendment.

Mr. HUTCHINSON

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. If the gentleman will yield further, would it not follow that if the $3.5 million which we are subsidizing the Trust could be achieved by reducing a few executive salaries that exceed $233,000, if by reducing the expenditures on lobbying and entertainment and catering, which exceed three-quarters of a million dollars, and this lobby sheet has been passed out all afternoon out front, would it not make a lot more sense for the reductions in those kind of expenditures to pick up the $3.5 million subsidy, and in fact there would be no loss at all in the programs or worthwhile efforts of the Trust?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. One is, does the gentleman approve of the fact that the Trust has filed over 30 lawsuits against various agencies of the Federal Government in the last 5 years, and, if that is the case, and it is, that in fact the cost to the Federal Government and the American taxpayer is not just the $3.5 million Federal subsidy, but all of the litigation costs that we have to pay in order to defend the Federal agencies they are suing?

Mr. HUTCHINSON. I appreciate the question, Mr. Chairman. I would say to the gentleman that I also am a strong, strong supporter of the Main Street program. It affects 17 cities in the State of Arkansas, and it does a wonderful job and I fully support that. I would hope that the Trust would prioritize their funds so that program is not touched. We are talking about less than 10 percent of their operating budget. Mr. Chairman, I would hope that what we would jeopardize would be things like $700,000 for the legal department of $700,000 for lobbying, entertainment, and catering, that those would be the things that would be cut instead of good quality programs that are helping our cities like the Main Street program.

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

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I commend the work that the committee has done. I think it is an excellent Interior appropriation bill. I think this amendment is important. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering today is based on the principle that the Government, especially in this time of severe budget constraints, should not and cannot financially support every interest group, particularly those which have demonstrated the clear ability to be self-sufficient. My amendment would eliminate the Federal subsidy for the National Trust for Historic Preservation and save the taxpayers $3.5 million. Now let me emphasize that my intention is not to abolish the Trust or the many good programs that they carry out--but to remove a totally unnecessary Federal subsidy. The Trust is a congressionally chartered organization established by an act of Congress in 1949. Its original primary mission was to preserve buildings, sites, and objects of historical significance, but since this time, the Trust has acquired 18 such historic properties. But today, the Trust only allocates about 20 percent of their annual $33 million budget to this primary mission. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Trust has adopted significant administrative barriers which substantially preclude them from carrying out their primary mission. The Trust does not accept new properties unless they are fully endowed to cover all future operating expenses. The other 80 percent of their budget, according to their 1949 charter, goes to ``facilitate public participation in the preservation of historic sites, buildings and objects.'' Now apparently, my colleagues, under this category lobbying expenses of over three-quarters of a million dollars is included, lobbying expenses on things like this publication put out by the National Historic Trust lobbying against the free enterprise system, what most of us believe in. They have claimed that they do not engage in lobbying, at least that they do not use Federal expenditures for that, but it is used at least to utilize their private funds in order to lobby State legislatures, local and Federal level. In one case they sent bulletins to all their Virginia members urging them to write their State senators, write their delegates, to oppose pending legislation. They even provided sample letters as to what should be said. They have lobbied repeatedly against the free enterprise system and have waged a virtual war on the mass retailing industry. Also under this category falls litigation expenses for the Trust. In recent years, the Trust litigation department has had a budget of $700,000. In the last 5 years, the Trust has entered over 30 lawsuits against the Federal Government. They have entered suits against the FAA, State Department, Army Corps--and even the Justice Department and Interior Department, which by law sit on their board of trustees. The Trust has also managed to come up with $233,000 annually to pay the salary of the organization president. I ask my colleagues, ``Does an organization that pays almost a quarter of a million dollars for their president need a Federal subsidy?'' Six positions at the Trust paid salaries in excess of $100,000 in fiscal year 1994 for a total of $773,482--50 percent of this was charged to the Federal appropriation. In fiscal year 1995, there are five positions paid in excess of $100,000 and $333,362 is being charged to the Federal appropriation. How do we justify a Federal subsidy for an organization that can afford this? The bottom line here is that the Government cannot afford to subsidize groups with a proven track record of being able to support themselves. Over the last 5 years, revenues have exceeded Trust expenses every year and have contributed to the Trust developing a lucrative portfolio of assets which now exceeds $50 million. The private funding base, which already constitutes over 80 percent of the funding for the Trust, would only need to be slightly expanded to cover any shortfall. In November, the elections demonstrated that the American people are clearly disillusioned with the direction the country is taking. We need to restore faith in our Government by honoring our commitment to the American people to reduce unnecessary spending. Now, Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues, You're going to hear that the issue is the mainstream program. It is not. It is not. How can cutting $3\1/2\ million out of the budget of over $33 million possibly endanger or jeopardize that program? It jeopardizes litigation, lobbying, entertainment, and high salaries. My colleagues will hear that the issue is historic preservation. It is not. It is not historic preservation, it is not mainstream, it is whether we can afford to subsidize well-endowed organizations. Mr. Chairman, let us return the Trust to the same status that it enjoyed for nearly 20 years when it existed without the benefit of an annual Federal subsidy in realization that we must restrict Federal expenditures to our country's most essential needs. I urge support for the Hutchinson amendment.