Robin Hayes

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, colleague and neighbor from the Ninth District of North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, in all due respect to my friend and colleague from Texas, there is no dilemma here. There is no dilemma at all. We either care about children or we do not care about children. This bill is about additional protection for children. Now, we are not talking about carrying pregnancies. We are not talking about fetuses. We are talking about a good rule that protects children. Born and unborn children merit and deserve protection. The consensus is clear, life begins at conception. This rule and this bill are not about in any way Roe v. Wade. These are simply protections for mothers and children. I support the rule. I support the bill. I want to help educate the Members of the House today about this piece of legislation. Confusion is being created about the issue at stake. What is at stake is prosecution for a criminal injuring a pregnant woman. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act will create stringent Federal penalties to protect mothers and children. The law states that an unborn child who during the commission of a violent Federal crime suffers bodily injury or death is considered a victim apart and in addition to harm being done to the mother. It grants the same Federal protection to unborn children against violence that already exists for all Americans. I am having a hard time believing the argument from the other side. They do not want to pass this bill because it designates the unborn child as a person. I want to ask them what do they want to happen to these criminals who knowingly abuse a pregnant woman and who know that by causing harm to the mother they will ultimately cause harm to the child? We cannot treat the child as a nonentity. I would ask the mothers here in Congress on both sides of the aisle, can they accept that? This legislation supports many of our States who are passing similar legislation in their State legislatures. In my home State of North Carolina it is a felony to injure a pregnant woman and cause her to undergo a miscarriage or stillbirth. Let us send a message to our State legislatures that we support prosecution of violent criminals. This legislation is common sense. Let us protect mothers. But most of all, let us protect our children, born and unborn, from harm. Support the rule. Support the bill.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for bringing a great rule to the floor. Mr. Speaker, as many people know, we have heard from California and Montana and Texas, now we go to the East Coast, North Carolina, where floods have inundated our farmers and our families. I come to the floor today to voice my strong support for a good rule, for a good bill, H.R. 2559, the Agricultural Risk Protection Act. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest) the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and others for the work that they and the staff have done with Members, farm constituents, and agricultural associations to put together this thoughtful, far-sighted crop insurance bill which is covered by this rule. Over the past several months, I have traveled around my district, the 8th of North Carolina, and spent dozens of hours listening to farmers and ranchers telling me about the state of the farm economy. In February, I, with the help of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the Committee on Agriculture, hosted a field hearing in Laurinburg, North Carolina, to learn farmers' concern about the current crop insurance program and what changes they felt needed to be implemented to achieve meaningful reform. The Committee on Agriculture took the comments of my farmers and the comments of other farmers around the country and passed a bill which addresses their concerns and strengthens crop insurance and provides better risk management tools for farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance is just one recent example of how the Committee on Agriculture takes a grass roots approach to learning about a problem and then, with a bipartisan effort, efficiently works to solve it. We are now looking to our colleagues here in the full House and the Senate to help us implement this reform and pass this rule. H.R. 2559 is a good bill created, for the most part, by our own farmers. This bill will provide long-term assistance badly needed. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the bill.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, over the past few months, I have traveled around my district and listened to farmers and ranchers tell me about the state of the farm economy--low commodity prices, drought, hurricanes. I also heard from my dairy farmers telling me of their dwindling dairy industry in North Carolina. A business which once thrived with as many as 400,000 milk cows, is now down to 75,000 cows--losing 5,000 in the last 3 years alone. I tell you these things about our dairy industry in North Carolina to give you some insight into our current situation. I want you to know, however, that while it is becoming increasingly difficult for our dairy farmers, there are still 478 farms employing hundreds of people and providing consumers in North Carolina with fresh milk every day. I come to the floor today to voice my strong support for H.R. 1402. Option 1-A is not only vital to the survival of the dairy industry in many regions, it is also good for consumers. Economic studies show that locally produced milk is cheaper for consumers because they don't have to pay the cost of shipping milk from surplus areas. Option 1-A is also good for consumers because it ensures that milk will get quickly from the cow to the consumer; therefore, it will have a longer shelf-life. The bottom line here is that North Carolinians want and deserve fresh milk. I, along with 230 of my colleagues, believe that the freshest milk is the milk that doesn't have to travel a thousand miles to get to our constituents. By voting against option 1-A, Members would be voting to put hundreds of more dairy farmers out of business--ensuring that milk will indeed have to be transported in year-round from farms all over the United States. I urge you to vote in favor of option 1-A and in favor of fresh milk and the family farm.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, over the past several months, I have traveled my district, the 8th District of North Carolina, and spent dozens of hours listening to farmers and ranchers tell me about the state of the farm economy. In February, I, with the help of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing) and the Committee on Agriculture, hosted a field hearing in Laurinburg to learn farmers' concern about the current crop insurance program and what changes they felt needed to be implemented to achieve meaningful reform. The Committee on Agriculture took the comments of my farmers and the comments from other farmers around the country and passed a bill which addresses their concerns and will strengthen crop insurance and provide better risk management tools for farmers and ranchers. Crop insurance is just one recent example of how the Committee on Agriculture takes a grass-roots approach in learning about a problem and then, with a bipartisan effort, efficiently works to solve it. Congress is once again being called upon to listen to what is going on in farm country and respond in a timely and effective manner. After hearing from my farmers, I introduced a bill last week, H.R. 2843, the Emergency Assistance for Farmers and Ranchers Act of 1999. In addition, I call on Members to help pass the emergency spending bill necessary for flooding and drought in crop areas this week.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the time and I thank the gentleman from Virginia for pointing out a number of the important issues and details that are what this bill and conference report are about. I rise in very, very strong support of our rule, of our military, and of this bill. The gentleman from Virginia and I just returned from a trip where we went to, among other places, North Korea. If our citizens in the Eighth District, home of Fort Bragg, would look at a city whose tallest buildings have missiles on top of them, where our Air Force base has patriot missile batteries on the ready 24 hours a day, where 14,000 pieces of artillery are trained on the South, 80 percent of which are aimed at Seoul only 40 kilometers away from the demilitarized zone, if they could see in the eyes of the young men and women who are standing face to face with the North Koreans every day as a deterrent to terrorism and rogue nations, there would be no question in their mind as to our continued and increased support for the military. Kosovo and Bosnia have brought to our attention the need to correct imbalances and deprivations that the military has suffered because of budget shortfalls in recent years. This authorization is more than $8 billion over the administration's request, and an additional $18 billion over a greatly reduced budget for defense in 1999. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and members of both parties have worked diligently, courageously and with much forethought to rebuild our military. That is what this rule is about. We have a volunteer force. We should maintain a voluntary and not a draft force. In order to do that, we must do things that are included in this bill, increasing pay, improving health care benefits, restoring REDUX, doing things that we owe to our military to correct years of neglect. This bill beefs up and strengthens areas that have been eroded over a number of years. It addresses major issues that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) has mentioned, but it also deals with such basics as ammunition and spare parts. So this is a broad-based, common- sense, very necessary piece of support for our men and women in uniform. In order for them to maintain the superiority, the commitment and to provide the protection for a world that is very, very dangerous, we should support them by unanimously passing this rule and this bill. They protect us; we need to support them.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to pose the same question to my colleagues in the House that I asked a group of veterans in Hoke County, North Carolina. Name this Country: 1,500,000 active service personnel, 10 standing Army divisions, 20 Air Force and Navy air wings, 2000 combat aircraft, 232 strategic bombers, 13 strategic missile submarines, 232 missiles, 500 ICBMs with 1950 warheads, 4 aircraft carriers, and 121 associated combat ships and submarines. The audience of VFW veterans, many of them retired military service men and women, had difficulty guessing what country I was talking about. I heard a number of responses--North Korea, Russia, Iraq, and finally someone guessed correctly--the United States. That is where this nation stands in terms of military strength. That is where we are since 1992 when a liberal president took over our military. The systematic degradation of our armed forces is a disgrace to the men and women who have fought for our country, to our fallen comrades, and to our veterans who stand witness to the dismantling of the military and the VA services they were promised when they entered the military. I have received letters, phone calls and personal visits, recounting horror stories of the services that veterans get from VA hospitals and medical clinics. Veterans' Administration officials report that an average wait for patients who need to see a specialist is almost 4 months--120 days! They hope to see this waiting period reduced to what they claim an acceptable level--30 days. I don't know about you, but when I am in pain--I want to do something about it now--not in 30 days and certainly not in 120 days. Our system is in need of drastic improvements. That is a fact. But cutting funding to the VA and its health care services while the veterans population grows is hurting the men and women who have served our country. You cannot continue to add users of VA services without increasing providers of the health care service. It's simple mathematics. I commend my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for producing legislation under the tightest of budgetary constraints that demonstrates this Congress' commitment to our nation's veterans. Specifically, I applaud the efforts of committee members to ensure that this bill provides $1.6 billion in additional funding over the insufficient amount requested in the President's budget. I urge my colleagues to support our veterans by supporting this bill. I am committed to working with other members of Congress to continue to improve upon the services the Veterans' Administration provide in North Carolina and around the country.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, educators in communities across the country are searching for innovative methods to assist families in combating the threats that plague so many of our nation's high schools. Drugs, juvenile violence, high school students dropping out of their education: schools have a responsibility to partner with parents in safeguarding our children from these hazards. In 1997, the last year for which we have reliable statistics available, there were 706,000 violent crimes involving teenagers. To reduce this number, we have to start early: as former Winston-Salem, North Carolina police chief George Sweat has said, ``the fight against crime needs to start in the highchair, not wait for the electric chair.'' Nationwide, 5 percent of students drop out of school. Only 40 percent of high school dropouts are employed. Dropping out often leads students to drifting, trouble and sometimes crime and time in jail. As the demands of the workplace grow more dependent upon high levels of literacy and technical skill, high school dropouts will increasingly face problems in getting and keeping jobs. The American family is the bedrock of hope for instilling values in children that can keep them on the right path. But our schools can help as well. The use of innovative methods to educate and encourage young people to respect themselves, to stay in school and out of trouble is essential. One such method is a public-private partnership to which over 40 percent of American schools belong. These schools work with the Channel One Network, an in-school news analysis program that reaches eight million American students daily. Studies have shown that public service announcements by this programmer for military recruitment and drug prevention have been extraordinarily effective. Students in Channel One Schools have more negative impressions of drug use. They are also more likely to consider enlisting in their nation's armed services. I believe that schools must increase such effective programs in the areas of juvenile violence and high school dropout prevention. I intend to work hard to ensure that our government expands its support of our schools' efforts in this direction.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule and in support of the Workplace Preservation Act. During the Easter recess, I embarked on an industry tour in my district in North Carolina. The industries of the 8th district are primarily agriculture and textile related. I visited eight small- and medium-sized manufacturers, including Cuddy Farms in Monroe and Clayson Knitting Mill in Star. These companies and many others like them represent the backbone of our district's economy. The number one concern on their minds was the new ergonomics regulations being considered by OSHA. They were truly fearful of the burdensome regulation that would not only create more paperwork and costly, unneeded changes but would also hinder communications between employer and employee. All too often it appears as if the government is slightly behind the times. The current unemployment rate is so low that in many parts of the country employers do and in fact must offer the most attractive work environment in order to recruit and retain employees. As one employer from the district wrote to me, ``My company is begging for employees from laborers to drivers to high-tech computer operators. We are doing everything we can to attract employees.'' Plant managers, human resources managers, and office managers are more than willing to work with their own employees on grievances and workplace conditions rather than plow through layers of government bureaucracy. The number of manufacturing jobs is on the decline. We are seeing more and more jobs going to Central America and overseas because, frankly, our government is making the cost of doing business in the United States too high for too many companies. Rural areas in our Nation are being hit hardest by the decline in manufacturing jobs. Keeping more unsubstantiated government regulation on these industries will only encourage them to continue to flee. Mr. Speaker, there is no question that politically powerful forces are at work here. Why else would OSHA hastily recognize a casual relationship between repetitive tasks and repetitive stress injuries without complete scientific documentation? I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and allow the National Academy of Sciences to complete its work. With all the facts, Congress can step back and prudently evaluate the need for new ergonomic guidelines. We must resist another in a long line of attempts to impose costly restrictions upon employers and employees with the one-size-fits-all Federal approach. Please support the rule and this bill.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for offering this very important amendment which does direct the attention at the needs of children, making sure that the born and the unborn children are given the proper attention and the sanctity of life is preserved. I urge your support for the Pitts amendment. It is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I support the child survival protection amendment offered by Mr. Pitts. This amendment does not cost the taxpayers any more money. This amendment assures the funding that we are currently sending overseas is used to save children's lives rather than terminate them. Children in third world countries are dying of diseases such as polio and dysentery, diseases our children in the United States will never have to worry about due to the advancesments in the American health care. But in developing countries, where public health standards are far inferior to ours, over 12 million children under the age of 5 die of these easily preventable diseases and malnutrition year. We are currently sending $385 million overseas for population control. We need to ensure these funds are used for the purposes which they were intended, saving children from diseases and malnutrition. Child Survival Funding provides oral re-hydration salts, immunization for childhood diseases, and vitamins and nutrition supplements. I ask my colleagues to support the Child Survival amendment, and stand firm for the lives of children around the world.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the bill. I thank the gentleman from Alabama and the gentlewoman from California for their diligence and their efforts on our behalf. I have an amendment which would withhold funding for the introduction of our Armed Forces into hostile situations unless the situation represents a clear threat to our strategic national interest. This amendment reflects the foreign policy that successfully guided our Nation through the Cold War. Based on a set of six firm principles, this policy was designed by President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. The rule today does not allow me to offer this amendment, but I will ask that it be printed in the Record. Just 1 month ago, Air Force Chief of Chief General Michael Ryan explained to Congress that while the Air Force could meet our Nation's emergency needs, its short-term operations tempo had to be greatly reduced. This is one of many reports of degradation in our force's readiness that are common because of the widening gap between our Nation's global security obligations and the resources provided to meet these obligations. Every Member in this body knows that under this administration, we are increasingly asking our men and women to do more with less. Fortunately, this Congress recognized that our forces are stretched to the limit and are on the brink of exhaustion. We recently took the much needed step of increasing our budget to address the services' long list of critical unfunded requirements. We must also review and scale down an American foreign policy which is increasingly expansive. There is no doubt that the United States is the anchor for the world's democracies. We proudly accept this responsibility and seek to promote the American ideal of freedom in every corner of the world. Unfortunately over the past decade, fulfilling our security obligations has become confused with a policy of policing the world. It is not the responsibility of the United States and her forces, nor should it be, to extinguish every political flare-up around the globe. This administration continues its attempts to reduce our force structure, it increases our military's operational tempo and involvement around the world. Over the past 8 years, our forces have endured a rate of deployment never before experienced in our Nation's history. Our men and women in uniform have been called to arms for ``operational events'' no less than 26 times since 1991 as compared to 10 times in the previous 30 years. The number of missions is almost countless. From Somalia to Haiti, Rwanda to Bosnia and most recently Kosovo, this administration has placed American men and women in harm's way without a defined objective. This fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants form of diplomacy is extremely dangerous, particularly when the lives of Americans are at stake. Secretary Weinberger wisely taught this Nation that American idealism does not always reflect our national security. While we seek to undermine political oppression and overthrow political tyranny, we cannot, in every instance, commit American force. We simply do not have the resources and, quite frankly, it is not our place. This policy is also counterproductive because it discourages our allies and others from paying their share and playing their part. Secretary Weinberger provided us a model that would prevent seemingly reckless military deployments. I believe it should be dusted off and used again by this administration and administrations to come. The Weinberger Doctrine calls for the engagement of our forces only: In defense of our own vital interests; with a clear intention of winning; with defined objectives; with continual reassessment of the conditions and our goals; with the overwhelming support of the American people and the Congress; and as a last resort. To many Americans this may seem elementary. In fact, most Americans believe these six premises compose the guiding principles that underscore our current foreign policy. As all of us know, this is unfortunately not the case. Mr. Chairman, I will not offer the amendment today, but I am committed to returning the Weinberger Doctrine to American foreign policy, and I intend to offer it in the future. I encourage all of my colleagues to review this doctrine, support it, and would urge the administration to adopt it. Mr. Chairman, I include the amendment I would have offered, as follows: Amendment to H.R. 2606, as Reported Offered by Mr. Hayes of North Carolina Page 116, after line 5, insert the following: adherence to a consistent policy with respect to the introduction of united states armed forces into hostile situations Sec. ____. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances unless such introduction meets the following requirements: (1) The introduction of Armed Forces adheres to the ``Weinberger Doctrine'', the philosophy of former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, which states-- (A) such introduction of Armed Forces should take place only if the vital national interests of the United States are in jeopardy; (B) the commitment to introduce the Armed Forces should be framed around clearly defined political and military objectives; (C) prior to such introduction of Armed Forces, there should exist a reasonable assurance that the President will have the support of the people of the United States and their elected representative in Congress for such introduction; (D) such introduction of Armed Forces should be a last resort; (E) such introduction of Armed Forces should be done wholeheartedly and in a manner by which the Armed Forces have an overwhelming superiority so that a swift victory is virtually certain; and (F) the President should continually reassess and, if necessary, readjust the commitment to introduce the Armed Forces if conditions and objectives invariably change after such introduction; and (2) The President, after the mission of the Armed Forces has been defined and the Armed Forces have been introduced, allows senior general officers of the Armed Forces to carry out the mission in an unhindered manner.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, last November the voters of our Nation returned to Congress a conservative majority to accomplish four things: Preserve Social Security and Medicare, provide every American child with the opportunity to receive a world- class education, strengthen our national defenses, and finally, return any tax overcharges where they belong--to the United States taxpayer. Today we have the opportunity to complete the fourth component of an agenda that reflects the priorities of America. Chairman Archer, the members of his committee and his staff are to be commended, as in the leadership of the majority party. Thanks to them, we have a chance to provide broad based tax relief for working Americans. The first real break they have had in almost 20 years. After all it's their money not the government's. In the last fiscal year, the federal government collected $1.8 trillion, almost $80 billion more than it needs to operate. Recent budget projections indicate that the federal government will take in more than $3 trillion in surplus revenues over the next ten years--$3 trillion, Mr. Speaker. I've got news for every member that opposes significant tax relief--the American people are paying too much money to the government. That money does not belong to politicians, it belongs to the people. And they know how best to spend it. There are those who say we must keep this money to preserve Social Security. Mr. Speaker, their remarks are not correct. The majority- crafted Social Security Lock Box legislation, which this body passed a month ago, protects all of the Social Security Trust Fund from bureaucratic political spending. The truth of the matter is that those who want to keep the money here in Washington want to spend it on more government. They should be ashamed. Government is too big already. We have a significant portion of the population in this country struggling to make ends meet, and many Washington politicians don't trust them to spend their own money. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of Americans working 12 to 14 hours a day, every day, to secure a brighter future for their families. They are saving for that first home, for their children's college education and for their retirement. Let's take this historic opportunity to help them realize their dreams. Support this legislation and give the American people more of their money and the tax relief they deserve.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the Defense appropriations bill. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), members of the Committee on Appropriations and the staffs for their effort in crafting this bill. I support the rule. I encourage all of the Members to support this fine rule. The committee has put forth legislation that reflects the great support this Congress has for 1.5 million men and women in uniform who selflessly defend our freedom. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our military personnel and their families, and I am honored to serve them here in Washington. Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base are in my district, and I am humbled every time I meet with any of the 45,000 dedicated Americans whose mission it is to maintain a strategic crisis response force, manned and trained to deploy rapidly anywhere in the world, prepared to fight upon arrival and win. This kind of dedication is unique, and I am pleased to support the rule and the legislation that will extend these American patriots an across-the-board 4.8 percent pay increase in basic pay. I must note, however, that I do take exception with the committee's decision to cancel production funding for the F-22 Raptor. As member of the Committee on Armed Services, I find it alarming that we would hastily turn our backs on a program which represents 15 years of research, development, rigorous testing and a $16 billion investment. For a bill that in all other areas represents the appropriate commitment to our military needs, this elimination in funding is a little shortsighted and I hope we will change that. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to returning to my district to tell the young men and women of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base that their Congress has done the right thing and has served them well, as they have done for us time and time again.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from Monday evening's votes. Had I been here, I would have supported three measures, H.R. 1033, House Resolution 25, and H.R. 1477, that passed under suspension overwhelmingly. Again, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 308, 309, and 310.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I especially take interest in the Troops to Teachers program. I am proud to be a sponsor of Congressman Joel Hefley's bill that would reauthorize and strengthen Troops to Teachers. So often we question whether government-designed programs produce the desired effect and benefit our constituents. This program does. I read a letter printed in the Fayetteville (N.C.) Observer-Times in which a constituent of mine wrote in asking for more information about Troops to Teachers. I am submitting for the record a letter I wrote to the newspaper praising this program. Mr. Chairman, this program works and I cannot think of a better way for the men and women in uniform to continue their service to our country after they have completed their active duty. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, July 19, 1999. The Editorial Page Editor, The Fayetteville Observer-Times, Fayetteville, NC. Dear Editor: I am writing in response to a letter on the Live Wire, Thursday, July 15 regarding the Department of Defense Troops to Teacher Program. I was happy to see there is interest in such a valuable program. One of the most pressing challenges facing our country is recruiting, training and retaining high quality teachers for our public schools. While many proposals have been suggested to help attract new teachers, this program in particular has been highly successful in bringing qualified teachers into the classrooms. Troops to Teachers assists our men and women in uniform in identifying teaching certification programs and employment opportunities after they have fulfilled their serve to their country. Troops to Teachers has helped over 3,000 active duty soldiers enter our nation's classrooms and make significant contributions to our schools. There military personnel-turned teachers have established a solid reputation as dedicated and effective educators, who bring unique, real-world experiences to the classroom. I am a proud cosponsor of the Troops to Teachers Improvement Act of 1999, introduced by Congressman Joel Hefley (R-CO). This bill will re-authorize and strengthen its successful program through 2004. I cannot think of a better way for these qualified and well trained men and women to continue serving their country after they have left the military. Please feel free to contact our office with any comment or concerns that you may have on Troops to Teachers (or any other issue). You can contact our Washington office at 202/ 225-3715, and our office here in the 8th district can be reached toll-free at 888/207-1311. Sincerely, Robin Hayes, Member of Congress.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I support strongly the Andrews amendment. I appreciate his putting the hard work into this. We just had a hearing in Concord about a week ago now. I was amazed at the number of principals and teachers that came and talked about the kind of assistance that they would like to have. This amendment helps them. On the Fourth of July, I held a forum, as I said, to discuss the influence of entertainment in the media on the growing problem of youth violence. I invited the teachers and parents to come. Many citizens did just that. They discussed the awareness of citizens, that we must all work together to support our children. There is a consensus that we must restore much-needed balance to legislation that impacts our culture. Local educators expressed the need to reach out and teach character education in our schools. Parents agree that the values and morals that are taught at home should be reinforced at school. Administrators ask for the tools and support to work with parents and community organizations to provide substantive programs for after school. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and support our teachers and school administrators by making character education development programs available to teachers and parents so that they can work together to craft a curriculum that reflects the values of their community. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey again for this amendment.

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Fletcher's amendment. As my colleagues know I was a cosponsor on this amendment to H.R. 1501, the Juvenile Justice legislation several weeks ago. Over the Fourth of July recess, I held a forum in my home town of Concord, North Carolina to discuss the influence of entertainment and the media on the growing problem of youth violence. I invited teachers, parents, school administrators, students and concerned citizens to join me in a community discussion to raise awareness of our citizens that we must all work together to support our children. There was a consensus that we must restore some much needed balance to legislation that impacts our nation's culture. Local educators expressed the need to teach character education in our schools. Parents agreed that the values and morals that are taught at home should be reinforced at school. And Administrators asked for the tools and support to work with parents and community organizations to provide substantive after school programs. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and support our teachers and school administrators by making character education development programs available so teachers and parents can work together to craft a curriculum that reflects the values of their community.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, there have long been concerns regarding the funding of the United Nations Population Fund and its family planning practices around the world. From 1986 to 1992, UNFPA received no United States funds because of its presence in China, where coercive population practices have been reported. In 1993, this administration let these family planning practices off the hook and funding was restored. Until the UNFPA provides concrete assurances that it was not engaged in, or does not provide funding for, abortions or coercive family planning programs. I can not support this additional funding to the UNFPA. Intense pressure to meet family planning targets set by the Chinese government has resulted in documented instances of officials using coercion, including forced abortion and sterilization, to meet government population goals. The family practices employed by the Chinese government are alarming. Poll after poll reveals that a significant portion of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong, and even more Americans would agree that federal tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions. This loophole in funding must be closed for the safety of unsuspecting mothers who are given little choice. I am adamantly opposed to any commitment of federal funds for the purpose of abortion services in the United States or abroad. I also oppose the deceptive actions of the United Nations family planning agencies that use their UN funding to pay the electric bill while diverting ``private funds'' to pay for their forceful family planning practices. How can I go back to my district and tell my constituents I don't have the resources to help protect our neighborhoods or for after school programs for our students, because we have to sent our federal dollars to the United Nations to perform abortions? I cannot support funding for the United Nations Population Fund until there are assurances and documented evidence that United States federal funds do not fund abortions half way around the world. I ask my colleagues to support the Smith-Barcia Amendment and to vote no on the Campbell-Gilman amendment.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, we are from Congress, we are here to help. That is great. Let us help the American textile worker and family for a change. Help Africa, of course, but not at the expense of American men and women who depend on textiles for their livelihood. For those who believe that the Sub-Saharan trade bill represents free and fair trade, I invite them down to the 8th District of North Carolina. I invite them to meet the most decent and hard-working people in this great Nation. And I invite them to stand at the mill gate and explain to them how wonderful this legislation will make their lives. They have heard it before. They remember clearly the promises made to them during negotiations of NAFTA and GATT, and they now know these promises were hollow. Mr. Speaker, we in rural, textile-rich America no longer have faith in trade agreements which so obviously disregard the health of our proud industry. We can fix this. All we have to do is vote to recommit and support the Bishop-Myrick amendment. Mr. Speaker, as it is now written, without a textile provision, no one in Africa is helped by the massive transshipment industry created for the Chinese. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) read their press release, their game plan. Their plan is clear as a bell. Let the transshipments begin. The only person helped may be someone selling aviation fuel for the planes which will bring the foreign goods to bury our textile industry and the men and women who depend on it. My colleagues will complete the destruction of this industry, its jobs and especially its people by allowing this bill to pass without the Bishop- Myrick amendment. Mr. Speaker, we saw fit to acknowledge the crisis in our steel industry. I supported this measure. I did not support it because I have a lot of steel manufacturers in my district, I supported it because it was the right thing to do. While the plight of the steel industry is serious, the plight of the textile industry has been nothing short of tragic. While the steel industry lost 17,000 jobs, the textile industry has lost 180,000 during the same time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support American people, support a true American industry, vote to recommit and fix this bill which, in its present form, only serves to hurt African-Americans and others in the U.S.A., taking their jobs. Help Africa, but help America first.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending motion and hope that my colleagues will join me voting down the previous question. It is my understanding that under current law a Cost-of-Living- Adjustment (COLA) is enacted annually. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, the rule crafted for the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill does not allow for members to vote up or down on this automatic COLA. This concerns me--I had hoped for an opportunity to vote against any sort of congressional pay raise for members of Congress. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, I can't support this rule and will vote against this motion. Over the Independence Day recess, I visited farmers and manufacturers across the 8th District of North Carolina. These are hard-working, decent people, Mr. Chairman. They expect a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. During my stops, I was troubled by numerous stories of fleeting jobs and falling wages. While our nation's economy continues to grow, many rural Americans are struggling in their local economies. In the 8th District alone, double-digit unemployment is common. In our smaller, more remote communities economic development is virtually stagnant. Mr. Chairman, with so many of my constituents and rural Americans across the country struggling to make ends meet, it seems to me inappropriate to support a congressional pay raise. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this motion. Ms. Roybal-Allard. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 2490, the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2000. This is my first year as a member of the Appropriations Committee, and as a member of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Subcommittee, and I have enjoyed working with Chairman Jim Kolbe, Ranking Democrat Steny Hoyer and other members of the subcommittee. Chairman Kolbe put together a solid schedule of budget hearings, including a special hearing on ONDCP's anti-drug media campaign and a special hearing on integrity issues affecting the Customs Service. I also accompanied Chairman Kolbe on two ``field trips'' to see facilities the Secret Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms at work, and I came away with a much fuller understanding of the vital work these agencies perform on a day-to-day basis. I had high hopes of supporting this bill throughout the legislative process. Certainly, the bill reported out of our subcommittee had much to commend it, including several provisions added at my request. It was a sound, bi-partisan bill, unanimously supported by all members of the Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government Subcommittee. Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Hoyer had worked in a bipartisan fashion to craft a bill that stayed within a tight 302(b) allocation of $13,562,000,000, while essentially maintaining current services for the important agencies and functions within the jurisdiction of the bill. These vital agencies include the Internal Revenue Service, the Secret Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Customs Service, as well as the Executive Office of the President and numerous executive agencies. I would specifically like to thank the Chairman for including report language addressing a serious issue regarding the Customs Service. During a special committee hearing, I raised questions about a portion of a report that had been prepared by the Treasury Department regarding the integrity of the Customs Service. I was particularly concerned about a portion of the report which said: Most serious, however, is the belief that inspectors who are hired locally, particularly along the Southwest border and assigned to the local ports of entry, could be at greater risk of being compromised by family members and friends who may exploit their relationships to facilitate criminal activities. Although they could not offer any solid evidence, Senior Customs officials expressed a real apprehension over the possibility that individuals were attempting to infiltrate Customs by seeking jobs as inspectors for the sole purpose of engaging in corrupt and criminal behavior. At my request, the Committee included language taking strong exception to any implication that individuals of Hispanic background are particularly susceptible to corruption and laying out the Committee's expectation that the Customs Service should address unsubstantiated bias by senior Customs officials as it implements its anti-corruption strategy. Additionally, I am grateful that the bill includes report language directing the General Services Administration to provide necessary funding for the renovation of a federal building located in my district in Downtown Los Angeles in its fiscal year 2001 budget submission. this project is absolutely critical for the safety of the 2,000 workers and 4,000 to 5,000 public visitors who occupy this building on an given day. The building, which currently houses branches of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies, was originally built in 1963, and is in grave need of safety enhancements such as a building-wide fire alarm system, seismic strengthening, safety upgrades to the elevators and stairwells, as well as modifications to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements. So I believe the bill had considerable merit as reported by the subcommittee, and that Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Hoyer had crafted the best bill possible under tight budget constraints. Unfortunately, during consideration by the Full Appropriations Committee, nearly $240 million was cut from the bill at the direction of the Republican leadership. Responding to a small minority of the Republication party who have sought to control the budget process this year, this cut was passed by the Appropriations Committee on a straight party-line vote, 33 to 26. While we were told that this reduction is necessary to relieve pressure on other appropriation bills, $240 million is merely a drop in the bucket of what is actually needed to make our other appropriation bills passable. However, $240 million is a very severe cut to our bill, which was already stretched to the limit. A significant amount of this cut--$135 million--would come from the Internal Revenue Service. Just last year Congress passed the IRS Reform and Restructuring Act, which required the IRS to reorganize, and make significant changes to protect taxpayer rights and improve services. The cut of $135 million will completely jeopardize IRS's ability to follow through on these important reforms. This cut also includes a $50 million reduction in IRS's funding for its Year 2000 conversion. If the IRS fails to complete its Y2K conversion on time, they will be unable to process returns and provide tax refunds to our nation's taxpayers during the 2000 tax season. Another $100 million has been cut from the General Services Administration's Repair and Alterations account with the Federal Buildings Fund. This reduction will severely impair GSA's ability to provide adequate physical security and make the many needed repairs at over 8,400 federal buildings throughout the country. I think we all recognize this as penny-wise and pound-foolish policy. Reducing funding now for GSA's Repairs and Alterations will only end up costing the American taxpayer much more in the long run for increased repair costs made necessary by deferred maintenance. This reduction in GSA's budget is in addition to the fact that no funding is provided in the bill this year for new courthouse planning and construction. The lack of funding for the courthouse construction program is particularly distressing given the fact that other federal law enforcement spending has increased significantly over recent years, putting significant stress on the courts. With no funding for modern court facilities, the ability for the Justice Department and our federal judges to deal efficiently with their caseloads is made increasingly difficult. In addition, according the GSA, delaying funding of new courthouse projects increases costs by an average of 3 to 4% annually--meaning that the federal government will have to pay significantly more for the same projects in years to come. I am personally very concerned about this lack of funding, as the proposed new federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, located in my district, is the first on a priority list agreed to by GSA and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for FY 2000. A new courthouse is desperately needed because the existing facility, built over 60 years ago, lacks the necessary courtroom space to accommodate its rapidly increasing workload. In fact, the Los Angeles courthouse was officially ``out of space'' in 1995. This lack of space has created delays, inefficiencies, and a huge backlog of cases. Accordingly to the Judicial Conference of the U.S., the current facility has ``critical security concerns,'' including ``life-threatening'' security deficiencies, which have been documented by the U.S. Marshalls Service. For example, prisoners facing trial must be transported to various courtrooms from secure detention facilities at remote locations. This process is expensive and difficult for the U.S. Marshalls Service, and it is potentially threatening to visitors in crowded corridors, including, in some cases, witnesses at the same trials. The U.S. Attorneys office must also cope with assembling the elements of a successful prosecution with staff and resources scattered at locations throughout the Los Angeles area. I believe these cuts adopted by the full Appropriations Committee place in jeopardy the ability of the important agencies within our bill to fulfill their vital missions. For that reason, I must reluctantly oppose the bill in its present form. Finally, I was also extremely disappointed that the full committee voted to strike a provision that Congressman Frank Wolf and I had included at subcommittee giving the Office of National Drug Control Policy the authority to address underage drinking in their youth Anti- Drug Media Campaign. This provision was critical because, according to General McCaffrey, the Director of ONDCP, he lacks the legal authority to address alcohol in the media campaign. Even more important is that research has shown that alcohol is an important ``gateway drug,'' leading to the use of other, illegal drugs. In fact, General McCaffrey has stated that alcohol ``is the biggest drug abuse problem for our adolescents and it is linked to the use of other illegal drugs.'' For example, more than 67% of kids who start drinking before age 15 end us using illicit drugs. Additionally, ONDCP's own data shows that young people who drink are 22 times more likely to smoke marijuana and 50 times more likely to use cocaine than those who don't drink. Conducting an anti-drug media campaign that does not address this linkage seriously hampers the effectiveness of the $1 billion, taxpayer funded effort. Until we incorporate this message into our anti-drug campaign, parents and children will be deprived of the basic fact that underage drinking, while dangerous in and of itself, may also lead kids to a lifetime of illicit drug dependence. In short, this was originally a good bill. But pressure from the Republican right wing has turned it into a bad bill. The IRS and our important law enforcement agencies like the Secret Service and the BATF are on the brink of being unable to fulfill the responsibilities we have given them. Further, we have adopted a penny-wise, pound-foolish policy for the General Services Administration, both in terms of vital new construction as well as on-going maintenance and repairs for the huge inventory of federal buildings where our constituents do their business every day. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill to send the message that we need to fund our agencies adequately, and I sincerely hope that we will come to our senses later in the legislative process and make this bill the bi-partisan product that it once was and still can become.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to simply say, my colleague is wrong. My colleague is questioning the motives of his friends and mine on the other side of the aisle. We simply say this is the American people's money. They deserve to have it back. It is a very simple story. It is not about motives. It is about the fact that it is their money, they should have it back. It is not where it goes. It is whose it is. It is the American people's money. We have taken it from them. We firmly believe on our side of the aisle that the American people can best decide how to spend their money, not the Government, not a group of bureaucrats in Washington.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank our distinguished Chairman for his commitment to the natural resources and national treasures of America. Chairman Regula, his committee and staff have all worked tirelessly to present the legislation before us and they deserve our gratitude for their fine efforts. In particular, I want to thank the Chairman for his personal attention to the maintenance needs of the Uwharrie National Forest. My constituents in the eighth district, as well as the thousands of frequent users from all over North Carolina, can look forward to safer, cleaner and better recreational experiences at the Uwharrie. Again, I appreciate the time and thought put into this bill and to the Chairman's commitment to preserving the beauty of our nation.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank our distinguished Chairman for his commitment to our Armed Services personnel, who rely on the United States Congress to address important quality of life issues. The Chairman and the members of his subcommittee deserve our gratitude for their fine work in crafting the legislation before us. In particular, I want to thank the Chairman for his personal attention to the needs of our soldiers and airmen, and their families, at Ft. Bragg and Pope Air Force Base in the 8th District of North Carolina. It should be noted that back in February the Chairman and his subcommittee were handed a flawed funding proposal by the Administration--one that called for an unprecedented piecemeal funding approach. The Chairman and his subcommittee wisely rejected this proposal, realizing that incremental funding simply doesn't work for military construction. Instead, the House is considering legislation that properly addresses that military housing needs of our armed services. Mr. Chairman, let me also take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Chairman and those members who will join him in representing the House during the MilCon Appropriations conference an important issue to the 8th District and all of North Carolina. Included in the Senate version of this legislation is report language directing the Army National Guard to include for a combat arms educational facility in its Fiscal Year 2001 budget submission. The current facilities for the North Carolina Guard's education center are antiquated and no longer meet their needs. I have before me a letter from Brigadier General Michael Squier, Deputy Director of the Army National Guard, stating that the Educational Facility is of the highest priority. Such a strong endorsement certainly indicates to me that this facility is an important project. I appreciate the Chairman's consideration of the Senate language and his commitment to America's patriots in uniform. Departments of the Army and the Air Force National Guard Bureau Arlington, VA, May 25, 1999. Hon. Jesse Helms, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I deeply apologize for our error in submitting information on the Military Education Center at Fort Bragg. We had earlier reported that it was not in the Future Years Defense Plan. It most definitely is, as shown in the Army National Guard's Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Submission for Military Construction (copy enclosed). This project is of the highest priority to the Army National Guard and has my personal interest along with that of Major General Rudisill, the Adjutant General of North Carolina. Your support of the National Guard is appreciated as always. Sincerely, Michael J. Squier, Brigadier General, U.S. Army, Deputy Director, Army National Guard.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, last weekend I was going through my father's personal items. He passed away in November. I found this Bible tucked away in a drawer. On the front is inscribed ``May this comfort and protect you.'' Inside it reads, ``Commander in Chief, I take pleasure in commending the reading of the Bible to all who served in the Armed Forces of the United States Throughout the centuries men of many faiths and diverse origins have found in the sacred book words of wisdom, counsel, and inspiration. It is the foundation of strength, and now as always an aid in attaining the highest aspirations of the human soul.'' Franklin Roosevelt. The next page: ``Our prayers are constantly with you, thanking God daily for your joy and faith in him. Heartfelt love, Mother.'' We have heard the question today, ``what right does the government have imposing its values on us.'' What right did President Roosevelt have sending my father off to war with this bible more 50 years ago. The president is a leader, Congress is a leader, we need to lead by example by turning to our faith.

Mr. HAYES

Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, our airmen and soldiers deployed to Kosovo executed their mission, albeit unclear, with swiftness and precision. Thanks to them and the rigorous training they undertake daily, the crisis in Kosovo is over. For this I, my colleagues, the American people, and the ethnic Albanian of Kosovo are grateful, and as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I'm proud to take any opportunity to thank and honor them. I cannot, however, support a motion that commends this Administration for its role in the Kosovo conflict. How can we praise the Administration for a mission that was never defined, an exit strategy that was never communicated, and a failure to consult the Congress of the United States? While I am glad that the violence in Kosovo has ceased, I remain critical of the means which brought about the end. And quite frankly, I believe the President should feel fortunate that we appear to have at least temporarily resolved the conflict. Mr. Speaker, the Administration never presented the Congress and the American people with a clear outline of our goals in Kosovo. More importantly, never were we provided with the leadership that the people of our nation and of the entire free world have come to expect from the United States. Fortunately, our fighting forces prevailed and proved, once again, that they are the finest in the world. But to suggest that they ended the conflict in Kosovo because they were given a blueprint for victory is simply wrong.