Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, what is this House going to say to Earl and Irene Baker, who came to my town hall meeting and told me about the 21 pills that Earl takes every day and how Irene cannot fill her prescription drugs because she figures her husband is sicker than she is and they cannot afford to fill both sets of prescriptions? I say, do not put them at the mercy of private insurance companies, do not make them write a $39 check each month to pay their premium and keep their coverage. Give them a guaranteed, defined benefit, reliable Medicare prescription drug coverage. They deserve it and they need it.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Foley-Markey amendment with transfers funds from nuclear energy research to renewable energy programs. As a follow-up to the Budget Committee's hearing on my legislation, the Corporate Welfare Reform Commission Act, I continue to support efforts to root out corporate welfare. While my legislation is a comprehensive approach to get at all corporate welfare in the federal budget and tax code, I have been looking closely at programs funded through the appropriations bills that provide unnecessary and wasteful subsidies to industry. Over the past fifty years, the nuclear power industry has received $47 billion in subsidies from the American taxpayers. The nuclear power industry is now a mature industry with over $140 billion in revenues last year alone. Funding under the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) is funneled to some of the largest corporations in the country. These very successful companies can stand to do without the support of the American taxpayer. This amendment also has the benefit of transferring this money to a more deserving cause which is in the early stages of development and which provides a truly clean source of energy: wind power research. Some of the funds transferred under this amendment would also go to research on other renewable, cleaner forms of energy. I urge the House to support the amendment by Mr. Foley and Mr. Markey.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Serrano-Ramstad- Delahunt amendment that would restore some of the proposed cut in the Legal Services Corporation budget that the committee has brought to the floor. The Serrano amendment is desperately needed and we must pass this amendment. I am proud to stand with them in this regard. I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Pennsylvania, the previous speaker, with whom I served for several years in the Pennsylvania House and for whom I have the highest regard. I would respectfully suggest to the gentleman from Pennsylvania that the issue is not the question of phantom caseloads or of problems from 1997 or 1995 or any other year. The problem is what will these cuts do to Legal Services in 2001? What will be the impact in our communities if we cut Federal support for Legal Services by over 50 percent? I would suggest to the gentleman and to the Members of the House that the impact will be dramatic. Let me talk a little about Legal Services in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where I come from. The Montgomery County Legal Aid Society has already had its Federal support cut from a high of $300,000 per year to $200,000 a year. If this proposed cut goes through, they will be cut again to $100,000 a year. Their caseload in the past has been as high as 2,000 cases a year; but that has been reduced by 250 or 300 cases because of the cuts from 1995 they have already had to absorb in Federal support. If this cut goes through, they will have to reduce their caseload another 250 or 300 cases a year. Now, this is a county that is actually pretty fortunate, because it is in a State, Pennsylvania, that has increased support for legal aid. While the Federal support in Montgomery County is $200,000 a year, the State support is another $200,000 a year; and Montgomery County government provides $300,000 a year to the Montgomery County Legal Aid Society. Private lawyers and the county bar association provide another $100,000. We are better off than many counties that have a lower level of local resources available to support such a necessary program. But the problem is that when this Federal support is reduced, the impact is not on phantom cases. We are not sending a message to bureaucrats. We are not reading the riot act to the people that run Legal Services Corporation in Washington. We are reducing services to people in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and across this Nation. Most of these people that will lose services will be women. Two-thirds of the clients of Legal Services are women, poor women, working poor women. These are women that need help with protection from abuse cases. These are women that need help in consumer fraud cases. These are women that need help with financial problems, women that need help with foreclosures, women that need legal services. This cut will deny in my county another 250 or 300 cases from being represented for poor people and the working poor in my county. We have a principle in this country of equal justice for all. To make that principle come true, we have to give equal access to the courts for all. The bill attacks that principle. This amendment would correct that problem and would provide adequate funding for legal services. I support the Serrano amendment and urge the House to do the same.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the HUD/VA appropriations bill. I am opposed to cuts in the HUD budget, especially with regard to the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is cut by about $300 million from last year's level, and the HOME investment program. The Community Development Fund provides funding to state and local governments, and to other entities that carry out community and economic development activities. The HOME investment partnerships program provides grants to states and units of local government through formula allocation for the purpose of expanding the supply of affordable housing. As a former Montgomery County Commissioner, I know how heavily local communities rely on these funds. These cuts block efforts by our communities to create desperately needed affordable housing and jobs and curtail efforts to expand home ownership and revitalize our poorest communities. These programs are a key incentive to development in my community in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. According to local officials who have contacted me about these critical programs, these reductions mean that much needed development work may be delayed or canceled. Other objectionable provisions in this bill include the anti- environmental riders, no new funding for additional Section 8 vouchers, and no funding for the President's National Service program. Overall spending for the bill is more than $2 billion below the President's request. I will vote against this legislation in the hope that the conference committee will improve on the work of the House.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sununu-Andrews amendment and compliment those gentlemen for offering it. Mr. Chairman, this really is nothing but an unnecessary subsidy of three large and successful auto companies. I am glad these companies are successful. They are doing well in our free market economy creating a lot of jobs, doing a lot of good things. The numbers certainly show that: the profits of Ford in 1999, over $7 billion; General Motors, $6 billion; Chrysler, almost $6 billion. They put almost that much money back into research, and I am delighted that the marketplace allows them to do that. Their success in the marketplace allows them to do that. The amount of money that this program, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, is providing is a small fraction of what the private sector in these auto companies is already devoting to research for these kinds of vehicles. The fact of the matter is this is a classic example of corporate welfare. We are subsidizing something that the private sector is already doing. We are subsidizing something with taxpayers' dollars that the private sector wants to do, is doing, has the resources to do, and has the incentive to do. There is no reason in the world for us to be putting $126 million into a program that is getting billions of dollars of private sector investment directed to it. Several people have referred to the GAO report that says it is unlikely that such a car will be manufactured and sold to consumers. I do not know whether that is really all that important here today. I hope that this kind of a car is developed. But it is going to be developed whether the Federal Government puts tax dollars into it or not. That is why this is corporate welfare. We are supporting something that the private marketplace is doing on its own. We should let the market decide. These three big companies are trying to develop hybrid engines that combine gasoline or diesel motors with electric parts. Honda and Toyota are doing the same. We should let the market decide. The Congressional Budget Office has said, if Honda and Toyota do succeed in the U.S. market, our auto makers will have every incentive in the world to try to meet that competition and continue this research and development. If these Japanese hybrid cars do not succeed in our marketplace, our additional dollars are unlikely to change or revoke that judgment of the market.

Mr. HOEFFEL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire for offering this amendment. We do not need to subsidize something that the marketplace is already doing. I urge strong support for the Sununu-Andrews amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, last night I missed two votes on procedural motions numbered 255 and 256. I was attending my son's graduation from high school. If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both motions.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, last week the Budget Committee held a hearing on my legislation H.R. 3221, the Corporate Welfare Commission Act. The Committee heard testimony from several witnesses including members of Congress about the most egregious examples of unnecessary and wasteful subsidies to industry. While members of Congress have mixed feelings about many of the items other members consider corporate welfare, there is virtual unanimity in the belief that the 1872 Mining Law needs reform. The 1872 Mining Law was enacted to promote mineral exploration and development on federal lands in the western United States and to encourage settlers to move west. This law granted free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals on public lands. Once a discovery was made, they were allowed to stake a claim on the deposit. The law works this way: Once the prospector does some exploration work on public land, he may stake a claim on an area that he believes to contain a valuable mineral. The price of holding such a claim is $100 per claim per year. If the prospector spends at least $500 on development work on the parcel and the claimed mineral deposit is determined to be economically recoverable, the claim holder may file a patent application for the title to surface and mineral rights. If the application is approved, the claimant may purchase surface and mineral rights for between $2.50 and $5.00 an acre. These amounts have not been adjusted since 1872. There is no limit on the number of claims a person can locate, nor is there a requirement that mineral production ever commence. And as if this policy were not bad enough, the 1872 Mining Law lets mining companies extract the minerals without paying a royalty. This is unlike all other resources taken from public lands. For example, oil, gas and coal industries operating on the public lands pay a 12.5 percent royalty on gross income of the operation. On tribal lands, the average royalty paid for copper was 13 percent. In the private sector, gold royalties range from 5 to 18 percent. As an unnecessary subsidy, this policy should have been reformed long ago. But the harm of this policy does not end with wasteful government support for the mining industry. Once the land has been exploited, the environmental damage is the additional price that taxpayers are forced to pay. Over the past century, irresponsible mining operators have devastated over half a million acres of land through carelessness and abandoned mines. According to the EPA, waste from mining operations has polluted more than 12,000 miles of our nations waterways and 180,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs. My amendment to the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations Bill, which was rejected by the Rules Committee, would impose a 5 percent royalty on all hard rock minerals mined from public lands. The funds generated from the royalty would be devoted entirely to environmental cleanup of these mining sites. The amendment would also make the current one year moratorium on the issuance of mining patents permanent (the current moratorium has been extended each year over the past five years). Mr. Speaker, this policy is in need of repair and reform. I am disappointed that the Rules Committee did not allow for House consideration of my amendment. I will continue to work with my colleagues to reform this outdated and wasteful policy.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Daniel L. Woodall for being honored with the Unico Gold Medal of Achievement Award. Dan was chosen for his special contributions to humanity by the Philadelphia Chapter of UNICO. I am pleased to acknowledge his outstanding accomplishments. Mr. Woodall began his association with Laborers' Local 135 in 1970 and has been active in many positions in the union. One of Dan's first leadership positions was in 1978 when he served as a delegate to the Philadelphia Laborers' District Council where currently he serves as the President. He has served as Trustee and Co-Chair for the Laborers' District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund and the Laborers' Education and Training/Apprenticeship Fund. He has also been Co- Chairman of the Chester and Montgomery County Building Trades Committee and was elected Alternate Vice-President for the Laborers' Eastern Pennsylvania States AFL-CIO. In 1999, Mr. Woodall was appointed by Governor Ridge to the Pennsylvania State Apprenticeship and Training Council, and currently serves on the Montgomery County Work Force and Investment Board for the Training and Employment Program. Mr. Woodall is also involved in a variety of civic and charitable events in the local community. Some of his activities include raising funds for the Cerebral Palsy Labor All-Star Classic and participating in events for the Boys Town of Italy and Unico Salute to Labor. In short, Dan not only contributes significantly in the labor movement but is also a man of action and integrity in his community. The Philadelphia Chapter of UNICO has wisely chosen Dan Woodall as the recipient of this award. Dan is truly a man who espouses quality union leadership, civic endeavors, family harmony and fits the Unico motto, ``Service Above Self.''

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, last night the House of Representatives passed the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Bill. I voted in favor of that legislation because I largely support the priorities reflected in the bill by Chairman Lewis, Ranking Member Murtha and the Defense Appropriations subcommittee. Today, the Budget Committee is conducting a hearing on my legislation, H.R. 3221, the Corporate Welfare Commission Act. Under the bill, a Commission would be created to root out unnecessary and wasteful subsidies, and report their recommendations to the House and Senate. Their recommendations would receive expedited floor consideration to ensure that members of Congress were put on record on these wasteful programs. One program which is often mentioned as one of the most egregious examples of wasteful spending, and which was mentioned today by the witnesses, is the subsidy the government gives to encourage defense mergers. The program was created in 1993 and was intended to save taxpayers billions of dollars by allowing defense contractors to charge the costs of mergers to government contracts. A recent study by the Department of Defense reflects significant cost savings for the government under this program but an independent study by the General Accounting Office could not verify DoD's claims. According to the GAO study, the government spent approximately $850 million on just the seven largest defense contractor mergers. I think this program deserves closer scrutiny. While I don't question the nature of these mergers which have to be approved by the Department of Defense; I do question the policy of having the U.S. taxpayers pay at least a portion of the cost for such mergers. I urge the eventual conferees on the Department of Defense Authorization and Appropriations bills to consider a change in this policy.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the Glenside Fire Company on its 100th anniversary. The town of Glenside was founded in 1888 when Philadelphians sought residential summer homes in the newly developing suburbs of Montgomery County. Glenside was a small town of fewer than 200 inhabitants 100 years ago, but with the advent of the railroad the town began to flourish. In February 1900, W.T.B. Roberts, George D. Heist, and Frederick Smith led an initiative to create a local volunteer fire department. By March the fire company was officially founded. On May 17, 1900, the county officially granted the Glenside Fire Company a charter. The Fire Company progressed quickly. In June 1900, the company's first foreman and assistant foreman were elected. The firefighters bought a wagon with a hose and constructed a fire alarm by striking the rim of a steam locomotive with a sledgehammer. The Glenside Fire Company set up a temporary location near Mount Carmel Avenue and Easton Road. It was in 1901 the Weldon Hotel caught on fire and the company made its first official response. By 1907, the company established a permanent location about 100 feet away from its present location. In the past 100 years, many dedicated people have volunteered at the Glenside Fire Company. I am proud to have such an extraordinary Fire Company in my district. This anniversary should serve as a long- standing tribute to hard work and dedication for all who have made the Glenside Fire Company the wonderful organization it is.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the Borough of Conshohocken on its 150th anniversary. On May 15, 1850, William Fraeme Johnson, the Governor of Pennsylvania, signed the official incorporation papers making Conshohocken the third incorporated borough in Montgomery County. In 1850, Conshohocken began with only 727 residents living in the area. Today, the borough is home to 9,000 residents. Following World War I, the Federal Government recognized Conshohocken for its contribution to the war effort. In fact, the borough sent more men and women, per capita, off to war than any other American town. As a reward for their efforts, the U.S. Government built and named a merchant marine ship, the Conshohocken, after the borough. Conshohocken also contributed heavily to the World War II effort when one out of seven residents served in the Armed Forces. The Borough of Conshohocken is nationally recognized for its sports teams as well. Since their early professional basketball and football teams were crowned national champions, Conshohocken is recognized in both the National Basketball Association and the National Football League Halls of Fame. Conshohocken, which means ``Pleasant Valley,'' is also home to nationally recognized industries. In 1835, the Schuylkill Navigation Company built a canal through the area. This canal brought the iron industry to Conshohocken. Alan Wood Steel was formed when James Wood and his son, Alan, used the canal water to power furnaces and form a steel mill. By 1920, Alan Wood Steel was responsible for 8 percent of the country's steel production as it provided jobs for local residents. Conshohocken was the site of many industrial innovations. The former John Wood company invented the ``Arc'' weld, Conshohocken's Lee Tires invented the vulcanization of rubber and Hale Pumps led the industry in fire truck pump production. Conshohocken is part of a nationwide initiative to revitalize towns that were dominated by the coal, iron, or steel industries. Through this program Conshohocken has made a remarkable transition from an industrial town to one that fosters corporate development and programs. I am proud to represent such an extraordinary town like Conshohocken, PA. This sesquicentennial anniversary should serve as a long-standing tribute to hard work and dedication for all who have made Conshohocken the wonderful place it is.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) and the Council Migration Service of Philadelphia on their 118th (one hundred plus ``chai'') Anniversary. Founded in 1882 by Louis Edward Levy, HIAS and Council was the first organization of its kind in the United States. HIAS and Council is part of a humanitarian effort of help Jews and people of other backgrounds who are fleeing from persecution. HIAS and Council helps to provide asylum and resettlement to all people who want to enter the United States. HIAS and Council works diligently to help the refugees adapt to their new environment and gain permanent residence in America. Because of the extensive work done by HIAS and Council in the 1920's, Philadelphia became the second most active community in the country for assisting Jewish refugees fleeing from Eastern Europe. In 1976, the U.S. Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) recognized HIAS and Council as an agency authorized to practice immigration and nationality law on behalf of eligible clients. This organization is the only Jewish agency in the Philadelphia area that provides law-related refugee and immigration services. The agency services clients from over 35 countries worldwide. I am proud to represent such an extraordinary organization as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society and the Council Migration Service of Philadelphia. This anniversary should serve as a long-standing tribute to hard work and dedication for all who have made HIAS and Council the wonderful organization it is.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate Mr. Bob Willard for 50 years of service on the active crew of the Glenside Fire Company. Mr. Willard joined the fire department in 1949 and quickly rose up through the ranks. In less than 5 years, Mr. Willard was promoted to lieutenant. Four years later he moved up to captain. He served as captain for a year and was then elected deputy chief. Mr. Willard served as deputy chief for 17 years, tying the company record. He has also served as the company's vice president for the past 25 years. I am proud to have such a civic minded and hard-working constituent in the community. As a leader in the Glenside Fire Department, Mr. Willard has impacted the lives of countless individuals. The residents of Glenside have long benefited from his service and that of the entire Glenside Fire Department. I applaud the Glenside Fire Department for honoring Mr. Willard and I enthusiastically concur with their recognition of his leadership.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I compliment the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California, the ranking member, for their leadership. Mr. Chairman, it has been said that if we restore a river, we restore the community. I believe it is also true if we save open space, we save the soul of a community. We save the quality of life of that community. It is happening around this country. It is happening in a bipartisan fashion. My predecessor in this job, John Fox, and I served together, before either one of us were Congressmen, as county commissioners in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. We started an Open Space Program that is still going strong in Montgomery County. The capital budget in my county this year, 25 percent of it is dedicated to buy open space. In Montgomery County, there is a Schuylkill River Greenway Association trying to restore the Schuylkill River to create recreational paths, greenways, to create parkland along the river, and to encourage retail and residential use of the river. These are appropriate and important things for us to do, and this bill continues our dedication to environmental protection.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3244, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. The illegal trafficking of women and children for prostitution and forced labor is one of the fastest growing criminal enterprises in the world. Globally, between 1 and 2 million people are trafficked each year. Of these, 45,000 to 50,000 are brought to the United States. Some are made to work in illegal sweatshops, while many more are forced into prostitution or domestic servitude here in the United States. There is an increasing need for adequate laws to deter trafficking. This legislation is meant to combat this modern day form of slavery by including provisions to punish traffickers and protect its victims. Specifically, H.R. 3244 would require the Secretary of State to include informaiton on trafficking in the Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. This bill would also require the President to appoint an Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking and authorizes the Secretary of State to establish an Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to assist the Task Force. This bill also has strong enforcement mechanisms. For example, H.R. 3244 would establish minimum standards applicable to those countries found to have significant trafficking problems to prevent, punish, and eliminate trafficking. If these countries do not meet the minimum standards, the President would be authorized to withhold nonhumanitarian assistance. This legislation would also require the Secretary of State to publish a list of those believed to be involved with illegal trafficking and would allow the President to impose International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) sanctions against any individual on this list. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Today I congratulate the township of Lower Merion in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania on its 100th anniversary. On March 5, 1900 Lower Merion formed what has become a model township government in Montgomery County. Lower Merion's roots extend to 1682 when Welsh Quakers were granted a tract of land by William Penn just outside Philadelphia. In 1713, Lower Merion established an independent Township with about 52 landholders and tenants. The 1850s brought rapid change to Lower Merion with the advent of the railroad and marked the birth of the area known today as the ``Main Line.'' Philadelphians soon began settling in the township and commuting to Philadelphia. In 1900, the Township was incorporated as a Township of the First Class. The citizens of the township of Lower Merion have many achievements of which to be proud. They have a deep sense of civic pride and involvement. In fact, the Township maintains a ``Community Resources Leadership Bank'' of citizens interested in participating in Township Boards or Commissions. This innovation and vision distinguishes Lower Merion and it remains one of the most progressive townships in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Township officials in Lower Merion are deeply committed to the environment. Through open space conservation and environmental protection, the Lower Merion Township continually works to improve the quality of life for its residents. Lower Merion officials have demonstrated a strong commitment to their schools and community, and the township has one of the highest ranking school systems in Pennsylvania. I am proud to represent such an extraordinary municipality. This anniversary should serve as a tribute to hard work and dedication for all who have made the Lower Merion Township the place it is.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3660, the so- called Partial Birth Abortion ban. First, we should not be considering a ban on a medical procedure. Doctors are licensed to practice medicine, and they swear to do what is in the best interest of their patients. Members of Congress have no place in this decision, and we should not for the first time in our nation's history outlaw a medical procedure. Secondly, the bill is much too broadly drafted and would likely violate a woman's constitutionally protected right to choose. The bill is not limited to late term abortions, and the wording of the bill is so loosely written that it could be construed to ban abortions that are currently protected by the Constitution. Thirdly and most importantly, I oppose this legislation because it does not include an exception for the health of the mother. I am opposed to post-viability abortions. But if a pregnant woman's life is at stake or her health is at serious risk, doctors and patients deserve to have access to a full range of medical procedures to prevent the harm. This legislation does not afford women the protection they need to prevent serious injury, and I therefore will oppose the bill.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, a great nation has to stand on its principles. If it fails to do so, it is diminished. The Cold War and our policy toward South Africa are just two examples of policy based upon our nation's bedrock principles. Such an opportunity will apparently present itself this year with the anticipated vote in Congress on granting permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with China. After months of studying the issues; after dozens of meetings with various groups and individuals on both sides of the issue, such as the Chinese Ambassador to the United States, business leaders from Montgomery County, human rights activists and labor leaders; I have decided to oppose granting PNTR to China at this time. Fair trade and economic growth in this new economy are very important to me, but not at the expense of the principles for which this country stands. I remain committed to free and fair trade. I cosponsored and voted for the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act in both the International Relations Committee and on the floor of the House, and I hope to vote for it again when it is reported out of conference committee. I also cosponsored another free trade measure for Africa called the ``Hope for Africa Act.'' Last year, I supported granting a one-year extension of normal trade relations (NTR) with China. I support a comprehensive engagement with China that includes free and fair trade, but only after China has demonstrated a willingness to become a responsible member of the world community. By granting China PNTR, we surrender the only effective economic and political tool to effect positive change in China--the annual vote to renew NTR. Without this, China has little reason to improve its actions and image in the world community. There have been too many broken promises by the Chinese government. There are too many protesters in prison. There are too many religious persecutions. There are too many military threats. China's record on human and workers' rights continues to be abominable. Take for instance the story of Liu Baiqiang. While serving a 10-year sentence for theft, Baiqiang, in support of the 1989 pro- democracy movement, wrote messages calling for freedom and the end of tyranny on scraps of paper and released them into the air attached to the legs of locusts. For this he was sentenced to an additional eight years in prison. The leadership in China continue to threaten Taiwan, even at a time when we are considering PNTR, just because Taiwan practices democracy. China continues to develop and contribute to the proliferation of missile and nuclear technology, exporting it to rogue nations around the world. China continues to violate environmental standards for development and industry, ignores fair labor standards and safe working conditions and uses child, low wage and even slave labor to produce many goods for export. Finally, China has yet to live up to any of the previous trade agreements it has signed with the United States. I am not convinced that China will be any more likely to change this behavior once it is granted PNTR status. I firmly support a renegotiation of the terms of the U.S.-China bilateral treaty that would provide greater safeguards against Chinese abuses and outlaw behavior. I have participated in two working groups established by Members of Congress that are striving to identify the issues that should be renegotiated and ways to initiate the renegotiation. A treaty that provides a free and fair trade agreement with safeguards that could better guarantee appropriate Chinese behavior in the world community would receive my full support. Granting China PNTR now might be economically rewarding, but it would be morally bankrupting.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, the budget resolution in front of us today has a misguided focus. It double counts. It cooks the books. It does not have enough debt reduction. It has unrealistic assumptions in terms of cuts and domestic programs. It has risky tax cuts, risky indeed. Because they are simply too big, and they risk the future of Social Security. If the Republican budget resolution is fully implemented, it would use up all of the surplus funds and threaten the future of Social Security. But if it is not fully implemented, if they cannot make the domestic spending cuts of 10 percent over 5 years that they include in this document, then they are directly going to raid Social Security. That is an important subject for us to focus on. All of us know how important debt reduction is. There is bipartisan agreement on that fact. The question is who accomplishes it. Debt reduction is important. This year, 12 percent of our budget is going to pay interest debt service on our debt, $224 billion. That money crowds out private sector investment. It keeps interest rates artificially high. If we can reduce that debt, we can free up money for tax cuts or other spending needs. If we can reduce government borrowing, then the private sector interest rates will be kept lower, and we will strengthen our economy. But we have got to have a realistic budget. The Republican budget resolution in front of us calls for 10 percent reductions in domestic discretionary programs. That is across the board. But they pick on some particularly important programs such as the community in regional development function that would have a reduction in purchasing power over 5 years of one-third. I do not believe there are enough votes on that side of the aisle to do that. I hope there are not enough votes on that side of the aisle to do that because of the pain that would cause. Two years ago, I was a county commissioner, and I was dealing with community development block grants in a wealthy county, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, which this year will get $7.5 million in CDBG grants. It gets about $20 million in requests from the townships, the bureaus, and the housing groups, the nonprofits in Montgomery County. So the county commissioners can fund one-third of those requests presently. If this budget goes through and across-the-board cuts are made as envisioned by the Republicans, that money is going to drop 20 percent. Over 5 years, it will drop by one-third. We are not meeting the needs of the public. This budget does not work. We have got to vote ``no'' on it.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate Women's History Month by recognizing the contributions of an important figure from my home area. Kathryn Elizabeth Granahan had an extensive career in public service as a former Congresswoman and Treasurer of the United States. Kathryn Granahan first served as supervisor of public assistance in the Pennsylvania State Auditor General's Department and the liaison officer between that department and the Department of Public Assistance. She also was a member of the national board of the Woman's Medical College of Pennsylvania. She forayed into national politics as a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1960. Kathryn Granahan was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1956 by a special election held after her husband, representative William Thomas Granahan, passed away. She filled the vacancy for that Congress and then was elected three more times, serving a total of eight years. Kathryn Granahan, the first woman elected to Congress from the Philadelphia area, demonstrated leadership and resolve during her time in this body. She eventually became Chairman of the House Post Office and Civil Service Subcommittee on Postal Operations and took the lead in sponsoring important and controversial legislation. Kathryn Granahan was at the forefront of the fight against pornography in the mail. She introduced legislation to increase criminal penalties for perpetrators who sought to send pornographic material in the mail and she strengthened the power of the Post Office to impound such mail. She also contributed to the Supreme Court guidelines on obesity. Kathryn Granahan served on the Committee on the District of Columbia, the Committee on Government Operations, and the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. Among other important votes for housing for veterans, an increase in wages for federal employees and increased funding for federal agencies, she voted for the monumental Civil Rights Act of 1957. After the 1960 Census it was determined that Philadelphia would lose one of its seats in the House of Representatives. Her seat was chosen for elimination. However, as compensation, President Kennedy appointed Kathryn Granahan as Treasurer of the United States. She served as Treasurer for three years before resigning in October of 1966 due to health reasons. She passed away in Morristown, Pennsylvania in July, 1979. I am proud to acknowledge Kathryn Granahan and her accomplishments, both for Pennsylvania and for Women's History Month.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for arranging for this hour, giving us a chance to come together this evening to talk about our trip to Alabama. It was a remarkable experience for all of us who participated in this civil rights pilgrimage to commemorate the 35th anniversary of the voting rights march in Selma. I want to thank the Faith & Politics Institute and Doug Tanner for his leadership and for bringing us together. It was remarkable to visit the civil rights movement landmarks that I had never seen in person before, to learn more about the history of this country in the 1960s. It was equally remarkable to meet so many of the leaders of the movement and the foot soldiers of that movement, so many of which are still with us today, still providing leadership. It was particularly remarkable to be there with John Lewis. Many people tonight have spoken in high praise of John, and I want to do the same. Someone said it was almost surreal being there with John, and it was. For me, the surreal moment was riding in the tour bus I think between Montgomery and Selma, and watching on the television screens in the bus parts of the documentary, Eyes on the Prize, of the civil rights movement, seeing a young John Lewis being interviewed, speaking back in the 1960s, and then looking down the aisle of the bus and seeing John Lewis today moving around talking to his colleagues on that bus. It certainly drove home to me the remarkable passage that this leader has had in the civil rights movement and how special he is to all of us. John embodies virtually every important moment of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. He helped to organize and lead the lunch counter sit-ins in Nashville in 1960. He was one of the 11 original freedom riders in 1961. He helped to organize the March on Washington and spoke eloquently there in 1963 and, of course, led the voting rights march at Selma in 1965, right at the front row. It was just remarkable to see that footage watching my new friend, John Lewis, in 1965 be run over by the police forces and beaten because he wanted to march for voting rights, because he had the courage to stand forward and the courage to do it in a nonviolent way; the courage to use passive resistance to reach the heart and soul of the American people and say there has to be a better way; there has to be a better way to have true freedom and equality for all Americans. So I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), I certainly learned a new appreciation for the hard work and the sacrifices that were made by many leaders and many foot soldiers to win civil and voting rights for all Americans. I also developed, I believe, a deeper understanding of the work that remains to be done, to make sure that all Americans really have the equal justice and the full opportunities that we want them to have. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), who provided and provides wonderful leadership for the Faith & Politics Institute, already talked about Selma of today compared to Selma of 1965, and it is an interesting comparison. In 1965, legal segregation was the order of the day and the official today, I guess, would be called high schools were all white and the black children went to school in segregated high schools. That was true throughout the Deep South. Well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 changed many, many things in this country; but today, in the year 2000, Selma still has a form of segregation. It is de facto now. There is only one set of public high schools. And as the gentleman indicated they are almost all black; and the white students have chosen to go to different schools, religious schools or private schools. So there is a different kind of segregation. The work that John Lewis fought so hard for 35 years ago and that we commemorated a couple of weeks ago still has much to be done in the face of that segregation, and I do not mean to pick on Selma or Alabama or the South of today because that kind of segregation really occurs everywhere; in the North, in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, the suburbs of Philadelphia, which I represent. The schools are integrated and there is a great racial understanding in the suburban school that my daughter attended and my son currently attends, but there is social segregation. The blacks tend to socialize and congregate and eat lunch together and the whites tend to be together, and there is understanding and there is good relations but there is still that social segregation. There are subtle forms of segregation in the North, almost as bad perhaps as the legal segregation of old in the South. In the Philadelphia School District, because of a lack of local resources and indifference from our State government, Philadelphia school kids have $2,000 less per pupil spent on them than suburban school kids do, $2,000 less in the big Philadelphia School District. That is not strictly a racial result, but there is a subtle form of segregation happening there. As the President so eloquently said in Selma a couple of weeks ago, when he spoke to us all, that as long as there is de facto segregation in the public schools in Selma we have another bridge to cross; as long as there is $2,000 less available to educate school children in Philadelphia than school children in the suburbs of Philadelphia, we have another bridge to cross. As long as social injustice and discrimination continues to occur in this country, we all have another bridge to cross. As long as parents work two jobs but cannot bring home a living wage, there is another bridge to cross. As long as families do not have health care, as long as seniors cannot get the prescription drug coverage they need, we have another bridge to cross. We all agree on that. We differ on some of the ways to get across that bridge, and we have policy disputes down here. And that is why we are here, and that is the beauty of this body. But we have to recognize that as important as it is to remember what happened 35 years ago and to honor amazing Americans like John Lewis, we have to learn from John and take inspiration from John but be honest with ourselves about the problems that still exist and face those problems forthrightly, face them together and understand that we are all in this together. If we recognize that and work together, then we will truly honor what happened 35 years ago. If we fail to work together today, then much of what happened in the past will be for naught, and none of us can stand for that result to happen. So I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for his leadership. I thank John Lewis and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) and all of my colleagues who attended, and particularly those speaking here tonight. I was glad to be a part of it and will continue to work with you.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to congratulate the township of Cheltenham on its 100th anniversary. On March 5, 1900 the first Board of Commissioners of the newly incorporated Cheltenham Township met and formed what has become a model township government in Montgomery County. The township of Cheltenham has many achievements of which to be proud. Cheltenham's roots extend to the 1600s when Quakers settled the area just outside Philadelphia. The settlers primarily farmed the land, with several mills dotting the landscape as well. The 1850s brought rapid change to Cheltenham with the advent of the railroad. Philadelphians soon began settling in the township and commuting to Philadelphia. Cheltenham can take pride in its municipal works. Not only did the township institute fire hydrants and streetlights as early as 1901, but also established a police force, a Board of Health, a garbage collection system, and a sewer system. The township set aside parkland and encouraged the formation of the Cheltenham Township Fire Department from a conglomeration of volunteer fire companies. Cheltenham's police force won recognition for innovation crime solving techniques and use of technology in 1916. This innovative and vision has continued ever since and Cheltenham remains one of the most progressive townships in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am proud to represent such an extraordinary town. This anniversary should serve as a long-standing tribute to the hard work and dedication for all who have made the Cheltenham Township the wonderful place it is.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the occasion of National TRIO day to congratulate the Upward Bound Program at Harcum College in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. National TRIO Day celebrates 35 years of programs aimed at expanding opportunities for disadvantaged students to attend college. Upward Bound is a wonderful, practical program that challenges and motivates students to achieve the necessary skills for higher education. TRIO's Upward Bound is essential for attainment of the critical goal of ensuring access to higher education for low-income and first-generation college students. Harcum College has an outstanding record of success with Upward Bound for the ten years since the program began. This year, Harcum was awarded a prestigious five-year grant for scoring one hundred percent on their program proposals. Harcum College Upward Bound serves 75 students from three high schools in Philadelphia. The vast majority of participants are low-income and the first generation of their families to attend college. In the past five years one hundred percent of all high school students participating in Harcum's Upward Bound program graduated from high school and seventy-five percent were accepted to and enrolled in a four year college or university. I applaud Harcum College's commitment to providing students from all backgrounds with an opportunity to excel in education and to prepare those students for the future.