Joseph Hoeffel

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the Chair of the Committee on International Relations for his leadership on this important issue. I want to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), the ranking member, as well, and compliment both gentlemen for working together in a bipartisan fashion on this and so many other issues that bipartisanship serves our committee and this Congress well. The legislation before us, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt to stem the flow of weapons technology into Iran by authorizing the President to impose sanctions on nations and individuals that provide this weapons technology to Iran. The sanctions would include the denial of munitions, licenses, arms export, and dual-use licenses, and a halt to any United States foreign assistance. The bill requires the President to report to Congress when credible information exists of a transfer of dangerous weapons technology to Iran. The President must also report to Congress about whether he has imposed certain penalties on foreign persons as a result of such transfers. If the penalties are not imposed, the President must expose why those steps were not taken. The bill will also encourage the Russian Space Agency to cooperate with the United States in efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons technology to Iran by cutting off payments to that agency and to the International Space Station if those under its jurisdiction and control engage in such activities. We are all pleased by the initial reforms that are being made within Iran. Their recent elections give the world some hope that changes are coming. Unfortunately, while there are some encouraging signs, Iran's current policies continue to be a threat to the security of the world. There are four areas where Iran continues to threaten world peace. In the area of ballistic missiles, with their development of the Shahab missiles, at least one expert has testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Iranians are working on a missile now with a range of 2,600 miles. We know that they have missiles with a range of 1,200 miles and they are pushing ahead with this development. With nuclear issues, Iran is proceeding with plans to complete the 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor at Bushehr. While these nuclear plants probably are not able to be used for nuclear weapons purposes, the fear is that Iran will continue to obtain valuable expertise while building these plants that could be transferable to a nuclear weapons program. In the area of chemical and biological programs, while Iran signed and ratified the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the CIA reports that Iran continues to pursue purchasing dual-use biotechnical equipment from Russia and other countries ostensibly for civilian uses. Press reports indicate that they are also hiring Russian scientists. United States officials have publicly stated that Iran has a large chemical weapons program that has been made possible with the help of China; and Iran and North Korea reportedly have a relationship of exchanging missile technology. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems continues to be one of the most significant threats to American national security. Rogue states like North Korea and Iran are actively pursuing ambitious ballistic missile programs and the technology needed to threaten our country and our allies. Iran's progress in this effort is being helped by the relationships with North Korea, with China, and with Russia. This legislation is a good first step that will send a signal to those who are aiding Iran that this aid will not be tolerated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate M. Night Shyamalan on the success of his film, the Sixth Sense. This film was recently nominated for an Academy Award for best picture of the year, and Mr. Shyamalan, a resident of Conshohocken in the 13th congressional district of Pennsylvania, was nominated for best director and best screenplay. I would like to recognize Mr. Shyamalan for his superior work in the field of filmmaking and writing. Mr. Shyamalan's career did not begin with The Sixth Sense. Growing up in Montgomery County, in the suburbs of Philadelphia, his early passion for filmmaking began at the age of eight, when he was given his first super eight camera. By the age of 10, filmmaking had captured his heart. It was then that he started making short films, finishing forty- five by the age of 16. In 1992, following NYU film school, he made his first independent film, Praying With Anger, which he wrote, directed, starred in and produced. His next film was Wide Awake, which was set in his hometown of Philadelphia and was also successful. His third feature film, The Sixth Sense, became a surprise hit in the summer of 1999, ranking second in box office earnings. Recently, he also wrote the screenplay for Stuart Little. The Sixth Sense is an incredible film that is surreal, emotional, entertaining and mystifying. The movie showcases the great city of Philadelphia, celebrating many of its wonderful facets. In addition to the Academy Award nominations, Mr. Shyamalan has been nominated for the Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Screenplay, a Directors Guild of America Award for Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Motion Pictures, a Golden Globe for Best Screenplay, and he won a Golden Satellite Award for Best Screenplay. Even with his success, Mr. Shyamalan handles himself with grace and humility. He has established a reputation for integrity and commitment to his community. He has creative and innovative approaches to filmmaking that have set him apart as a leader in the entertainment community. He has given us a sense of appreciation of the greater Philadelphia area in a unique and truly special film. We look forward to his next movie, Unbreakable, which has also been filmed in Philadelphia, and is due out soon. I know we will be hearing a lot more from M. Night Shyamalan in the future and I wish him much success.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to the information technology research and development authorization bill that would require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on what barriers exist to accessing information technologies for the elderly and for disabled Americans and to recommend ways to overcome those barriers. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his cooperation and the cooperation and assistance of his staff, as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for his cooperation and assistance as well. Thanks to advances in medical technology and research, Americans are living longer lives. There are more than 50 million Americans alive today over the age of 65. There are over 20 million Americans, 15 years of age or older who are living with disabilities that impair their ability to work. Mr. Chairman, as we move forward with information technology, we have to make sure that all Americans can reap the rewards of a strong economy and a rapidly changing technological landscape. Information technology has an enormous potential to improve the quality of life for elderly Americans and those with disabilities. People who have trouble leaving their homes can now do all of their grocery shopping online. People who are ill can research their condition online, interact with others who suffer from the same ailments, and contact medical experts online. Specialized information technologies can help blind people access information over the Internet. Speech recognition software can help people who cannot use a computer keyboard or mouse. Despite all of these opportunities and all of these advances, studies have shown that the information-technology revolution is leaving elderly and disabled Americans behind. Mr. Chairman, studies have shown that those with disabilities are less than half as likely as nondisabled people to have access to a computer at home. And the disabled are only about 30 percent to be likely to access the Internet from home, possibly because they are unaware of technologies that would help them do it, possibly because they cannot afford the technologies. The point is, Mr. Chairman, you cannot go surfing on the Net if you cannot get to the ocean. We have to reduce barriers for the elderly and for the disabled. My amendment would assess these problems and pose some solutions by calling for the National Science Foundation, in consultation with the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, to commission a study from the National Academies of Science that will identify current barriers to access to information technologies by individuals who are elderly, by individuals with disabilities; to identify research and development needed to remove those barriers; and to recommend any Federal legislative policy or regulatory changes needed to remove those barriers. The digital divide that we are all concerned with may affect the elderly and disabled more than any other group of Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and help ensure that advances in information technology are available to all Americans.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule and in favor of this bill. This legislation is a response to a number of events that have happened over the last 5 years that have shaped the current United States-Taiwan relationship. The live-fire missile exercises in the Taiwan Strait by China and the strong U.S. response reinforced the fact that Taiwan must be strong militarily. This legislation is an attempt to address these concerns and clarify some of the ambiguity that exists in the U.S.-Taiwan relationship. I commend the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), for improving this bill in the Committee on International Relations. This bill would improve communications between the United States military and the Taiwan military, it would improve the sharing of data, it would improve training, it would improve our relations. And that is a very good thing to accomplish. It is my hope that House passage of this legislation would send a clear signal to China about the strong U.S. commitment to Taiwanese security.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise regarding an issue important to the students, teachers, and educators in the 13th District of Pennsylvania. When I was first elected to Congress, I decided to embark on a deliberate strategy to get to know the schools in my community. I wanted to hear directly from educators how their schools were doing and what their needs were. To get the best feedback, I sent out an education survey to every school in the district and set up a series of roundtable discussions open to parents, teachers, principals, and superintendents. One of the most important things I learned was that the schools in my district all placed a high priority on educating children using the best technology available. For this, I applaud them. I also learned that on average, my schools are doing well in terms of computer hardware, with a good number of computers available to both teachers and students. But the schools need help providing additional opportunities for training teachers to use that hardware and integrate the tools of the information age into everyday classroom learning. Teachers want more training in technology. And the educators explained to me that they face a key obstacle: while technology training courses have been available, too many teachers find it impossible to get away from the classroom to attend the trainings because of a lack of substitute teachers. Is that not ironic? The training teachers need is in sight, but they simply cannot get to it. To overcome this disconnect, yesterday I introduced H.R. 3156, the Teacher Training in Technology Flexibility Act (Tech Flex). Tech Flex would add new flexibility to the use of funds under technology training programs for teachers, allowing local school districts to hire substitutes, provide teachers with paid release time, and provide other incentives to overcome barriers to accessing technology training. The bill would do so by amending the Technology for Education Act of 1994 to clarify that release time and incentives are permissible and encouraged expenditures under existing teacher technology training programs. ``Release time and other incentives'' includes leave from work, providing for a substitute, payment for travel expenses, and stipends to encourage teachers and other school personnel to participate in training on the use of technology in education. Under the bill, school districts could apply for a competitive grant under the state-administered Technology Literacy Challenge Fund and the federally-administered Technology Innovation Challenge Grant and use the resulting funds for release time and incentives, among other authorized activities. This would allow teachers to break away from class and attend these important technology training courses. To close, Mr. Speaker, this bill would help overcome a real impediment to the professional development of teachers in technology and allow students to get the most out of the hardware investments made by our schools, and I ask my colleagues' support.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 538, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Weldon for his extraordinary effort to bring this matter forward. The day this bill is signed into law will be a great day in celebrating American revolutionary history, and this is due to the gentleman from Pennsylvania and his efforts here on the floor. I would also like to thank and congratulate Jean-Pierre Bouvel of the Valley Forge Historical Society for his leadership in marshalling local support for this public-private partnership. Also thanks to Paul Decker, the Executive Director of the Valley Forge Convention and Visitor Bureau and a number of Montgomery County officials who have given their strong support for this public-private partnership at Valley Forge. I also want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for his cooperation and efforts on this legislation as well. The events that occurred on both the Brandywine Battlefield and the Paoli Battlefield were key to the American revolutionary fight for freedom. The American forces lost at Brandywine, although they did buy additional time to protect the city of Philadelphia a little while longer from the British invasion. At Paoli, Americans were massacred at night and it truly was another disastrous defeat for America. Those two military operations forged the beginning of the winning spirit. We are all familiar with the history of the Valley Forge encampment. As far as I am concerned, that is where the American Revolution was truly won. No shots were fired. But the American army that arrived there tired, hungry, ill-clothed, ill-trained and ill-equipped, survived and trained. Six months later, with the tremendous leadership of George Washington, in June of 1778 an effective fighting force went on to win our independence. So we are saving and preserving the two battlefields that led to the encampment at Valley Forge. We are offering an opportunity to provide a far more impressive visitor experience at Valley Forge. We are providing a greatly improved opportunity for historical artifacts to be presented through a Valley Forge Museum of the American Revolution. We will offer better education about the valor, determination, courage and resolve that Americans showed at both those battle sites and the 6 months where they survived a bitter winter at Valley Forge and emerged as an effective fighting army. We will preserve those battlefields so that future generations can appreciate the sacrifices that were made there. I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehner amendment and in strong support of the Norwood-Dingell underlying legislation. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) got it entirely correct when he identified, as others have, that the key here is the question of medical necessity. The Boehner substitute would continue to allow insurance company bureaucrats to determine what is medically necessary. That has got to stop. We must allow medical doctors once again to make the decisions that affect the quality of their patients' care. We must allow them to determine medical necessity, not the insurance bureaucrats. Like our doctors who have complained to me in huge numbers, the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania Medical Society to a person tells me that they spend far too much time fighting with insurance companies, and that is time taken away from patient care. Let us oppose the Boehner substitute and pass Norwood-Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehner substitute and in support of the base bill, the Bipartisan Consensus Managed Care Improvement Act. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 2723 because it would allow Americans to be treated as patients, not as numbers that affect the bottom line. HMO encroachments on the quality of health care are real. One of my constituents, Dr. Peter Lantos of Erdenheim, PA, described to me that when he needed prostate surgery, his HMO was unwilling to provide a list of specialists, making it difficult to make an intelligent choice. He was told to go to a specific hospital, not the one he preferred. After fighting many layers of bureaucracy, Dr. Lantos prevailed. However, he lost what could have been critical time, although as a doctor he knew how to fight the system. What about the average person who does not? They would have lost even more valuable time. H.R. 2723 would: strengthen doctor and patient control over medical decisions by allowing doctors, rather than accountants, to define ``medical necessity''; protect patients by guaranteeing access to specialists, out-of-network doctors, out-of-network emergency rooms, and non-formulary drugs. It also increases choice by guaranteeing patients a point-of service plan option; prohibit gag rules on doctors, so they may discuss all treatment options with their patients; and hold HMO's accountable by establishing an external review process and allowing liability suits in state courts. The Boehner substitute does not correct medical necessity, does not hold health plans liable, and waters down patient protections. It is not serious reform. We spend millions of dollars training our doctors, and billions developing drugs, treatments and equipment to treat America's patients. Then we turn all of that knowledge and innovation and investment over to a bean counter from a business school. Something is wrong. The most important part of a good bedside manner used to be the infusion of hope that everything would be done to fix what ails the patient. That has been replaced by a glance at the HMO manual and a shrug of the shoulder. Doctors now take time they could spend with patients to argue with insurance companies. America's patients deserve medical care that will make them well quicker and keep them well longer. They need more than a placebo, but sadly, that is all this bill is. I urge my colleagues not to be fooled by this or the other two poison pill substitutes. Let's have a clean vote on Dingell-Norwood, clean up the Senate bill in conference, and send managed care reform to the American people before the holidays.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, agriculture is Pennsylvania's number one industry and Pennsylvania has one of the largest rural populations in the nation. There are 45,000 farms in the state and Pennsylvania is second in the nation in the number of acres of farmland preserved for agricultural use. We all depend on the food that these hard working citizens produce for our tables. As we all know, 1999 has been a bad year for farmers. Month after month brought no rain. September brought hurricane rains. There is a small dairy farmer in my district who raises fresh market sweet corn to sell from a roadside stand. His normal production is about 28,000 ears. This year, his production was 500 ears. This farmer has already purchased hay from out of state for his dairy herd and will do so repeatedly through the winter. This is one small example of the effect of the devastating 100-year drought in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania farmers have lost $700 million. This bill provides an anemic $58 million for our farmers. Our farmers need a combination of direct assistance, emergency livestock feed assistance and low interest disaster loans. Unfortunately, this bill does not adequately meet these needs. This conference report provides only $1.2 billion for crop losses due to all natural disasters in the 1999 crop year. This includes the damages due to Hurricanes Dennis and Floyd, natural disasters in Texas and the Northern Plains in addition to the 13 states affected by the drought. This bill leaves our northeastern farmers without enough help, and I will therefore vote against this conference report.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, my heartfelt congratulations to Mr. and Mrs. J. Robert Birnhak for being honored at the 35th anniversary celebration of Weight Watchers of Philadelphia on Saturday, September 18, 1999. Marilyn Price Birnhak along with the support of her husband J. Robert Birnhak founded Weight Watchers of Philadelphia thirty-five years ago. As founder and first president, she watched her group of eight members grow to roughly 20,000 members over the years, meeting in towns throughout the southeastern Pennsylvania and southwestern New Jersey areas. Mr. and Mrs. Birnhak have also instilled in their children a sense of leadership, as their son John currently serves as the company's vice president of finance and their daughter Tracey is vice president of marketing and business development. All of their children are active in their communities. The Birnhak family has contributed to Weight Watchers' tremendous growth in the Philadelphia area, as well as in the broader reaches of the franchise. Mr. Birnhak served as a past president of the Weight Watchers Franchise Association, and Mrs. Birnhak served first as vice president and then as president of the association. In addition to their commitment to Weight Watchers, the Birnhaks have been leaders in the larger community as well. Mr. Birnhak has been active on the board of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center and Congregation Beth Sholom in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. Both he and Mrs. Birnhak have been honored by the State of Israel Bonds, Jewish Theological Seminary and Ben Gurion University in Israel. Mrs. Birnhak is also on the board of directors of the Philadelphia Theatre Company. Mrs. Birnhak has contributed significantly to numerous health panels, seminars and health fairs. She has lectured at medical colleges and universities and appeared on radio and television talk shows. Through Weight Watchers the Birnhaks have participated in a myriad of charitable endeavors for the United Way, the American Heart Association, the March of Dimes, the Alzheimer's Association, the Hero Scholarship Fund, Weight Watchers of Philadelphia, Inc. Feeds the Hungry, the Kidney Foundation, among others. In particular, Weight Watchers of Philadelphia, Inc. is to be commended for being the single largest contributor to the Philadelphia Hero Scholarship Fund. Once again, my congratulations to a wonderful couple and their family.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Doolittle substitute amendment. A vote for the Doolittle substitute is a vote to kill Shays- Meehan. I urge opposition to all of the poison pill substitutes and urge support of Shays-Meehan. The Doolittle substitute would eliminate all Federal contribution limits, end public financing of presidential campaigns, which has worked well, and would weaken the disclosure requirements contained in Shays-Meehan. Instead, we should adopt Shays-Meehan, which prohibits soft money contributions, stops the sham issue ads and strengthens FEC disclosure and enforcement. The House should also pass comprehensive reform to implement voluntary spending limits for campaigns in exchange for partial public financing and free and discounted air time. These reforms also deserve a floor debate and the attention of this House. Again, I urge my colleagues to oppose Doolittle, support Shays- Meehan, and move on to Tierney.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee for yielding time to me, and for bringing this excellent amendment to the House, which I strongly support. The Serrano-Ramstad-Delahunt amendment would avoid a devastating 53 percent cut in Federal support for the Legal Services Corporation. This money is desperately needed in our communities, and we must support the Serrano amendment. I heard the majority leader speak, questioning the reliability of case statistics offered by the Legal Services Corporation. I would like to share with him and the House some case statistics from the Legal Aid Society of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, where I come from. In 1995, they received about $300,000 in Federal money for their legal aid program. This year they are receiving under $200,000, a one- third cut. If this bill goes through unamended, they will realize another $100,000 reduction in funding, so a two-thirds reduction from 1995 in Federal support. This has a very real impact on the quality of legal services offered in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, as it obviously does in every county throughout this country. They have had to reduce their caseload in my county by over 250 cases out of a couple of thousand, and if these funds are further reduced, as the bill proposes, another 200 or 300 cases will be reduced from their annual caseload. I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) talk about where are the States in volunteerism? In my county, the county commissioners have offered up more money as the Federal Government has reduced funding. The Bar Association has offered up money and pro bono time to make up for Federal cuts. But they cannot take the place of the Federal money, and the caseloads are going down. The gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) said we should punish the bureaucrats. This is not about punishing bureaucrats. The bureaucrats will not be punished, it is the people that receive and need the legal services that will be punished. Who are these people? They are about two-thirds women: poor women; women that need help with protection from abuse cases; women that need help with consumer protection cases; women that need help with employment problems, financial problems, foreclosures. These are the people that the majority would punish if this bill is unamended and if the cuts are passed as the bill proposes. We have a principle in this country of equal justice for all. To achieve that, we need equal access for all to the courts. We must pass this amendment.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Madam Speaker, we must pass the Patients' Bill of Rights. Our system of HMOs has run amok. As evidence, I offer a survey of doctors conducted by one of the newspapers in my district, the Reporter, in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Most of the doctors responding were not against the original idea of HMOs, they have just said the rules have gone haywire. Eighty-seven percent of the doctors responding have had conflicts with HMOs. Fifty-eight percent of those say the conflicts have been serious, and happen frequently. Seventy percent of the doctors say they do not have sufficient control over treatment. As damning as the numbers are, the doctor's comments say even more. Dr. Ruth Schiller, a Harleysville, Pennsylvania, pediatrician, says that ``HMOs are worse in the sense that I cannot make all of the decisions for appropriate care.'' Another doctor said, ``The American people need to wake up. Their lives are in danger with HMO control. Doctors have to put away their medical books and do what the HMO manual says for their patients.'' A third doctor was afraid to sign his survey for fear of HMO retaliation. Something has gone wrong. ``HMO'' stands for How Much Outrage must the American people put up with? Pass the Patients' Bill of Rights.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act. I would like to start by commending the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for his leadership on this bill. He is the prime sponsor. He is the distinguished chair of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and has provided great leadership on this. Mr. Speaker, I also commend as well a bipartisan group of cosponsors from the committee, including the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. King). Mr. Speaker, the five countries of Central Asia and the three countries of the South Caucasus are an important part of the newly independent States. This bill recognizes the unique interests that the United States has in these countries. We have a strategic interest in seeing that the region does not become a hotbed of armed conflict, terrorism and drug trafficking, and we have some reason to worry. Many of these countries have difficult neighbors, including Iran, Afghanistan, and China. The region is also rife with not only the seeds of ethnic and political conflict, but as we have seen in Nagorno-Karabagh, with actual conflicts that have claimed tens of thousands of lives and have created hundreds of thousands of refugees. We have legitimate and important economic interests in Central Asia and the Caucasus. All eight of these countries have a lot to offer in terms of natural and human resources. There is great potential for trade and investment and a positive exchange of people and ideas. We have a great political interest in Central Asia and the South Caucasus. These countries are still emerging from Soviet rule, and it is in our interest to help them in the difficult transition away from their communist past. Unfortunately, many of the governments of the region have a long way to go regarding democratization. It is our desire to engage these countries economically and to pursue our strategic interests, but we must not neglect the democratization that must occur there. We need to keep democratic values and human rights at the top of the agenda in the bilateral meetings with leaders of all eight of these countries and need to reach out further to those within these countries that are working to develop a civil society, including independent media, the people in the nongovernmental sector and in private business. It is imperative that we make sure that democratization becomes and remains a priority of ours in this region. Mr. Speaker, I also welcome the inclusive nature of the bill. We recognize the fact that these countries are interrelated, there is economic integration that is needed in this region, and that includes all of the countries of this region. We will not see a full potential for this region without the full participation of all eight countries. It is our hope that these countries understand the incentive of cooperation and make a renewed effort to solve the conflicts that have stood in the way of a greater integration. Similarly, because we are endorsing integration within the region, this should not be seen as an endorsement of excluding others outside of the region. To tap the resources of South Asia and the Caucasus to settle these conflicts, we will need to work with others outside of the immediate region such as Russia, Ukraine and Turkey, in order to have the fullest possible success. Mr. Speaker, I would like to note the administration is already pursuing many of these policy issues called for in this bill. It is also providing the kind of assistance authorized by this bill. I must also note that the administration has expressed strong reservations about two amendments attached during the committee markup. The administration is concerned that these provisions which condition assistance on certification of free and fair elections and the resolution of business disputes may actually hinder progress on achieving those goals which are goals that we all share. If these issues are not resolved during the conference, it may jeopardize administration support for the final version of this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is my view and our view that this bill is helpful; that it focuses attention on the region, makes a call for a renewed push on solving regional conflicts promoting regional integration and democratization. I urge all of the Members of the House to support this bill, H.R. 1152. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me and appreciate her kind words. Mr. Chairman, in this bill we should be supporting international family planning and opposing efforts to gag or block international family planning because those efforts will surely lead to more unintended pregnancies. Accordingly, I rise to oppose the Smith amendment and to support the Greenwood-Lowey amendment. The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) would gag foreign nongovernmental organizations in the private actions they take as private organizations to spend private money to pursue their goals. The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is unnecessary, at least as it affects United States money, which is already prohibited from these uses, as Greenwood-Lowey would continue. It is wrong to stifle public debate in this way. It is micromanagement. The real target is family planning. The amendment to be offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) would make it harder to conduct family planning, to avoid unintended pregnancies. It is a mistake; it should be opposed. Greenwood-Lowey should be supported.

Mr. HOEFFEL

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, an incorporated entity is just that, entities incorporated under Federal law. The reality is that no matter who is included in that, again, the benefits, the tax breaks, the special subsidies, if they are going to an incorporated entity, that information is available to the Federal Government. We have never asked anyone to collect it before. That is what this amendment would do. I tell the gentleman that I do have a corporate welfare commission bill that I hope he will cosponsor with me.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, my concern about H.R. 1074 is that it would give us an incomplete picture. The proponents of this bill, of the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act, are asking for a cost-benefit analysis of Federal regulations, arguing that the public and Congress have a right to know the cost of the regulations that are promulgated by the bureaucracy in response to the statutes that we pass here in Congress. Frankly, it is a fair request. It is a rational request. I understand why they want to know that. They say it may cost $700 million a year. They cite private estimates that may or may not be true. It could be far, far less than that, as government studies have indicated. However, we do have some reason to want to know the cost of government regulation. But the bill before us would give an incomplete picture. There is no question that government regulations cost money. They cost businesses money to comply. That is obvious on the face. In return, we hope we get certain benefits: a safer workplace, a more competitive business environment, better consumer protections, cleaner environmental sites, cleaner air, cleaner water. There is certainly a benefit intended when we pass a bill that is turned into a regulation that in turn regulates business. But if we are really interested in finding out the impact on businesses of Federal action, we must not only do a cost-benefit analysis of regulations, but we must include in that a cost-benefit analysis of the corporate welfare received by many of those businesses. ``Corporate welfare'' is a term bandied about a lot. It can mean a number of different things. It is outright government spending subsidies to certain businesses that give them a direct benefit from the taxpayer. Corporate welfare includes tax preferences, tax breaks, loan guarantees, and loan preferences. Corporate welfare includes the use of government assets below market value. Grazing on government lands, mining on government lands, logging on government land at rates below fair market value, all of that comprises corporate welfare. If we are serious about analyzing the cost of government action on American business, and if we really want to give the American people the full picture, we have to ask for the full picture. If we are going to ask the Office of Management and Budget to do an analysis of the cost and benefit of Federal regulations, we have to include in that analysis the costs and benefits of corporate welfare that have been estimated by Time Magazine at $125 billion a year. I will have more to say about the corporate welfare aspect of this debate when I offer an amendment on that subject in a few minutes. I rise now simply to urge the House to understand the full picture and to ask for the full picture. What do the proponents of the bill have to hide? If we want to know the impact on business of Federal actions through regulations, let us include in that study the impact on business of the benefits given through corporate welfare.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that the information we are seeking is surely in the computers of every agency that exists in the Federal Government. We are really asking OMB to collect information, not to create an entirely new procedure here. So the cost of the corporate welfare study is surely within half a million dollars.

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is designed to add to the Right-To-Know legislation in front of us a requirement that the Office of Management and Budget do a cost-benefit analysis of the corporate welfare benefits received by American companies when they do the cost- benefit analysis required by the bill on regulations written by the Federal Government. The purpose for my amendment is to make sure that, when we give the public this information that the bill wants them to have, when we provide this right to know, not only to Congress, but to the American people, that we give them the full picture. The bill itself, as written, would not do that. The proponents of the bill, I am sure in good faith, point out that the cost of Federal regulations is, in their estimation, high, and they want the public to know that. I understand that desire. But if we are going to go through this annual exercise of asking the Office of Management and Budget to conduct such a study of the impact of regulations on American businesses, let us make sure we know all the facts. We should have nothing to hide, Mr. Chairman. If these businesses that are allegedly burdened with Federal regulations receive a Federal benefit through a tax advantage, a subsidy, a preference, let us have that on the table as well. If we want to find out the costs and benefit of Federal actions, let us include all these Federal actions, not just regulations, but the corporate welfare subsidies as well. This amendment, the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment is very much based upon the hard work done by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). As a member of the committee, I want to compliment him for his work. I want to compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member, for his work. I look forward to the debate here, to work with the distinguished members of the majority, to come to a legislative decision here that gives the public what we all want the public to have, the full picture. My amendment would, first, include the cost of corporate welfare in the cost-benefit analysis that we are asking to be completed by the Office of Management and Budget. Secondly, the Hoeffel-Kucinich amendment would make sure that the cost of this annual study would be capped at $1 million. Now, the CBO has estimated the cost of the underlying bill to be less than $500,0000 a year. So we have doubled that to put a cap of $1 million on the combined study to determine the cost of regulation and the cost of corporate welfare. That seems to me to be a rational but prudent cap to make sure that we do not have a cost overrun or a runaway study here that would cost more than any potential benefit to the public. And, thirdly, my amendment would make sure that this entire bill will not become a perpetual drain on the Federal budget if it proves to be not as useful as the proponents hope by putting a 4-year sunset provision in the bill. If this bill is successful, we can always lift that sunset and keep these studies going on an annual basis, as long as we feel they are useful. But if these studies are not useful, then the 4-year sunset provision in my amendment would protect the taxpayers and make sure that this does not become a perpetual drain. Mr. Chairman, we have defined corporate welfare as spending subsidies, tax preferences, below-market rate use of Federal assets, such as land for grazing or timbering or mining. These corporate welfare benefits have been estimated by Time Magazine to equal $125 billion a year. Every year, $125 billion, the equivalent, according to Time, of the paycheck for 2 weeks of every working American man and woman. That is a very high cost. And we would like to see what the benefit of that is, and we would like to have this $125 billion of estimated Federal benefit included in this study of Federal cost- benefit analysis. Some who oppose this amendment say that it is designed to kill the bill. It is not. It is designed to make this bill whole, to make sure that we get the full picture. Without this amendment, the underlying bill does not give a full and complete picture of the impact of the Federal Government on American businesses and does not give a full picture of the benefit and cost of regulations or of corporate welfare.

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

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.