Chris John

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 4. Our Nation's future economic prosperity, our national security and our quality of life is all in the hands of what we do today in Congress as it relates to an energy policy. Americans have been on a roller coaster ride for the last 2 years with historically low prices for oil and natural gas being followed up with price spikes all over the country. We should not have to wait until the next crisis to put a long-term energy policy in place. H.R. 4 is a good starting point to start this debate. It represents a balanced effort of expanding our energy supplies while creating incentives to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. I personally would support a stronger production side in this piece of legislation because it troubles me that over 60 percent of our oil is imported from foreign countries. But I understand and I expect lively debate on some of the issues that we have to deal with. I will oppose efforts at striking the language dealing with ANWR. I have visited ANWR. I believe we can develop ANWR with the technology that leaves just a small, temporary footprint on the Alaskan north slope. For the sake of our national economy and security, we cannot continue to deny access to oil exploration on Federal lands.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, each morning in my hometown of Crowley, in the heart of South Louisiana's Cajun Country, residents turn on the radio to a familiar sound. Between the classic melodies of the 1930s and 40s, listeners are treated to their daily dose of local news, talk and happenings in and around the Crowley area. In many households, this start to each new day is a family tradition. Young and old alike tune in to AM 1450 in the early hours of each morning to hear the voices of Bill Williams and Shel Kanter supply the local news, school lunch menus, and the ever-popular mystery quiz. Far from ordinary and always full of surprises, Bill and Shell truly are the ``voices'' of Crowley. Bill and his partner Shel have made the Bill Williams/Shel Kanter radio program a morning staple. Forty-four years of continuous air time is a feat in any media market, but Bill and Shel offer so much more than a radio show. They perform a service to our community each morning, by getting our day off to a positive start and reminding us that humor is the rule rather than the exception. I would like to honor Mr. Bill Williams for his lifetime of service and dedication to the citizens of Crowley. I join with the Crowley community in commending him for his selfless and tireless efforts to better and promote our home. Though he was bom in Illinois, and spent a considerable portion of his life in the Northeast, Bill has become such a vital part of our community over the past 44 years, that it is difficult to imagine there is any other place he would desire to call home. Off the air, Bill is a leader in the Town of Crowley. He serves on the Crowley City Council and has worked diligently to make the International Rice Festival one of the most recognized cultural celebrations in Louisiana. He is commonly known as ``Mr. Rice Festival,'' and he was recently honored by the Louisiana Rural Tourism Commission for his success in growing the annual event. Bill has made the Rice Festival an annual celebration of our area's rich agricultural industry, culture, cuisine and history. Today, the International Rice Festival is the oldest and largest agricultural festival in Louisiana, due in large part to Bill's efforts. I want to offer him a heartfelt thanks for his constant efforts to build upon Crowley's tradition of excellence. Bill, I honor you, I honor your devotion to the betterment of our community, and most importantly I thank you for your lifetime of dedication to our wonderful hometown.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, a Vietnam Veterans memorial in my district was vandalized, and the cost to repair the memorial is estimated to be $4,000. When I learned of the damage done, I contacted the Department of Veterans Affairs and a number of other federal agencies, and I came to realize there was no federal assistance available for these organizations. While federal veterans memorials are taken care through the National Park Service, local monuments and memorials which are scattered across the nation receive no such assistance. A joint venture with the federal government and veterans is the perfect answer to this unfortunate problem. It requires private organizations to take the initiative as well as provide their own funding to complete the refurbishing. The bill I am proud to introduce today will do just that. The Veterans Memorial Enhancement Act is a simple and straightforward bill which establishes a grant program for Veterans Service Organizations who need financial assistance in refurbishing or repairing aged or harmed veterans memorials. The grant would provide federal funding for up to fifty percent of the total project cost, thus encouraging local veterans and providing them with the resources necessary to ensure that veterans memorials are treated with the respect they deserve. Even in this time of peace, it is important that we remember and recognize the sacrifices our veterans have made, and I urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring the Veterans Memorial Enhancement Act.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 63, H.R. 801, the Veterans' Opportunity Act of 2001, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reintroduce the Rural Education Development Initiative (REDI) Act which calls for an increased focus on rural education and provides assistance to the many small, poor, rural schools in our country. As the House begins the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, REDI will ensure that the educational opportunities for rural areas are not forgotten. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports that 46 percent of our Nation's public schools serve rural areas, yet they only receive 22 percent of the Nation's education funds annually. In addition data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) consistently shows large gaps between the achievement of students in high-poverty schools and those in other schools. Another critical problem for rural school districts involves the hiring and retention of qualified administrators and certified teachers, especially in special education, science, and mathematics. Consequently, teachers in rural schools are almost twice as likely to provide instruction in two or more subjects than teachers in urban schools. More importantly, many small school districts often can't qualify for federal programs based on their small enrollments, and some money- distribution formulas do not fit many states' county-wide system of school districting. All these problems add up to one thing: our rural schools need more funding opportunities. REDI provides this opportunity and gives our rural students a chance to succeed. This legislation creates a grant program to assist rural areas with technology efforts, professional development activities designed to prepare teachers who are teaching out of their primary subject area, academic enrichment programs, and activities to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in special education, mathematics, or science. REDI is bi-partisan and is supported by the National Education Association (NEA). I look forward to working with my Colleagues to enact REDI and realize our goal of parity for rural students.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote by which the previous question was ordered.

Mr. JOHN. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Reynolds

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is imperative that this Congress provide a tax cut to the American people. We can afford it. It has positive economic impacts, and we should do it. But I think equally important is paying down our national debt. And then we factor in priority spending on education, which is important to us, prescription drugs for Medicare benefits, missile defense, agriculture, the list goes on and on. How do we know how much money to allot in different places? How do we know that $1.6 trillion is not too much of a tax cut? How do we know if $1.6 trillion is not too little of a tax cut? How do we not know if $1.6 trillion is just right? Please present a budget to us so we can prioritize the surpluses that may occur over the next 10 years. I urge the other side to show us the budget. It is important for the American people to provide not only a tax cut but to prioritize the spending of this country for the next 10 years.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 5398, which would provide that land, which is owned in fee by the Coushatta Indian Community in Louisiana and not held in trust by the United States, may be leased or transferred without further approval by the United States. Existing federal law provides that Indian tribes may not lease, sell or otherwise convey land which they may have title to unless the conveyances are approved by Congress. This prohibition, enacted into law in 1834 to prevent the unfair or improper disposition of Indian- owned land, has been interpreted by the courts to apply even though the land was purchased by the tribes with their own money and even though the land is not held in trust by the federal government. In 1834, this process made perfect sense. Today, however, this process has proven to be a major detriment to economic development for the Coushatta Tribe. It puts the tribe at a distinct disadvantage, because the tribe finds that it cannot develop or use land which it has acquired to its full advantage. H.R. 5398 will allow the Coushatta Tribe to use the fee land it has purchased just like any other landowner, without having to come to Congress any time it wants to sell, lease, or even mortgage that land. In addition to the land owned by the tribe and held in trust by the U.S. Department of Interior, the Coushatta Tribe owns the fee land which is not held in trust. This fee land, while owned by the tribe, is subject to state and local laws and the tribe does not have the authority to conduct gaming activities on this land. As the Coushatta Tribe continues to work toward establishing long-term financial security for its members, they are finding it necessary to have the ability to establish business agreements with non-Indian partners using the fee land to pursue future economic development activities, including the development of golf courses, business parks, and recreation and convention centers. On February 29 of this year, this body granted the Lower Sioux Indian Community in Minnesota these same rights that I am seeking for the Coushatta Indian Community. Companion legislation, S. 2792, has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator John Breaux of Louisiana. Locally, this legislation is supported by the Town of Elton and the Allen Parish Assessor. The Coushatta Tribe has made significant progress in recent years to eliminate poverty and reduce reliance on government programs. By passing H.R. 5398, this Congress will further empower the Coushatta Tribe to empower themselves. Madam Speaker, I thank the leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor today, and I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 5398.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. With all due respect to the gentleman from Wisconsin and the gentleman from Washington, my friends on this side of the aisle and the other side of the aisle, who have done a pretty good job putting a piece of legislation that is controversial year to year on the floor before us, we have heard other speakers before me say that this is not CARA and I can tell my colleagues that this is not CARA. The energy behind the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, H.R. 701, is about one thing, it is about permanency. It is about making sure that they can plan for the future. Coastal programs, ball parks, conservation, wildlife management programs, they can all function if they know that they are going to have a revenue stream that is certain from year to year. That is the energy behind CARA and why 3,000 groups supported this piece of legislation and 300 Members of the House voted for it. Let me remind my colleagues that it is not CARA, if I take just an excerpt of the conference report of the Interior bill that we are voting on today in the rule, and see where it says this program is not mandatory and does not guarantee annual appropriations. That is obviously what they have meant because they put it in black and white. Well, that undermines, I believe, and unravels the energy and the excitement behind a piece of legislation that is, I believe, one of the greatest pieces of legislation that we have had. We have a wonderful opportunity here. The year is 2000. We have surpluses that we are dealing with. We have the greatest opportunity, I believe, in our lifetime to put in permanent funding for building ball parks, to save our coastline in Louisiana. We talk about an energy policy and the suspect of time that we are entering into with oil and gas prices. Well, Louisiana, which produces 80 percent of that, is eroding. I firmly believe that we still have time for CARA. Let us not go forward with the rule that halfway gets us to where we need to go. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) for yielding to me, and I also thank him for his work on this issue. He has been a real bulldog at dealing with fiscal matters of this Nation. I just left a Blue Dog press conference just hours ago, and our message was very simple. It is that there is still time in this Congress to get something done. I believe that there are some people in this Congress that have thrown in the towel, have raised the white flag and said: we are not getting what we want, so we are going to go home. Go back to the American people and say they would not let us do anything. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the wrong approach. I think we give up a golden opportunity to do something because we have it in hand. What we heard the gentleman from Texas so eloquently articulate, our position, is not a new position. It is a position that we have been advocating for over 2 years now: 50 percent for debt reduction, 25 percent for targeted tax cuts, 25 percent for priority spending. But we underscored today in our press conference that it was good 2 years ago, it was good last year, it was good 2 weeks ago, and it is better today because there is no other plan on the table as comprehensive as this is today. I believe it is reasonable for this body to come together and do what I think the American people want us to do: be conservative with their money. I frankly think being conservative with their money is being conservative, is looking at it as we would in our families, in our businesses. What is the first thing we do with a windfall? Pay down our debt. The Blue Dogs have talked about debt reduction until we are blue in the face, frankly; and it finally caught some traction. Now everyone is talking about it. No one was talking about it a year ago; but now they are talking about it, and I think it is a good thing. The best tax cut that we could give our children and our grandchildren is keeping down the interest rates on our credit cards and our mortgages. How do we do that? We get out of debt with this country. That is what the centerpiece of our proposal is. Whatever the surplus is, let us pay down the national debt. Another piece of our puzzle is 25 percent to targeted tax cuts. We go home, and we have heard in this Congress a lot of rhetoric about tax cuts. Well, I am for this tax cut, I am for that tax cut, I am going to be for this, and I am going to be for that. But I believe that it has been all rhetoric up to this point in time. Frankly, that is the legislative process. We take 2 years to debate, talk about different angles, let everyone come in. That is the American way. It is representative democracy at its best, and it has worked. But now is the time to fish or cut bait, as we say back home in Louisiana. This is the only program on the table that can be done. It is doable. It is reasonable. It is affordable. In the area of tax cuts, I believe we would be derelict in our duties in this Congress not to go home with a significant tax cut. A reasonable tax cut. Something we can afford. We could not afford a trillion dollars. That is why the program failed. But I believe there is room for it, and this is the way to go. Estate tax. Everyone talks about estate tax. I left a press conference just 30 minutes ago, right after our Blue Dog press conference, where we unveiled the Estate Tax Relief Now plan of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). A wonderful plan. If my colleagues are truly for estate tax relief, they must embrace this plan. It is the only plan on the table. It is a plan that my friends on the other side of the aisle have basically abandoned, saying we either want repeal or no repeal. Well, I have come to this Congress to compromise. We do it in our business life every day. We do it in our married life every day. We do it in State legislatures, and it is done here every day. Compromise. And if we do not do it, we go home with nothing; and I think that is a serious mistake. What does the Tanner bill do for estate tax? It cuts the rate in January 1, 2001, 20 percent. I have heard from every person in my district, from the coffee shops to the bus stops, to the rice fields, to the boats that we need to cut the rates. We ought not to pay 55 percent of our income just because one of our loved ones has passed away. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think they are correct; and that is what this bill does. And it does not backload it, and it does not phase in. It starts January 1. It cuts the rate 20 percent. What else does it do? It doubles the deduction from $675,000 to $1.3 million, which is $2.6 million for couples. It is a reasonable plan. It covers most small businesses and also small farms, and it is what we should be doing. It fits in the Blue Dog proposal. It fits in any reasonable proposal. It fits very well. The marriage penalty, I think we ought to do it. I have voted for it in the past. It was vetoed by the President. But what do we do? Take our marbles and go home? I do not believe that. I think if we look at marriage penalty and double the deduction, for a married couple double the deduction, that is marriage tax penalty relief in its truest form. Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are so many more other smaller tax cuts that we can do if we live within the means and not just go off on some spending spree and say we are going to do all of these tax cuts or we are not going to do any. I would tell my colleagues, there is middle ground and this is it. The other part of our program is 25 percent of whatever the surplus is to priority spending. My farmers in southwest Louisiana have been devastated. Salt water intrusions in our wells have killed our rice crop. Prices are low because this Congress has not been able to, I believe, fulfill our promise in the Freedom to Farm bill and open new markets, especially Cuba. We need to give our farmers a break. Disaster relief. Something that we can do that fits in priority spending. Veterans and health care. Education. Our Conservation and Reinvestment Act that is now in the midst of being enacted into law. We need some priority spending and we ought to spend it on programs that are important to the American people. That is your program. Our program is very simple and very straightforward. And it is very serious. It is a proposal that I commend and I beg the other side that we need to get engaged with, with only 2\1/2\ weeks left, because I can say all I want about how I fought for my people of the seventh district, but I do not want to go home and say we could not get a budget package together, a framework, and bring us forward for the next 10 years, because I know I would do that in my business, and I know my constituents want me to do that. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to look at the Blue Dog plan seriously. I beg of the Senate, the administration and the other aisle, because I think it is the way that we should go. And as we say so many times, ``follow the Dogs, we'll lead you out of this problem.''

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 424, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote 424. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to express my frustrations with the consequences of the Republican plan. Today the last Medicare Choice HMO servicing the seventh district of Louisiana announced they are pulling out. This is not the case unique to Louisiana's seventh district. This is the case all over America, especially in rural America. In a few short years since inception of this Medicare+Choice, my seniors have been forced to change health services numerous times. The Republican prescription drug proposal would privatize prescription drug coverage in the same manner that Medicare+Choice privatized Medicare health care services. And this plan, too, is doomed to fail. Why would the Republicans choose to model a failed plan that has failed seniors? A prescription drug benefit is important to all seniors, not just geographically where they are from. The Democratic plan guarantees all seniors will have equal access to prescription drugs. The Democratic plan guarantees all seniors will pay the same for prescription drugs. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in opposing the Republican unrealistic plan and support the Democratic plan.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, the Tancredo-Weller-John-Ryan-Hilleary and others amendment to the VA/ HUD appropriations bill. I want to personally thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his work on this issue that is so critical to our Nation's veterans across America. Mr. Chairman, veteran State homes are the most cost-effective programs in the Veterans Administration. These homes receive Federal funding of 65 percent for construction costs and the remainder is provided by the different States. Once the home is constructed and ready to go, the Veterans Administration pays on an average only $40 a day for its patients. However, the other long-term facilities drain the Veterans Administration of some $250 per day. This amendment would save the Veterans Administration lots of money, over $200 a day to provide long-term health care for our veterans. This amendment will prevent a massive 33 percent reduction in the State Nursing Home Construction Grant Program at a time when the number of elderly veterans are dramatically rising. Mr. Chairman, in just a very, very few short years, half of the veteran population of this Nation will be over the age of 65, and we must have the facilities to provide them this quality care. There is already a long list of States on a waiting list for these homes. In fact, many of the States have already appropriated dollars and allocated funds for these homes. Yet Washington has failed to uphold its end of the bargain. This is a win-win situation for the Federal Government and for our Nation's veterans. By agreeing to this amendment, we will renew our commitment to America's veterans. Our amendment maintains, does not increase, but maintains the past 2 years' level of funding of $90 million in order to ensure our continued investments in our veterans health care facilities. If you remember, Mr. Chairman, last year, a similar effort to increase funding for this account was supported by over 350 Members of this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I support the increase of $30 million as provided in the Tancredo amendment, and I urge my fellow Members to support this much needed amendment to help out the people that have helped us out so many times, the veterans of America. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo, Weller, John, Ryan, Hilleary amendment to the VA/HUD Appropriations Bill. I would personally like to thank the cosponsors for their work on our amendment, especially Mr. Tancredo. This is a critical issue to our nation's veterans. As you know Mr. Chairman, Veteran State Homes are one of the most cost-effective programs within the Veterans Administration, and there is an ever-growing list of grant requests from states working to fulfill the health care needs of our veterans. While I appreciate all the difficulties associated with constructing this bill, it is not the time to ignore the needs of our senior and disabled veterans. State Homes receive federal funding for 65 percent of the construction costs, and the remainder is provided by the state. Once the home is providing care, the Veterans Administration pays an average of $40 per day for patients. However, other long term nursing facilities drain the Veterans Administration of over $250 per day. By comparison, the State Extended Care Facilities Program saves the federal government approximately $200 per day per veteran. This amendment will prevent a massive 33 percent reduction in the State Nursing Homes Construction Grant Program at a time when the number of elderly veterans is dramatically increasing. In a few years, half of the veteran population will be over the age of 65, and we must have facilities available to provide quality care. There is already a long waiting list for state veterans homes, and we cannot prolong this necessary action. Mr. Chairman, this is a win-win situation for the federal government and for our nation's veterans. Many states have already approved and allocated funding for their homes; yet Washington is failing to uphold its end of the bargain. By agreeing to this amendment, we are renewing our commitment to this successful federal-state partnership. I need not remind this body that this Congress and our President acted decisively in improving the quality of health care when we passed the Veterans Millennium Health Care Act last fall. Just as that bill improved the quality of care that our nation's veterans receive, so then this amendment would ensure that those veterans have adequate facilities through which such care can be rendered. More simply, we must not fall short on our commitment to our nation's veterans by not building the facilities that provide for their care. Our amendment will maintain the past two years' funding level of $90 million in order to ensure continued investment in our veterans' health care facilities. Last year, a similar effort to increase funding for this account was supported by 354 Members of this House. Once again, we have an opportunity to address an inadequacy in VA funding by leveraging much needed, scarce federal resources in a very successful program. I support the increase of $30 million as provided in the Tancredo, Weller, John, Ryan, and Hilleary amendment, and I urge that my fellow Members join me in adopting this amendment.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me 1\1/2\ minutes. Being on the Subcommittee of Risk Management, Research, and Specialty Crops that began the deliberations on this bill, I am proud to stand up here before the House today and support the conference committee report. I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Combest), and the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking member of the full committee, for their tireless work in putting this piece of legislation together. This is a very important piece of legislation because I think it heals the promises that were made in the 1996 farm bill. My understanding, I was not here at the time, but my understanding of when we passed the Freedom to Farms bills, the Congress' obligation was twofold: First to provide a safety net and, second, to open new markets. I think yesterday we took a major step in opening new markets for our rice producers and the other farmers across America; and maybe even today we will have another opportunity to continue opening markets in the area of Cuba and other areas in other countries. But the second part was creating a safety net, a safety net that is so important to our rice producers and also our farmers across the country. So I stand here to support the conference committee report because it makes it accessible and it makes it affordable. But, specifically, I want to thank the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Combest and Mr. Stenholm, both of which worked with me to provide a provision to help south Louisiana's rice farmers. This year, we had a drought of a magnitude that we have not seen in many, many years in southwest Louisiana. Under present law, rice farmers were not covered under the drought provisions. I just wanted to thank them for being able to put the rice provision in there for our rice farmers because it is so important to them. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the conference committee report.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I also applaud the gentleman from the panhandle of Texas (Mr. Thornberry) for coming up with a pretty good substitute. I think it falls a little short in several areas. First and foremost, it delays this program. We addressed that issue in this House decided overwhelmingly to defeat that proposal. But more than that, it delays and asks people in the communities that are most needy as far as coastlines to wait 5 years. I beg the gentleman from Texas, Louisiana cannot wait 5 years. If my colleagues see the map beside me, the red is what we will lose over the next few short years. Five years is too much. We are losing 25 square miles a year. Times five, that is 125 square miles of Louisiana will be gone before this bill is enacted, before we can get to that point. My district may be gone by that time, because I represent 250 miles of coastline. Second of all, a difference that the gentleman has is that he says he has $200 million for maintenance. Well, I fall back on my first argument. If he does say that we want $200 million, he says but let us wait 5 years before we get $200 million. That puts us a billion dollars in backlog and also payment in lieu of taxes. Mr. Chairman, I have a parish in the southwestern corner of my district, Cameron Parish, that is mostly owned by the Federal Government. I have worked very hard in trying to get a dedicated stream of funding to pay this poor parish so they could have the services they need. I beg my colleagues not to adopt the substitute, it has all of the provisions that have been defeated over the last 2 nights and days in this body, but pass this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, this will be the last amendment, so I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of my committee, and also the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the committee, for their diligent effort in putting together, I think, what is the most historic piece of legislation that deals with our conservation needs in the history of this country.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, if I could maybe try to explain the situation as it deals with PILT versus the appropriations. First of all, this was about enhancement, not supplanting. So we took an historic number of what the Committee on Appropriations over the last few years has actually allocated to PILT. Last year, in fiscal year 2000, they appropriated $135 million. The bill that is in front of us says that if the Committee on Appropriations appropriates $100 million, at least $100 million, then the difference would be made up through the interest payments on the bill. So what it basically would do, it is not a match, it is more of $100 million for PILT and $15 million for refuge revenue sharing. So if the appropriation comes up with that commitment, and these numbers were not pulled out of the air, they were historical in nature, if they make that, then CARA will enhance the rest.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. Before I start, I must say that I give much credit that is due to many Members that were involved in this negotiation. It has been 2 years since we first met and came up with the idea of trying to move a piece of legislation of this magnitude through the Congress. I give the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), my friend and ranking member of the Committee on Resources, mountains of credit by keeping us together; of course the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), my friend, the chairman of our Committee on Resources, for never letting the fire out in times that were very, very difficult through negotiations on a bill of this magnitude; also the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) that represents the other half of the State of Louisiana's coastline; and also the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). These were the primary people that sat in a room over 2 years ago that decided that it was important for us to preserve what we have enjoyed in our days. I rise today, and I am very proud and excited about where we are going to go in the next 6 or 7 hours. I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the Committee on Rules for making a fair rule, a rule that has made in order 27 amendments. Most of these amendments were hammered out in the Member-only meetings. We deal in Congress a lot with staff members, and we do not get involved on a hands-on basis as we should sometimes. This bill, I counted every meeting, we spent 40 hours, over 40 hours of Member-only meetings trying to hammer out a compromise because this bill was so important, not only to just the people up here in Washington, but to all of the people of the United States. I can speak from personal experience. My district is bordered by Texas on the west, the Atchafalaya Basin on the east, the red clay hills and piney woods of Louisiana on the north, and to the south, the ever-changing 250 miles of coastline in southwest Louisiana. There is not a week that goes by that I do not wake up and I do not have a publication, as Louisiana Life, where the headlines says ``The Coast Is Near.'' My colleagues can imagine what that article is about. Or seeing maps that are, frankly, full of red of where our coastline is going. We lose 25 square miles of Louisiana's coastline a year, 25 square miles, a football field a day. Looking at some of the amendments, there are some that say, let us wait 5 years before we implement this. I may not have a district in 5 years at the rate of the eroding coastline of Louisiana. So I suggest to my colleagues that now is the time that we do something. What does CARA do? It does what we do in Congress every day of the week. It puts money in priority programs that we want to see happen. Not only does it fund fully for the first time and keep our promise, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said with the authorized $900 million of the Land Water Conservation Fund, we are going to fund that, $1 billion for coastal restoration. I talked a little bit about Louisiana's coastline. But this bill is so much larger and bigger than just Louisiana. We have 35 States around the United States with coastlines with the same type of problem that we have. I think it is important that we prioritize some of these dollars. It has been a very, very bumpy road. There have been lots of differing opinions, ideologies, policies, but we have persevered because of the importance of this piece of legislation. So I look forward to the next several hours as we debate the merits of not only this bill, but of some ideology debates, some real serious issues that we will debate in here. But when it is all said and done, we have 316 people that have signed off on this bill. I would urge everyone to support this piece of legislation because I can think of no better legacy to leave, not only my twin sons, but also the future generations of this whole country, the outdoors that I have enjoyed living in south Louisiana, fishing in the estuaries that are so rich and plentiful with fish and ducks and shrimp and crawfish, but also the open spaces, the urban sprawl, making sure that we have those kinds of green spaces, because I have seen polls every day that say people want to be able to have that soccer field or that opportunity. Mr. Chairman, we had Terrell Davis, the MVP of the Super Bowl from the Denver Broncos, come here and testify on this bill and say that he would not have been the MVP if it would not have been for the football program in San Diego, California. Those are the kind of stories I want my kids and grandkids to be talking about. I look forward to the next few hours. And, again, I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and also the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) for keeping the fire going in times that were very, very difficult.

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I would like to also thank the gentleman from Ohio for his generosity to the State of Louisiana. If this amendment is enacted, Louisiana would gain about $200 million. But this bill was borne about balance. Now, my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), talked about the formula. The intent of the amendment, I understand, and I applaud the gentleman from Ohio for doing it, but the balance was struck in the formula. Fifty percent of the title I dollars, fifty percent are weighted on producing States, 25 percent on the amount of shoreline and 25 percent on the population along those coastlines. So this was the balance that was struck because this is a bill not only about producing States, not only about States that bear a lot, in Louisiana's case, 90 percent, over 90 percent of the money that comes into this fund comes off the shore of my great State, but this bill was borne about balance. This upsets that balance and it ought to be defeated. I also would like to say that the balance here was struck also in other areas, and we will hear a lot more about that in the next few amendments. I might add, in conclusion, that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) left out the State of Florida that would not be a producing State and would not participate in this. The State of Florida has a beautiful coastline. Miles and miles of white sandy beaches that my children and I go to in the summers. So I urge my colleagues, please, do not support this amendment.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding law enforcement career of Lafayette Parish Sheriff Donald J. Breaux. Sheriff Breaux's over 30 years of distinguished service in Louisiana law enforcement are coming to a close on July 1, 2000, and I would like to take this opportunity to honor his accomplished service. Sheriff Breaux began his career in law enforcement in 1958 at the age of twenty-one with the Lafayette Police Department. In 1964, he left local law enforcement to join the Louisiana State Police where he remained until his retirement in 1980. Shortly thereafter, he was appointed Lafayette City Marshall where he served until 1984 when he was elected Sheriff of Lafayette Parish. Today, fifteen years later, he is retiring from the law enforcement arena after what he calls a ``blessed'' life and career. His years of distinguished service also includes leadership in numerous law enforcement organizations. He has served as: past president of the Louisiana State Troopers Association; past president of the Louisiana Sheriff's Association; Chairman of the National Sheriff's Drug Enforcement Committee; Director of the Louisiana Sheriff's Association Strike Force; member of the American Correctional Association Committee on Accreditation; member of Accreditation for Corrections; and member of the American Correctional Association's Committee on Correctional Standards. In his four terms as Lafayette Parish Sheriff, Sheriff Breaux spearheaded construction and operation of the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Training Academy, the opening of the Lafayette Parish Correctional Center, the computerization of the Sheriff's Department and consolidation of many city-parish services for Lafayette Parish residents. He has placed an emphasis on combating drugs in Lafayette Parish through the development of a comprehensive community drug education program. This program, combined with a strong enforcement initiative, equates to roughly 100 drug arrests each month by Metro Narcotics. Sheriff Breaux was also instrumental in bringing the Drug Awareness Resistance Education Program (D.A.R.E.) to school children in Lafayette Parish. Since, DARE has provided over 6,000 Lafayette Parish school children with the knowledge they need to resist and report drugs in their communities. Sheriff Breaux has made a lasting impact, not only in Lafayette Parish but in Louisiana as a whole. He will long be remembered as a leader who constantly strove to meet the changing and expanding needs of his diverse community. His record of public service exemplifies the heights to which he has brought the Lafayette Parish Sheriff's Department, and is one that will be honored for years to come. Congratulations Sheriff Breaux on your retirement.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall number 116 and also 117 I was unavoidably detained and was absent for those two votes. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea'' on 116 and ``nay'' on 117.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, truly a budget debate is strictly over priorities, priorities on what one does with one's money. The indisputable champion of debt reduction is the Blue Dog budget, $5.7 trillion, $21,000 for every man, woman, and child to pay off our national debt, $354 billion in interest. Let me give my colleagues an idea of what that means. That is 100 times more than we spend on cancer research. It is six times more than we pay for salaries for the military, 15 times the size of the veterans' budget. The debt simply should be the priority. The Republicans say that they pay off the debt by 2013. But their plan allots $50 billion over 5 years towards debt reduction, but it provides a loophole that says that they can use it for tax cuts. I do not understand that. Let us give a true tax cut. Pay down the debt, keep interest rates low. The Blue Dog plan is the champion.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my neighbor from Tennessee, for managing this hour. I also want to thank Minority Leader Gephardt for granting us an hour, the Blue Dogs an hour to actually talk about our plan. There is bipartisan, bicameral, universal support for a marriage penalty tax deduction or tax decrease. The President has it in his budget, the Democrats have it in their recommittal substitute that we will see tomorrow, the Republicans have it. Truly this debate that we are having here today, and that we will have tomorrow, is not about a marriage penalty. Everyone agrees, everyone has a plan. We will talk about the differences in the plans, but everyone agrees that there needs to be a correction. It was an unintentional glitch in a tax law that happened several or many years ago. So I think that the true debate is about how do we go about it? Let me give my colleagues a scenario. We come up here a lot, go back to our districts and come up here a lot and we talk about how we ought to run government more like a business. Let me give my colleagues a scenario about where I think we are today in this debate. When a CEO of a company goes out and talks to potential investors asking them to invest in his company, in his idea, do we believe that he will be successful in gaining some financial support from potential investors if he just says trust me, I do not have a plan yet, I cannot see the big picture, I am not sure where we are going to be in 10 years, but I just need some money, because I have this little bitty plan or this notion that is out there. I suggest that this company will not make it very far. Let me take it one step further. What would have happened under the trust-me notion if this Congress would have passed the $1 trillion tax cut last year? Everyone agrees that after we look at discretionary spending caps, we look at some emergency spending that we only are going to have a projected $780 plus billion surplus over the next 10 years. Think about that. If we would have passed a $1 trillion tax cut last year, we only have $780 billion projected today, and it has only been 6 months. We would be running a deficit before the tax cut even was fully engaged. So I beg the Republican majority to take a look not at the fact that we need a tax cut. I am going to vote for a marriage penalty tax cut. The America people will have a tax cut bill that will have a marriage penalty decrease in it. I feel good about that. I am almost confident that that is going to happen. But let us put it in an overall budget frame. Let us lay out our plan. That is the responsible thing to do. We have been very disciplined fiscally over the last several years. That is why we are here today. That is why we can enjoy and have this debate which I guess several years ago we would not have even had about the problems we have with the kinds of surplus that we are predicting. We need to continue, and I beg the majority to show us a road map. Give us a plan. We want to cut taxes. I am going to vote for it. The Blue Dogs will vote for it, the Democrats will vote for it, and everyone wants it. It fits in a plan. But we ought to spend half of whatever that surplus is in paying down the debt first, 25 percent in a targeted tax cut that should include the marriage penalty and will, I believe, and 25 percent for priority spending. We have heard my colleagues talk about some of the other spending needs that we have in this country. How do we know if they are more important than something else until we look at the business plan. There is not one person, businessperson in America that could go to the bank and borrow some money today and say I do not have a business plan, but I need some money. Show us a plan. Keep us on the road to fiscal discipline. Keep us on the road of good economies across America, but make sure we do it in the whole picture.