Jim Kolbe

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would certainly trust that in a 50 percent reduction, that the National Trust for Historic Preservation would indeed be looking for those kinds of reductions, to reduce those things first. We have had considerable discussion in our subcommittee about this. We have also had considerable discussion with the leadership of the National Trust, and expressed our deep concern about the salaries that have been paid.

Mr. KOLBE. Reclaiming my time, without commenting on the specifics of the litigation because I am not familiar with each of them, my answer to that would be no. What we seek to do by this reduction of 50 percent and terminating it in the second year is to give it an orderly time to phase out what I just mentioned are, I think, the worthwhile parts of this program, to retain that.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, with some reluctance I rise to oppose the Hutchison amendment. This was thoroughly debated in the committee, as well as a lot of discussion in the subcommittee. As has already been pointed out, we have made a very substantial reduction in the amount of funding for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. We have essentially reduced it 50 percent, from the $7 million that was there, to $3.5 million, and we have indicated our intention to reduce that funding to zero in the year after this. We have suggested there would be no funding in fiscal year 1997. But, as with several of the agencies and programs that I think that the Republican majority has been talking about eliminating, we do recognize that there are many valuable things that are done here, and that we need to give some time for the changes to get made and for them to find alternatives to continue to do the work, which I think most of us would support, or at least many of the things that the National Trust for Historic Preservation does. Let me just mention a couple. There are very few Members of this body that have not been touched one way or another by the Main Street program. I have had it operate in several of my communities. It has done a lot, I think, to restore and revitalize some historic downtowns in some smaller communities in my district. The Trust makes grants and loans in case after case that help for this kind of program for the Main Street program. The Federal funds help to leverage the private local dollars, and the grant funds also enable the National Trust to support the historic preservation work of local communities, helping preservation groups to obtain needed technical assistance. Mr. Chairman, the point of all of this is I believe this is a function which we can turn over to the private sector, but I do think we need to give it another year to do that. I think the reduction of 50 percent, with the clear understanding that we are not going to fund it in the years beyond that, is appropriate. This was the decision of the committee, the full committee, and that is the reason that I would oppose this and urge my colleagues to oppose this.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the entire 5 minutes, but I will rise in support of this amendment. We have previously with the Gallegly amendment made a reduction in some of the funding so that the dollars are available for this purpose, and as has been pointed out, there has been a commitment that has been made to fund in this compact this aid. This has been an informal agreement that has been made through the years between the Territory, and the administration, and this Congress, and for that reason I do support the funding. I would, however, note that in doing this we do use all the remaining dollars from the amendment that was struck and that this puts us right at our total allocation.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I understand those discussions are going on. I was just trying to expedite what I thought was an amendment we did not need to spend an awful lot of time on, so we could continue moving on.

Mr. KOLBE. If the gentleman from Guam would yield to me to respond, [[Page H 6983]] and I would certainly ask unanimous consent for time if he needs more time, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, may I inquire, if I might, about the possibility of a unanimous consent agreement? Would the gentleman be willing to limit the time on this to 10 minutes on a side?

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I would urge support of the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. It has been, that is correct.

Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been cleared with the majority and the minority. It has been cleared also with the authorizing committee, so I will take less than 30 seconds to describe it. Basically, when we transferred the functions of the NBS, National Biological Survey, to the U.S. Geological Survey, we put in language which prohibited the use of any funds to conduct surveys. USGS does do surveys, always with written authorization, so this simply restores that and clarifies it and makes it clear that if they are requested, and if it is authorized in writing by the private property owner, they can do the survey. Without this, USGS, for example, would be unable to go on the property of Phelps Dodge or Magnum or some other company to do a geological survey. We think it does clarify it, and it has been cleared.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to commend the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee and my friend, Mr. Regula, for his hard work and courageous action in putting this bill together. It has not been an easy task. But throughout the hearing process, as well as the subcommittee and full committee markup, Chairman Regula and his staff have performed tirelessly, professionally, and with the utmost sensitivity. Trying to put together a workable budget for the Departments of Interior and Energy, the Forest Service, and the numerous independent agencies under the Interior Subcommittee's jurisdiction is difficult. Add to this an effort to address the personal concerns of the members of this body and you have a very arduous, nearly impossible mission. But, Chairman Regula and his staff have crafted a good bill that I think is fair, fiscally conservative, and represents an excellent starting point for our 7-year journey to a balanced budget. Is this bill everything everyone wanted? Of course not. But then we can't--nor should we--ever go back to the fiscally irresponsible practices of the past. We must keep in mind that the fiscal integrity of this nation is our responsibility, and we must act accordingly. As the chairman has stated, the bill appropriates $11.96 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year 1996, $1.56 billion less than fiscal year 1995, and almost $2 billion less than the President requested. We have attempted to place an emphasis on preserving natural and cultural resources, the maintenance of scientific and research functions, and on our commitment to the health and educational needs of native Americans. H.R. 1977 also ensures that adequate resources are allocated for our Nation's public lands and our crown jewels--our National Park System. In fact, in an era of decreasing budgets, the bill actually contains an increase in the operational account of the National Park Service. This will prove invaluable to those who manage America's parks. And contrary to some published reports, the subcommittee never considered or even contemplated closing any of our Nation's parks. Overall, the National Park Service fared fairly well. The bill appropriates $1.26 billion in overall funding. The bulk of these funds, $1.08 billion, will go to the management of park areas, visitor services, park police, resources and facility maintenance. This figure represents a $10 million increase over fiscal year 1995. An important and much needed initiative that is included in the bill is the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program. This innovative program will give the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service the opportunity to establish a 1-year pilot program that allows these land managing agencies to charge, and utilize on-site, recreational use and access fees. The language in the bill directs each agency to establish 10 to 30 demonstration sites where broad fee authorities are established. [[Page H 6939]] The best aspect of the program is that the bulk of fees that are collected--stay at the site which collects them. Of the fees, 80 percent that are collected are to be used in that area. The remaining 20 percent of the fees go into an agency account to be used agency-wide for priority backlogged recreational safety and health projects. On the budgetary side, the bill is quite lean. Most agencies are at or below their 1995 funding level. Land acquisition accounts are reduced 87 percent below the 1995 level. Funds are to be used only for emergencies, hardship situations and high priority acquisitions subject to committee reprogramming guidelines. Major construction accounts are reduced 41 percent below their 1995 level with emphasis on high priority health and safety construction. Funding for the controversial National Endowment of the Arts is reduced 39 percent, and the National Endowment for the Humanities is reduced 42 percent. The bill calls for a 3-year phase-out of Federal funding for these agencies, but new agreements made last night may reduce that to 2 years. H.R. 1977 also proposes the elimination of a number of agencies and programs. Agencies targeted for termination include the National Biological Service, the Bureau of Mines, the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, the Department of Energy's Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Department of Education's Office of Indian Education. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is also slated to be terminated. On the positive side, H.R. 1977 provides $111.4 million for the Bureau of Land Management's Payments in Lieu of Taxes [PILT] Program. As you know, the PILT Program compensates units of government for losses to their real property tax base due to Federal lands within their boundaries. In my State of Arizona, this level of funding is welcomed by several county administrators. In general, this bill provides a sound and fiscally conservative blueprint for the continued management of our public lands. As stewards of these lands it is incumbent upon us to ensure that they are preserved for future generations to enjoy. I commend Chairman Regula and his staff, and I hope that through the amendment process we can produce a bill that we will all be proud of.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I might just add, parenthetically at the outset of my remarks, the comments that were made by the chairman and ranking member about each other and about the work of this committee I think is perhaps a lesson that all of us, considering the last 24 hours in this body, might take to heart. We can have differences; we can have good philosophical discussions about those differences, but we can do it in the context of advancing the agenda for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution conference report--a historic agreement that establishes a 7-year balanced budget framework. This conference report provides much-needed tax relief to America's families by allowing them to keep more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. It encourages economic growth by reducing Government regulation and eliminating inefficient programs. It protects and preserves Medicare--a system that will go broke in 7 years. And it puts our States and the American people--not the Federal Government--back in the driver's seat where they belong. Simply put, this agreement is more than a fiscal strategy for 1996-2002. It is a document that conveys an underlying philosophy about limiting Government's role in America's future. Mr. Speaker, Republicans took their lead from the November elections and set out early this year to offer the American people a vision for our children's future. We asked ourselves fundamental questions about what role the Federal Government ought to play in our lives because, clearly, it had overstepped its bounds. The result of months of review and discussions is the document before us today--which makes fundamental, systemic reforms that gets the Federal Government back to living within its means. Make no mistake, this blueprint reflects decisions that were both sensible and painstaking. And as expected, reaction has been both supportive and critical. Critics are welcome to challenge this plan, in its scope or its detail; that is part of the needed debate. But in fairness, a principle set down by the President in 1993 ought to be followed: Those who would criticize this plan should be required to offer their own alternative--with the same level of comprehensiveness and specificity--to balance the Federal budget by 2002. That didn't occur--at least not until the process was so advanced that the President's proposal was meaningless. If you believe in lifting the yoke of dependency fashioned by the welfare state and replacing it with an opportunity society; if you believe in restoring freedom by ending centralized bureaucratic micromanagement; if you believe in enhancing prosperity, economic growth, and take-home pay by reducing taxes, litigation, and regulation; then vote for this conference report. The pursuit of a balanced budget is much more than a numbers game. It is a catalyst for reevaluating the Government down to its core and getting Government back to living within its means. This conference report achieves this goal. And while passage of this conference agreement is just one step in a long process, it moves us one step closer to accountability--fiscal accountability--which has evaded Congress for far too long. I urge my colleagues to support this budget resolution conference agreement.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to House Joint Resolution 79, a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. I am a Vietnam veteran, a combat veteran. I am not sure I know why I have to state that credential, as though somehow my credentials would not be valid to speak in opposition to this amendment were I not a combat veteran. Let me lay that issue to rest. You can be for this amendment or against it whether you ever served in uniform or in combat. We are all Americans and our patriotism should not be questioned wherever we stand on this issue. Mr. Speaker, this House is bringing fundamental change to the Federal Government. We are altering the very relationship Washington has with the States and the American people. And that should continue to be our focus. This year we have voted on two constitutional amendments--one to require Congress to balance the budget, the other to limit terms of Members of Congress. I supported both amendments. They either proposed to alter the institutions of our National Government or to fundamentally change the way Congress conducts its business. Mr. Speaker, there is not a crisis of disrespect for the American flag as a symbol of this great country. There is not a rash of flag burning. In fact, the Congressional Research Service reports that there were all of three incidents of flag-burning in 1994. We can count on our fingers the flag burning incidents since the Supreme Court ruled that such behavior--despicable though it may be--is constitutionally protected. I disagreed with that Court decision. I do not believe our Founding Fathers contemplated that a physical act of desecration of the flag would be construed as speech. Nonetheless, that is the ruling, and it is one that we can live with. Mr. Speaker, I will not dwell on the many questions this proposed amendment raises--does it include flag patches or a uniform? Are partial reproductions of flags covered by the intent of the amendment? Suffice it to say that this amendment very simply is not necessary. We honor our flag with our behavior every day. We show our respect in large ways and in small ways. But this body could do nothing more fundamental to honor our country--and its symbols--than by restoring fiscal responsibility to this Government. So let us get on with the business we were sent here to do. Let us balance the budget, let us return responsibilities to the States, let us empower the American people. We do not need to pass a constitutional amendment on the flag to show that we love and respect this great symbol of America. We cannot legislate patriotism and we cannot pass laws to make people love their flag. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood].

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, it is come to this. We are down to the last few hours of what is a dangerous game of chicken with Japan. Tonight we will know whether we are going over the cliff or if one or both sides are going to blink in this dispute. Well, everyone knows that Japan-bashing is popular. After all, the proposed sanctions are only going to hurt a few rich people who drive a car like Lexus, or did they ever think about Sam, who I met this last Friday at the Lexus dealership, who takes great pride in servicing those Lexuses and is very much a middle-class American? It seems to me there is no game plan here; there is no end game. If we go all the way through with this, the economic and political ramifications for our relationship with Japan are going to be enormous. What happens if the other side retaliates? What will happen to Boeing and General Electric who are doing business in Japan today? Did the administration consider how little room the Japanese have to negotiate, given the bad situation of their economy today? Mr. Speaker, all we can do by driving them over the cliff is to harden their resolve and allow them to blame the United States for the problem. Mr. Speaker, the time has come for some responsible action in this area, to get Japan to do fundamental deregulation, not to get voluntary import quotas accepted by Japan. We need a different strategy.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeLauro-Harman- Torkildsen amendment, which upholds current military policy to permit American troops and dependents stationed overseas to obtain privately funded abortion services in military facilities. We should not look at this as a pro-choice or pro-life issue. It is really a discrimination issue. Abortion is legal in the United States, and servicewomen serving the United States at a base overseas should not be denied safe reproductive health services. As my colleagues have pointed out, we are talking about privately funded abortions. Servicewomen and their dependents use their own money to obtain an abortion. No Federal funds are involved. Furthermore, and this is just to correct something that has been said a couple of times here, medical personnel have the option to opt out and not participate in an abortion procedure. Servicewomen and their dependents deserve to know they will have access when they are overseas to safe reproductive health service. A woman's health should not be jeopardized because she is serving the U.S. military in a country where medical facilities are inadequate or an abortion is illegal. This Congress has made great strides to get government out of people's lives. We should not take a step back. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. KOLBE

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I have spoken extensively with the commanding officers of the several major military installations in my congressional district, I know that operations and maintenance dollars are tight and that many necessary repairs and facility improvements are difficult to make. I applaud the authorizing committee for recognizing this and providing a substantial increase in O&M funding. But more can be done. My amendment would allow DOD to utilize the State/local prison labor pool to do routine maintenance. Currently, there is no Federal statute permitting use of civilian inmate labor from State/local correctional facilities by agencies of the Federal Government. DOD civilian inmate labor utilization is limited to the Federal Bureau of Prisons under title 18 U.S.C. section 4125. My amendment protects law-abiding citizens from the threat of job loss resulting from prison labor. My amendment would deny the use of inmate labor if it displaces Government employees or defense contractor employees at the installation, impairs a contract for services at the installation, or involves services in skills, crafts, or trades in which there is a surplus of labor available locally. The use of prison labor provides opportunities to preserve facilities and prevent deterioration where current funding is inadequate or wholly unavailable. These photographs demonstrate the effects of inadequate O&M dollars at Ft. Huachuca, one of the installations in my district. This lack of maintenance has a detrimental effect on the entire installation and the people that must live and work in these conditions. This program has a second primary benefit--it serves as a tool for correctional facilities to rehabilitate and train its prisoners at no cost--and in fact, at great savings--to the taxpayer. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me respond to a couple things that were said by the gentleman, and I hope the gentleman from California will stay [[Page H5970]] around here for a moment because the gentleman from Rhode Island said, that first of all he said it is inconceivable we cannot find local labor. That is not the issue. They are out of O&M money. It is not that labor is not available. There is not a dime, not a dollar, to do this kind of work. Apparently it is less important that we be able to fix the hot water heaters, fix the roofs, than it is to try and find money when we do not even have the money. The second thing that the gentleman said, and I would like to; he talked about the problem of taking jobs away from his people in Woonsocket. If the State of Rhode Island does not want to do this, do not do it. Do not enter into a contract with the military installation, but in 7 years, and this is directed to the gentleman from California, 7 years of military installations doing this with the Federal Bureau of Prisons there has not been one complaint about losing a job and not one complaint about problems. My particulate installation, nearby we have a very large DUI, a drug--not drug, but alcohol, for those who went in there. Those are in there for alcohol offenses, and I would say that they have not had-- they can use those people. These are not violent offenders. We are not talking about taking criminals. In fact the legislation, they do not now take anybody that is a principal organized crime figure who is anybody of significant public interest who has committed a sex offense, who is an escape risk, who poses a threat to the general public, who is convicted of arson, who is convicted of any violent crime. We are talking about nonviolent criminals to do work that keeps the quality of life for the service men and women that we have living on these facilities, to fix the roof, fix the hot water heaters, do the general work on the streets They are there and out. They have Federal prisoners doing this work at installations all over the country. Now why should they not be allowed to contract for State facilities at places where they do not have the Federal prisons nearby? That is all we are asking to do, is to try and do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.