Jim McDermott

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the committees of jurisdiction reported out three other bills, none of which is before the House today. Am I correct that H.R. 4 has not been reported out by any committee of jurisdiction?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, continuing that inquiry, is it true that the Budget Act points of order which are designed to assure that the budget rules we established for ourselves are adhered to apply only to measures that have been reported by the committee of jurisdiction?

Mr. McDERMOTT. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McDERMOTT. It is my understanding that we went around the rules because we did not follow the rules.

Mr. McDERMOTT. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we had followed the regular order and reported either H.R. 4 or H.R. 1214 from the committees of jurisdiction, several points of order would have applied. To get around those rules, the majority has instead put before the House an unreported bill making it impossible for those of us who believe the House should be bound by the rules it sets for itself to exercise those rights.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, yesterday morning I went to Hawthorne School in Seattle and talked to the whole student body, 650 squirming kids, all of whom had taken a paper dinner plate and written a note to me about the school lunch program. The kids actually know what is happening. In Seattle, 47 percent of the students take part in the reduced or free lunch program. There were almost 430,000 lunches served last year. In the next school year, with the cuts in this bill we are going to deal with over the next couple of days, Seattle will lose $654,000. Now, that means the State legislature has got to pick up that amount. Some of my colleagues in my delegation pushed through an amendment that says it takes 60 percent to raise the taxes in the State of Washington. So how are you going to get that through? But even more amazing, I picked up the Seattle paper, and one of my colleagues says we are going to save money by cutting regulations like that useless regulation that requires the schools to monitor the temperature of the milk. It is as though the Members on the other side never heard of the germ theory. The reason you have cool milk being is to keep kids from getting stick. Vote against this bill.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, the question here is: Why are we making these cuts? Is it to balance the budget? I would say ``no.'' Yesterday on the Committee on Ways and Means, on which I serve, we passed a bill that gives away $700 billion over the next 10 years. That unbalances the budget by $700 billion. These cuts are being made to pay for that tax cut. Now, the tax cut goes to the most wealthy 10 percent in this country. Sixty percent of the benefit will go to the top 10 percent in this country. They will give a family credit to the 40 million families in this country--only the top 30 million. The bottom 10 million families in this country will not receive one dime for their children in a tax cut out of the tax bill we put through. These cuts we are going through here today are simply to pay for a giveaway to the wealthy in this country. I think we ought to vote ``no'' on this rule.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Yates-Vento amendment because it corrects the misguided piece of legislation which sits before us today. Unless changed through the adoption of the Yates- Vento amendment, this rescissions bill will seriously harm America's national forests. Last week, while the Republican majority was busy cutting and slashing social programs which benefit America's neediest Americans, they got so carried away that they thought they might clear-cut a few trees as well. Unfortunately, what has been tacked on to this ``rescissions'' bill is a costly environmental disaster known as a timber salvage plan. Although timber salvage is rhetorically pleasing--evoking images of saving rotting trees from their imminent demise, this timber salvage plan is a thinly disguised excuse for unregulated timber harvest in our treasured national forests. As written, the timber salvage plan would mandate that 6.2 billion board feet be cut from our national forests over the next 2 years. Even more horrifying is that a majority of this astounding sum will come from our Northwest national forests most pristine roadless areas and old-growth remnants. In order to go in and harvest these trees, the legislation before us today allows an extreme and unjustifiable legal exemption which permits the Forest Service salvage program to operate well beyond Federal laws and environmental regulations for the next 2 years. I urge my colleagues to oppose this irresponsible environmental policy masquerading as timber salvage before us today and pass the Yates-Vento amendment. Allowing the so called timber salvage plan to pass not only threatens the future of our national forests, it continues Congress' irresponsible assault on our Nation's environmental policy.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the House of Representatives I am delighted to welcome as our guest Chaplain, the Reverend Michael Easterling, senior minister of the Madison Avenue Baptist Church in New York City. The Reverend Mr. Easterling has served the Madison Avenue Church with great distinction for 10 years, a church that has provided a variety of services to his community located just a few blocks from the Empire State Building. His leadership has meant much to the neediest of people and together with the members of the church, the message of religion has been translated into deeds of justice and mercy to his community. Mike Easterling and I were classmates together at Wheaton College in Illinois and I have been an admirer of his dedication and his commitment in his ministry. Also, it should be mentioned that Mr. Easterling and our own at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY. Thank you, Mike, for your prayer today and best wishes in the good work that you do together with the people of Madison Avenue Baptist Church.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill to roll back the Harbor Maintenance Tax [HMT] and provide truth in budgeting. The HMT raises much more money than is needed for harbor maintenance and the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund contains a huge surplus which is hurting our ports and being used to reduce the size of the Federal deficit. The current high tax rate raises the cost of U.S. exports and encourages shippers to divert cargo to Canadian ports where no such tax is collected. The HMT rate should be rolled back or reduced so that it raises only 100 percent of the costs of harbor maintenance. The Water Resources Development Act of 1986 established a HMT of 0.04 percent of cargo value to pay for 40 percent of the harbor maintenance activities of the Army Corps of Engineers. In 1990, the Bush administration proposed raising the tax rate to 0.125 percent of cargo value to pay for 100 percent of harbor maintenance work, 0.115 percent, and certain extraneous activities, 0.01 percent, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]. The 1990 budget agreement approved the full tax rate increase but rejected the diversion of the trust funds to NOAA. Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund revenues have increased much faster than expenditures as a result of increased trade, stricter enforcement of the tax, fairly constant Corps harbor maintenance appropriations and the artificially high HMT rate. The surplus in the trust fund grew from $120.6 million at the end of fiscal year 1992 to $302.3 million at the end of fiscal year 1993 to $451.4 million at the end of fiscal year 1994. The administration projects that the trust fund surplus will grow to $644.3 million by the end of fiscal year 1995 and $802.9 million by the end of fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1994, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund distributed $497.1 million for harbor maintenance activities by the Army Corps of Engineers, but collected $646.2 million, or 130 percent of expenditures. With the additional funds for enforcement of the HMT included in the implementing legislation for GATT, the trust fund surplus may grow even faster in the coming years. This growing surplus is especially disturbing because of the way the HMT harms the competitiveness of U.S. exports in the international marketplace and diverts cargo to Canadian, and potentially Mexican, ports where no such tax is collected. For example, on all import containers coming into the Port of Seattle, the HMT adds an average cost of $180 per box. This is money that the importer could save by simply diverting the cargo to Vancouver, Canada. The HMT is especially burdensome to U.S. ports in the Pacific Northwest, Great Lakes region and the Northeast which compete directly with nearby Canadian ports. The burden is even greater for northern ports like Seattle, Tacoma, and Boston that need very little harbor maintenance. The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma estimate that their shippers annually pay over $50 million in harbor maintenance taxes while the ports receive less than $1 million annually in harbor maintenance--this amounts to less than 2 cents back on the dollar. The growing trust fund surplus may also violate article II of the GATT which only permits ``fees or other charges,'' on trade which are ``commensurate with the cost of services rendered.'' Several European nations have expressed concern to the U.S. Government about this possible GATT violation. My legislation would rollback the HMT as follows: First, reduce the harbor maintenance tax rate by 0.02 percentage points in three successive years to 0.65 percent of cargo value; and Second, provide that in any year thereafter that begins with a Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund balance of under $100 million, the HMT rate will be increased by 0.01 percentage point, and that, in any year that begins with a trust Fund balance of over $100 million, the tax rate will be decreased by 0.01 percentage point. This method will ensure that the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund will always have a positive, but medium-sized, balance. The trigger provision would probably not come into play for 6-8 years. The Hazardous Substance Superfund and the Oil Spill Liability Trust Funds operate with similar triggers. A rollback of the Harbor Maintenance Tax is supported by many shippers, carriers, and ports involved in international trade. This legislation would be a modest step to control the growing surplus in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and check the deleterious effects of the Harbor Maintenance Tax.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 925. This is yet another proposal offered by the new majority to undermine our Nation's health, safety, and environmental standards in order to benefit their favorite special interest: the pollution industry. This bill is a cruel joke which endangers helpless private property owners throughout the country and allows land abusers the opportunity to raid the Federal treasury. Make no mistake, this bill is incapable of protecting the public from health or safety hazards. In my State of Washington, clear cut logging on steep slopes caused extreme run-off and excessive flooding along the Tolt River. Slides sent trees and debris choking the river and deflecting flows. Meanwhile, the flooding caused a family's mobile home to be washed down river and significantly eroded several other properties. The effect: property devaluation and serious expense to the downstream landowners, serious harm to the environment, and huge profits for the loggers. This bill does nothing to either prevent such environmental damages or protect the landowners who undoubtedly will be harmed by the ensuing reckless developments. In fact, even as amended, H.R. 925 makes the government liable for the negligent actions of industry polluters, reckless developers, and the property owners whose land is harmed by such development. For example, when a developer seeks a permit to clear cut a steep slope as occurred in my State, or to fill in a wetland which endangers the property of downstream landowners, the government is damned if it grants the permit and damned if it doesn't. If the government issues the permit, it then becomes liable for the damages incurred by the developers on the downstream property owner's lands. Yet, if the government denies the permit, this bill forces it to compensate the developer who requested it--no matter how negligent the developer's proposal may be. By voting in favor of H.R. 925, the majority will commit our government to a financial conundrum which will drain the Federal treasury. There are not enough health, education, nutrition, or family programs for the new majority to eliminate in order to pay for a bill which mandates such financial recklessness. Mr. Chairman, I hope that you take a look beyond your political focus groups and examine the actual, real world implications of this dangerous bill. I hope my colleagues find the wisdom and courage to vote against this horrifying piece of legislation which, as usual in this new majority, benefits a select few and harms the rest of us. the U.S. Constitution clearly speaks to the issue of Federal land acquisition when it states: ``[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.'' The Constitution is clear on the issue of Federal land takings and compels us to deal justly with the impact of Federal action on private land. H.R. 925 is currently being touted as the cure for private land owners whose land has been devalued by Federal regulations. However, it does not answer Guam's outrage over Federal land policies. The people of Guam have for many years been the victims of unjust land grabs and the heavy hand of Federal land policy. Within the borders of the war in the Pacific Park, land owners cannot develop their private property due to Federal regulations. Land owners at Ritidian Point, landlocked by the Andersen Air Force Base, are also denied free use of their land because access is restricted. Unfortunately, this legislation would not compensate these land owners or any others whose land is currently controlled by the Federal Government. Guam needs more than just promises for the future; we need Congress to recognize and commit itself to resolving Guam's unique Federal land problems.

Mr. McDERMOTT

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon]. (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Woolsey]. (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Mfume].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez]. (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I offer the amendment in the nature of a substitute, printed in House Report 104-38.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra]. (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, you have heard a lot of talk today about fairness. The amendment I propose today is as simple as it is fair. It simply extends to employees who must buy their own health insurance exactly the same tax deduction that the majority has proposed for the self-employed. In other words, it gives employees the same 25-percent deduction of the cost of health insurance that the Contract on America offers to employers. Now, how can Congress justify giving a deduction to small employers, but not to the people who work for small employers? Would you give a tax break to a self-employed lawyer who must buy his own health insurance, but not to his secretary who works for the lawyer and who also must buy his or her own insurance? Both are engaged in exactly the same conduct of purchasing health insurance. Providing tax incentives to purchase health insurance serves the same policy goals for both employers and employees. For many, this tax deduction will be the difference between being able to afford health insurance and not. To provide a deduction for the employer but not for the employee cannot be defended. We must be the Congress of all the people. The question you ask then is how do we pay for it? How do we pay for those hard-working Americans who are shut out by the Republican proposal? The lion's share of the money to pay for the employee getting the same deduction as their employers comes from changing the capital gains tax rules on Americans who renounce their citizenship for tax purposes. What better way could there be to enable hard-working, patriotic Americans to purchase health insurance than by increasing the capital gains on extraordinarily wealthy individuals who renounce this country? Certainly, Mr. Chairman, no one can vote to protect tax breaks for those who turn their backs on America. The remainder of the money comes from changing the tax rules on foreign program Members have heard talked about. The reform of the FCC program will assure that the original purpose of the incentive program is fulfilled, to encourage the communications industry to sell minority businesses interested in entering the communications field. When this program started in 1978, less than a half of a percent of broadcasts were done by minorities. Today we are up to 3 percent. It is not a perfect program, but it has worked. To assure the long-term viability of this program, my substitute caps the amount of the capital gain deferral each transaction can receive at $50 million. This reform in the FCC program preserves the highest goals of equal opportunity and retains an incentive, this word ``incentive,'' that great market tool consistently advocated by the Speaker and the majority leader and the whole majority, an incentive to develop new business opportunities. The total elimination of the FCC program initiated at the last minute by the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means has nothing to do with the ostensible purpose of H.R. 831, whichever everyone on this floor agrees with, which is to provide a tax deduction to enable people to buy insurance on their own. The overriding purpose of this amendment is to return the bill to its original purpose, one which would give a unanimous vote and include hard-working employees who do not get health insurance through their jobs. The number of Americans without health insurance increased by 1 million last year, mainly because more employers either dropped health insurance or failed to offer it. The number of employees offering health insurance has been steadily declining since 1980. Nobody on this floor should have any illusions that these deductions to employers and employees will solve the overwhelming problem we have. At best, it is a lottery, whether anybody could actually buy insurance as an individual. But these deductions give people a small margin that enables them to hold onto some health insurance until the Congress, as we are promised by the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] and others, will be ready to address the fundamental problem of health insurance. I hope we can show the American people that every Member of the House will act today to assure that all Americans who cannot obtain health insurance through their job will get a 25-percent deduction to assist their own efforts to insure themselves. The line drawn by this bill between employers and employees as proposed is a false one and cannot be defended. For that reason, I have offered this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.