Scott McInnis

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, we all grew up with the same thing, and my father and mother told me many times when I saw a great bargain, my father would always say, as yours did, just remember, nothing is free. Nothing is free. You always pay something. But under this IMF request for $18 billion, Secretary Rubin and members of the administration say, it is not going to cost the taxpayer one dime. We heard it today. We have made a new discovery. The American people should be thrilled. They have discovered money that is free. Why send the IMF $18 billion, since it is free? We might as well send them several trillion dollars. Of course, it is not free. Where it comes from are the hard-working people of all of our constituencies who have never even imagined $18 billion. And where is it going? One of the things that concerns me is that this country was based on the checks and balances of the private marketplace, of capitalism. When you mess up, you go broke. If you do not produce a product that should satisfy the consumer, people quit buying the product and you have to revise the product. But do Members know what happens with this IMF money? They are going to take this $18 billion, let it follow money that they have already shipped over there; and, by the way, they will be back, especially if they think the $18 billion is easy money and free money out of the United States Congress. Besides, they are insulated. The IMF has never talked, the executives of the IMF, in my opinion, have never once talked to a taxpayer in my district, never once gone to somebody pumping gas at the gas station, never once stopped by the ranch and talked to the ranch hand and said, hey, you are the guy paying me, let me tell you what this is doing.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is time for our President to come home. We owe no more apologies to the world. I am tired of hearing people go out and apologize for the United States of America. Take a look at the United States of America's history. Look how many millions and millions and millions of people that we have helped. Look how many of our soldiers have given the ultimate sacrifice to defend freedom in this world. Take a look at what our country offers the world today. We do more for the environment than any other country in the world. We have the best health care system of any country in the world. We have the strongest military of any country in the world which helps our friends at our expense. Take a look at what we do for education for our own citizens. Take a look at what we do through the United Nations for other countries. Take a look at our foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, we have got nothing to apologize about. The President needs to come home. If apologies are due, maybe they are due over at the White House, but they are not due for being citizens of the United States. I am a citizen of the United States of America, and let me tell every one of my colleagues I have no apologies.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding clause 1 of rule XXVII, it be in order at any time on Wednesday, April 1st, 1998, for the Speaker to entertain a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1151, Credit Union Membership Access Act.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial resolution. The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The proposed rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that it will be considered as read. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, under House Resolution 396, points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2(1)(6) of rule XI, or section 303 or 311 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. Likewise, points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with section 303 or section 311 of the Congressional Budget Act are waived. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 396 also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Furthermore, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. This rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules by voice vote. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998, is intended to reduce the burden of Federal paperwork on small businesses by requiring the publication of a list of all Federal paperwork requirements on small businesses, and requiring each Federal agency to establish one point of contact to act as a liaison with small businesses. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a good step forward. Clearly, the burden of Federal regulations on the American public continues to grow. In 1997, total regulatory costs were $688 billion. When these costs are passed on to the consumer, the typical family of four pays about $6,800 per year in hidden regulatory costs. Therefore, the publication of all the Federal paperwork requirements on small business may further enlighten decisionmakers on the hidden costs of red tape. I encourage my colleagues to support this rule, and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letter: House of Representatives, Committee on the Budget, Washington, DC, March 25, 1998. Hon. Gerald B.H. Solomon, Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman: I understand that the Committee on Rules is scheduled to meet to consider a rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 3310, the Small Business Paperwork Reduction Act Amendments of 1998. As reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, the bill would reduce revenue by $5 million in fiscal year 1999 and $25 million over five years. Consequently, the bill violates sections 303(a) and 311(a) of the Congressional Budget Act by reducing revenue first effective in a fiscal year for which a budget resolution has not yet been agreed to (fiscal year 1999) and by reducing revenue below the five-year revenue floor as established by H. Con. Res. 84. However, I would note that last year the House passed H.R. 2675, the Federal Employees' Life Insurance Improvement Act of 1997, which increased offsetting collections by $6 million in fiscal year 1998 and $72 million over five years. H.R. 2675 was also reported by the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. Sincerely, John R. Kasich, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, this is an open rule. It is a good bill, and I urge its support. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh).

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 396 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material).

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, please include the following editorial in the Congressional Record. [From the Chieftain, Pueblo, CO, Mar. 25, 1998] Home of Heroes, Truly Since the beginning of World War II, about 30 million Americans have served in this nation's armed forces. Of all of those people, only a small number have been awarded the Medal of Honor. And of that number, more than half were awarded it posthumously, meaning even fewer have received the nation's highest honor while alive. Now the astounding part. Four of the living recipients grew up and attended schools in Pueblo. And two of them attended the same high school, Central. Pueblo is the only city in the nation to be the home of four Medal of Honor recipients, and Central is the only high school to claim two. William Crawford, now of Palmer Lake, and Carl Sitter of Richmond, VA. attended Central High, Jerry Murphy of Albuquerque attended Pueblo Catholic High school, and Drew Dix of Pueblo and Fairbanks, Alaska, attended Centennial High School. A week ago, as a heavy spring storm raced through Pueblo, the four recipients attended the unveiling at the Pueblo Convention Center of the Home of Heroes display honoring these four special men. The display features a uniform from each of the four, plus replicas of their medals and blowups of Associated Press news photos taken about the same time in the same area where the Puebloans earned their honors. Press a button and an electronic recording details each man's heroism. Their fellow Puebloans showed the depth of their respect when about 200 braved the storm to attend the ceremonies. The gentlemen were obviously touched by the outpouring of respect and honor they received while here. Now Pueblo is urging the Medal of Honor Society to hold its annual meeting here in 2000. That is when a statue honoring Pueblo's four recipients specifically and all Medal recipients in general is to be dedicated. The project was organized by our publisher, Robert H. Rawlings, and is being supported by foundations and individuals from throughout the state. Two Puebloans were surprised by the Medal of Honor Society, Doug Sterner, who along with his wife Pam began the Home of Heroes celebrations and who designed the concept behind the Home of Heroes diorama, was given the Society's prestigious distinguished Service Award. He accepted the award on behalf of his entire family. This week Mr. Sterner was both proud of the honor and modest. As he put it to us, ``I feel this honor goes to all of Pueblo. Pueblo has been so supportive'' of the Home of Heroes program. Yes, Pueblo truly is the Home of Heroes. We are all mightily proud of them and appreciate the ``conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty'' which earned them the Medal of Honor--and their nation's undying gratitude.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is worth our time to spend a few minutes this morning looking into the question that motivated this legislation. It is important because the question here is whether or not Federal agencies should respect and abide by case law precedent established by the Federal Courts of Appeal. The answer to that question, in my opinion, should be self-evident. But apparently it is not; and, of course, the self-evident answer is these Federal agencies should be bound by court precedents; and I think that is probably the opinion shared by most of the people that we represent in this country. Chief Justice John Marshall stated in the case of Marbury versus Madison, and that case has become one of the cornerstones of our democracy, that it is emphatically the providence and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The courts having said what the law is, it is the duty of every citizen, and that just as emphatically includes the executive branch, to follow the law. It would seem strange that the question has arisen as to whether or not our Federal agencies, who by the way work for our people, who are bound by the courts, that there is some question as to whether they are bound to follow the law as determined by the courts. But for many years now agencies have asserted it is their right to determine whether or not they should acquiesce in court decisions. It is a right that has been granted or conceded to agencies by neither the courts nor Congress, and the result is an unwarranted exercise that has been the infliction of needless hardship on many of our most disadvantaged citizens, not to mention the destructive effect on the American legal system and the confidence that the ordinary people have in their government. The ordinary people in this country face the consequences of a court action. They cannot defy a court action. Why on goodness earth should the Federal agencies be able to ignore Federal court decisions? The Judicial Conference of the United States, which is chaired by the Chief Justice, has identified agency nonacquiescence as a policy that undermines certainty and fair application of the law. It has recommended in strong terms that the Congress enact a law to control it. Thus, the bill that we consider today, supported by the Judicial Conference, not to mention other groups, such as the American Bar Association, attempts to put some order back into the situation by prohibiting agencies from engaging in a general policy of nonacquiescence. We have attempted to provide agencies the latitude necessary in the administration of their various programs, but we have considered just as importantly the legitimate expectation of persons who appear before and whose lives are affected by Federal agencies. Disadvantaged supplicants face insurmountable hardships when a Federal agency reserves that right to follow its own policy despite the fact that an appellate court has decided a question of law against it. The aged, the disabled, the impoverished not to mention most ordinary citizens who are affected by an agency's policy of nonacquiescence lack the resources to carry out a fight against an agency through the courts to receive what the Court of Appeals has already said is their right. In fact, few, if any, citizens, no matter what their status is in our society, have the time or the resources to battle the agency juggernaut. That is why it is so important to ensure that agencies follow applicable precedent absent a good reason to the contrary. I think that this bill, with bipartisan cosponsorship that includes the distinguished ranking member, represents a fair and workable measure that will ensure that those who administer our laws also realize that they have a duty to follow them. The bill recognizes circumstances may sometimes warrant limited nonacquiescence by an agency and those situations are provided and addressed in this bill. H.R. 1544 takes a stronger position against intracircuit nonacquiescence than it does against intercircuit nonacquiescence because it recognizes that an agency's decision not to obey a Circuit Court of Appeals precedent within that circuit is an extraordinary attack on the principle of stare decisis, which must be controlled by the courts. Needless and repetitive litigation, seeking to create intercircuit conflicts with respect to the administration of a program or rule can also have destructive effects. But these are such that I think we can rely upon the Attorney General to prevent by placing upon her the duty to report annually to us on government compliance. I know in the last few minutes I have been using a lot of legal terms, but to put it very simply in the language that a lot of us understand, that is that if the average ordinary person out there is ordered by a Federal court to do something, they have to follow that. They have to acquiesce to the Federal court's orders. We have a history of Federal agencies deciding they do not have to agree, or acquiesce, that is the word that has been used in the testimony we have had, they make a decision of nonacquiescence, that they do not have to follow the same kind of court orders that the ordinary citizen that we represent has to. That is what this bill is trying to correct. That is what this bill, with assistance from other people like the American Bar Association and so on, is trying to curb, to force Federal agencies to live within the same bounds that the ordinary person has to. Some might argue that agencies which have in the past been so nonacquiescent, nonagreeable, should be trusted to change their spots. I do not think so. I do not think we can depend upon them to do it. I think that time after time though we have complained about it and no action has been taken. It is now time for us in the United States Congress to take action and pass this bill. I have of interest here a letter from the American Bar Association. That is pretty controlling authority. That is the body of attorneys throughout the United States. They form an association that carries a lot of weight. They have experts in this area. I would like to read that letter. It is dated February 24, 1998. It is from the American Bar Association. It is addressed to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman. Dear Mr. Chairman: We understand that on Thursday, February 26, 1998, the House of Representatives will consider H.R. 1544, the Federal Agency Compliance Act legislation that would, among other things, require the Social Security Administration to comply with Federal court precedents within the same circuit. I am writing on behalf of the American Bar Association to express our strong support, strong support from the American Bar Association, that is my own add in there, for legislation that would require the Social Security Administration to cease its policy of nonacquiescence and to follow Court of Appeals decisions within that circuit subject to seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. The provisions of H.R. 1544 addressing the SSA issue are consistent with the ABA goal of requiring the SSA, Social Security Administration, to cease its practice of nonacquiescence to the legal interpretations of the Court of Appeals within each circuit. I will not go ahead and read the rest of this letter. I know that we would like to move on. We do have an open rule here. I would ask for Members' support on that open rule. But it is important that we remember the concept, and that is that the law that the ordinary person has to follow, as issued by the Federal courts, should very well be expected to be followed by the Federal agencies when the Federal court renders a decision involving those agencies.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the fine gentleman from the State of Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. House Resolution 367 is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is an open rule providing for 1 hour of general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate, it shall be in order to consider the Committee on the Judiciary's amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule. House Resolution 367 allows the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Additionally, House Resolution 367 allows for the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, Madam Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, this open rule was reported out of the Committee on Rules by a unanimous voice vote. The underlying legislation, the Federal Agency Compliance Act, is a bill which makes a great deal of sense. This legislation generally prevents agencies from refusing to follow controlling precedents of the United States Courts of Appeals in the course of program administration and litigation of their programs. In my opinion, citizens have the right to expect that Federal agencies will follow the law as interpreted by the courts of this country. Sadly, the Federal agencies often prefer to relitigate settled questions of law in multiple circuits at one time, creating needless expense for both the government and private parties. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, it is an open rule, as well as the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Madam Speaker, the national credit card now carries a balance of $5.5 trillion. Now, just in case those listening thought they heard me wrong, let me say that again. It is a trillion, $5.4 to $5.5 trillion, not billion, dollars in debt. While the deficit this year may very well be zero, and that is of some question because of the Social Security issue and whether or not the Social Security funds create an artificial surplus, the last 60 years of government living beyond its means has brought us a debt that will not be zero for many, many more years when we consider the overall debt, not the annual deficit. With a hundred billion dollar a year deficit year after year when the liberals controlled the United States Congress, the taxpayers now face a national debt that threatens our children's future. It is the time, the appropriate time, to start reducing that debt on the credit card that has been used by years and years of abuse in the United States Congress. I would like to invite fiscal conservatives on both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, to work together on a bipartisan method to control spending, to cut wasteful programs, and to make government smaller. It is time to start paying off the balance on our national credit card debt.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to take a moment to honor a man, a husband, a father, and a police officer. Officer Bruce Vanderjagt was not only a dedicated member of the Denver Police Department, but he was also a loving husband to Anna Marie and father to his 2 year-old daughter, Hayley. Unfortunately, Officer Vanderjagt can no longer be any of these things because he was fatally wounded in the line of duty yesterday, Wednesday, November 12, 1997. Officer Vanderjagt, a man who served his country in Vietnam as a marine, faithfully answered someone's emergency call yesterday. On this wintery day, thieves were tearing through the property of another's home. When Officer Vanderjagt arrived at the scene, these callous thieves were escaping in their vehicle. Officer Vanderjagt, because of his oath as a police officer and his dedication to justice, pursued the criminals. The chase brought them into the city of Denver where the shrill sound of gun fire filled the air. This was not just one or two shots, but several. At least 30 shots were fired directly at Officer Vanderjagt and other fellow officers. Officer Vanderjagt was fatally injured. What a heavy price for society to pay. It was a burglary that brought Officer Vanderjagt to his tragic death this cold and snowy day. As a result Denver has not only lost an outstanding police officer, but also a faithful citizen, husband and father. Many, but of course not all, of Officer Vanderjagt's accomplishments include: earning his PhD from the University of Denver at 47 years of age this year, winning Denver's Distinguished Service Cross twice for his courageous work in the line of duty and, as already mentioned, serving his country in Vietnam as a marine. Officer Vanderjagt had a great deal to offer his family and the community. Our thoughts go out to his wife Anna Marie and daughter Hayley who are missing and grieving for a man they deeply loved. At only 2 years of age, Hayley is forced to grow up without her father all because some vicious criminals were afraid they would be held responsible for their crime. A close knit family has now been separated because these villains could not see behind the police uniform to a man who was loyal, honest and loving. I ask you to remember Officer Vanderjagt and all he did to serve his community and his family. This tragic loss is being felt all over the State of Colorado. His family needs our prayers and concern today as they grieve his loss. The Congress of the United States expresses its sympathy for a brave officer who gave his life for the freedom of his fellow citizens.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is a high honor and privilege to allow my colleagues to know of the wonderful work being done by the Hospice of Saint John in Lakewood, Colorado. Twenty years ago, in 1977, this program was founded by Fr. Paul von Lobkowitz, a priest of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, to serve the sick and the dying. This month the Hospice of Saint John celebrates twenty years of caring. In those years its staff of professionals have cared for more than 12,000 dying patients and their families. The Hospice of Saint John was only the second in-patient hospice program to be opened in the United States. It has stood the test of time in a medical environment that favors the bigger corporations. The Hospice of Saint John continues to be independently run and directed by the Order of Saint John of Jerusalem and its professed and lay members. The Hospice of Saint John was the first hospice program in the state to provide care for AIDS patients when many other programs of the day refused to care for them. Today the Hospice's commitment to AIDS patients and their families and friends remains as strong as ever, as does its care for every one of its patients. Many of its patients include young men and women whose lives are cut short by ravaging diseases. In its twenty years the Hospice of Saint John has never turned away a single patient for a lack of financial means. Remarkably, it has never received a dime of federal money other than Medicare and Medicaid funds. This program is worthy of our collective recognition. For the past twenty years Fr. Paul and his staff at the Hospice of Saint John have cared for those who we sometimes tend to forget. They have toiled in the trenches for all humanity. They deserve our respect and support and on this occasion of their twenty years of dedicated service to my state I ask you to join with me in saluting them and their service to us all.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer congratulations to the Louisiana-Pacific Corp. for turning around its performance in the area of environmental compliance. The Louisiana-Pacific Corp. is one of the Nation's leading building products manufacturers and operates a facility in my district at Olathe, CO. The facility in Olathe manufactures oriented strand boards [OSB] which are high-quality structural panels used in the construction of homes and commercial buildings. To be fair, this facility has had its share of environmental problems. However, due to an extraordinary effort by the workers in this facility along with a solid commitment from the management of the Louisiana-Pacific Corp., this facility has completed the hard work necessary to meet its environmental compliance responsibilities. This is evidenced by a surprise inspection of this facility by the Environmental Protection Agency which occurred in August 1997. The quotation from the inspection team speaks for itself: The general housekeeping of the plant was uncommonly good and the plant operations were well organized. Records and Monitoring data were complete, quickly available and easy to understand. Training was thorough, updated regularly and well tracked. Contingency and safety strategies were in place and well understood by managers and staff. Staff knowledge and attention to environmental compliance was good in all categories. The results of this inspection are a source of pride for all at Louisiana-Pacific and the Olathe OSB plant. The plant was the pilot plant for the roll-out of Louisiana-Pacific's Environmental Management System [EMS], which is now being introduced to all of Louisiana- Pacific's OSB plants and will be introduced to all of Louisiana- Pacific's business units in 1998. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a portion of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencies report regarding their inspection of Louisiana-Pacific's Loathe, CO OSB plant and once again say job well done to those at the Louisiana-Pacific Corp. Preliminary Compliance Agreement Audit of Louisiana Pacific Corporation--September 16, 1997 briefing with lpc ceo The Audit Team met with Mr. Mark Suwyn, Chief Executive Officer (CEO), who provided a broad overview of what he has envisioned for LPC's environmental programs and culture changes instituted LPC as a result of the change in management since the Consent Decree and Agreement. The Audit Team viewed a video from series of videos that LPC has prepared for its employees. The video included an address from LPC's CEO to LPC's employees on, among other things, LPC's commitment to environmental laws and regulations. During the Audit Teams meeting with Mr. Suwyn, he also spoke of the Montrose Mill accomplishments in particular and the many changes that have been made at the mill as a result of the Consent Decree. facts and finding from interviews The following summarizes the questions asked and responses given by LPC personnel in reference to the Consent Decree and the Preliminary Compliance Agreement. LPC Structure and Montrose Mill LPC Structure and Montrose Mill LPC restructured in 1996 into a geographical alignment and has been changed from Divisions to Regions. The Montrose Mill is no longer in the North Central Division. The North Central Division manager has been recently assigned to Portland Headquarters. He is currently stationed in Idaho. The Montrose Mill is part of the Northwest Region consisting of the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Colorado. Mr. Richard Flather is the Regional Business Manager. Each LPC Region has separate positions for a Regional Business Manager, and a Environmental Manager. LPC uses two organizational structures: one for the Business side and the second for environmental compliance purposes. LPC formed five Environmental Compliance Regions: Northwest (EPA Regions 8 and 10), North Central--East (EPA Regions 1 and 5), EPA Region 2 would be included; however, LPS's Environmental Compliance Regional chart does not list any facilities in this Region at the time of this report. Western (EPA Region 9), South West (EPA Regions 6 and 7), and South East (Regions 3 and 4). LPC Installation of Facilities Pollution Equipment The Montrose Mill installed the Wet Electrostatic Preciptators (WEPS) in 1996 at a cost of approximately $1.5 million and it is being installed at all newer plants with some of the plants having 3 to 4 WEPS installed. The Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) was installed at Montrose in 1996 at a cost of approximately $1.6 million. In total LPC has invested approximately $100 million in RTO's at eighteen (18) plants and RTO's will be installed at all new constructions and current plants under construction at the cost of $3.0 to $3.5 million per setup. New Management Emphasizes and Environmental Program After Ms. Elizabeth T. Smith was appointed Director, Environmental Affairs in 1993, she and her immediate staff (four positions) trained the Plant Environmental Managers. The Plant Environmental Managers trained the assigned mill personnel. Ms. Smith meets quarterly with the Regional Business Managers and 20 to 30 Production Managers to ensure that the environmental programs are within compliance and meeting both the Consent Decree and the EPA Preliminary Compliance Agreement. Ms. Smith prepares a quarterly report regarding all environmental matters for the CEO and BOD. Ms. Smith in conjunction with Plant Managers and in special cases with the Vice President, hired the Plant Environmental Managers or assigned a Plant Environmental Manager for each LPC plant/facility as directed in the Consent Decree. Ms. Smith stated that LPC is currently replacing the environmental managers with environmental professionals with three to four years of experience before appointments. There are currently four Regional Environmental Managers who report to Ms. Smith. They are: Northwest Region--Randy Sandberg North Central/East Region--Sue Somers South West and South East Regions--Barb McGiness Western Region--Dwayne Arino The Audit Team reviewed the July 1997 Montrose mill monthly report submitted by the plant Environmental Manager, who has dual reporting to Ms. Smith and the Plant Manager. The reports are used as a monitoring tool and if there appears to be an environmental problem, Ms. Smith contacts the Plant Manager and/or Regional Business Manager. If the issues cannot be resolved in a short period of time and it is a major environmental issue, a Corrective Action Plan is put into effect. To assist the Plant Manager in plant operations, he or she has a staff that consists of an Operations Manager, Supervisor of Production, and the Plant Environmental Manager. However, LPC's Plant Manager is totally responsible for environmental and production functions. The LPC Plant Manager is responsible for coordination and training of environmental and safety of plant personnel. Environmental and Safety functions are part of the LPC Plant Manager's position description. Ms. Lundquist, VP for Operations, issued the ``Manufacturing--1997 Performance Plan'' that includes a performance evaluation base of 20% for Safety and 15% for Environment to all LPC Plant Managers. The background of the plan states ``Environmental compliance is a must be . . .'' and the objective is to support compliance goals and meet expectations of the Corporate Policy on Protection of the Environment and included as part of performance measures. Two important goals for 1997 are the Manufacturing Managers Tracking System for Correcting Environmental Compliance Issues by August 1997 and identifying best available technology for environmental compliance by December 1997. In addition, in July 1997, LPC issued the LPC Environmental Management Charter, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for ``Reporting Suspected Violations of Law'' and Environmental Management Responsibilities matrix listing duties and responsibilities regarding area of concerns: policy, reporting, promote compliance, audits, compliance programs, staffing, training, handbook, meeting, records, records retention, permits, operations, spill, upsets and violations, curtailment, inspections, waste minimization/energy use, environmental contracts, budgeting, plant closure, sale/ purchase/lease of land, corporate acquisitions/divestitures and Consent Decree for each of the corporate environments consisting of: Corporate Environment, Business Group Environment, Regional Environment, and Plant Environment. Ms. Smith Explained the (SOP) for Shut Down of Plants/ Facilities. Authority extends from the CEO, Director Environmental Affairs, Regional Environmental Managers, Plant Managers, Plant Environmental Manager. Any one of them can close a plant down. She stated however, the most important person who can shut the production down is a production employee if he or she is aware there is a problem. She stated in reality the production employees are the ones who alert management of an environmental problem or potential environmental problems. LPC has developed an Environmental Affairs Team ``Center of Expertise'' for managers to contact with problems or questions. In addition, LPC installed an internal ``Intra-net and Environmental Internal WEB Page'' for LPC employees to utilize for information. A training course was developed regarding Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) that explains what PCBs' are, health hazards, regulations, management responsibility, and how LPC will handle monitoring, engineering, emergencies, transportation and disposal of PCBs'. In addition, LPC developed ``Doing Something About It . . . '' for an August 14, 1997 training class at New Waverly Complex scheduled for reopening something in 1999 or 2000. It appears to be a very detailed course with a major array of environmental issues and compliance requirements in both English and Spanish. standard operating procedures (sop) and management program changes There was an in-depth discussion in this area. The following focuses on the major areas discussed. LPC has made major advances in SOP's for internal operations. They are currently in the process of updating their formal evaluation system of performance of Plant Managers to be rated on Production, Environmental, Health and Safety on an equal basis. LPC has developed an Environmental Management System (EMS) for mill operations. The Montrose mill served as the pilot and cutting down the time to respond to problems has been contributed to the EMS process Performance Plans, Handbooks, and SOP's The Audit Team reviewed the 1997 Environmental Affairs Performance Plan, the Manager's Environmental Handbook, and various LPC SOP's. The Audit Team reviewed the 1997 Environmental Affairs Performance Plan dated August 13, 1997, which illustrated the status of programs and projects: as complete, in progress, or initiated. In addition, the plan contained additional projects and efforts for 1997. The Audit Team reviewed the Manager's Environmental Handbook, which was very detailed and covered the entire array of environmental acts and programs. This handbook has been distributed to each Plant Manager. The Audit Team reviewed LPC's Audit Privileged & Confidential SOP policy written in 1993 and is still the current SOP. Ms. Smith stated that the LPC internal audit process, which proved to be a valuable tool, was a major factor in her efforts to get changes made through the CEO. The newly issued SOP for Environmental Audit Corrective Action Process effective April 25, 1997, was reviewed and this SOP explained the basic processes as: Root Cause Analysis, Corrective Action, Monthly Review of Issue Status, Monthly Report to CEO and Issue Corrected. To bring the environmental issue to ``Closure'', the Legal Department, the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Plant Manager must review and agree on the status of the issue and agree on closure. Then, the Legal Department will issue a final report to Senior Management, Director of Environmental Affairs, the Product Line General Manager and the Plant Manager stating that the issue(s) has been resolved. Follow-up audits or inspections by regional or corporate environmental personnel may occur to confirm that an appropriate correction has been satisfactorily completed. Interviews were held with Mr. Don Smith, Audit Manager, and Mr. Bill Hossman, Environmental Assessment Coordinator. Mr. Smith stated that LPC uses a standard audit program and does special audits for the legal department and gave risk assessments as an example for special audits. Environmental Audits started in 1993 for specific risk assessments and has been expanded from specific risk to include financial and operations. The LPC audit team gives a two weeks notice and has an entrance and exit meeting with the plant manager. The Legal Department makes an evaluation of the audit report. LPC has 10 to 15 plants plus acquisitions that need audits. They have completed 70% of their audits with a target of finishing remaining audits by end of 1998. As a rule of thumb, each plant is audited every three years. The LPC auditor viewed closed plants as a significant risk and cite the PCB problems at closed plants as an example. Mr. Smith responded to the question, ``Were there common environmental problems at plants that led to changes to SOP's?''. He stated, ``Yes.''

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, two points here. Point No. 1, already by 10 o'clock this morning your side put up two motions to adjourn. I realize that there are some tempers that have gotten high over there because they do not get to take the day off to go attend those events that you wanted to go to. Folks, we have got to do work. I am sorry you had to cancel your golf game, I am sorry you could not go to the event. We have work to do here. People expect us to work. It is Thursday, not Saturday. It is Thursday. Let us do the work. Quit giving those motions to adjourn. You are not going to get the day off. Point No. 2. Somebody says it is within our rules for us to be heard, the minority. You are absolutely correct. The minority has the right to be heard but the majority has the obligation to rule. We have an obligation to move this House forward. What we are doing today is within the rules, and it is. Well, quit trying to do your stall tactics. Read the rules. My guess is that most of you have not even opened this book. I can point out those rules for you. You have been heard and heard and heard, and that is fine. I think you bring up, sometimes, some valid points. But the point has been made. Let us move on with our business.

Mr. McINNIS

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 284 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple resolution. The proposed rule is a modified open rule providing for one hour of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Resources, and 30 minutes equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture. After general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule for a period not to exceed 3 hours. The proposed rule makes in order the Committee on Resources amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. Furthermore, this rule provides that prior to consideration of any other amendment, a manager's amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] or his designee shall be made in order and debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 284 also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Furthermore, the rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as have been adopted. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997, is a balanced, bipartisan bill, that assures some predictability to western ranchers' ability to plan for forage use. This legislation will require the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to coordinate their administration in the Grazing Management Program. Additionally, the legislation creates new discretionary authority for the government and ranchers to enter into cooperative management plans, where the rancher is meeting rangeland management goals. These are important and significant reforms. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I would include for the record a letter from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association is an organization that is urging all Members to vote aye on House Resolution 2493, the Forage Improvement Act of 1997. NCBA commends the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the Chairman of the Committee on Resources, for their work on House Resolution 2493, and fully supports the balanced bipartisan bill they have reported out of the respective committees. It makes several major changes, but assures some predictability to western ranchers' ability to plan for forage use, such as requiring the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to coordinate their administration of grazing management programs. Two, requires scientific monitoring of grazing conditions and allowing the agencies to coordinate monitoring with ranches and/or qualified ranchland consultants. Three, prohibiting subleasing of grazing allotments by absentee ranchers. Next, creating new discretionary authority for the government and ranchers to enter into cooperative management plans, where the rancher is meeting rangeland management goals. Next, codifying a new grazing fee formulated to ensure a fair return to the government and resulting in a 36 percent increase over the current fee. Codifying the resource advisory councils, they are called RACS, with enhancements that will improve coordination and communication between the Federal agencies and regional, State and local levels on Federal land and management issues. House Resolution 2493 does not affect existing multiple use activities like hunting and fishing, nor authorizations nor agreements set under other Federal or State laws. It does not amend the National Environmental Policy Act, it does not amend the Clean Water Act, it does not amend the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Air Act. And though it does clarify that Federal employees cannot demand access across private property as a condition for obtaining a grazing permit, it does not prevent Federal personnel engaged in grazing administration activities access to do their work, nor does it limit public access to Federal lands in any manner. When this resolution is brought before the House, I ask my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reflect a statement of the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], and I would, first of all, like to commend the chairman. I think he has done a tremendous job. He has had a lot of different interests that he has had to balance, and I think this is appropriate to reflect his thoughts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] does rise in strong support of House Resolution 2493, the Forage Improvement Act, introduced by his good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, who should be applauded for laboring tirelessly and putting together a bill that keeps controversy out and common sense in regarding grazing practices on our public lands. The gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] has worked extensively hard to bring together the many sides of the grazing issue and has assembled a bill that helps a rancher whose livelihood depends on public land grazing without doing any harm to the range land resources. In fact, implementing this bill will ultimately improve the rangelands across the West. Controversy and confrontation on grazing on public lands has been raging for years. It is clear that changes in the current grazing laws and regulations are not only long overdue, but are absolutely necessary in order to resolve many of the grazing issues. H.R. 2493 makes these necessary changes. For example, this bill will bring economic stability to those ranchers who use Federal land for grazing, while at the same time generate additional revenue for the Federal Treasury. This will be accomplished by implementing a new grazing formula which is easy to understand, simple to track, and which charges a fair price to the rancher who buys access to forage from the Federal Government. Furthermore, the changes found in H.R. 2493 will improve ranchland conditions by increasing the focus on science-based monitoring. For far too long and for a variety of excuses, the Federal Government simply has not done its job in assessing ranchland conditions to monitor. The bill of the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith] puts the emphasis back to what actually exists on the ground, through a monitoring program that is scientifically based and which follows established protocols. This program will greatly enhance the decision-making process and help establish ranchland goals that are good for land and achievable. Moreover, H.R. 2493 will establish a program of management flexibility to those ranchers who have demonstrated good land stewardship. This will help to keep the grazing in good and excellent condition. This is a good bill whose time has come. It does nothing to harm the environment. In fact, it will improve ranchlands across the West. It treats the Western land grazer honestly and fairly, and in return the U.S. Treasury makes more money and gets improved ranchland resources. I urge my colleagues to support and vote for House Resolution 2493. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to take a look at the impact of multiple use on Federal lands, and where that concept came from. We have to look back in the history of this country. If we look back at the history of this country, there was a point in time where this country urged its citizens to settle the West: Go west, young man, go west. In doing that, they tried to encourage their citizens to go out to the West and set down their stakes, grubstakes, so to speak. In order to do that, they felt, in order to entice their citizens to go to the West and settle this unknown land, they felt that they needed to give land grants. A land grant of 160 acres, which was pretty typical in the State of Kansas, was enough for a family in those times to support themselves. But once you got into the mountains, into the rough terrain of the Rockies, 150 acres is what was necessary to feed one cow. In other words, to sustain a family in the Rocky Mountains, as compared to what is necessary to sustain a family in Kansas or the rich farmlands of Nebraska or Missouri, it took several thousand acres, compared to the few acres it took in those very agricultural land-rich States. So the government felt it did not have the political support, obviously the public support, to go ahead and give land grants of several thousand acres to people who settled in the Rocky Mountains, and thereupon the concept of multiple use was created. Multiple use is very important. If we take a map of the United States and we take a look at the government ownership, we will find that by far, no comparison, by far the majority of land ownership by the government in this country is in the western half of the United States, not in the eastern half. So as a result, for the people in the western half of the United States to live, the concept of multiple use, which includes not just grazing, and by the way, multiple use means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. It means the ability to hike on Federal lands. It means the ability to have minimum stream flows in our streams to help us protect our environment. It means that every power line in my district, and by the way, my district, the Third District of Colorado, the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, is geographically larger than the State of Florida. Every power line, every TV tower, every highway, every drop of water, the water either originates, runs across, or is stored, all of this comes across Federal land. All of it is very dependent on multiple use. I grew up in the Rocky Mountains. My family came to the Rocky Mountains in 1871. My wife's family came to the Rocky Mountains in 1872. I have a very close friend of mine, Al Stroobants, his family came many, many years, very similarly, generations of families out there in those mountains. What is very, very important is that the concept of the government was it would be a land of many uses. What we see happening is people who do not understand the concept of multiple use, people who do not understand the concept of private property and the importance of it as a foundation for the freedoms in our country. They try and take away the multiple use on Federal lands and take away that sign that says, ``You are now entering the Rocky Mountain National Park, a land of many uses,'' or those types of signs, and replace them with a sign that says ``No Trespassing.'' There are fearmongers out there who would make us think that there are cattle grazing every inch of the Rocky Mountains, that there are condominiums going up everywhere, that the water is being wasted and abused. Do not take these people on their word. Look at the proof of the pudding. The proof of the pudding is in the hearts and souls of the people who are descendants of the generations of the people who were persuaded by this very government in Washington, D.C. to go west. These people deserve the courtesy of having their bill heard. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.