Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the conference report to H.R. 1530, the Department of Defense Authorization Act. I want to thank also my subcommittee chairman, Mr. Hunter and the full committee chairman of the Committee on National Security, Mr. Spence, for their strong leadership in bringing this bill to the floor. This legislation makes great strides in all areas of defense policy and I urge its adoption by the House. Mr. Speaker, during the last few years, we have unfortunately witnessed a steady decline in defense procurement and research, which are the most critical accounts for our country's future. As several of my colleagues know, one of my foremost concerns is maintaining the production base for the B-2 Stealth bomber. Most defense experts agree that capping B-2 production at 20 aircraft is an unwise decision that will eventually cost billions when replacement are needed for B-52's and other bombers. The conference report adopts legislative language from the House bill and allows the program to continue. Since each B-2 can perform the work of several B-52's. Sustaining low-rate production will result in a leaner and more cost-efficient bomber force in the future. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and the conference report to H.R. 1530.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 924. This legislation would prohibit the Secretary of Agriculture from transferring land within the Angeles National Forest out of Federal ownership for use as a solid waste landfill. I introduced this bill in response to concerns raised by residents of southern California over efforts to construct a 190-million-ton solid waste landfill in the section of the Angeles National Forest known as Elsmere Canyon. I am also pleased that most of the Members from the California delegation have joined me in supporting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, on at least two previous occasions the Forest Service has rejected proposals to construct a landfill within the Angeles National Forest. A similar proposal is currently under consideration where a private company would acquire through exchange 1,643 acres of land within the Angeles National Forest to facilitate construction [[Page H 12145]] of what would be the largest landfill in the country. The Forest Service has already issued a draft environmental impact statement that has recommended against accepting this exchange, and is in the process of completing a final report on this issue. There are several reasons to support passage of this legislation today. As many southern Californians know, the Angeles National Forest is our version of Central Park, occupying 72 percent of the open land in Los Angeles County. In addition, the forest is within a 2-hour drive for more than 20 million Californians and ranks second in the Nation in recreation use with more than 32 million annual visits--which is approximately equal to one visit per year for every person in California. Moreover, although the tract proposed for the landfill is on the western edge of the Angeles National Forest, it is an integral part of the forest's ecosystem and provides unique and spectacular educational and recreational opportunities for visitors to the forest. Finally, several tracts of land that the Forest Service is slated to acquire in an eventual exchange have already been obtained by the trust for public land through receipts act funding, which will reduce the value of an exchange to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in the issue to express arguments against landfills, since there are already several in my district. However, it is important to realize that the State of California is making great strides in promoting safer and more practical landfill alternatives. New developments in solid waste disposal technology already exist that will soon diminish the need for expensive and potentially unsafe new landfills. These technologies include combustion alternatives that do not adversely affect air quality as well as various recycling endeavors. Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Chamber have a responsibility to protect public land which belongs to our citizens. To sacrifice a prime area of National Forest land for a questionable landfill project is clearly not in the public's interest. The legislation before us will carry out our intent to further prevent forever the construction of a landfill within the Angeles National Forest, and I urge its adoption. Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues who have supported this effort, especially my good friend, Mr. Hansen, the chairman of the National Parks, Forests, and Lands Subcommittee as well as another friend, Mr. Richardson, the ranking member of the subcommittee who is an original cosponsor of the legislation. I also want to express my appreciation to my colleague from California, Mr. Miller the ranking member of the full committee and my friend from Alaska, Mr. Young chairman of the full committee, for their efforts, along with the counsel of the National Parks Subcommittee, Allen Freemyer, and the subcommittee staff for their guidance and assistance throughout this process. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank my colleague and mentor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead]. He was the first Congressman I met in my life, and he has been a great example to me of what we should be in this House of the people. He represents the area covered in this bill and has been a great partner in getting to this point. I express my appreciation also for the efforts of the residents of the city of Santa Clarita, CA, who have worked tirelessly to bring this issue to have the public's attention. I urge support of this measure this day, H.R. 924.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report on S. 395. As a Member from the State of California, I particularly want to express my support for language to repeal the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope crude oil. While this prohibition seemed like the right thing to do during the 1970's, it violated free-market principles and inhibited domestic oil exploration in the western United States at a time when it should have been encouraged. The forced introduction of Alaskan oil to the west coast was particularly harmful to my own State of California. Lifting the export ban will also increase revenue to the Treasury once the Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in California is sold by the Government. I have worked on the National Security Committee in support of this sale, and since repeal of the Alaska export prohibition will result in an increase in the price of California crude oil, the value of the price of California crude oil, the value of the reserve will also rise. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration and Congress both agree that repealing the export ban is the right thing to do. I share this belief and urge support of the rule and the legislation before us today.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to your attention the over 40 years of dedicated service the Antelope Valley Hospital has provided to the high desert community. This hospital was officially opened to our community on October 12, 1955, after numerous local citizens canvassed door to door and held [[Page E 1942]] a carnival to raise money to purchase the land for the hospital. The Antelope Valley Hospital, since its inception, has provided state-of-the-art health care service to the people of the Antelope Valley. Their modern facilities include the valley's first mental health and coronary care units, the area's only neonatal intensive care nursery, along with many outreach programs designed to meet the needs of this fast growing area. If it wasn't for services such as these, many individuals in the Antelope Valley would not have received the high quality health care they so deserve. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me, along with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, in recognizing Antelope Valley Hospital's 40th anniversary, and commend the hospital in providing four decades of quality health care service to the residents of the Antelope Valley.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. I want to take my colleagues on this side of the aisle back to 1 year ago this week when we gathered in front of the Capitol to sign the Contract With America. One of the basic tenets of the contract was to ensure a strong national defense for our country. This bill for the first time in years moves us toward this fundamental goal and deserves an ``aye'' vote. I also want to address the abortion issue that has been of concern to many of my colleagues. I have a strong pro-life record on abortion and a strong philosophical belief in the preservation of life. I've voted in committee and on the floor for an amendment to prohibit abortions in military hospitals abroad. While I continue to support this issue, we shouldn't kill this bill on this issue. We have increased procurement, research, and quality of life accounts in this bill while reducing spending on nondefense items. This is a good bill that prodefense members should support. I urge an ``aye'' vote on this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today the voices of the majority of American workers go unheard--not because American employers are oppressive, but because American law prohibits it. Under current labor law, employers and employees cannot work together to resolve important workplace issues that might involve terms and conditions of employment unless those employees are represented by a union. While it is legal for an employer to have a meeting or hold a conference with employees to discuss ideas in the abstract, it is illegal for an employer to follow through on any actual workplace changes developed in consultation with the employees, unless those workers are represented by a union. The 88 percent of the private sector work force that is not unionized is, therefore, not allowed to discuss issues which affect the conditions of their employment. The TEAM Act permits employee involvement in workplace decisionmaking. Companies want their employees to develop new methods and ideas for improving the workplace. It's about time we let employees speak for themselves. Vote in favor of H.R. 743, the TEAM Act.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, be rereferred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Agriculture, Banking and Financial Services, Economic and Educational Opportunities, Government Reform and Oversight, National Security, and Ways and Means for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 1617, the Clerk be authorized to make technical corrections and conforming changes to the bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and include extraneous material, on H.R. 1617, the bill just passed.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity of rising to speak in strong opposition to the Green amendment. I think one thing needs to be clarified. There was a comment that we never had hearings on this. We did have hearings. We did hear from people. We specifically wanted to have input from the people that would be involved, and we have letters here from many different groups that support the bill, that do not want to be excluded from the bill. I think it is important that we hear what they have to say. The United Cerebral Palsy Association wrote this letter to Chairman Goodling. They indicate their strong support of the bill and their opposition to an amendment that would exclude this block from the bill. It says: ``UCPA,'' the United Cerebral Palsy Association, ``is a network of 155 affiliate organizations across America that are committed to advancing the independence, productivity, and full citizenship of people with disabilities. UCPA has worked diligently with House staff to ensure that the CAREERS Act will assist in furthering employment for people with disabilities and not create yet more barriers in their path.'' We have also heard from Goodwill Industries, who have done great work. Last year they helped 23,000 people who were in some way disabled in employment. They also strongly support the bill and oppose this amendment. We have several letters that are similar that support the bill. They have been working with us. We have been working with them, right up until the current moment, to make sure that we are able to provide better service and reach out to all of these people. That is the whole purpose of the bill, is to reach down into the local community, to reach more people, to have better service. There have been other things said about Governors who support or do not support it. Let me read this letter that was just received from the Republican Governors' Association: ``Dear Bill,'' speaking of the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling, ``as members of the Republican Governors' Association Task Force on Work Force Development, we write to clarify our position on the Vocational Rehabilitation Title,'' which is title V, ``of the CAREERS Act. ``While we have previously expressed numerous concerns related to design and delivery of services through title V of the act, we firmly believe this title should be included in the CAREERS Act. It is essential that vocational rehabilitation services be integrated as part of the overall State work force development system.'' I think it has been mentioned, we have covered this strongly, that we are trying to reach out and help these people. They have participated in the hearings that we held, and while everybody is not totally satisfied, this bill does the best job in improving over the status quo and in reaching out.

Mr. McKEON. Reclaiming my time, I think this brings up another very important point. The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff] who spoke earlier today, had a bill that tried to do some of the same things. His bill was one block grant out to the local States and communities. One of the main reasons why we broke out into four block grants was specifically so we could help and do a better job with vocational rehabilitation. Vote ``no'' on the Green amendment. Support the bill.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government is reducing the overall amount of funding provided for youth programs. The Federal Government should not at the same time, then, require States to continue their support when they are not maintaining the same amount. There is burdensome paperwork that would be involved with this. It is difficult to determine exactly what services would or could be included. In the Senate bill, on their side they have a welfare bill offered by Senator Dole on September 17 that requires States to maintain 80 percent of their current commitment for AFDC programs. The amendment would be added to the bill without any objection. What we are striving to do with this overall program is give as much leeway and help to the local governments as is possible, and this amendment would cause some problems with that. We are trying to work on this at this time.

Mr. McKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. I realize that it did pass out of committee without this change, but we have had the Governors and others have come to us with requests, and in trying to reach down, trying to push the money down to the local communities, it seems that this is a worthwhile thing to give them, 10 percent of leeway between the two. Out of 100 percent of money, Mr. Chairman, we are only giving them 10 percent of leeway, and I think the Governors have every bit as much compassion on the local level as we do. There was language that this gives the States the flexibility to use the funds where there is the greatest need, but it does protect the basic four-grants structure of the bill. It gives the funds locally and ensures that the Federal dollars will reach the people and not the bureaucrats. Some might argue and see this provision as the glass is half-empty, but I think that it is half-full in giving the local people more jurisdiction. The language provides a voice for local people. They can lobby their State legislators for funding, and their Governor. We are moving the decision-making out of Washington into the States, into the States and localities, and I think the whole premise of the bill is to drive decision-making down locally, however we do retain 10 percent of the decision here in Washington. So, I think this is just a good compromise that we have been able to work out.

Mr. McKEON. So, really, what we are looking at is we have 50 Governors over the 50 States, we have the State legislatures, who are very close to the people in their local States, their local communities, and we are just trying to give them a little discretion out of all this money that we are giving them. I think that this is reasonable.

Mr. McKEON. This is not just schools, it could be just the opposite. It could be 10 percent from those out of schools. It could mean more money for schools.

Mr. McKEON. School boards never plan to spend their whole 100 percent because they understand how this process works, and they always leave a contingency there, and I think that is good sound planning. I think they would continue to do that on this basis.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the schools, as they are now operating in the real world, never plan to spend 100 percent.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I served on a school board for 9 years. I understand what the gentleman is saying about planning, and it is a problem, but it is something that school boards live with all the time. I know while I served on the school board the State would pass our budget and it would come down, the fiscal year was started in July, and throughout the whole year we were subject at any time to recall of some of those funds. They have that problem now that they live with, and this would be a small portion of the funds that they receive.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased today to join with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. I extend to the gentleman my thanks for his leadership and for the opportunity he has given me as a new chairman, a relatively new Member of Congress, to participate in this process. Mr. Chairman, I came to Congress with the idea of trying to cut Federal bureaucracy and trying to give power out to the local communities. One of the first things that was given me on this committee was to work on the CAREERS Act. This is a bill that had been placed into the 103d Congress by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], but we were not able to move it at that time. It was the opportunity of taking 50 job training bills and cutting it down to 4 and block granting it out to the States. With the change in the Congress this year, he gave me the responsibility to carry that legislation. We made changes in it; we increased it to 150 job training bills. I have here copies of all of the bills that this bill will replace. We are talking about 3,000 pages, cutting it down less to 300 pages, and in the process changing about $1 billion a year. That did not happen just by putting pen to paper. It was a real process. We started early on. We met with the administration. We met with the other side. I mentioned to the other side that if we had disagreements, it would not be because they were Democrats and we were Republicans. It would be because we had a difference in philosophy. We really have tried to work together and come up with something that we can all be proud of. In the process, not everyone is happy, not everyone is unhappy. We are probably all kind of in a position that if we were king for a day, we would like things to be maybe a little different, but none of us are. We are all Members of Congress. We are here representing our people throughout this country, and we have tried to involve everyone that will be affected in this process. There have been some concerns raised. There have been concerns raised specifically about this bill. We have added a number of provisions ensuring confidentiality of information, applying the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act protections to programs established under CAREERS, and clarifying all data collected from the Data Market Information System's aggregate data from the census and other public sources. In other words, no personal information is collected on individuals, especially youth. Programs were also proadded to the bill clarifying that nothing in the CAREERS Act may be used to require any individual, especially a young person, to pursue a specific career or career path in school. We are also working with Congressman Weldon on language to add to the bill stating that nothing in the CAREERS Act may be used to require any individual to acquire a skill certificate or skill standards. As a Congressman from the district in California that has been hard hit by defense and aerospace cutbacks, I understand the need to have an effective and efficient system of work force preparation and employment assistance in this country. The skill of this Nation's work force are more important today than ever before to U.S. competitiveness. However, our current patchwork of Federal programs is not the answer. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] and the gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams] and Members on the other side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], others who have worked so hard to bring this bill to the floor, and Members on our side, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Goodling, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs], our vice chairman, the gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Zeliff], who is not on this committee, but who has been working on this CAREERS work for a number of years. There are many that I would like to thank. I should not have even started naming names. But I encourage all of our colleagues to support the CAREERS legislation.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, because job training and work force preparation programs are about preparing individuals for careers, it is important that employers identify the skills needed in the workplace and the training be tied to such skills in order that employment and training programs are relevant and useful. CAREERS includes the attainment of industry-recognized skill standards in its performance indicators for both adults and youth. All references to the national board are tied to voluntary provisions in CAREERS. CAREERS says that the Governors may take into account industry-recognized skill standards at least as challenging as those endorsed by the national board in identifying education training providers who are eligible to participate in a voucher system. As my colleague indicates, we do need to continue this discussion. We will do that in conference. We really appreciate all of the gentlewoman's hard work and effort in bringing this to the floor, and I pledge to her that we will continue to work with her as we go to the conference.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I wish to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand]. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Seastrand], who has helped us so much on working on this bill, and I appreciate that gentlewoman's comments.