Bob Ney

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring attention to the House a series of articles published in September by the Columbus Dispatch (Columbus, Ohio) that describe the challenges and joys of raising a disabled child at home and among family. The Columbus Dispatch series accurately highlights the experiences of families with children with significant disabilities who have received support from the current Medicaid Program. The Sapp family includes parents Dale and Martha Rose, two daughters, and Dale Jr. Dale Sr. has a full-time job and Martha Rose takes care of the children. Dale Jr. is 7 years old and several disabilities, including mental retardation, and uses a wheelchair. To keep Dale Jr. at home, Medicaid provides, the Sapp's services worth $105,000, including speech and physical therapy, prescription drugs, hospital services, and other needed medical care. Without this support, the Sapp's would be forced to place Dale in an institution, with an annual cost of $240,000. The Biel family includes parents Louis and Mary and two children. Both parents full-time [[Page E 2315]] jobs and private health insurance. Daughter Kathleen is 10 years old, has cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and uses a wheelchair. Medicaid provides the Biel family with $87,000 worth of physical and occupational therapies, hospital and other medical care. Without this support the Biel's would be forced to place Kathleen in an institution, which would cost $240,000 annually. The Carter family includes parents Greg and Meri-Ellyn, two sons, and Lauren, age 7, who has cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and blindness. Greg has a full-time job and Meri-Ellyn stays home with the children. Until recently, the family received $45,000 from Medicaid in the form of home nursing care and physical therapies, which allowed Lauren to live at home despite the fact that Lauren cannot be left alone, her needs were determined to be nonemergency in nature and her Medicaid benefits were terminated. Lauren now lives apart from her family in an institution that costs $55,000 annually. The Sapp's, Biel's, and Carters are among the millions of families across America that rely on Medicaid support to meet the extraordinary health and developmental needs of their children with significant disabilities. Thanks to Medicaid, these children lead more independent and successful lives at home, with family. Most often, assistance at an early age enhances the ability of these children to develop physical, emotional, and social skills, advances their capacity to learn, and enables them to participate more skillfully in family and community life. Similarly, adults with disabilities rely on Medicaid to achieve health, employment, and personal goals that directly relate to their ability to lead independent and productive lives. Two of the three families profiled in these articles received services from the Easter Seals Society, which is dedicated to assisting children and adults to live with equality, dignity, and independence. Since its founding in Ohio in 1919, Easter Seals has helped millions of people with disabilities nationwide through home and community services that are overseen by volunteers and paid for by charitable donations, corporate contributions, and the investment of government funds. According to Easter Seals, the compelling stories told by the Biels, Sapps, and Carters are not unique but are typical of the experiences of countless families that need Medicaid and Easter Seals to get by. For the 4.9 million children and adults with disabilities who depend on Medicaid and associated programs, such as early intervention and assistive technology, there are few, if any, alternative sources of support. Medicaid is the linchpin that fosters individual development, learning, and independence, and enables families to stay together, most often as primary care givers for persons with disabilities. To date, Medicaid has operated as Federal-State partnership. Some of the country's most innovative, cost-efficient approaches to home and community-based service delivery and EPSDT early detection and intervention have originated under Medicaid. Although many legitimate needs have not been met by Medicaid and related programs, the current array of services and support are crucial to the health and quality of life for millions of individuals and families, and represent a wise cost-effective commitment to public funds. The Columbus Dispatch stories clearly show the direct relationship between investing in services to support families and the alternative, which is most often higher cost institutional care. According to the newspaper, in many of these families, either one or both parents work. Most struggle to keep their children at home, and willingly assume the disruption and expense. But their ability to keep their families intact directly depends on continued Medicaid support. As we evaluate the pros and cons of making significant reforms to the Medicaid Program, I urge my colleagues to read these articles and be mindful of the daily confronting families affected by disability and the critical role that Medicaid plays in their lives. Copies of the Columbus Dispatch articles are available from the National Seal Society in Washington, DC.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my colleagues: Whereas, Donna Mahfouz has faithfully served the Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield family for twenty-three years; and Whereas, Donna Mahfouz has held the post of legislative secretary for the Government Relations Office, since its inception seventeen years ago; and, Whereas, her strong work ethic, superlative organizational skills, and warm sense of humor have greatly contributed to the success of Blue Cross and Blue Shield; and Whereas, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield owes Donna Mahfouz a great deal of gratitude for her selfless devotion and dedicated service; and, Whereas, I join the employees of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, with distinct pleasure, in honoring Donna Mahfouz upon her retirement as legislative secretary for the Government Relations Office.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, the American people need to know that there was a vote on this floor to protect Social Security funds from being raided. They need to know there was a vote on this floor to protect pension funds from being raided to pay the national debt. We voted for it, but we were not successful. We needed more support from over here. People talk about the fact that they want a balanced budget. Everybody wants a balanced budget, until it is time to actually do it. The American people are not extremists. My district is overwhelmingly Democrat, and the calls are coming in overwhelmingly 9 to 1, by Democrats, Republicans, independents, working people across this country that they want a balanced budget. The American people care about the money they put into their wallets, and their money for 26 to 30 years the Government has taken out of their wallets. No more smoke and mirrors, no more false promises of Gramm-Rudman. It is time to act and for Washington to act right now on behalf of the American people and the future of children in our country to balance the Nation's budget once and for all so people can keep their own hard-earned money.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to stand today and agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], who just told us about the importance of ending the subsidies that the American taxpayers pay for groups to lobby. It is a critical issue. We are talking about lobbying reform. Currently, we are talking about PAC reform. These are important issues that should be discussed, but we should not have a fear because a group says you are stifling my voice. Let us make it clear in this debate. This is an important issue. These are government dollars, taxpayers' dollars, that are going into these advocacy groups. In recent research, what was told us is that 70 percent of Americans want to see this changed. We have got to address this in the debate. This has to come before the Halls of Congress. We also have to make it clear that these groups should be advocates for their position. A lot of these groups I agree with. They would be free to advocate their position, but the taxpayers of this country should be free from paying for it.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, as the House debates a budget reconciliation I would like to give my support to the provisions in the bill renewing generalized system of preferences [GSP] duty-free import program. This program was designed as a way to help less developed nations export into the U.S. market. the GSP Program allows duty-free imports of certain products into the U.S. from over 100 GSP-eligible countries. The bill wisely provides that import-sensitive products are not to be subject to GSP treatment. Ceramic tile is a clear example of an import sensitive product and is exactly the type of product which should not be subject to lower tariffs under the GSP Program. Imports have dominated the U.S. ceramic tile market for the last decade and they currently capture nearly 60 percent of the market. This extraordinary level of import penetration is a result, in part, of over 30 years of documented unfair predatory foreign trade practices including dumping, subsidies, customs fraud import diversion, and abuse of a loophole in the GSP. The American ceramic tile industry, though relatively small, is efficient and competitive at normal tariff levels. From its inception in the Trade Act of 1974, the GSP Program has provided for the exemption of ``articles which the President determines to be import-sensitive.'' In light of the history of unfair trade in ceramic tile and the significant and growing import participation in the U.S. ceramic tile market, the U.S. industry has been recognized by successive Congresses and administrations as import sensitive, dating back to the Dillon and Kenney rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. During this period the American ceramic tile also has been forced to defend itself from over a dozen petitions filed by various designated GSP-eligible countries seeking duty-free treatment for ceramic tile into this market. If just one petitioning nation succeeds in gaining GSP benefits for ceramic tile, then by law, every GSP beneficiary country is also entitled to GSP duty-free benefits for ceramic tile. If any of these petitions were granted, it would eliminate American tile jobs and could destroy the industry. A major guiding principle of the GSP Program has been reciprocal market access. Current GSP eligible beneficiary countries supply almost one-third of the U.S. ceramic tile imports and they are increasing their sales and market shares. U.S. ceramic tile manufacturers, however, are still denied access to many of these foreign markets. Many developing countries maintain exclusionary tariff and nontariff mechanisms which serve to block the entry of U.S. ceramic tile exports into these markets. Industrial countries, including the European Union [EU], may use less transparent methods such as discriminatory product standards and testing methods to control their ceramic tile imports and, in some cases, to divert ceramic tile manufactured in third countries over to the U.S. market by imposing restrictions on those third country exports to the EU. I am in support of the reauthorization of the GSP Program and trust that import-sensitive products such as tile will not be subject to GSP.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, as the House debates budget reconciliation I would like to give my support to the provisions in the bill renewing generalized system of preferences [GSP] duty-free import program. This program was designed as a way to help less-developed nations export into the U.S. market. The GSP program allows duty-free imports of certain products into the U.S. from over 100 GSP-eligible countries. The bill wisely provides that import-sensitive products are not to be subject to GSP treatment. Ceramic tile is a clear example of an ``import sensitive'' product and is exactly the type of product which should be subject to lower tariffs under the GSP program. Imports have dominated the U.S. ceramic tile market for the last decade and they currently capture nearly 60 percent of the market. This extraordinary level of import penetration is a result, in part, of over 30 years of documented unfair predatory foreign trade practices including dumping, subsidies, customs fraud, import diversion, and abuse of a loophole in the GSP. The American ceramic tile industry, though relatively small, is efficient and competitive at normal tariff levels. From its inception in the Trade Act of 1974, the GSP program has provided for the exemption of ``articles which the President determines to be import-sensitive.'' In light of the history of unfair trade in ceramic tile and the significant and growing import participation in the U.S. ceramic tile market, the U.S. industry has been recognized by successive Congresses and administrations as ``import-sensitive,'' dating back to the Dillon and Kennedy Rounds of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]. During this period the American ceramic tile industry also has been forced to defend itself from over a dozen petitions filed by various designated GSP-eligible counties seeking duty-free treatment for ceramic tile into this market. If just one petitioning nation succeeds in gaining GSP benefits for ceramic tile, then by law, every GSP beneficiary country is also entitled to GSP duty-free benefits for ceramic tile. If any of these petitions were granted, it would eliminate American tile jobs and could destroy the industry. A major guiding principle of the GSP program has been reciprocal market access. Current GSP-eligible beneficiary countries supply almost one-third of the U.S. ceramic tile imports and they are increasing their sales and market shares. U.S. ceramic tile manufacturers, however, are still denied access to many of these foreign markets. Many developing countries maintain exclusionary tariff and nontariff mechanisms which serve to block the entry of U.S. ceramic tile exports into these markets. Industrial countries, including the European Union [EU], may use less transparent methods such as discriminatory product standards and testing methods to control their ceramic tile imports and, in some cases, to divert ceramic tile manufactured in third countries over to the U.S. market by imposing restrictions on those third country exports to the EU. I am in support of the reauthorization of the GSP program and trust that import-sensitive products such as tile will not be subject to GSP.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, yesterday I, along with several of my colleagues from both sides of the isle, appeared before the House Rules Committee in an attempt to delete the Hancock Amendment from the reconciliation bill. This amendment threatens the long-term security of coal miner's health care benefits. I strongly believe that our testimony has sparked a firestorm of debate on this issue that Congress can no longer choose to ignore. I further believe that this debate has hopefully prompted both sides on this issue to begin to come together, and common ground may be found. As we move toward the Senate with this monumental bill, I believe that the healthy debate which has been initiated on this issue can and will carry over to the Senate. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues in both the House and Senate to take another look at this important issue. I believe that agreement can be reached that would help those who should not be paying into this fund, while at the same time, secure the long- term stability of this important fund that supplies health care to our retired miners who have worked so hard to build America and make it prosper.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my colleagues: Whereas, Mr. David Lee Elliot of Zanesville, Ohio sacrificed his life on Sunday, July 23, 1995; and, Whereas, Mr. David Lee Elliot attempted to make his neighborhood a better place to live by protecting his property; and, Whereas, Mr. David Lee Elliot was an outstanding and law abiding citizen of Zanesville, Ohio; and, Whereas, Zanesville, Ohio is a better place to live because of the courageous action that Mr. David Lee Elliot undertook; and, Whereas, the residents of Zanesville and the surrounding areas of Ohio will greatly miss such an exceptional person.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just want to actually make a comment, Mr. Chairman, about something that was not in the bill and we were disappointed because we did have an amendment, and that was to include stressing of availability and affordability for access for rural libraries, rural schools, and also rural hospitals. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee, has stated here that although the amendment did not make it to the Committee on Rules, which was a disappointment, but that he is going to do all he can to work with the Senate version which does contain, I think, some good language. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to restress that there are a lot of Members of the House, had that amendment been in order and had that amendment come forth on the floor, they would have supported the amendment. I want to tell people here on the floor, Mr. Chairman, that in fact one of the most disenfranchised areas in the United States is in fact rural America. They pay the toll calls. There has not been the availability in a lot of areas on the information highway for rural America. We know that we do not have enough money to solve all the problems, so therefore using high technology is going to bring a lot of information for our hospitals we could not normally get, it is going to bring a lot of information to our students who really do not have the advantage a lot of times of the high-technology systems, it is going to bring a lot of advantage to our libraries. I just want to restress that it has to be available and affordable. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the commitment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], because if we do not do something in this bill that is not in the House version, if we do not do something in the conference report, as this information superhighway goes across the United States, there is not going to be any exit ramps for rural America.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman, my colleague from California, Mr. Lewis and stand to give strong support to the bill, H.R. 2099. In particular, I want to support the good reductions in the United States EPA's overall operating budget. As the gentleman from California knows, we have discussed the concerns of the people of Ohio's 18th Congressional District, people in the State of Ohio and the people in the Midwest who have suffered tremendously under the Clean Air Act and the EPA provisions that directly pertained to our area in Ohio. The Clean Air Act was a liberal, overzealous, too-far-reaching measure when it spoke, in part, to the concerns dealing with acid rain. There were some merits to the bill, and there is a need to make sure our environment is safe. I want to make that very clear. There was a study by NAPA which was a 10-year study at a half a billion dollar cost to the taxpayers, stated specifically that, in fact, the changes in the Clean Air Act as pertains to acid rain were not going to make a difference in cleaning up the environment. This was not the problem. Still, the full thrust of trying to put our people in the Ohio Valley out of work was accomplished in that bill, and I just want to speak a little bit about the truth and what that has done to the Ohio Valley to the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost for no reason. I want to let the people in the EPA know, Mr. Chairman, that when we talk about reducing their overall budget of $2.5 billion and the enforcement budget by $129 million, that is a good [[Page H 7892]] start. It is a fine start in my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I also want to remind the people in the EPA that, in fact, we are going to be watching for any further problems they want to create as a result of reductions, and we are going to be watching how they treat people in this country. It is fine to have clean air; we want to have that for our children. But we want to point out that one should not retaliate against the people of the United States for no reason. We want them to know that there are consequences for their actions and that people in the Ohio Valley, in the 18th Congressional District, have undergone tremendous suffering amongst their families. I want to thank the gentleman for his willingness to work with us as this process goes on. It is the first time that I can recall, from my time in government when I was in Ohio, that somebody has been willing to listen and someone is willing to say we have got to use some good sense and not just take actions that in the end do not count for anything. I want to thank the gentleman for that on behalf of my constituents.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, some of my family moved from Ohio to California, so I was out there quite a lot, and my grandmother and aunts and uncles. My grandmother moved out there, any my aunts and uncles are out there currently. I am concerned about them. We do have to solve our problem out there and we do have to make it clean in the urban centers across this country, but I appreciate the fact that you have listened to a segment that did not cause the problem and was so unfairly targeted by overzealous bureaucrats. I thank the gentleman for that.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I will take less than that time. I do want to mention that on the next amendment, Coleman-Ney, of course I am supporting this amendment. For those of us who are supporting that amendment, I just wanted to urge, although I duly respect the point of view of my colleague, I want to urge a ``no'' vote on that, on the basis that in fact this would create a hodge-podge set of laws across the United States. I think that has to be of grave concern to us. Also, the amendment currently before us does nothing but clarify the fact that in States that do not currently protect the bargaining rights of men and women, transit workers will lose rights under H.R. 2002. Therefore, again, for those supporting on a bipartisan basis the Coleman-Ney amendment, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. In a blatant attempt to end-run the authorizing committee, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2002 contains an outright repeal of 13(c) protections for transit employees. There are 100 reasons why transit costs can go up to people across the country. I do not think we need to lay that blame upon the worker. Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 states that if the Federal Government is going to provide moneys to be used to acquire private transit companies and operate transit services that are in financial trouble, such actions should in no way worsen the transit employees' position. This is what 13(c) is all about. Do I believe there needs to be reform? We want to talk about prices, and we hear from the urban centers and the mayors about we need reform. That is what we wanted to do. We wanted to strike and replace and put some true reform in there, that the unions also agreed that there should be reform. Of course I believe in reform, but the process of the House did not allow me or anyone else to offer a reform amendment, even though rule XXI was waived to allow for the 13(c) repeal. There is another body, I urge those supporting us to remember. This bill is not leaving here and going on to the President of the United States, Mr. Chairman. This bill is going on to the U.S. Senate where some reform could be addressed, as we would have had we the opportunity. In closing and urging the support of the Coleman-Ney amendment I would stress--even if you are philosophically against collective bargaining, I am not, but even if you are, for our Americans--I urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment which will afford the authorizing committee, the [[Page H 7592]] appropriate committee, to take such actions. If you do not support collective bargaining, Mr. Chairman, I still believe that this is not the appropriate way to make changes, because it is going through the back door and trying to undo collective bargaining piece by piece. You put it out front and do it that way. I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, these remarks were submitted to me by Robert E. Murray, president and chief executive officer of the Ohio Valley Coal Co., H.R. 1370 will virtually put this company out of business and place 4,400 employees out of work. I share Mr. Murray's strong opposition to H.R. 1370, and the general practice of dumping retirees. H.R. 1370, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to reduce mandatory premiums to the United Mine Workers of America [UMWA] combined benefit fund, is very bad legislation. This legislation will have disastrous consequences for the Ohio Valley Coal Co.--Ohio Valley--and other coal companies, while benefiting multibillion-dollar companies, which have repeatedly attempted to dump their retiree benefit costs for employees, who have worked only for them, onto other coal companies. Prior to enactment of the Coal Industry Retiree Benefit Act of 1992-- Coal Act--47 percent of Ohio Valley's payments to the United Mine Workers of America health and retirement funds were contributed to cover obligations of other coal companies for people who never worked for Ohio Valley or its predecessor. Yet these companies have the audacity to claim that their obligations for their former employees are no longer theirs. They would have gotten away with this dumping of their bona fide liabilities onto Ohio Valley and other coal companies had it not been for enactment of the Coal Act. H.R. 1370 would overturn much of the Coal Act, which was a carefully crafted compromise among Democratic and Republican legislators and the Bush administration. The concept of this compromise was to require present and former employers of UMWA-represented persons to be responsible for their retirees and to avoid imposing UMWA retiree cost on other companies, such as Ohio Valley, that never employed these UMWA retirees. Further, the limited number of corporations lobbying for H.R. 1370 and the repeal of much of the 1992 Coal Act are simply not being truthful when they claim that the UMWA combined fund will have a long- term surplus. A recent study by Ernst and Young shows that the fund will have a deficit as early as 1998 and up to $147 million in 2004. To claim that H.R. 1370 protects companies, such as Ohio Valley, because no funding would be required pursuant to formula to increase operators' premiums if there is a shortfall, is a total smoke screen. If the large corporate dumpers of their liabilities on the funds and other coal companies, such as Ohio Valley, are not required to pay their fair share, the time at which and the amount that a company, such as Ohio Valley, will be required to pay to the funds will be accelerated. Having served as the chief executive officer of one of the companies lobbying for H.R. 1370, I can personally assure you that their game is to dump their retiree liabilities onto other coal companies. The Coal Act, which H.R. 1370 will largely overturn, stopped this practice. There is no question that, if the situation is returned to that which existed prior to passage of the Rockefeller legislation, Ohio Valley will be put out of business and the 4,400 jobs that it accounts for in Ohio, according to the Pennsylvania State University, will be eliminated. Congress must do everything possible to see that H.R. 1370, or any legislation like it, is not passed.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my colleague, whose congressional district borders mine, on this very important issue. Members also have to understand that when we look at the Appalachian region, this potential forest goes all the way down from [[Page H 7124]] the area of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Cremeans], all the way up through my area in Monroe County, OH, and it would be like a 4-hour drive. If we looked at a map of it, it looks like somebody took a shotgun and just shot the map, because it is just pieces of property bought here and there, small parcels. I encouraged the Wayne National Forest to have a contiguous area, but really, what they have done in the area of Mr. Cremeans and in this area, for which I want to thank the gentlemen from Ohio, Mr. Regula and Mr. Cremeans, it is really going to help us quite a lot. It is also going to protect Monroe County. Additionally, Senator Monroe, and also representative Metzger and many others are worried about development. The area has been hard hit in Monroe County, so we need some help. I really applaud the gentleman's amendment, and thank him for including this.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I am here not to beat up on our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], just to make sure he is defeated in his amendment. Also, I want to talk about Utah. I do not want to see us get into regional warfare or State-by-State warfare here. Maybe that billion is needed in Utah, but it is not apples to oranges; it is apples to rocks. It is $1 billion for a State, whether it is Utah or California, whatever area. We are talking again, about $142 million for 13 States. I am not going to belabor this point. I know we are close to a vote. I will tell you something. There is a difference in Appalachia and a difference in the entire region. The more we pool those regions up within those States, the better off we will help surrounding States and other areas, for example, in Ohio, that will have to pay for the distressed economies in their States. In Ohio, part of us are in Appalachia, part of us are not in Appalachian; but again, it benefits the whole. The one thing I would also tell you, I think I bring a different perspective than any other speaker. I used to work for Appalachia. I was on Appalachia's payroll, federally paid. I worked in the Ohio Appalachian office. I was program manager for education, health, and child development programs. They paid part of the salary. We ran the show. Local development districts, for a minute, how they work in Ohio. We have real people. Tom Closser down in Marion, OH, we have John Quinlin in the Omega region, they are called local development districts. They have mayors that respond to them. They have mayors that have input. We have OMERSA program run by a gentleman named Craig Closser in Zanesville, OH, who is helping over a couple hundred schools. Small amounts of money we put in that program when I worked there in 1979, very small amounts of money, sometimes $20,000 to help with a road, with a joint, shared activity with the local government that creates 100, 300, 400 jobs. We have reams of statistics. There may have been some bad projects, but you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. We are taking a 50-percent cut. I think that is important. These have been good projects. This is something that all of us should support. Let us not get into some warfare from State to State or region to region. We need the help.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker. The conference agreement on the fiscal year 1996 budget resolution includes proposed savings of about $4.4 billion over the next 7 years from the assumption that the Davis-Bacon Act will be repealed. However, the specific assumption for repeal of the Act is not binding on the committees of jurisdiction over Davis-Bacon and does not prejudge the enactment of legislation to repeal the Act. With this in mind, I plan to support the Conferees' Report. However, I would like to be very clear in stating that I have serious doubts as to whether the repeal of the Davis-Bacon Act will actually result in any serious savings--let alone savings amounting to $4.4 billion--and I question the need for this language in the Conferees' Report. Several studies have indicated that repealing the Act would be, at best, neutral with respect to Federal construction costs when compared to lost revenue due to reduced wages. The Davis-Bacon Act has been a focus of congressional consideration since the 1950's. There appears to be little indisputable evidence with respect to its impact. In light of this, some have called the Act a Special Interest `dole-out' that is earmarked specifically for organized labor. But this is an unfair assessment. If there is any clear evidence with respect to the Davis-Bacon Act, it is that the Act has effectively taken the wages of working men and women out of the Federal construction bidding process. I hope that my colleagues understand this. And I urge them to vote against any measures to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my colleagues: Whereas, Mr. John L. of Barnhill, OH, and Mrs. Mable A. Marstrell of Delaware, OH, celebrate 75 years of marriage; and, Whereas, John and Mable have resided in Stillwater, OH for all of those 75 years raising two sons--Dr. John V. and Mr. Keane O. Marstrell, four grandchildren and nine great- grandchildren; and, Whereas, John served his community as president and manager of the Laurel Valley Oil Co., president of the United Bank of Uhrichsville, founder of the Old Timers Baseball Association, and last year as an inductee into Ohio's Baseball Hall of Fame; and Whereas, John has the honor of being the last living player to bat against the legendary Cy Young and serving as one of his pall bearers; and, Whereas, over the course of Mable's many years as organist in the Pleasant Grove United Methodist Church her music became an inspiration and comfort to family, friends, and her church family; and, Whereas, members of the Rotary club since 1935, 65 year member of the Masonic Order, and activity in various other civil projects together in the community they have volunteered hours in building character, citizenship, and leadership in their community and family; and, Whereas, the city of Stillwater and all the surrounding areas of Ohio, with a real sense of pleasure commend John L. and Mable Marstrell as outstanding citizens, role models, and parents and join in the celebration of their seventy-fifth anniversary this eighth day of May in the year one thousand nine hundred ninety-five.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my colleagues: Whereas, Phyllis Riccadonna, Director of the Jefferson County Victim-Assistance program, received the Outstanding Victim's Services Practitioner Award at the seventh annual Ohio Victims of Crime Compensation Program's Recognition Awards Ceremony that was held in Columbus, Ohio on April 20, 1995; and Whereas, Phyllis Riccadonna received this award for having consistently demonstrated foresight, caring and sensitivity for crime victims; and Whereas, Phyllis Riccadonna, working with judges, prosecutors, and offenders, served more than 500 victims in 1994; and Whereas, Phyllis Riccadonna developed the Ohio Valley Chapter of the Compassionate Friends, serves as aboard member of a local women's shelter and is now working to form a domestic-violence task force; and Whereas, Jefferson County is a better place in which to live because of the work of Phyllis Riccadonna; and Whereas, the residents of Jefferson County and the surrounding areas of Ohio, with a real sense of pleasure, join me in commending Mrs. Riccadonna as an outstanding Victims' Advocate.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I commend the following article to my colleagues: Whereas, Dean Harrah, should be recognized for his invaluable contributions to the game of baseball; and Whereas, Dean Harrah, was a player for Kent State University, the United Mine Workers League, the Harrison County League, and numerous local and semi-pro teams; and Whereas, Dean Harrah, has dedicated much of his talent to coach both elementary and high school students in which some of his players continued on to play college and professional baseball; and, Whereas, Dean Harrah, led many of his teams to league championships, all-star game championships, and to all appearances at sectional, district, and regional tournaments; and Whereas, Dean Harrah, has ensured that local programs were established for both girls and boys and help coordinate construction and renovation of many local fields; and Whereas, the local communities are better places for people of all ages because of the work of Dean Harrah; and Whereas, the residents of Belmont County and the surrounding areas of Ohio, with a real sense of pleasure, join me in commending Mr. Dean Harrah for his indispensable contribution to the game of baseball.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment. I want to talk about fixing coal. Coal was fix, high-sulfur coal was fixed by this Congress and the White House with the passage of the Clean Air Act. They fixed it all right, because a half a billion dollar study commissioned for 10 years by this government showed that what the Clean Air Act was going to do to coal was not going to solve the problems of at least the majority of the votes on both sides of the aisle? No. So what we are trying to do is hold on to what we have, which is very little in the Ohio coal fields or in the Midwestern coal fields or Pennsylvania coal fields. We have very little left. If Members want to debate whether it is $3 million spent to keep the project, or whatever the economic figure, coal jobs produce 6 to 1, for every coal miner that works, we have 6 spinoffs. So we are going to pay, if we want to look at economics, one way or another as more people lose their jobs, good paying jobs, we are going to pay in welfare, in unemployment and in reduction of monies to schools. But these projects have merit because we are not going to try to recreate the coal industry. What is out there, that is shot, is shot. We are trying to just simply hang on to the very little bit that we have. And I want to also tell you, to mention the factor of oil. If we want to count on oil, and oil is great for the country, our production of oil, remember past embargoes of oil? Remember upheavals in the Mideast? Those types of situations can mean the price of oil, and I thank my colleague who reminds me we fought a war over oil. We had an embargo years ago in this country over oil. Tomorrow morning the Strait of Hormuz can be shut off, and 90 percent of the Western World's oil is gone. So we have got to preserve what we have. That is all we are asking through the coal fields is to simply preserve what we have left.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, once again, I think we have to make the facts known, especially in light of the last speaker. We are not cutting this program. We are increasing this program. Here are the charts. Now, that chart is a hypothetical, what if, and I guess I could say that in an expenditure where we would hypothetically have $20 billion or $30 billion to care for some type of children's program, I could say we should have $60 billion to care for it, so we have really shortened and shortchanged that program. That is what this chart is. That is exactly what this chart is. The fact remains we are increasing it. Something I am going to agree about with the last speaker about a successful program. yesterday I was in Zanesville, OH, Muskingum County, Mr. Speaker, and the people that run the WIC program were in, and it is a successful program, and it is a good program, and I believe that we have recognized that time and time again. We are recognizing it again and again and again by saying we believe in it and we are going to increase it, and here is the chart that tells we are going to do it. So we have not said it is a bad program. We have no question of the effectiveness of the program. We have no question how it has helped people. But I have got to tell you, they call this the well. They ought to rename it the swamp, because I think we get to a low point when we come in and bring a picture in and try to say that by increasing this we are going to do harm to children. I think that is absolutely ridiculous. Let us state the facts as they are, and the fact is that it has been a good program. The fact is that the new way to do the WIC program does not take away counseling, as the last speaker told you, Mr. Speaker. It does not, because nothing changes in this program. The question of where are we going to live up to the food standards, we do, Mr. Speaker, live up to the food standards, because that is also taken care of through this program. But it is a bigger picture, and the bottom line in this country, Mr. Speaker, is that tomorrow morning everyone in this country looks into the mirror and sees the face of the human being that is morally responsible as to whether our children live in a country that is safe, prosperous, and secure. So we all have to ask ourselves, Mr. Speaker, as we look into our faces in the mirror, Members of Congress and people throughout this country, are we doing the best job to make sure that this country is safe, prosperous, and secure for our children? And I answer we are. But not just in how we revise this program to take the Federal bureaucratic end of it out, but in the overall picture of what we are also doing is stepping up to the plate and balancing this Nation's budget, of trying to reempower families to help them by reempowering them to make decisions, and this is what it is all about. It is a bigger picture. Because what we have done in this country by letting Washington remain the same old, same old, time after time, is we have let a bureaucracy build up, and as I told people from the WIC organization yesterday, we have let it build up to the point if we do not take control now of this deficit, if we do not take back control and reempower families out in the heartland, Mr. Speaker, in this country, we are not going to have to worry about charts on either side of this aisle, because there is not going to be anything left. We will have nothing to leave our children. When we look in the mirror, we are going to know we did not leave our children with a safe country. We did not leave our children in prosperity. And we did not leave, Mr. Speaker, our children with peace. So not only are we doing the right thing, not only are we increasing this, we are also looking at a bigger overall picture to restabilize this government, to reempower where it counts, in the hands of the citizenry, Mr. Speaker. And with that, I think we have just got to stay to the facts and quit using scare tactics from this side of the swamp, not the well, to use this type of scare tactic. We should speak to the reality of what we are trying to do, to make a better America, and that is what we are. We are sending our message, Mr. Speaker, to you tonight and to our colleagues, and we know that if we work together in the bigger picture, we are going to give back to families their dignity and give back to families their ability to help empower themselves for a better future.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following proclamation from the city of Cambridge in the State of Ohio. Whereas, the Hopalong Cassidy Fan Club has contributed untold volunteer hours in building character, citizenship, and leadership in this community; and, Whereas, the Hopalong Cassidy Fan Club is celebrating the 100th birthday of Hopalong Cassidy on June 5, 1995; and, Whereas, members have made in kind contributions of service, financial contribution to the Cambridge area, contribution to the Park School, and to other important needs of the community; and, Whereas, the local Hopalong Cassidy Fan Club has extended the interest of Hopalong Cassidy within this community; and, Whereas, the members of schools, churches, service clubs, union organizations, and others have been members of the Hopalong Cassidy Fan Club; and, Whereas, the city of Cambridge and all the surrounding areas of Ohio are better places to live because of Cambridge's Hopalong Cassidy Fan Club, we join in the celebration of the 100th birthday of Hopalong Cassidy on the fifth day of June in 1995.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleague, Mr. Fox from Pennsylvania, I can tell you in the 1980s, when the block grants were coming back and the cry was, as this comes from Washington, DC, we are going to lose our money; what do we do? We put in administrative caps. What did we say they are to be used for? Community development purposes, these block grants. What has the track record been from 1981 forward? It has been a track record of success. The bureaucracy was cut loose from here and fed right back into those economic development programs, and the gentleman knows from his State, I am sure, we have a track record of success. So this is not embarking on nothing new in the sense of doing this in past situations from Congress back to the States. But I believe that it is an issue twist it, knew they could turn it and try to paint a paint brush of people that just really do not want to help the children. That is so far from the truth. I know our State has got a track record.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for yielding his time. As my colleagues know, I think the sad part to this whole scenario is the amount of demagoguery that has been cast forth in the media, and I note, as I went around my district this weekend, as I talked to people involved with the school nutrition program, and you start to tell them what the reality is versus the myth, as you well know, they start to see the real intent that is before us with this proposal in Congress. As my colleagues know, I would like to point out that of course the issue is, as I spoke with my constituents involved with the school food programs, the issue is that we are increasing it, and the issue is that we are sending this to the States by cutting out the middle bureaucracy with more money through the process, and the issue, also the fact of the situation, is that not only are we going to be increasing, but we are going to be guaranteeing that the school lunches are going to be there. And there is another guarantee. For those of you out there that have worried that this would be somehow sabotaged, somehow set somewhere else when it comes into the States, I think it is clear, if you look at the track record, whether it is money for the seniors that have come down to the States, Mr. Speaker, or whether it is monies that have come down for other essential programs, I think you will find that the States carry out the mission, and if they do not, there is plenty, as we know, out in the system of Federal ability to step in and make it clear of what our intent was. But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I want to just address the issue of what we are doing and why we are doing it. and it is because we do care about children, and I guess what disturbs me the most is the fact of picking up the newspapers and seeing a direct attack upon those of us who want to give more money, who want to take care of children, and it is being put forth, and I know you have seen this. It is being put forth all over the media and told by people that, you know, we are mean-spirited with children, and that is not the reality of it. Not only are we trying to pass laws to toughen the laws that go after those who try to harm children, but by this proposal we are really cutting out the Federal bureaucracy that is taking more money away, and the 5 percent administrative cap, I think, is a very good thing, but you know we are caring Members who have children. We are Members that come from districts that have needs. I serve an Appalachian district, very poor school district, and there is no way that we would promote anything that is not going to help our schools. So, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox], you know I just feel that it is very unfair, and history is going to prove us right as we proceed down a path to give an increase, to give more money and to guarantee our children good hot lunches. History is going to show that we are correct in what we did, and history is going to show we were not mean-spirited. We simply want to give more money. How this has been televised and turned around, Mr. Speaker, I think is causing such unfair confusion throughout this country with the people, so I am very proud of what we are going to do. None of us want to hurt children. We all want to help our poor school districts and the children that cannot get lunches, and so I feel confident. I know the past history of our States, and the pressure is going to be there, and this is going to be watched, and the people are going to make sure, and this Congress is going to make sure, that our wishes are carried out.