F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the Republicans have not controlled this House for 40 years and Congress has the power of the purse, unless someone changed the Constitution when we were not looking.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if all of this is so important, how come you could not identify where to offset this increase in other NASA accounts? The amendment is silent on that.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] has fallen under the sway of what I call Washington math. He is claiming that this bill cuts the advanced subsonics program by an amount of money. It does not. This bill increases this program by 6 percent. The gentleman from Virginia wants to increase it by more. That is his prerogative. However, under the discretionary spending cap that was passed in 1993 by the Clinton budget, whenever we increase a discretionary spending account, we are supposed to reduce other discretionary spending accounts, and this amendment does not do that. It is just a plusing up of the advanced subsonic program without an offset anywhere else in NASA. Now, apparently the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] wants to pump that whole issue of what to cut off to the NASA Administrator. What our committee has attempted to do is to run NASA on as tight a budget as possible. We are sick and tired of cost overruns at NASA. All of the accounts that we have put in this bill are under the new faster, better, cheaper NASA, and there really is not much play around for the Administrator to offset these other programs without underfunding them, and that is going to require stretch-outs and cost overruns in these other programs in the long run. The gentleman from Virginia, if his amendment were to be responsible, should have identified where the offsets were, rather than leaving that decision being made to the executive branch. The fact of the matter remains that this bill increases the advanced subsonic program by 6 percent. It has been the determination of the Committee on Science that that is enough. I would hope that the House would accept the committee position and reject the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia for the reasons that I have stated.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment, with [[Page H 9823]] the modification that he had just described, by stating that the administrator, whenever feasible, shall select the abandoned and underutilized buildings. I believe the modified amendment makes a significant contribution to this bill, and I am glad that this side is able to work out the problems and to support his amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, we are prepared to accept this amendment. The amendment reserves $2 million of the life and microgravity science budget program specifically for research on the development of early detection systems for breast and ovarian cancers and other women's health issues. Since it is my understanding that NASA has been working toward the aims of the gentlewoman's amendment, and since this reservation of funds would not adversely impact other planned life sciences research by NASA, I would accept the amendment of my colleague, the gentlewoman from Washington, and commend it to my colleagues. In fact, NASA and the National Institutes of Health have been engaged under 18 separate cooperative research agreements in a variety of fields. Our bill fully funds the $4.2 million already planned for cancer-related research under these NASA-NIH agreements. NASA has developed, using the Hubbell space telescope technologies, a revolutionary new detection system for the early identification of breast cancer. The system uses charged coupled devices developed by NASA for converting light from faint, distant stars into digital imagery. The same sensitive imaging technology is being used to conduct nonsurgical biopsies on women who may or may not have breast cancer, without leaving a scar. This is another example of how spinoffs from the space program are applied to solve very real problems on Earth, and is one of the reasons why the taxpayers' investment in the space program pays dividends, not only in terms of finances, but also in terms of alleviating human suffering and detecting diseases early enough so they can be cured.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. As a matter of fact, the Republican President did veto spending bills and got overridden by Congress.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership of the Committee on Science during this 104th Congress. Because we must balance the budget and restore financial discipline to the Federal Government, all discretionary accounts are experiencing new fiscal pressures. Consequently, we must prioritize programs and discontinue those functions that the private sector can take over from Washington. Under the gentleman from Pennsylvania's leadership, all of us on the Science Committee have worked to accomplish this task and focus our civil science expenditures on those activities which only the Government can perform and which have the largest long-term benefits to the country. H.R. 2405 meets these goals by focusing on basic research and fulfills the responsibility Congress has to ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely. Mr. Chairman, American science is undergoing a profound change. Government set up the modern scientific establishment right after World War II and the organization of the scientific enterprise reflects its cold war origins. Since that time, we've always worked to increase the science budget. As a consequence, many activities that would defy our traditional definitions of proper scientific activity have been funded by the Federal Government, including corporate welfare and questionable behavioral disciplines. Recently in the weekly research journal, Science, two social scientists experienced in Federal funding of science wrote that ``the social contract currently governing U.S. science is an obstacle to needed changes in science policy. This policy cannot realistically justify large science budgets. The situation demands more than a defense of the status quo--if faced constructively, it is an opportunity to develop a sounder social contract, to develop an ecology in which science can thrive.'' H.R. 2405 is the first step in developing this new contract. We elevate science's profile in the Federal Government by considering Federal civil science activities as whole, as this bill does, rather than as a collection of separate and unconnected programs. Similarly, H.R. 2405 will help us better integrate science into the very fabric of society by encouraging greater public-private partnerships to achieve our scientific goals. For example, title II of the bill, which authorizes funding for NASA, includes funding and authority for unique government-industry cooperation to develop new space launch vehicles that place industry in the leading role. Similarly, title II begins privatizing certain functions of NASA that the private sector is providing, such as airborne microgravity experiments. By taking these steps, we can better leverage Federal and private dollars in pursuit of the national interest, saving taxpayer resources in the short and long term. By passing H.R. 2405, Congress will send the message that we are serious about balancing the budget and that we are going to do so intelligently by focusing on those programs with the greatest need for Federal dollars and the greatest benefit to the Nation. H.R. 2405 is an important step in the process of ensuring the long-term health of the scientific enterprise by cutting out fat and waste while improving our commitment to basic research. Please join us in passing this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] for expediting this bill, as well as to also pay tribute to the distinguished service that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] has given to the people of the United States, as well as to the veterans of this country. Mr. Speaker, when the Veterans' Administration's Department of Medicine and Surgery was created in 1946, there was a drastic need for health care professionals to provide care for our Nation's wounded World War II veterans. At that time, it was necessary to place restrictions on the outside employment for certain Veterans' Administration health care personnel in order to provide adequate care for our country's wounded heroes. However, outside employment no longer interferes with current Veterans' Administration health care staffing needs, and the moonlighting restrictions are no longer necessary to maintain adequate patient care. In addition, these restrictions have caused unnecessary burdens on the Veterans' Administration's ability to hire and retain quality health care professionals. I first became aware of the need for this legislation at one of my many townhall meetings when Mrs. Mary Flaherty, a registered nurse at the Zablocki Veterans' Administration Health Center in Milwaukee, pointed out the adverse economic impact this restriction had on her and the 311 other full-time registered nurses at the Zablocki Center. H.R. 1384 amends title 38 of the United States Code to exempt professional nurses, physicians assistants, and expanded duty dental auxiliaries employed by the Veterans' Administration from restrictions on outside employment. H.R. 1384 removes current restrictions that limit the earning ability of thousands of Veterans' Administration employees by allowing them to seek supplemental employment without giving up their full-time employment with the Veterans' Administration. Mr. Speaker, it is refreshing when Congress acts swiftly to negate outdated and burdensome laws and regulations that affect hard-working taxpayers' ability to provide for their families. Mr. Speaker, I hope this bill is speedily enacted into law.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1601, the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995. Many have risen to explain the benefits of the space station today in this Chamber and on numerous occasions in the past. I will not repeat those reasons here. Instead, I will explain why H.R. 1601 is an important part of enabling us to realize those benefits. The gentleman from Pennsylvania and I cosponsored this bill because it places NASA and the space station on the path of fiscal responsibility. For years, NASA and the White House have been hard- pressed to settle on a space station design and budget that Congress could support. NASA has finally rectified that problem through a series of positive steps, that make the international step station an excellent foundation on which to build the future of our civilian space program. [[Page H 9561]] First, NASA finalized the design into its current form, which includes participation from Europe, Japan, and Canada. The Russians are full partners in the international space station, giving us access to their advanced space hardware, their space industrial base, and their years of experience of living and working in space. With the Russians and Europeans as partners, NASA has designed a space station that will cost the American taxpayers less than its predecessors and have nearly double the capacity. Second, NASA streamlined management of the space station program by placing the program under a single prime contractor. This reduced bureaucratic and contractor overhead and improved management, enabling NASA to build the station under a budget cap of $2.1 billion a year, about 15 percent of its annual debt. Third, NASA has begun exploring means of commercializing and privatizing space station operations to lower operational costs. NASA has gone so far as to begin discussions with companies that design business parks to see which concepts they can apply to the station's future in space. H.R. 1601 encourages this process by making station commercialization a provision of law. As a result of these actions, the station is on time and on budget. We have built over 48,000 pounds of hardware for delivery to orbit and will launch the first station element in 1997. Taken in its entirety, H.R. 1601 authorizes $13.1 billion to complete and operate the space station through final assembly in fiscal year 2002. H.R. 1601 also includes an annual cap of $2.1 billion for the space station. The multiyear authorization gives NASA the financial and programmatic stability it needs to complete the station on time and on budget, while the annual cap forces NASA to maintain its fiscal discipline. H.R. 1601 and the space station are NASA's highest priority and fall well within our own plans to balance the Federal budget within the next 7 years. The space station is about our future. It is about progress, and improving the technological seed corn of future economic growth. We need it. H.R. 1601 is about fiscal responsibility; about stepping up to our obligation as legislators to enable bureaucracies to do those things we ask them to do with greater efficiency and effectiveness. The American people have made it clear that they support our future in space. And we made it clear that we heard them when this Congress rejected 2 attempts to cancel the space station by huge margins of 173 and 153 votes. Now it is the time to provide the stability needed to achieve the efficiencies and savings that Americans demand from their Government by passing H.R. 1601.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Rules Committee for its decision allowing a 1-hour open rule to debate H.R. 1601, the multiyear authorization of the international space station. In giving preference to amendments preprinted in the Congressional Record, the committee has made our efforts family-friendly, which we can all appreciate. Finally, the Rules Committee's decisions give us the change for a fair and open discussion of the space station, its benefits, and the need for a multiyear authorization. The international space station is about America's future. With an orbiting space station, the United States will have long term access to the unique environment of space, which will enable us to conduct cutting-edge research in the life and microgravity sciences that we cannot do on earth. The space shuttle has been an excellent platform from which to conduct research into medicines, materials, and physical processes, but our research capabilities are now bumping against the shuttle's most significant limitation as a research platform: time. The shuttle cannot stay in orbit for more than a few days and flight opportunities occur only a few times every year. So, we cannot conduct the kinds of long-term experiments necessary to push the state of our knowledge to the next level. By operating as a continually manned- platform, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the space station will solve that problem. With a functioning space station, we can look forward to breakthroughs in crystal formation, medical research, biological behavior, materials science, and a host of other disciplines that will improve our standard of living. That's why members of The Seniors Coalition wrote me to express their support for the space station and the benefits it will bring to the study of aging. That's why the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America supports the space station and the potential research benefits it will bring to children afflicted by MS. That's why the American Medical Women's Association is in favor of the space station and all the opportunities it creates to improve women's health. The space station program we are considering now is not the same one that NASA began in 1984. This space station is managed under a streamlined singled-prime contractor scheme that reduces bureaucracy and saves money. This space station is capped at $2.1 billion per year, less than 15 percent of NASA's annual budget. The station will cost $13.2 billion to complete in 2002, by which time it will have already begun producing the research results that will benefit every American. The space station program we are dealing with today is on budget and on schedule for orbital assembly to begin in 1997. American companies and our foreign partners have already built over 48,000 pounds of hardware. This space station program is a success. H.R. 1601, the multiyear space station authorization, will provide the funding stability that ensure the space station remains on budget and on schedule. In past years, constant redesigns and rescopings denied the station that stability and caused delays and cost increases. This Congress must not allow that to happen again. We fulfill our role by providing NASA the resources it needs to do the job right, and then by demanding the accountability and responsible management that the space station program is currently demonstrating. We begin doing our part by passing H.R. 1601.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 89) waiving provisions of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requiring adjournment of Congress by July 31, and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Roemer- Zimmer amendment to cancel the space station. This has become an annual exercise for these gentlemen. While I admire them for their tenacity, I do not admire them for their judgment. The space station is NASA's No. 1 priority to bring us into the next millennium. It is now on time and on budget. Mr. Chairman, I will not deny that NASA has had serious problems with the space station in the past. Not that long ago, I was prepared to vote against the station as well, not because I thought it was a bad idea but because NASA did not have a plan to deal with possible Russian withdrawal from the program. I am pleased to say that the agency has made substantial progress in addressing my concerns. The station program NASA has under way today bears little resemblance to the program that the gentleman who would kill it describe. NASA has moved to a single prime contractor and has placed the station on a responsible management plan. It will live within an annual $2.1 billion cap and not exceed total costs of $13.1 billion for operation and assembly through completion, a far cry from the figures bandied about by the folks on the other side. Mr. Chairman, this is less than 15 percent of the NASA budget and less than one-seventh of 1 percent of the total Federal budget. This is not the two-headed budget monster that opponents make it out to be. I have made a career of cutting the Federal budget. The reason I came to Washington was to get the Government's hands off of the taxpayer's wallet. In the last Congress, no Member had a better voting record for spending reductions and according to the National Taxpayers Union only eight Members have voted for more spending cuts so far in this Congress. The space station is a question about the future. It will be the focus of human space flight for the next two decades that enable us to conduct cutting-edge research in microgravity science. Numerous organizations support it because of the potential for the development of breakthroughs in medicine. Everyone here knows that NASA's budget is $700 million smaller in fiscal year 1996 and it is going to decline in the coming years. We should also acknowledge that we can accommodate these cuts, keep the space station and bring the benefits to the taxpayer of the cutting- edge research possible only in space. The Committee on the Budget recognized the merits of this program when it included the station in developing the plan to balance the Federal budget in 7 years. In short, a vote for the space station is a vote for tomorrow. It is both technologically and scientifically advanced and fiscally responsible. I urge defeat of the Roemer-Zimmer amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in opposition to the misguided priorities represented in it. Mr. Chairman, the money that we spend on NASA can never be justified in the abstract. But where it can be justified is in the spinoffs that our investment in the future, which is represented in the NASA budget, brings. Throughout the civilian space program since 1957, we have seen revolutions in telecommunications, revolutions in materials development, revolutions in medical techniques, revolutions in the development of new types of medications that do a better job in treating what ails human beings with fewer side effects. Mr. Chairman, those types of spinoffs will end if NASA collapses. And make no bones about it, the space station is the linchpin of NASA's efforts. We take away the space station, we take away a lot of the scientific research that will end up providing a huge improvement in the standard of living for every human being on this earth, and not just in the United States, but elsewhere as well. So let us not eat our seed corn. Let us not turn our back on research. Let us continue to support the space station by voting down the Obey amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment calls into question the American commitment to space. We should not be questioning that. If it is adopted, it will [[Page H 7852]] mean that the Congress will have, in effect, thrown away the $17 billion already spent on the development of the space station, and the 50,000 pounds of material that have been already produced that will go up into orbit. It will welch on our international partners: the Russians, the European space agency, the Germans, the French, the Canadians, the Japanese, and will tell those international partners that America is an unreliable partner in any big-ticket expensive scientific investment and tell them that the $6 billion that they have spent will be thrown away, just as the $17 billion that we have spent. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that that is the example that we should be setting in the Congress of the United States. The $400 million that is transferred into HUD does not buy very much housing, but it is done at the expense of wrecking a major program that this Congress has committed itself to for over 10 years. The space station should be kept in the budget. This amendment should be defeated. We should not wreck America's future in the development of the things that are spun off from what NASA has done.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on July 17, 1995, Representative Walker and I introduced the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 in order to continue the process of prioritizing NASA's missions and programs for the remainder of this century. The multiyear space station authorization bill, which the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics and the full Science Committee endorsed by wide margins with strong bipartisan support, placed the space station at the top of NASA's list of priorities and provided the programmatic stability NASA needs to reduce costs. The bill builds on this strategy to focus NASA on the goal of becoming the leading R&D agency it once was. By moving NASA away from operating large, expensive programs such as the space shuttle and Mission to Planet Earth, this authorization act will enable NASA to focus on those activities which the agency does best, namely space science and technological research. At the same time, the bill preserves U.S. national interests in the space shuttle and Mission to Planet Earth by laying the foundation to privatize the space shuttle and bring the emerging commercial remote sensing industry into Mission to Planet Earth. By taking these steps, we bring new revenue streams and capital assets from the private sector into Government space missions. More importantly, we introduce market efficiencies into the large operating systems that NASA created but was never intended to run. In this manner, Congress enables NASA to leverage its resources against those space activities that the private sector cannot perform. As needed as these measures are, this bill is also important for what it does not do. The Fiscal Year 1996 NASA Authorization Act does not force the precipitous closing of any NASA field centers. While we have encouraged NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin to more aggressively to streamline and consolidate the NASA bureaucracy, Congress must ensure that this process proceeds logically and with long-term programmatic goals in mind. NASA's ongoing zero-based review is the first attempt to restructure the agency without affecting its programs. While this is a commendable effort, congressional action to prioritize NASA programs will also have an impact on the agency's structure. The authorization bill Chairman Walker and I introduced begins this process by focusing first on NASA's priority programs and then calling for an assessment of Government assets that match those priorities. This assessment will [[Page E 1453]] enable the NASA Administrator to identify those elements of NASA that are crucial to its future and then empower the President to work with Congress on those bureaucratic adjustments deemed necessary to bring the agency into line with national priorities. Our bill complements the intention of the VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to have the NASA Administrator report his intentions for bureaucratic streamlining to Congress prior to any action, but does not empower the Administrator to close any NASA field centers without first studying the implications of and seeking congressional approval for such an action. In the end, this bill will help us build a new NASA that once again can lead the United States into a sound economic and technological future.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Joint Resolution 79. Mr. Speaker, what is proposed here today is not unprecedented. We are proposing to overturn a Supreme Court decision which is wrong, just as wrong as the Dredd Scott decision which provoked the 13th, 14h and 15th amendments to be proposed by Congress, just as wrong as the Supreme Court's decision invalidating the income tax which resulted in a constitutional amendment, and just as wrong as the Supreme Court's decision in the first decade under our Constitution on court jurisdiction that provoked the 11th amendment to be ratified by the States after being proposed by the Congress. So the question before us here today is whether or not you agree with the 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court that flag burning is protected free speech. If you think it is protected free speech, go ahead and vote no on this constitutional amendment. If you object to the Supreme Court's decision, vote aye, and you are not setting a new precedent, because that has been done at least five times in the history of this country, when Congress and the States have flat out said those judges over there are wrong. They are wrong this time, and we ought to pass this amendment and send it to the States for ratification.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. Back in 1983, I would bring to the attention of my Democratic colleagues, the equal rights amendment was brought up on the floor with the support of most of them, under suspension of the rules. There were no amendments allowed, there was no motion to recommit, and because I was the manager on the Republican side, in fairness, I yielded half of my time to Republican supporters of the ERA, but the Democrats did not yield any of their time to Democratic opponents of the ERA, so the split in the 40 minutes that we had to debate that important constitutional amendment was split 3 to 1 for the supporters, because of the unfairness of the folks on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, this rule is fair. It will allow for an extensive debate. I think that, given what the other side did with another important constitutional amendment, maybe they ought to take up a collection to build a statue to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], because of the fair rules that he puts together.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 1995, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 15 preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets real property Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $635,700) Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Encumbered)--$635,700.00. Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered)--$94,900.00. Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $461,000--$261,931.81. Total real property--$975,211.36. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Numberof Common and preferred stock shares Dollarpershare Value ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firstar Corp................. 676 29.50 $19,942.00 American Telephone & Telegraph................... 521.475 51.75 26,986.33 Ameritech.................... 358.295 41.25 14,779.67 Bell Atlantic Corp........... 236.642 52.88 12,512.45 Bell South Corp.............. 268.1234 59.50 15,953.34 NYNEX, Inc................... 253.226 39.50 10,002.43 Pacific Telesis, Inc......... 148 30.25 4,477.00 Southwest Bell, Inc.......... 358.345 42.00 15,050.49 U.S. West, Inc............... 249.205 40.13 9,999.35 Tenneco Corp................. 769.56 47.13 36,265.52 Newell Corp.................. 1,676 25.50 42,738.00 General Mills, Inc........... 1,440 59.63 85,860.00 Kellogg Corp................. 1,600 58.38 93,400.00 Dunn & Bradstreet, Inc....... 2,500 52.63 131,562.50 Halliburton Company.......... 1,000 36.63 36,625.00 Kimberly-Clark Corp.......... 29,084 52.00 1,512,368.00 Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing............... 1,000 58.13 58,125.00 Exxon Corp................... 2,432 66.63 162,032.00 Amoco Corp................... 1,362 63.63 86,657.25 Eastman Kodak................ 1,080 53.25 57,510.00 General Electric Co.......... 2,600 54.00 140,400.00 General Motors Corp.......... 304 44.00 13,376.00 Merck & Co., Inc............. 15,639 42.63 666,612.38 Warner Lambert Co............ 1,134 78.25 88,735.50 Sears Roebuck & Co........... 200 53.38 10,675.00 Ogden Corp................... 910 20.13 18,313.75 Sandusky Voting Trust........ 26 90.00 2,340.00 Monsanto Corporation......... 1,672 80.25 134,178.00 E.I. DuPont de Nemours Corp.. 600 60.50 36,300.00 Wisconsin Energy Corp........ 1,022 27.13 27,721.75 Abbott Laboratories, Inc..... 6,100 35.75 218,075.00 Bank One Corp................ 2,843 28.50 81,025.50 Unisys, Inc. Preferred....... 100 39.00 3,900.00 Benton County Mining Company. 333 .............. .............. Houston Industries........... 150 38.13 5,718.75 Pacific Gas & Electric....... 175 24.88 4,353.13 Eastman Chemical Co.......... 270 55.63 15,018.75 Dean Whitter Discover........ 78 40.75 3,178.50 Airtouch Common.............. 148 27.25 4,033.00

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this joint resolution, and I urge the membership to defeat each of the substitutes that will come before us later on today. Term limits, in my opinion, are a bad idea. They are anti-democratic, and I think that they will upset the balance of power and checks and balances that the Framers of our Constitution so delicately devised and which have served the United States of America so well for over 200 years. The Constitution of the United States should not tell the voters who they cannot vote for. That is a Government law that limits the choice of the voters and tells the voters that if someone has served for 6 or 8 or 12 years, they are no longer qualified to serve in the Congress of the United States, no matter how distinguished their service has been, no matter how much they represented the viewpoints of the majority of their constituents, and no matter how honest and forthright they are. I think that is wrong. Second, term limits will end up strengthening the hand of the executive and judicial branches at the expense of Congress. Many of the more ardent supporters of term limits say that they support limiting terms because they wish to weaken the legislative branch of Government, the Congress of the United States. But if one stops and thinks about that argument, it weakens the only branch that is completely elected by the people of this country. Every Senator and Representative is an elected official. But in the Executive and Judicial Branches, only the President is elected, and those are the two branches of Government that will become stronger proportionately as Congress is weakened by term limits. In fact, term limits will actually make Representatives and Senators more distant from their constituents, because they will no longer have the incentive to go back home and face their people and find out what their people are thinking in order to win reelection. The third problem with term limits is that it will effectively place control of the House of Representatives in the hands of the four largest State delegations. That means that those who represent the other 46 States, no matter how talented they are, are not going to be able to achieve the respect, to get on good committees, and to achieve the knowledge that goes with being on the strong and powerful committees, and will be relegated to serving on the committees that are of much lower priority. I just look at my own State, where Les Aspin and David Obey, Henry Reuss and Clement Zablocki on the Democratic side, and Melvin Laird and John Byrnes and William Steiger on the Republican side have served with distinction. Buy they were never able to hit their prime until they had been here for 10 or 12 years, because they had not gotten the respect and the chits from their other colleagues in order to get into positions of influence. Finally, term limits and changing the Constitution will not change human nature. Human beings are those who are elected by the people to represent them in the Congress of the United States. The reward for doing a good job in this business is reelection, and that is an incentive that drives us to represent our people and to go back I am afraid that with term limits we would become much like Mexico, which is a government that has a term limit of one term on all of their elected officials. If you do not have to go back home, then you start looking for the next job right away. Every contact with the lobbyists then becomes a contact with a potential future employer. As it stands now, no Senator or Representative starts looking for the next job until they decide to retire or the voters decide that question for them. With term limits, you are going to have people looking forward to the next job right from the very beginning. That is going to end up corrupting the system of government that we have to an even greater extent than it is now. Please vote against term limits, uphold the Constitution of the United States, and uphold the checks and balances which have served our country so well.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros had a reason to lie to the FBI when he told them that he never gave his former mistress more than $10,000 a year unless he filed gift tax returns reporting higher payments. Federal tax law gives individuals a $10,000 annual exemption from gift taxes to a single donee, or $20,000 if the donor's spouse joins in the gift. Secretary Cisneros ought to make public copies of all gift tax returns for years he gave his former mistress more than $10,000. If he fails to do so, the Attorney General should broaden her request for an independent counsel to look into possible tax law violations by Cisneros.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am shocked at listening to the argument from the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett]. That was the same argument that was used 30 years ago in this Chamber by those who were opposed to the civil rights legislation that revolutionized our society. for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one which opened up public accommodations, lunch counters, mom and pop cafes, local city buses to people of all races without discrimination. And that is one of the things that this Congress can take pride in doing. What we are proposing to do here is to use the commerce clause for something that is just as much interstate commerce as the civil rights legislation. And that is to try to have a uniform standard throughout the country on punitive damages so that there will not be forum shopping in a State that has a lower standard on what has to be proven in order to get punitive damages. There are a number of States that have adopted the clear and convincing standard, including California, and Colorado has adopted the beyond a reasonable doubt standard for punitive damages. What will happen in the States that have adopted a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence is that those manufacturers will end up paying much higher product liability insurance premiums even though the people in that State will not be able to enjoy what they are paying for. Consequently, you are going to be seeing people in California, which has passed a clear and convincing evidence standard, through their higher consumer prices, benefiting the people in the other States that have not. This issue should be federalized, and the amendment should be defeated.