John Spratt

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close in the same manner that I started. This resolution before us today accomplishes very little. We will have a vote in just a little while. The House will declare itself, probably in favor of asking the President to send up another budget, and little will be noted after that. I understand the other body has no intention to follow up and, in any event, this is designated House Resolution 89. It is not binding on anybody, barely binding on us. What we need to do is take the resolution, the earnestness that we have seen here on the floor today, and put it to work getting a budget resolution produced by the Committee on the Budget and on the floor of this House according to regular order, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Speaker, I will offer at the close of debate a motion to recommit which will go just to that objective, getting on with the business at hand, getting the budget resolution passed in the House, sending it to the Senate so that we can complete our work on time this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink]. (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to House Resolution 89. This resolution demands that the President send us a second budget that meets the specifications of the Republican leadership. All it does is demand. It huffs and it puffs, but in the end it accomplishes nothing, because it is a one-House resolution. Look at its title, House Resolution 89. It is not binding on the President; it is not even binding on the other body. That is why I said earlier in the debate that this resolution is a waste of time. It has been said that the President is obliged to send us a budget that balances, balances according to CBO scoring. If you will simply turn to the Congressional Budget Act and look at section 300, you will see that it says the timetable with respect to the congressional budget process for any fiscal year is as follows: First Monday in February, President submits his budget. That is what it says: President submits his budget. The President missed that by just a few days this year because he first wanted to make his State of the Union before he submitted his budget, but he has sent us a budget scored by his budget shop, the Office of Management and Budget, as being in balance; not just being in balance, being in surplus by the year 2002 to the tune of $17 billion. Let me back up a few years and just observe why it is that we are here today earnestly talking about balancing the budget by the year 2002. We are here today credibly talking about that goal which we commonly share because 4 years ago when President Clinton came to office, he took this challenge head on. I am sure there were other things he would have preferred to do first. The first thing he found on his desk when he arrived there was the Economic Report of the President left behind a week before by President George Bush, and in it Michael Boskin, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors for President Bush, on page 69 predicted the deficit for fiscal year 1993 would be $332 billion. Now, Bill Clinton has been blamed for a lot of things, but he was in Little Rock when that bill was run up. He cannot be blamed for that. On February 17, he laid on the doorstep of Congress a plan to get rid of that deficit, or at least cut it in half, over a period of 4 years. It did not pass the House by any substantial margin, two votes. It went right to the wire. It passed the other body by one vote. There were predictions it would cut the economy off at the knees. But here we are, 4 years later, and here is what happened. In 1993, when we closed the books on fiscal 1993, the deficit was not $332 billion, it was $255 billion. One year later, the first full year under that Deficit Reduction Act of 1993, the deficit was $203 billion. When we closed the books on 1995, the deficit was $164 billion. And last September 30, 1996, the deficit was down to $107.3 billion, down 65 percent in less than 4 years, 1.4 percent of GDP. That makes it the lowest deficit as a percent of GDP since 1974, the lowest deficit in nominal dollars since Ronald Reagan's second year in office. That is what has been accomplished on his watch. Say what you will about his budget, the reason we are here and debating a plan to get the budget in balance within 5 years is that those 4 years were put to good purpose under a plan that he proposed. Now, he set up a budget based upon a forecast of the economy done by his budget shop. Every President does that. That is what OMB is there for. According to their forecast, this budget will balance by the year 2002. Now, there are things that I do not accept about that, and I have traditionally been a supporter myself of using CBO estimates, but there are some things in this forecast where I think OMB has the better half of the argument. For example, OMB assumes that corporate income shares as a percentage of our GDP will not decline. They have increased substantially over the last few years because corporations are improving their balance sheets and improving their P&L's. That makes for a third of the difference between the two forecasts. These are things that can be argued between reasonable people, reasonable economists, and there is no use to have a showdown on the budget today. We all know what the process calls for. We know what regular order is. We wrote the act. The Congressional Budget Act, section 301(a), says the Congress shall ``complete action on the budget resolution on or before April 15th.'' The Congress shall complete action. The President started the ball rolling. Now it is our time to complete the action. Since my friends on the other side of the aisle, the Republicans, have been in the majority here in the House, the conference agreement on the budget resolution has not cleared the House on April 15 in any of those years; not until June, as a matter of fact, 2 months after the deadline. In fact, the House Committee on the Budget in the last 2 years has not even marked up the budget resolution until a month after the April 15 deadline. This kind of slippage, this kind of inattention to the Budget Act and the deadlines we have laid down for ourselves, led to 14 continuing resolutions and 2 Government shutdowns in the last Congress. I do not want to see that happen again. That is why I think this diversionary tactic, to distract us from what we need to be doing, off in pursuit of this red herring, is a total waste of time. Let me say something else. It is now 10 minutes after 2. At 2:30 the House Committee on the Budget will have one of the most important hearings we will hold on the subject of how to get our hands around this problem and bring it to resolution. We will have before us Dr. Catherine Abraham, who is the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and her responsibility is something called the CPI, the Consumer Price Index. That is a critical component to resolving this problem. And where is the Committee on the Budget? We are over here debating a resolution that is totally ineffectual. Instead of leaning into the problem, earnestly trying to find a solution to the problem, attending the hearing and asking intelligent questions and hearing what she has to tell us, we are over here on the floor. This is the first time in 14 years in the House that I have seen a major piece of legislation or a piece of legislation come to the floor at the time the committee of jurisdiction is holding a hearing. That is why this is a total waste of time. But we are debating it. The fact of the matter is, what we are trying to do is distract attention from the fact that the majority would prefer not to have to put up its own resolution. The reason they do not want to do this is the same reason that they are able to use and criticize the President's budget. The President's budget as scored by CBO does not produce a surplus in the year 2002. According to CBO, per its economic forecast, it generates a deficit of $69 billion. But if you use that same economic forecast and apply it to a reconstruction of what I would guess to be the Republican resolution, which would incorporate tax cuts up to $190 billion, then the deficit is twice the size of the President's recommendation; or there will have to be deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and education and other things that the American people broadly support, that they would not rather embrace themselves. So they want to be allowed to have the President take the hits on this. If we are going to get this done, the President has sent a budget up here, we need to have a budget resolution with the other side. That will frame the debate and we can then sit down and negotiate, and we will have to make concessions on both sides. The President's budget is not going to be fully carried out, I know that, nor is your budget going to be fully realized, and I think you know that. The sooner we get around to that reality and start talking, the better. The way to get there is for you to complete the process and frame the negotiation by putting your resolution on the table, bringing it to the House floor, getting it passed and getting a concurrent budget resolution adopted by April 15 or shortly thereafter. For all of these reasons, I suggest that the House vote down this resolution, send the Committee on the Budget back to its work, and not after this pursuit of a red herring that leads us nowhere and accomplishes nothing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, that is beyond our control. That happened in the other body. We got our work done on time. If they had been moving in parallel process, we probably would have met that date. The reason that we are doing what we are doing today is that we are about some diversion, distraction. We are trying to keep the American people from understanding that Congress is not doing its job, the majority is not doing its job. We are trying to shift attention from the fact that we do not have a budget resolution before us, have not scheduled one to be brought to the floor, by shifting the blame to the President of the United States when he has done what the law calls for him to do. He has sent us a budget scored by his budget shop as being in balance. Everybody in this House knows what regular order calls for at this point. It calls for a House budget resolution, and that is what I call for today. Let us have a House budget resolution. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said, and I agree with him, we need to sit down and negotiate. There are lots of things in the President's budget that are not going to happen, I know that, and a lot of things in the various budget proposals are not going to happen either. But the way to frame those negotiations, since the President has put his budget on the table, is for my colleagues to put their budget on the table. We beg the question of the debate today, why have my colleagues not done that? Mr. Speaker, let me just back up and say where we stand with the President's budget. As my colleagues all know, the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO, took the President's budget and scored it as producing a deficit in the year we are shooting for, the terminal year of 2002, of $69 billion, not a surplus of 17. CBO took the President's budget and said, per our economic forecasts and our technical analysis, this budget will not be in surplus in the year 2002 by $17 billion, it will be in deficit by $69 billion. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons that they found this budget in deficit is that the President has requested $98 billion in tax cuts. He has offset those tax cuts by $76 billion in tax renewals and extenders and the repeal of certain tax expenditures, so there is a net revenue loss in the President's budget of $22 billion. In addition, the President has sent up over a 5-year period of time new entitlement initiatives, spending increases, that come over 5 years to about $68 billion, according to the estimates of his budget shop, OMB. By the scoring placed upon this budget by the Congressional Budget Office, this budget can accommodate these tax cuts and these spending increases without producing a deficit; in this case the deficit is $69 billion. But I say to my colleagues, if the present budget cannot accommodate a $90 billion package of tax cuts and entitlement spending increases, then neither can a budget scored by CBO accommodate $190 billion in tax cuts, which is what the Republicans, my friends on the other side of the aisle, have been talking about. That is the range of magnitude that they have been proposing. That is why we are here today. Mr. Speaker, they are unable to put before the House a budget resolution which can accommodate the tax cuts they are proposing without also necessitating deeper cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and education than they want to be seen openly proposing because the American people do not support it. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] says that Congress has never met the date; the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] said the same thing. As I mentioned, 6 out of 8 years the House Committee on the Budget had its resolution on the floor by April 15. But the key point is this: Why chastise Congress for not meeting the date that we have imposed upon ourselves with a resolution that calls upon the President to do something else? If we want to chastise ourselves for being tardy in the past, why not have a resolution today that sort of calls for hunkering down, for putting our hand to the wheel, for getting ahead with the problem, leaning into it. We have a hearing today at 2:30 before the Committee on the Budget that deals with one of the most critical components in the solution to this whole problem, the so-called CPI, Consumer Price Index. Before us will be the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics testifying about ways that the CPI can work out some of the biases that lead to overstatement of inflation in our economy. It is a critically important hearing. Many of us on the Committee on the Budget, because we have to be on the floor to debate this resolution which amounts to nothing, will not be able to attend. That is not the critical path. That is not what we need to be doing if we are going to meet the self-imposed deadlines that we put in the Budget Act ourselves. So the best way to proceed with the resolution of the budget, proceed toward a balanced budget is to vote against the previous question here, vote against the rule, and vote for putting the budget process back on the critical path and not chasing after red herrings like this resolution.

Mr. SPRATT. We did not have the current budget resolution, but we had the House budget resolution before April 15. We at least got our work done here in the House.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in the House, the House Committee on the Budget in 6 out of 8 years that it was under House Democratic control, 6 of those 8 years, we reported and considered and passed a budget resolution in 6 out of those 8 years.

Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 89 is a waste of time. To understand what I mean one has to look no further than its title: House Resolution 89, a one-House resolution, totally ineffectual to accomplish the purpose it proclaims, which is to make the President send up the second budget because it could not possibly affect the President, does not even bind the other body. So we are doing today something we are spending 3-hours plus on what amounts to next to nothing. Now if we are going to take up a matter like this because a majority feels that there is some purpose served by having a resolution like this debated in the House, then why not have a full and open debate? This is not a delicate, sensitive matter that cannot be entrusted to amendment on the House floor. Why can we not have full and open debate and an open rule? Instead, we have got this rule before us, this resolution, which takes this debate and makes it even more pointless, more useless, by imposing upon it a closed rule and precluding virtually any amendments to the language that is before us in the Resolution No. 89. Now we all know that the Budget Act calls for the President to submit his budget in early February. The President did that. He sent us a budget which complies fully with the Budget Act, scored by his budget shop, the Office of Management and Budget, not only to be balanced in the year 2002, but to be in surplus in the year 2002 by $17 billion. Mr. Speaker, we all know as well that section 301(a) then calls for the Congress, this House, to produce a concurrent budget resolution by April 15. That is a tighttime frame, but it is a rule that we imposed upon ourselves; we wrote that law. We have missed that date for the last 2 years and we are going to miss it again this year. As I stand here today, ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, I am aware of no date in the middle of March that has been set for the markup of a House budget resolution. I am aware of no date that has been set for floor consideration of a budget resolution. In fact, I am aware of no budget resolution.

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the Chair that I will be yielding my time to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott] before I go to a committee hearing.

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

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, before yielding to the gentleman from North Dakota, to simply note for the record that in 1993 the House Committee on the Budget produced a budget resolution on March 10; in 1994, on March 3. Unfortunately, the last 2 years we have been May 10 and May 9, and under the current schedule, debating things like this, that seems to be where we are headed this year. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of legislation I am filing relating to financial responsibility at hazardous waste facilities. I realize that we are close to the end of the 104th Congress, but I felt it was important to introduce this legislation now so we can get a head start on debating an issue vital to millions of Americans. That issue is: Will we protect Americans living near hazardous waste facilities from being caught holding the bag when a costly release of hazardous waste occurs? The bill is titled the ``Hazardous Waste Facilities Financial Responsibility Act,'' and it addresses three problems associated with existing financial standards for hazardous waste facilities. Current law provides for post-closure care for only a fraction of the period when the hazardous waste poses a threat to human health and the environment. Current law only requires hazardous waste facility operators to demonstrate the ability to pay for clean-ups after they occur, not before. And current law allows companies to provide corporate guarantees to cover clean-up costs which are easily circumvented by the maze-like corporate structures prevalent in the industry. By correcting these three problems, the Hazardous Waste Facilities Financial Responsibility Act provides the public with complete assurance that the costs of care and clean-up at hazardous waste facilities will be borne by the owners and operators of those facilities. First, the bill sets up a procedure for post-closure care of hazardous waste facilities that will last as long as necessary to protect human health and the environment. Under current law, post- closure care lasts for 30 years, at which time the Administrator has the option to extend it for another 30 years. My bill requires the Administrator to continue the post-closure period until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such care is no longer needed. The bill requires the Administrator to hold hearings, so the public will have the chance to be heard before post-closure is terminated. Second, the bill ensures that all costs associated with post-closure care of the facility are covered including responsibility for credible accidents and known corrective action, liability assurances, and changes in costs resulting from changes in the facility or its permit. This provision corrects a serious flaw in current law, which completely excludes these necessary adjustments from the amount which operators are required to show they can pay. In essence, operators aren't required to show their ability for the cost of clean-up until after a costly accident has occurred. At that point, it is too late. The full range of potential costs or these facilities must be provided for up front. Third, the bill eliminates the practice of using a financial test or corporate guarantee to assure payment of closure and post-closure costs. Many operators of hazardous waste facilities are structured with a myriad of layers between parent corporation and operating subsidiary. The availability of the corporate guarantee makes it too easy, and too tempting, for skilled lawyers to devise corporate structures in which both the operating subsidiary and the nominal parent corporation are thrown into bankruptcy by unforeseen post-closure costs. Meanwhile, assets elsewhere in the corporate structure are protected. A perfect example is a hazardous waste dump owned by Laidlaw/GSX located just outside my district in Pinewood, SC. In 1989, the accounting firm KPMG Peat Marwick did a study of this facility which revealed no less than five corporate layers between the company operating the landfill, and the deep-pocket corporate parent. Should a major accident at this facility occur, what assurance do taxpayers have that they won't be caught holding the bag? The Hazardous Waste Facilities Financial Responsibility Act will give them this assurance. Furthermore, prudent business practice dictates that a company should avoid having large potential liabilities uncovered by any insurance or financial instrument. We should demand no less protection for citizens and taxpayers.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, since my arrival in Congress, I have filed duty suspensions for a number of companies in my district and I am pleased to file one today at the request of EMS-American Grilon of Sumter, SC. This bill would grant a 2-year duty suspension for two chemicals, caprolactam blocked methylene, also known as Grilbond IL-6, and beta hydroxyalkylamide, also known as Primid XL-552. Grilbond IL-6 is used in aqueous adhesive systems for pretreatment of reinforcing polyester yarns or fabrics. Primid XL-552 is utilized to cure carboxyl functional polyester and acrylic resins. It has been employed in the architectural, general metal-industrial and automotive market sectors. EMS-American Grilon imports Grilbond IL-6 and Primid XL-552 from Switzerland and passage of the bill will save the company approximately $100,000 in annual duties. EMS employs almost 100 workers in my district and passage of this bill will protect those jobs by saving the company a significant cost and thereby ensuring the company's continued success. EMS-American Grilon believes that neither Grilbond IL-6 nor Primid XL-552 are produced in the United States which means that suspending the duties will not jeopardize any U.S. jobs. The company also believes that the cost of the duty suspensions will be small. While it is too late for Congress to pass the bill this year, I am filing the measure now to initiate a public notice and comment period. Federal agencies and the public will have an opportunity to examine the duty suspensions and submit comments. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office will complete a cost estimate of the legislation. By the time Congress reconvenes next year, we will know the cost and we will know whether there is any American company which could be injured by the bill's enactment. That information will help us decide whether to move forward with the bill. I am pleased to help an important employer in my district and I look forward to the review this bill will initiate.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the EPA's proposed cluster rule for the American pulp and paper industry. This rule is intended to simplify and coordinate air and water quality standard setting. EPA's stated goal is to develop a long-term approach to environmental improvement consistent with reasonable capital expenditures. Its most recent proposal has two options that are to be given equal weight as a potential basis for best available technology. Option A calls for the elimination of elemental chlorine in bleaching operations by complete substitution of chlorine dioxide. Option B would supplement complete substitution with oxygen delignification. Technical complexity aside, EPA acknowledges that both approaches will reduce the level of dioxins and furans in wastewater of bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills below the current analytical minimum level. By EPA's own estimate, option B would cost industry a billion dollars more than option A. One facility where the difference between these two options is made abundantly clear is operated by Bowater Inc. in Catawba, SC. The facility employs 1,150 people and produces 2,300 tons of market pulp, coated paper, and newsprint per day. On a tour of this plant last year, I was shown how EPA's option B would require a complete overhaul and rearrangement of the plant's paper production processes including the shifting or replacement of most of their equipment. The cost such a shift would impose is simply unjustifiable given the existence of an equally safe, and cheaper, option. This option, complete substitution, should be adopted in the final rule. For 3 years, EPA and the pulp and paper industry have worked to identify a workable approach to the cluster rule. For the most part, this period of deliberation has been helpful in evaluating costs and benefits of various proposals. However, the uncertainty and the possibility of the huge costs associated with option B have made it difficult for plants like Bowater to plan for the future. It is time to for a resolution, and I call on EPA to finalize the water guidelines along with MACT I and III air standards by the end of the fiscal year with the selection of option A.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues of a bill I'm introducing to toughen Federal laws regulating hazardous waste facilities. Hazardous waste treatment and disposal is regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [RCRA]. Since RCRA was enacted in 1976, we have made dramatic progress in improving oversight of hazardous waste though a flexible regulatory structure in which States have the primary role in enforcing the statute. The bill I introduce today takes three simple, but powerful, further steps to assist State environmental agencies in protecting the environment from hazardous wastes. First, the bill requires the Administrator of the EPA to certify that authorized State RCRA programs include standards for the siting of hazardous waste facilities. Currently, a number of States have no regular standards which guard against the placement of hazardous waste facilities in environmentally sensitive or unstable areas. These States operate on an ad hoc basis when making permitting decisions. But the ad hoc approach has two weaknesses. The public is left with little to no information to judge whether a particular site represents a true danger to public health, and business is left with little certainty as to which sites are likely to garner approval. Standards which preclude siting in places like flood plains, karst terrain, or over important aquifers will clear up this confusion for both parties. And the bill allows each State the flexibility to tailor standards to its own needs and conditions. Second, it authorizes the States to fund their RCRA programs through permit fees, and requires the EPA to determine for each State the cost of fully maintaining its program. In many States, taxpayers are funding RCRA programs from general revenues. Not only is this unfair, since the burden of supporting oversight functions properly belongs to those who treat and dispose of the waste, but it often leads to underfunding of State programs. This bill provides every State the opportunity and the ability to recover these costs through permits fees in accordance with the polluter pays principle. Third, the bill corrects the problem that owners of hazardous waste facilities who are currently violating State or Federal environmental laws are still legally eligible to receive and do receive new operating permits. The third part of my bill, called a good-guy provision, prevents any company which is violating State or Federal environmental laws from obtaining a permit for a hazardous waste facility. This provision provides a strong incentive for operators to obey laws designed to protect public safety and minimize environmental risks. I have a particular interest in ensuring that hazardous waste facilities are safe because my congressional district is adjacent to a hazardous waste landfill in Sumter County, SC--the second largest hazardous waste landfill in the Southeast, and my district formerly hosted a hazardous waste incinerator in Rock Hill, SC, which is now a reprocessing facility. Both have experienced problems, and I believe facilities of this kind would benefit from stricter Federal laws. I know the general public would benefit. Similar situations exist in almost every congressional district in the country. That's why this legislation is appropriate and deserves the support of the entire Congress. I believe this bill represents modest but important change in environmental law. Hazardous waste facilities will continue to pose a danger to our health and the environment, but this legislation can help minimize that risk.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment to restore funding for the Legal Services Corporation. I helped found the Piedmont Legal Services office in my home County of York in South Carolina. I did so because I discovered early in my private practice that pro bono work wasn't enough to meet the needs of the poor. I tried to do a lot of this work myself, but I quickly reached my limit. Legal services are necessary for any but the smallest fraction of poor people to have access to legal help. The cut to legal services proposed in the bill before us is designed to destroy LSC. Last year, Congress cut the program by over 30 percent and this bill calls for another 50 percent cut this year. These cuts clearly are on a path to zero, and no one should kid themselves that today's vote is about anything other than survival of the program. With the meager funding allowed in this bill, only about 10 percent of the eligible poor in South Carolina will be able to obtain legal services. The bar in South Carolina has a successful pro bono program which last year drew over 3,000 volunteers who closed almost 1,000 cases. But the 44 Legal Services attorneys in South Carolina closed over 16,000 cases. And LSC funding of other programs helped close another 2,000 cases for a total of 18,000. Undoubtedly a lot of pro bono work goes unreported, but it is clear that the private bar cannot make up for LSC. If we lose this fight today, and let Legal Services be reduced to irrelevance, the need will not go away. Within several years, I am convinced we will see our mistake, but it will take another generation to re-establish 343 local legal aid programs; to restaff their offices; to rebuild the resource centers; and to do something right for poor people and our legal system that we should never have quit doing in the first place.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the textile enforcement initiative contained in the Treasury-Postal Service appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997. This bill includes $18 million earmarked to the Customs Service for enforcement of textile and apparel trade laws, along with other trade enforcement measures. Customs is to use these funds to pay for 186 full-time-equivalent employees, 100 of whom are dedicated to the enforcement of textile and apparel trade laws. Both the fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills contained the same textile enforcement initiative. This funding keeps faith with a pledge the Clinton administration made to 12 Representatives 2 years ago. We asked the President to commit these resources because textile and apparel trade restrictions seem to be honored more in the breach than in the enforcement. Customs has estimated that as much as $4 billion in textile/apparel imports may enter this country each year illegally, as a result of transshipping. This is a multibillion dollar problem which may mean a loss of up to 100,000 textile and apparel jobs. President Clinton pledged in a letter of November 16, 1993, that Customs will hire 50 additional employees to work exclusively, to the extent practical on non-NAFTA textile enforcement and 50 employees to work on NAFTA-related textile enforcement. The President also pledged that Customs' commercial program, associated with both the enforcement of NAFTA and other textile an apparel enforcement, ``will be held harmless from our governmentwide effort to reduce employment levels.'' The Government Operation's Subcommittee on Commerce, Consumer and Monetary Affairs, which I chaired in the last Congress, held hearings to assess Customs' resources to deal with the textile transshipment problem, and to enforce in particular NAFTA's rule of origin with respect to textile and apparel products. Our hearing record showed that as many as 33.5 million textile articles are transshipped to this country each year. Our record also showed that Customs needs more manpower and resources to combat effectively this sort of fraud and evasion. With inadequate resources to police existing laws, Customs can hardly be expected to take on this additional burden. That is why this initiative is so important. I am, aware of the tight funding constraints in which the Appropriations Committee operated this year. But I believe that the committee has made a wise long-term investment. If past experience is any guide, this small increment of extra money will more than pay for itself in additional tariffs, fees, penalties, and other revenues for the Government. I wish to compliment both Chairman Lightfoot and ranking Democrat Hoyer for their foresight in supporting the initiative. These extra resources will not put an end to the problems of evasion, circumvention, and transshipment in textile and apparel trade, but they will help. I urge support for this initiative. All time for debate has expired. Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The amendment printed in part 1 of House Report 104-671 is adopted. Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in part 2 of the report. Each amendment may be considered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided, and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the Chair may accord priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to not less than 5 minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any postponed question that immediately follows another vote by electronic device without intervening business, provided that the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes. After the reading of the final lines of the bill, a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to amend. The Clerk will read.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, Dhahran is a grim reminder that terrorists today are not only insidious and stealthy but technically sophisticated. It is only a matter of time till they couple their unconventional tactics with unconventional weapons. Terrorists have already released chemical weapons in the Tokyo subways. Biological, and even nuclear weapons, are only a few steps removed, and well within their reach. For that reason, I am pleased to sponsor in the House a bill that Senator Nunn, Senator Lugar, and Senator Domenici offered in the Senate this morning as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. Rep. Bill McCollum, who has a longstanding interest in counter-terrorism, joins me as a cosponsor. In the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act, we set forth a set of policies to respond to a threat that has emerged and grown with the end of the cold war. We can all be relieved that the risk of nuclear attack by Russia has receded. By the end of this year, Ukraine, Byelorussia, and Kazakhstan all should be free of deployed nuclear weapons. But the breakup of the Soviet Union has opened up a storehouse of destructive weapons and components to terrorist groups and nations hostile to the United States. So, ironically, while the risk of nuclear annihilation has become more remote, we find ourselves faced with a growing risk of attacks, albeit limited, by nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. We have spent considerable time in the House debating defenses against intercontinental ballistic missiles, and it is a pertinent debate about a serious threat. But our focus on ICBMs may have deflected our attention from a far more likely threat: a terrorist-type bomb, with a nuclear, biological, or chemical warhead. This technology is easier to develop than ICBMs, and as the chemical attack in the Tokyo subway makes clear, terrorist groups can and will use these weapons. In fact, they offer terrorists plausible deniability--they can use such weapons and leave the United States with no clear-cut enemy to retaliate against. Ballistic missiles, on the other hand, leave a return address written in several thousand degrees fahrenheit. This bill will help shift attention to the everyday threats that proliferation is creating. Moscow has acknowledged that it has 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapons in its stockpile. There are about 80 facilities in the former Soviet Union that store weapons grade nuclear materials, and as the Center for Strategic and International Studies said in a report released this week, these poorly protected storage sites are patrolled by demoralized and underpaid guards. Russian law enforcement officials reported 54 cases of theft of fissile materials in 1993 and 1994, and both German and Czech officials have seized fissile materials originating in the FSU. In Project Sapphire, we airlifted 600 kilograms of highly enriched uranium-enough for a dozen bombs--from a facility in Kazakhstan that was protected by little more than a padlock. We cannot possibly bring all of the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials of the former Soviet Union here to the United States; we must help these nations secure these materials, and by doing so, help protect ourselves. It is not just the FSU, of course, that we have to be concerned about. Libya is constructing a chemical weapons facility in Torhuna. North Korea probably possesses enough plutonium to make several nuclear weapons. China is assisting Iran in building a uranium hexafluoride [HEX] facility which converts uranium into a gaseous form so it can be diffused to produce highly enriched uranium. There are allegations that a Russian General helped smuggle binary nerve agents to Syria. All these incidents point to the possibility of a terrorist-type attack by some weapon of mass destruction at some point in the not-too-distant future. The legislation Representative McCollum and I are introducing today addresses the problem in three broad ways: First, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their components. The FSU offers terrorist groups and nations hostile to the United States their multiple chances to pilfer or acquire on an inchoate black market various weapons of mass destruction [WMD]. This bill will help the FSU tighten up security over these weapons and materials, and monitor and verify their status. Second, making sure the United States can detect and interdict weapons of mass destruction and their materials. The United States has concentrated very little effort on how to detect weapons of mass destruction or their component materials if smuggled into this country, and we have done too little to learn how to disable these weapons safely, once discovered. This bill will help develop these capabilities. Third, being prepared should the United States be the victim of a weapon of mass destruction. The United States is not equipped to deal with an attack by a weapon of mass destruction. The World Trade Center and Oklahoma City bombings were devastating, and the bombing in Dhahran shows just how vulnerable Americans are to terrorist attack--but these attacks pale in comparison to a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon attack. This bill will train Federal, State and local officials to act in a coordinated way in response to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon attacks. I am pleased to have Representative McCollum join me in introducing this legislation. He is a leader in the Congress on this and related issues of law enforcement. He was a member of the CSIS steering committee that produced The Nuclear Black Market study published earlier this week, which helped frame this legislation. And as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Crime, Representative McCollum's support of this legislation will be critical in ensuring its adoption. Representative Weldon weighed cosponsoring this legislation with Representative McCollum and me, but decided to take more time to consider specific parts of the bill. I understand that Representative Weldon may introduce a modified form of the bill sometime next month, and I hope to work with him on that. Representative McCollum and I likewise may modify or add to the bill before us, so this does not purport to be the last word on the subject, but it does represent a solid, bipartisan baseline from which to start. In dealing with threats like these, we do not need to divide along party lines. The bill received an enormous vote of support in the Senate this morning. I hope we can amass the same support in the House and move the bill swiftly to passage or include it in the Defense authorization conference report, so that we can begin implementing it in earnest.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I oppose most-favored-nation status for China. It is not in the best interests of China, not its people nor its despotic rulers, not in the best interests of the United States. I oppose MFN for China for three reasons. First, China has no sense of trade reciprocity. It accounts for the second largest share of the U.S. trade deficit, the largest export of textiles and apparel to the United States. But what did China do with its $34 billion surplus last year? They used our $34 billion of hard currency to buy capital and consumer goods from Europe and Japan and the rest of Asia, not from the United States. No country enjoys more open access to our textile and clothing markets than Japan, than China, and last year they sold us $9 billion in clothing and fabrics. Despite this liberal access to our markets, they egregiously cheated. They mislabeled and transshipped up to $44 billion in goods through other countries in order to avoid our quotas. By voting against MFN, we are telling China that we do not favor countries that flout the rules of fair trade with us. Second, China denies its people the human rights which we regard as fundamental to a civilized society. We have a moral role here, to say to China: You have to pay a price for treating your people so oppressively. Third, China brazenly sells nuclear and missile technology to non- nuclear nations. They know they are in violation of the law. There is ample evidence that the PRC has helped nations such as Pakistan and Iran develop weapons of mass destruction. I know that many countries enjoy MFN status, so many that it means a lot less than the name implies, but I take the name literally. I bristle at the notion of calling a country like China, guilty of abuses we all acknowledge, a most favored nation. Mr. Speaker, I realize this resolution is likely not to pass, but by voting for it we can send a stern message to China and we can stiffen the resolve of our administration to resist China's accession to the World Trade Organization without major reforms in the way China deals with its own people, its neighbors like Taiwan, and its trading partners.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation to suspend for 3 years the tariff on a chemical called Para ethyl phenol (PEP--HTS-2907.19.20 00). This bill is critical to saving the jobs of 50 of my constituents who work at Hodgson Chemicals, Inc., in Rock Hill, SC. The Hodgson plant produces two chemicals called Butylated hydroxy ethyl benzene [BHEB] and Mono butyl ethyl phenol [MBEP]. PEP is a critical component in producing both BHEB and MBEP. Enactment of the bill will ensure that Hodgson can compete against a Japanese company which is the only other manufacturer of BHEB. BHEB is used as an antioxidant in low and high density polyethylene and is sold to chemical producers. MBEP is used as an intermediate to produce an antioxidant. Hodgson informs me that there are no domestic sources for Para ethyl phenol [PEP]. Hodgson must therefore import and pay a 10.7 percent tariff on all the PEP it uses. This extra cost is reflected in the retail price Hodgson charges for BHEB and MBEP. The cost is substantial since over 50 percent of the finished product for both BHEB and MBEP is PEP. The Japanese company exports BHEB to the United States, but not the PEP itself. This means that it avoids a tariff on PEP and therefore enjoys a significant cost advantage over Hodgson. Unless the tariff suspension is passed, Hodgson may be forced to discontinue production of BHEB and MBEP. Hodgson plans on beginning production in the United States of PEP within 3 years. That is why Hodgson is only seeking a 3-year tariff suspension. Although I do not believe the cost of this suspension is great, we will be seeking a cost estimate from CBO to determine the bill's price tag. We will also seek to confirm that there are no domestic sources at present for PEP. Assuming that the only sources for PEP are foreign and that the cost is modest, I hope that the Congress will pass this bill in a timely manner. The jobs of many of my constituents depend on it.

Mr. SPRATT

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, in the last 18 months, 40 churches have been burned to the ground, 5 of them in my State. And despite mounting concern, eight churches have burned in the last 2 weeks, four within the last 2 days. It is time, past time, for Congress to say, ``In America, we don't burn churches, synagogues, or mosques, or let anyone who does, escape with impunity.'' Today, we have such a chance, because today, we take up a bill called the Church Arson Prevention Act. We all know that this law will not bring these heinous crimes to a sudden halt. But this law will put the authority of Federal Government, the BATF and the FBI, into the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of every church that's burned. This bill attempts to justify its purpose under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which I think is unnecessary. I think that under the 1st and 14th amendment, Congress not only has the power but the duty to prohibit any restraint on the free exercise of religion, and we not only have the power but a special duty to see that crimes of hate, aimed at African-Americans because of their race, are prosecuted and punished. And that is critically true when the hatred is visited on churches, the vital beating heart of African-American communities. I feel certain that the Church Arson Prevention Act will pass this House overwhelmingly. But that is not enough. It must be backed by the unstinting authority of the Federal Government until every miscreant who would commit such a crime knows that he will be pursued relentlessly, prosecuted swiftly, and punished severely.