Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I understand the constraints under which the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) is working, and commend him for doing a very admirable job under difficult circumstances. However, I am deeply concerned about a number of programs reduced or eliminated in this bill. Of greatest concern to me, this legislation would terminate most programs under the Corporation for National Service, including AmeriCorps. As a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the wisest and least costly investments our government can make. Every $1 spent on AmeriCorps generates $1.66 in benefits to the community. Every full-time AmeriCorps members generates an average of 12 additional volunteers. AmeriCorps is one of the most successful experiments in State and local controls the Federal government has embarked upon: Two-thirds of AmeriCorps' funding goes directly to the Governor-appointed State commissions, which then make grants to local nonprofits. Since 1994, more than 150,000 Americans have served as AmeriCorps members in all 50 States. They have taught, tutored, or mentored more than 2.5 million students, recruited, supervised, or trained more than 1.6 million volunteers, built or rehabilitated more than 25,000 homes, provided living assistance to more than 208,000 senior citizens, and planted more than more than 52 million trees. AmeriCorps Members are not only helping meet the immediate needs in our communities, they are also teaching through their example the importance of serving and helping others. As a former Peace Corps volunteer, I know the significance of this long-lasting lesson. Our youth want so desperately to take hold of their destiny and work to ensure a brighter and more prosperous future. There is so much they can do. All they need is the opportunity. Secondly, I am troubled by proposed cuts in the community development block grant program, CDBG, which would be funded at $4.5 billion, a level $300 million below fiscal year 2000, despite a 417 to 8 vote by this House on H.R. 1776 to increase this program's authorization to $4.9 billion. CDBG is the largest source of Federal community development assistance to State and local governments. It is one of the most flexible, most successful programs the Federal Government administers. The CDBG program puts development funds where they can most effectively be allocated: in local communities. Communities may use CDBG money for a variety of community development activities, including housing, community development, economic development and public service activities. The bottom line for me, Mr. Chairman, in closing, is I believe strongly in AmeriCorps. I regret it is not in the bill. I understand why it was not placed in the bill, because some Members on either side of the aisle will decide to fund veterans programs or some other program and offset it with the National Service Programs, and Republicans and Democrats alike will vote for a veterans program over this. But this program, like veterans programs, has its place. And I hope and I expect when we vote out this bill and the conference committee meets, that we will see the CDBG money restored and AmeriCorps and the National Service Program restored. If it is not, I would vote against the conference report. But I do intend to vote out this bill, hopefully this evening or tomorrow.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I appreciate the gentlewoman yielding. I would like to point out that on April 13, the House passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act through fiscal year 2003. What we did in that act in section 3 is the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. And then the act under section 181, subsection A, notwithstanding any other provision of this act, the Secretary may establish, maintain and operate in the Northeast a Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve. A reserve established under this part is not a component of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve established under part B of this title. The reserve established in this part shall contain no more than 2 million barrels of petroleum distilled. The bottom line is we have already established this through, frankly, the good work of the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). It has been authorized, and we are really trying to carry out the provisions. I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Energy Department in their study in 1998 made it very clear that a 2-million barrel reserve would stabilize prices. That is the effort we are trying to do. It is not perfect, we have got problems in a whole host of different areas, but this makes sense to move forward. It will not solve all our challenges, but it will, in fact, stabilize prices and carry out the act.

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4577, despite my concerns about the funding of certain critical programs. I commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) for his commitment and dedicated service to this body during his 11 years of service. The chairman has lead the bipartisan effort to increase funding for the National Institutes of Health and so many other valuable, worthy, and important programs. He has been a champion of increasing biomedical research and has tirelessly worked to ensure that no child is left behind in our educational system. I am particularly concerned about the Older Americans Act and, specifically, the congregate meal program funded under the act. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to learn that the congregate meal program was once again flat funded, at the President's requested amount, marking the fourth consecutive fiscal year without an increase. Because the congregate meal program is unauthorized under H.R. 4577, given the failure of this body to reauthorize the Older American Act, I am unable to introduce an amendment to increase the earmark for the program included in the report language. Mr. Chairman, funding for the congregate meal program has not kept pace with inflation, increasing only $20 million over the past 10 years. In 1999 dollars, funding for the program has actually decreased by $93 million over 10 years. Congregate meal programs serve the nutrition and social needs of seniors and operate in senior centers, community centers, schools and adult day care centers across the country. Many sites provide a variety of social services in addition to meals, including education, health screening, and social activities which enrich the lives of seniors. Mr. Chairman, this body has a responsibility to ensure that the program is funded adequately. A 1996 evaluation confirmed the senior nutrition program is an important part of ensuring our seniors are healthy. According to the evaluation, participants in the program are among our most vulnerable population. They are older, poorer, and more likely to be members of minority groups compared to the total elderly population. The evaluation also indicated that for every Federal dollar spent in congregate meals, other funding sources contributed $1.70. The Federal Government must uphold its end of the bargain by recognizing the changing buying power of the dollar and increase funding for the congregate meal program accordingly. I became deeply involved in this issue last November when I became aware that the Agency on Aging in my district began cutting back the congregate meal program after exhausting their reserve funds. In the face of a potential crisis, the State of Connecticut and local governments agreed to make up the financial shortfall for this fiscal year. The additional funds will allow the agency to temporarily overcome the financial shortfall and enable providers to serve the same number of meals this year as were served in 1999. While this financial contribution is significant and speaks volumes about the importance of the congregate meal program to seniors in Connecticut, it does nothing to prevent a similar funding shortfall from occurring next year and the year after that. Mr. Chairman, I would conclude by thanking this body for allowing me the opportunity to provide my colleagues with my thoughts on this issue of great importance to my district. It is my hope that the appropriators will work in conference to increase the earmark for congregate meal funding, above the President's requested level, in order to guarantee that seniors have access to the meals they need. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to vote this bill out. I believe that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) will be able to make it a better bill in conference. I know he has limited resources to work with, and I stand ready to help him in any way I can.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am not recorded on rollcall votes 211, 212, and 213. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on H.R. 3852, a bill extending the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in Alabama; ``aye'' on S. 1236, a bill extending the deadline for commencement of construction of a hydroelectric project in Idaho; and ``aye'' on H. Con. Res. 302, which provides for a national moment of remembrance to honor men and women who died in pursuit of freedom and peace.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, today, we will make a crucial decision about our place in the global economy. The question of voting for permanent normal trade relations with China is easily answered in economic, social and political terms. Formalizing a freer trading relationship with China will help American employees and employers alike. For China, PNTR will promote democracy, a better standard of living, and ultimately improve human rights. The vote on PNTR is a necessary step toward China's full membership into the World Trade Organization [WTO]. Members of the WTO agree to be governed by a set of rules allowing for a relatively open trading relationship among them. For China to complete its accession to the WTO, it will have to change many of its laws, institutions and policies to make them conform with international trade rules. China must complete negotiations with the WTO, and separately with its various trading partners within the WTO, including the United States. China is the world's third largest economy after the United States and Japan, and the largest not a member of the WTO. It has the world's 10th largest trade economy. If we fail to pass PNTR, our economic competitors in Europe and Japan will have greater access to this huge and still-growing Chinese market--while our own access will still be blocked. American business can compete anywhere in the world and win--if it is given a relatively level playing field. The bilateral agreement signed in November 1999 forces China to remove protectionist barriers to its markets, while protecting import-sensitive American industry from a flood of new Chinese imports. The United States has made no significant concessions to China, because we already have few barriers to our market. The agreement gives our business equal access to the Chinese market. The American export sector--which already accounts for 11 million jobs--will be strengthened further. According to most experts, China is on the verge of huge infrastructure expenditures over the next few years as it attempts to catch up with Europe, Japan, and the United States. Most of these projects will be contracted to Western firms. This could be a boon to southwestern Connecticut. In 1998, the Stamford-Norwalk area alone exported $86 million worth of goods to China. There are some in Congress and throughout our country who want to deny PNTR to China to punish it for its terrible human rights record. But closing off China will not bring any improvement in the way it treats its citizens. An isolated China will continue to repress its population and forestall the onset of democracy and freedom. A nation cannot engage in free trade without educating its citizens. The more educated a country's citizens become, the more they want and are empowered to demand an open society and freedom. In truth, the most subversive action we can take towards the oppressive Chinese regime is to encourage free trade. Communist hardliners argue the defeat of PNTR will make it easier for them to thwart the movement toward democracy and capitalism. In the absence of interaction with the United States, these hardliners will be able to restrict communication, stop foreign travel, and pull the plug on the Internet. Reform will wither on the vine. Taking a look at recent history, Communist dictatorships that had interaction with the West--the Soviet Union, Poland, Romania and Hungary--are dead. Those shut off from the rest of the world--Fidel Castro's Cuba and Kim Jong Il's North Korea--are still brutalizing their citizenry. For me, the issue is clear. PNTR is essential to our full participation in the emerging economy of the future. We win access to Chinese markets. China becomes exposed to the type of information and prosperity that builds democracy and freedom. Candles give way to electric lights. The horse and carriage gave way to the automobile. Typewriters gave way to word processors and ocmputers. We cannot repeal the law of gravity. We are in a world economy, and China is a large and vital part of that economy. Permanent normal trade relations with China should be approved by Congress and welcome by all Americans.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Condit), the chief sponsor of this amendment. (Mr. CONDIT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may control the time in support of the amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), a chief cosponsor of this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of the time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the full committee . (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 853, the Comprehensive Budget Process Reform Act. This bill represents the most fundamental revision of the Congressional budget process since 1974. H.R. 853 contains a variety of critical reforms, including changing the Budget Resolution from a concurrent resolution to a joint resolution that would have to be presented to the president and therefore would have the force of law. This would improve the budget process in two ways. First, it would force the president to play a formal role in the budget process, rather than only engaging in the final stages of the appropriations process. Providing for formal executive participation through a joint resolution would avoid year-end scrambling to finance government programs. It would also encourage the president to submit a realistic budget because he will be compelled to defend it. Second, a joint resolution would force inter-branch agreement on aggregate spending levels prior to agreement on details. Currently, since the president does not have to approve the Budget Resolution, gaining approval on the final spending measures presents a greater challenge. Forcing an early agreement on the principles in the Resolution will make coming together on the details of budget bills much easier in the fall. Moreover, this bill is still sensitive to the likelihood of an earlier budget ``train wreck'' by enabling Congress to adopt a concurrent budget resolution under expedited procedures if the president vetoes the joint budget resolution. In other words, H.R. 853 provides incentives for the president to sign an agreement on principles, but allows the process to move forward if he does not. The bill also requires the president and Congress to set aside a reserve within the budget for emergencies. This reserve would be equivalent to the five year historical average of emergency spending. The reserve could only be used for emergencies that meet both of the following criteria: (1) funding for ``loss of life or property, or a threat to national security'' and (2) an ``unanticipated situation.'' This important provision will prevent supplemental appropriations bills that are stuffed with fraudulent ``emergency'' spending. Unfortunately such bills have often become vehicles for pork-barrel spending rather than ways to alleviate the suffering of Americans who have experienced genuine crises. I would like to thank Congressman Nussle and other members of the House Budget Committee's bipartisan task force on the budget process for bringing this bill to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 701, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act. I am one of the minority of members who is not a cosponsor of this bill. I chose not to become a cosponsor because the original legislation would have taken Outer Continental Shelf revenues off- budget. As a senior member of the Budget Committee, I have consistently opposed efforts to take various funds off-budget in order to maintain fiscal discipline and preserve a balanced budget. While I am pleased the sponsors of this bill have taken these budgetary concerns into account and put the CARA Fund on-budget, this is still not an easy vote for me. I have rarely supported increases in mandatory spending in the amounts considered today. However, an opportunity like this is extremely rare. This bill's guarantee of full-funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)--including the critical State-side funding-- will rank as one of the most significant environmental accomplishments of our time. LWCF provides the ability to acquire pristine natural habitats and open space that can be preserved for generations to come. I know that once these lands are gone, they are gone forever. I would like to thank my colleague from New York, Mr. Boehlert, for his efforts to improve environmental safeguards in the bill. He is to be commended for eliminating the original bill's potential incentives for increased offshore drilling activity. It is critically important as this bill moves forward that we work to ensure the tens of millions of federal dollars that will flow to coastal states and local governments each year are spent in a way that helps, not harms, the environment. I hope it will be made clear that authorized use under Section 102(c)(10)--``Mitigating marine and coastal impacts of Outer Continental Shelf activities including impacts on onshore infrastructure''--only refers to uses that directly mitigate the environmental impacts of offshore drilling and is not intended to fund environmentally-destructive road or port expansions or construction of bulkheads or jetties. At minimum, activities permitted under this use should be capped at 10 percent or less of a state's Title I spending. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 701 is good for coastal areas, open space, urban parks, recreational activities and wildlife. The sponsors have worked to answer the concerns of widely-varying interests, and I am pleased to support the bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Long Island Sound Restoration Act, and again thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) for their work in getting this bill out of committee. I also wish to thank Governors Rowland and Pataki and the respective Departments of Environmental Protection from both Connecticut and New York, and to thank as well my co-chair of the Long Island Sound Caucus, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), and the members of the caucus, as well as in particular the primary sponsors, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio). Mr. Speaker, I would like to read what a number of very significant organizations have had to say about this bill. The first quote: This is the most significant congressional action for Long Island Sound since it was designated a national estuary in 1985. It is critical this bill pass the House of Representatives to ensure the Federal Government is a true partner in the restoration of Long Island Sound. --David Miller, Executive Director, National Audubon Society of New York. Cleaning up the water quality of Long Island Sound is critical to a comprehensive approach to restoring this fabulous resource to its full potential as a natural resource. --David Sutherland, Director of Government Relations, the Connecticut chapter of the Nature Conservancy. This bill garnered widespread support across party lines. I think this sends a clear message to voters that the environment does matter and that both parties can work together to help preserve our environment. --Deb Callahan, President, League of Conservation Voters. Nitrogen pollution in the Long Island Sound is a relatively recent discovery and quite literally a deadly problem. For many years gross pollution masked the damage being done by excess nitrogen. Thanks to Congress' efforts and construction grants and State revolving funds of the 1970s and 1980s, we have been able to make great progress only to find an underlying problem of great environmental and financial magnitude. --Terry Backer, Soundkeeper, supporting this bill. It is critical to Long Island Sound, our region's greatest natural resource, that the Federal Government increase its recognition of the need to improve this water body by making an increased financial commitment. It is critical to future generations that this water body be returned to a flourishing ecosystem of flora and fauna. --John Atkins, President of Save the Sound. And, finally, Local and State governments have made enormous investments in sewage treatment and pollution control facilities, but the problems are much more regional in scope and therefore beg Federal involvement. Any plan which places the entire fiscal burden of cleanup on the most vulnerable level of government, local authorities, is destined for environmental and economic failure. That is why we support H.R. 3313. --Ross Pepe, President, Construction Industry Council of Westchester and Hudson Valley, a professional employers association representing more than 550 companies and some 50,000 workers. We will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways, and passage of this bill makes clear we are no longer being neglectful.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a proponent and author of legislation designed to encourage the purchase of private long-term care insurance in general, I commend the Subcommittee on Civil Service chairman, the gentleman from Florida, for his hard work on this issue and also the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member. I would also like to recognize the third part of that triumvirate, the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), for her longstanding commitment to providing access to private long-term care for Federal employees. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan has long been held up as a model of health care delivery. It is really the best in the country. By providing all Federal employees access to private long-term care insurance, we are taking an important step toward recognizing the financial risks posed by long-term care and the need to plan for it. The Long Term Care Security Act that we are debating today, sets an example and encourages non-governmental employers to offer similar benefit options to their employees. Medicare does not pay for long-term care and seniors are forced, as we all know, to spend down their assets to qualify for Medicaid, which provides $33 billion in long-term care services each year for those who have few resources. This has serious financial repercussions for retirees and taxpayers who ultimately pay for long-term care assistance through public programs. As the baby boom generation retires, the purchase of private long-term care insurance is crucial to ease the financial strain on public resources. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the Long Term Care Security Act, and thank all of those who were involved in bringing this important legislation to the floor. I would naturally urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it. Again I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3293, I am in strong support of its passage today. This legislation, introduced by Representative Gallegly of California, authorizes placement of a plaque near the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to honor those Vietnam veterans who died as a direct result of their service after leaving Vietnam, including those who died of post traumatic stress disorder and of the effects of Agent Orange. The men and women who serve our country to defend freedom deserve to be treated with nothing less than the highest level of dignity and respect. All of those who died following their service in the Vietnam War--including those who died of post traumatic stress disorder and of the effects of Agent Orange--should be honored alongside those who died in combat. In the years since Vietnam, we've learned a great deal about the lingering effects of modern combat. Unfortunately, too many of those we thought were survivors had already been afflicted with conditions or exposed to chemical agents that would tragically cut short their lives. Passage of H.R. 3293 will go a long way toward honoring the men and women who lost their lives as a direct result of service to our great nation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would say that only in Washington would a colleague have the motivation to say that a 2 percent reduction in taxes is an enormous tax cut. We are going to have $11 trillion in revenue. We are cutting taxes $150 billion, and the gentleman calls that enormous? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sununu).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, before yielding, can I just reaffirm how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight on agriculture, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in recognition of the life and service of Abner Woodruff Sibal, former U.S. Representative from the Fourth District of Connecticut, the district I now represent. Abner Sibal died this past January at age 78, leaving behind a large family and an honorable legacy. He would be celebrating his 79th birthday today. Mr. Sibal was a member of this body from 1961 to 1965 in the 87th and 88th Congresses. While here, he served on the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee and its Subcommittee on Transportation and Aeronautics. Mr. Sibal was born in Ridgewood, New York, and grew up in Connecticut. He graduated from Norwalk High School in 1938 and Wesleyan University in 1943, entered the U.S. Army after graduation from college, and served in both the European and Pacific theaters during World War II. When Mr. Sibal was discharged as a first lieutenant in September 1946, he went on to St. John's Law School, where he received his law degree in 1949. Abner Sibal was admitted to the Connecticut bar in 1949 and the Federal bar in 1965. He led an impressive career both before and after his time as a public servant. From 1951 to 1955, he served as a prosecuting attorney in the city of Norwalk. Mr. Sibal served as a member of the Connecticut State senate from 1956 to 1960. He sat as a member of the Corporation Counsel of Norwalk from 1959 to 1960. He rose to the position of Republican minority leader for the last 2 years of his State senate tenure. His hard work and leadership earned him the position of chairman of the Connecticut Commission on Corporate Law in 1959. In addition, he was a delegate to each Connecticut Republican State Convention from 1952 through 1968 and a delegate to the Republican National Convention in 1964. After his years in Congress, Mr. Sibal practiced law in Washington before being appointed general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission by Gerald Ford in 1975. In 1979, he resumed his private law practice, joining the firm of Farmer, Wells, McGuinn & Sibal. On a personal note, I was entering high school when Mr. Sibal became the Congressman of my Connecticut district. It was during this time I started to really become politically aware. I was learning about Congress and who my elected officials were. Abner Sibal stands out in my mind as having been a leader I respected, admired, and wanted to emulate. Abner Woodruff Sibal is remembered as an honorable man, a hard working public servant, and an able legislator.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), a member of both the Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Ways and Means.