John Tanner

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] if he would engage in a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if I am correct in understanding that the conference report provides $40.2 million for upgrades and modifications to the Army's M-113 armored personnel carrier? And is there any amount of funding authorized for reactive armor tiles for the M-113 vehicle?

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1420, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act for the first time establishes a conservation mission for America's 509 refuge units. Equally important, the measure establishes hunting, fishing, and environmental education, as legitimate and appropriate priority general public uses of the 92 million-plus acres of land and water that make up our refuge system. It also affirms the refuge system not only as a home to all wildlife, but also as a haven to endangered wildlife and fish. Indeed, each of the six National Wildlife Refuges in Tennessee are either entirely or in part in my congressional district and you can fish and hunt on each of them. Through the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Program, the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, the Dingell-Johnson-Wallop-Breaux Sportfish Restoration Program, the purchase of Federal duck stamps, and many other conservation and restoration programs, hunters and anglers are the unquestioned leaders when it comes to wildlife and fisheries restoration and conservation. America's hunters and anglers have contributed well over $6 billion to wildlife and fisheries restoration over the past 60 years. And last year alone, they spent nearly $60 billion pursuing the twin traditions of hunting and fishing. And with this legislation, hunters and anglers are again leading the conservation movement. In the best tradition of President Theodore Roosevelt, an avid hunter, this bill recognizes that fact. So I want to applaud Chairman Young, Representative Dingell, Chairman Saxton, Representative Miller, Secretary Babbitt, and those at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are all to be commended for their leadership on this measure. The bipartisan process that led to this consensus agreement should be a model for problem solving. This is an excellent vote for conservation, hunting, and fishing, as we approach the 100th anniversary of our National Wildlife Refuge System. Earlier this year our bill received 407 votes in the House, the Senate passed it earlier this month by unanimous consent, and the President has said he will sign the legislation. I would urge everyone's support of this bill so that we can send it to President Clinton for his signature.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1948.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] for yielding this time to me. This bill before us today is not what I would have written. It is not what the group I am associated with, called the Blue Dog Democrats, would have written. There is one gaping hole in all of this discussion today, unfortunately, and that is entitlement reform. But, nonetheless, I think that democracy is an inconvenience sometimes for those of us who serve in the legislative branch of government because there are people of good will who have intellectually honest differences of opinion as to what should be done for our great land. And so democracy is an inconvenience because none of us get our way all the time on every issue. As I look at this bill, I am reminded of what Winston Churchill said one time when someone asked how his wife was; and he said, compared to what? Well, we look at this today and say to ourselves, would the country be better off with the passage of this Balanced Budget Act and this tax bill than it would be if we defeated it? I have concluded, Mr. Speaker, that the country will be better off with the passage of this tax bill today, notwithstanding the fact that there is much work to be done. We will hear a lot of rhetoric, Mr. Speaker, about whose fault it was that we got where we are, and I would suggest that it is probably like a lot of other things: Both sides are about half right and both sides are about half wrong. And those who claim that they have the truth and those who claim that they are the only ones who have the right answer, I would suggest, ought to grant to others who disagree the same degree of intellectual honesty they claim for themselves. I think, on balance, this is a reasonable bill. It will balance the budget in the year 2002 or before. I am convinced of that, and that is why I am supporting, as I did yesterday, the spending side, the tax bill today, and I would urge our colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] is right. It requires Congress to act. That is why it is tough and that is why it is so necessary. Mr. Speaker, a nation that is bankrupt is a nation that is vulnerable. It is no more complicated than that. By 2003 if we do not do anything, over 70 percent of the money that comes to Washington will be obligated. We will be on a collision course with debt and deficit. We got here together, Democrats and Republicans, equally responsible for the situation we find ourselves in. We are going to solve it together. This is a bipartisan bill from the rank and file Members of this House. This, make no mistake about it, is the only vehicle to translate the idea of balancing our Nation's budget today from an idea to reality. There is nothing else on the floor that will do it. Today is the time, and I hope that people in this House will have the opportunity to put their country ahead of partisan politics for once. Today is the day to do it.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to echo what the gentlewoman from California [Mrs. Tauscher] said about this. This is unfortunate. It is sad. We are here and elected by our constituencies to come and try to do the best job we can regardless of party affiliation. Three weeks ago we were told that if certain things happened in relation to a rule vote at that time, we would be allowed the opportunity to offer a budget enforcement mechanism before July 24. It was pointed out, and there may be some disagreement, but regardless of that, this is the vehicle that translates the idea of financial integrity in this country and in the Nation's books being balanced from an idea to reality for all of these young children that are here today and around the country. And for the Committee on Rules to not allow that to happen last night is just simply sad. I have been here 9 years and I will be the first to vote and did vote against my leadership when they abused the Committee on Rules and did not allow things to come forward for the will of the House to work itself. I would ask the Republican rank and file to do the same today, because without regard of who said what and when, this is a better piece of legislation that we were denied the opportunity to vote on today. Mr. Speaker, I have been here 9 years. If there was ever a day that Members ought to put their country ahead of their political party, the time is now on this budget enforcement bill. I just hope that the rank and file Members of both sides of the aisle will do that today.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Maryland, for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about the outyear deficit that is in the current plan passed by the House last week. We have a promise of a vote for an enforcement mechanism to translate the idea of a balanced budget to reality that we have been promised to vote on by July 24. I certainly hope it passes when it comes up, but if it does not, let us talk about where we are today in the House-passed plan. The indexing of capital gains basically will put the revenue side of our Nation's budget on automatic pilot after the year 2002. If we learned anything about entitlement programs, we learned that beyond 1970, the early 1970's until today, we have had the entitlement programs on automatic pilot. That is the spending side. Our enforcement mechanism that I mentioned earlier will attempt to get our arms around the spending side of this equation as soon as possible under this deal. We know we have to do it. Can Members imagine that in 1963 every dollar that came to Washington, DC was obligated, about 30 cents of that was obligated for mandatory spending, either interest on the debt or other entitlement spending, and 70 percent was available for us to make public policy with? If we do nothing about the spending side entitlements in the 21st century, that ratio will be reversed. Over 70 cents of every dollar that comes to this town will be obligated. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that it then becomes impossible to cut out of the 28 percent that includes our Nation's defense enough money to keep up with the escalating cost of the 72 percent that is represented by interest and entitlements. Here in the House-passed plan we are going to exacerbate that problem by putting on automatic pilot the revenue side, when we are trying to stop that on the spending side. This is not good public policy. This motion to recommit would remedy that shortcoming, that failure in the House- passed plan. I would say this, while we are here in public office as stewards of this great land, I can think of no legacy that would make our forefathers less proud of us than to leave a broke America to those who come. We owe $5.4 trillion. We must not continue public policy statements that put on automatic pilot these programs.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to reiterate that the gentleman from Illinois emphasizes a point I am making. Spending did go up in the 1980's because of the automatic pilot that was put on the entitlement programs in the early 1970's. It is rising faster than we can cut domestic discretionary and other spending. We are going to do the same thing on the revenue side. It is a mistake.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up, if I could. I come from the wing of the Democratic Party here in the Congress that thinks that it is important that we get our Nation's books in balance. As a matter of fact, a group called The Coalition had a budget proposal that had entitlement reform and no tax cuts in the belief that more people in this country would benefit if we could get our Nation's books in order and get the Government out of the credit market as fast as possible, borrowing the least amount possible, as soon as possible. We did not prevail on that. So there was an agreement reached between the President and the leadership of the Congress that we would have a tax bill now. Well, we, in an effort to try to be constructive in the process, think that any tax bill ought to be responsible from the standpoint of the outyears. This one, I think, falls short on that score. I do not see how we, as stewards of this land in our time in public office here, can think about leaving a country to our children and grandchildren that is as financially weak as this one will surely be if all we do is a touch and go in the year 2002, and then climb aboard the space shuttle and take back off on a rocket ship to oblivion and debt. I am afraid that is exactly what is going to happen in these outyears. This bill was cleverly scored in the first 5 years. Some of us agree with the prospect of estate tax relief and capital gains tax relief because we think that tax relief, if we are going to have a tax bill now, makes sense from a standpoint of economic activity and generational transfer of property. But these outyears, this is something that the American people really ought to worry about, because it is going to affect every family. There are a lot of statistics being bantered about; people read them different ways. This affects us all, no matter who we are.

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

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to second what the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] said. I am not interested in being a party to a balanced budget agreement that does not translate itself from an idea to a reality. There have been well-intentioned people in this town since 1980 who have tried mightily to balance the budget. This enforcement mechanism that was denied a vote on by this body, by the Committee on Rules, itself I think warrants a ``no'' vote, because, Mr. Speaker, this is the mechanism that translates the idea of a balanced budget, which most of us embrace, to actual reality. Without it, we are, I think, going down the same path as those that were here before us. We cannot afford that path again. We are spending over $250 billion a year in interest now. The future is bleak, indeed, for the young people if we do not put an enforcement mechanism in this agreement. I wish we would vote ``no'' on the rule.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here today to talk about H.R. 1420. I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this time. Today's vote on the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act is a simple one as we mark National Fishing Week. The road we have taken to establish this common sense compromise for the future management of our Nation's valuable National Wildlife Refuge System is one that should be followed more often. The gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], our committee chairman, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] should all be commended for their energy and resolve in reaching this consensus agreement. Equally important are the nongovernmental organizations, including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Safari Club International, the Wildlife Management Institute, the Izaak Walton League, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, the National Wildlife Federation, and the National Rifle Association. All have made significant contributions to the process that brings us here today. I want to particularly thank the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], Secretary Babbitt and all the other citizens who have put into this process a positive way to achieve a consensus on the future care of our important natural resources. Given that, I would urge the other body to move legislation similar if not identical to H.R. 1420, so that we can fairly quickly get a bipartisan, broadly supported piece of legislation to the President for his signature. I would like to remind everyone that the future of our Nation's 509 national wildlife refuges is at a critical juncture given the system's 100th anniversary in 6 short years. This legislation's focus on conservation, compatible uses such as hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation, and general management practices for the system marks a significant step forward in the care and maintenance of our refuge system.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, today, my colleagues and I are introducing the Sportsmen's Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives. Our goal is to assure the same kind of access to Federal public lands and waters for tomorrow's hunters and anglers, that present and past generations of hunters and anglers have known. Over the past 200 years, fishing and hunting have become intertwined in America's culture and should be protected where the activities are compatible with other uses. Fishing and hunting are part of a traditional way of life that has been preserved for present generations and we want to make sure these activities are preserved for future generations. America's 37 million anglers and 15 million hunters represent the largest single group of contributors to the conservation of our fisheries and wildlife species and continue to play a critical role in the sound management of them. And they spend billions every year that create thousands of jobs for our citizens. Indeed, through two trust funds known as Pittman-Robertson and Wallop-Breaux, America's sports men and women and the relevant manufacturers have contributed $6 billion to conservation and education initiatives over the past 60 years. No where is that more important than where I was raised. In Tennessee and, indeed, across the South, angling and hunting is a way of life. It's a part of our culture. Last year's BASS Anglers Classic held in North Carolina drew 28,000 people demonstrating the popularity of angling. Because of our sports men and women and the work of people like Gary Myers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, white-tailed deer populations as well as turkey populations, migratory waterfowl, and many other wildlife species, are strong in large measure because of hunters who value the resource. In Tennessee, alone hunters, anglers, and boaters, spend nearly $1 billion a year on their sports, and some have estimated that economic activity is responsible for at least 26,000 jobs across the State. Considering all of that, it is important to protect the kind of access present and past generations have had to hunt and fish on Federal public lands and waters for our children and the generations that follow them. I look forward to passing these traditions to my grandchildren. That is the overarching goal of this legislation and as a cochairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus I believe that is a positive thing. The bill would preserve access to Federal public lands for hunting and fishing, but also leaves intact the authority of Federal agencies managing those lands to prohibit these and other activities where they are not compatible with public safety, national security, or other ongoing activities on a particular section of land or water. The bill is narrowly focused to address land and water owned and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. The bill is supported in principle by the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. It also has the support of organizations including the Delta Wildlife Foundation, Safari Club International, Quail Unlimited, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, and the National Rifle Association. A companion bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate by Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, and we look forward to moving the measure through the legislative process in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I want to reiterate and adopt what the previous speaker said, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay]. This is nothing more than an issue of fairness. As he said and as others have said, there was an ambiguity unintentionally created, and I want to read again what we said in the bill. The enactment of the ICC Termination Act of 1995 shall neither expand nor contract coverage of the employees and employers by the Railway Labor Act. These are not my words; these are the words of Congress. Some of the people who are opposing the conference report for this reason are the very ones that drafted it. These are not our words; these are the words of Congress. And to say this is any way antilabor is simply untrue. As a matter of fact, there are a higher percentage of workers unionized under the National Railway Labor Act than there are under the National Labor Relations Act, and I see it as a basic matter of fairness to correct an unintended error made in drafting. Mr. Speaker, I want to say something else about FedEx. I represent part of Memphis, TN. Federal Express has dedicated 100 percent of their aircraft to the civil patrol. They flew more missions in Desert Storm than any other civilian aircraft company in this country. Fred Smith is a dedicated patriot who served in Vietnam, crawled through the rice paddies, and I resent this attack on one company because of a drafting error that is clearly the intent of Congress to correct today, and that is all this matter is about.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Honorable Jimmy Quillen, the distinguished dean of the Tennessee Congressional Delegation, who will be retiring at the end of this historic 104th Congress. Mr. Quillen's attributes and accomplishments are well known. We should all be proud of his outstanding length of service to the people of the First District, the State of Tennessee, and the Nation. He holds the record for having the longest continuous service by any Tennessee Member of the U.S. House of Representatives since Tennessee statehood in 1796. This is truly a record that will probably never be matched. When you travel in Mr. Quillen's district, as I do when I drive back to west Tennessee, one cannot help but notice the beautiful mountainous region that he represents that was home to former U.S. President James K. Polk. In addition, one cannot help but notice the many wonderful tributes that have been bestowed upon Congressman Quillen and his family throughout east Tennessee. You literally cannot drive through east Tennessee without passing by a facility, or traveling on a road, that has been named in honor of Mr. Quillen and his family. He has served his constituency for 33 years and the institutions in Tennessee that bear his name are a testament that he serves with honor and dignity. Voters trust Mr. Quillen to be fair and to adequately represent their views in Congress. His famous ``open door'' policy that he began on election night in November of 1962 was not only one that he practiced with his constituents, but also was extended to every member of the Tennessee Delegation, regardless of party affiliation. I have had the honor of serving with Mr. Quillen, and his wonderful staff, since 1989. Mr. Speaker, I know that you join with me, my staff, and the great people of Tennessee and the Nation in saying thank you to Congressman Jimmy Quillen for a job well done. I wish him and Mrs. Quillen Godspeed during his retirement. We all will certainly miss him.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar] for yielding the time to me. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3539, and I want to commend the chairmen and the ranking members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Aviation Subcommittee for their work on this piece of legislation. I also want to thank them for including in H.R. 3539, title VII--the Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development, which are the provisions adopted by the Science Committee in H.R. 3322, the Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act authorizing the Federal Aviation Administration's [FAA] research and development program. The principal purposes of title VII strengthen the role of the Federal Aviation Administration's [FAA] Research Advisory Committee in setting FAA's R&D priorities and in streamlining the National Aviation Research Plan. This language is based on the recommendations of witnesses who appeared before the Technology Subcommittee during three oversight hearings on FAA's R&D programs. The Research Advisory Committee, established by statute, is composed of aviation experts from industry, other R&D agencies, and universities. To date the advisory committee has not had much influence on setting FAA's R&D goals. Title VII now requires the Research Advisory Committee to review and provide recommendations to FAA on its R&D budget, and it also requires FAA to consider those recommendations in establishing its R&D priorities. In addition, FAA must report to Congress on its response to the advisory committee's recommendations. In addition, the provisions in title VII of H.R. 3539 simplify the contents of the National Aviation Research Plan to make it more useful to Congress for tracking and assessing the FAA's goals and priorities. The goals of title VII are to strengthen public/private cooperation to develop an R&D agenda which will effectively modernize the air traffic system and ensure the safety and reliability of air travel in the United States. Again, I want to thank Chairman Duncan and Ranking Member Lipinski for working with the Science Committee to incorporate the R&D title into the FAA authorization bill and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3539.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, there is virtually universal agreement that our current welfare system is broken and must be dramatically overhauled. Americans are a compassionate people, eager to lend a helping hand to hard workers experiencing temporary difficulties and especially to children who are victims of circumstances beyond their control. But Americans also are a just people, expecting everyone to contribute as they are able and to take responsibility for themselves and their families. It is the balancing of these two concerns that makes correcting our welfare system a challenge, but a challenge which must be met. This welfare reform conference report is far from perfect, but it clearly is preferable to continuing the current system and preferable to welfare legislation considered earlier this Congress. For these reasons, we support the welfare reform conference report and have encouraged the President to sign it. We have opposed previous welfare reform proposals because we believed that they offered empty, unsustainable promises of moving welfare recipients to work. Additionally, earlier bills were seriously deficient in their protections for children and other truly vulnerable populations. We have decided to support this final conference report because it is considerably better than the welfare reform bill (H.R. 4) appropriately vetoed by the President last year and it also makes significant improvements to the bill passed by the House last week. The conference committee agreed with our proposals giving States additional flexibility in moving welfare recipients to work, allowing States to use block grant funds to provide vouchers, and providing other protections for children. This conference report incorporates several improvements proposed by the National Governors' Association to H.R. 4 in its final form. it provides $4 billion more funding for child care that will assist parents transitioning to work. It doubles the contingency fund for States facing larger welfare rolls caused by economic downturns. The latest bill returns to a guaranteed status children eligible for school lunch and child abuse prevention programs. The reductions in benefits for disabled children contained in last year's H.R. 4 are eliminated, and greater allowances are made for hardship cases, increasing the hardship exemption from the benefit time limits to 20 percent of a State's caseload. Several changes proposed in the Castle-Tanner alternative were subsequently made to the bill passed by the House in July. The amount States must spend on child care was increased. Additionally, States will be required to assess the needs of welfare applicants and prepare an individual responsibility contract outlining a plan to move to work. Also, an increase in the State maintenance of effort for States that fail to meet the participation rates was added to the bill. All of these changes strengthen the effort of moving welfare recipients to work. The conference report further improved the bill. The conferees adopted our suggestions providing additional State flexibility in developing work programs and adding additional protections for children. We were disappointed that the conference did not incorporate constructive suggestions that were made regarding penalties for failure to meet work requirements and, unfortunately, an authorization for additional work funds was eliminated because of parliamentary ``Byrd rule'' considerations in the Senate. On balance, however, the conference report produced a bill that is significantly better than the bill passed by the House. President Clinton already has approved waivers allowing 41 States to implement innovative programs to move welfare recipients to work. The House's Welfare Reform bill would have restricted those State reform initiatives by imposing work mandates that are less flexible than States are implementing. Over 20 States would have been required to change their work programs to meet the mandates in that earlier House bill or face substantial penalties from the Federal Government. The conference report now allows States that are implementing welfare waivers to go forward with those efforts. Specifically, the conference report allows those States to count individuals who are participating in State-authorized work programs in meeting the work participation rates in the bill, even work programs which otherwise do not meet the Federal mandates in the bill. States such as Tennessee and Texas that have just received waivers will be permitted to begin implementing these reforms and States like Utah and Michigan which have a track record in moving welfare recipients into self-sufficiency will be able to continue their programs. We will work to ensure that States will continue to have this flexibility when their waivers expire if the State plan is successful. Another key goal we have maintained throughout the debate is protecting innocent children. The earlier House bill would have treated a 4-year-old child the same as a 24-year-old deadbeat by prohibiting States from using block grant funds to provide vouchers after the time limit for benefits to the parents had expired. The conference report reverses this extreme position. In addition, the conference report moderates the impact of the food stamp cuts on children by maintaing a guaranteed status for children and by increasing the housing deduction to $300 a month for families with children. Third, we have been concerned about the impact of health coverage to individuals and payments to health providers as a result of welfare reform. The House bill effectively would have denied Medicaid to thousands of individuals, removing $9 billion of Medicaid assistance from the health care system and resulting in a cost shift to health care providers that would affect the cost, availability, and quality of care of to everyone. While the correction is less than we had hoped, the conference report effectively reduces this cost shift to health care providers by more than half. The conference report also contains language very similar to the Castle-Tanner bill continuing current Medicaid eligibility rules for AFDC-related populations, ensuring that no one loses health care coverage as a result of welfare reform. As we began by saying, this conference report is far from perfect and we continue to have concerns about the impact of several provisions. Although the report provides States with additional flexibility in implementing work programs, the work provisions in the bill still may impose unfunded mandates on States that will make it more difficult to move welfare recipients to work. Given the unfunded mandates in the bill, the provisions penalizing States for failing to meet participation rates by reducing funding to the State are counterproductive. The contingency fund in the conference report, while much stronger than the contingency fund in H.R. 4, will not be sufficient to respond to a severe national or regional recession. The conference report contains a requirement that Congress review the impact of the bill 3 years. This review process will allow Congress to make a number of changes that we feel certain will be necessary to fulfill successful welfare reform. Despite these reservations, we believe that it is critical that welfare reform be enacted this year. Failure to do so will signal yet another wasted opportunity to make critically needed reforms. We should enact this conference report and fix the current system now, moving toward a system that better promotes work and individual responsibility.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy today for several reasons. I think Congress has come together with the administration to take a step forward on certainly what is a pressing national social problem. That is welfare reform. We started out, as the previous speaker said, almost 2 years ago to try to bring together something that could be signed and enacted into law so we could actually change the system that is broken, according to everyone who has observed it, and actually do something about it now. I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and many others here. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Delaware, Mike Castle, who came together with me to put together something that would be bipartisan so we could get off of this partisan gridlock that we have been suffering from. Mr. Speaker, in our motion to instruct conferees we asked for two or three things: One, a safety net for kids. That has been accomplished with Medicaid and food stamps. The safety net is there for children. The unfunded mandate problem has been partially taken care of, with the States being allowed to continue with waivers, and also because the Medicaid situation is intact, there will not be a lot of costs transferred to county hospitals across our country. We also asked that savings go to the debt. That has not been accomplished, but as the previous speaker said, we will continue to work on that. The most important difference between the conference agreement and the two bills that have previously been vetoed, in my judgment, is that we protect innocent children. This bill no longer treats a 4-year-old child like he or she is a 24-year-old irresponsible adult. To me that was critical. That is not a part of welfare reform. That is just compassionate public policy. This bill has done that. I once again thank the Republican conferees for their hard work, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and others. I also urge a ``yes'' vote. Let us make this a red letter day.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I want to engage the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Myers] in a colloquy at this time, if I might. First, I would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Bevill], for their hard work in this matter. I know their job has not been easy; however, I am concerned about a recent GAO report that identifies more than $180 million in unused construction funds from prior year appropriations at the Department of Energy. Among the GAO lists are 45 completed or terminated construction projects with carryover funds totaling around $46 million. It is my understanding that these funds can remain on the books for years and that DOE can reprogram those leftover funds as the need arises, sometimes on projects completely unrelated to the original intent of Congress. In the current budget climate at present, it seems to me this accounting procedure may be flawed, and as we work toward balancing our books and exercise congressional prerogatives in terms of directing how these leftover funds are used, these unneeded carryover funds should be used for deficit reduction or at least to ease shortfalls that can occur in the otherwise austere budget climate. I would ask the chairman if we could work together to resolve this matter. As a member of both the Committee on National Security and the Committee on Science, I would welcome the opportunity to work with my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriation on this issue.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the service that both the gentlemen have rendered, and I thank the chairman.

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that because I am concerned about the funding levels in the decontamination and decommissioning account, which funds environmental cleanup and decontamination and decommissioning activities at the Portsmouth, OH, Paducah, KY, and Oak Ridge, TN gaseous diffusion plants, plants, and the nondefense environmental restoration and waste management account. GAO, I would note, identifies more than $40 million in leftover unneeded funds to cancel construction projects funded in the environmental and waste management account. May I ask if the chairman believes that at least a portion of these carryover funds could be used to fund needed projects in the decontamination and decommissioning account and the nondefense energy restoration and waste management account?

Mr. TANNER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the excellent job that he has done in this regard. Mr. Chairman, this may be one of the more shortsighted amendments that we address in the Congress this year, unfortunately. In fact, it may be the most shortsighted amendment. As the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] said in his comments, in a time of global competition the Technology Administration is the one place in the Federal Government where the Government is an ally, not an enemy of business. The Technology Administration acts as a focal point for all industry concerns, both foreign and domestic, such as monitoring the activities of foreign firms and their parent governments, the unintended consequences of legislation and regulations that emanate from here and, as I said, a rapidly changing global economy. This place in our Government is the one place where industry and American business has an ally. It is an advocate for industry in our country at a time when businesses need help to meet this worldwide competition. A recent report by the Council on Competitiveness and a position statement by the Industrial Research Institute urge our Government to work more closely with industry and to strengthen existing ties. This amendment is a step backward from that, the very essence of what we are trying to do in terms of an ally of our American businesses. It manages and oversees the very things that make our businesses competitive, or helps make them so, and in a time when the short-term marketplace, and the pressures there, is squeezing the ability of American firms to do necessary long-term high-risk research and development, this is the one thing we need to do as a nation.

Mr. TANNER

Mr. TANNER. Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] and the others who worked with us. I certainly want to thank the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] and others who have worked on our side. I think we are very close. This motion to instruct has really four general, but necessary, principles I think we all share in this body, Democrat or Republican, to make sure, as one of the previous speakers said, we get it right. It talks about the cost shifting to local governments, and we need to really take a look at that. As the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] said, there is no reason to again demand that States do it our way or face penalties, and then we all know what happens there. There is still a part of the House bill that treats a 4-year-old child like a 34-year-old irresponsible adult. We really can fix that, and we need to. We talk also about Medicaid coverage. The Senate took a great step yesterday in a vote of, I think it was, 95 to 2 to fix that portion of it, and surely the conference committee can take a look at that. Finally, we talk about the savings that are achieved here going to deficit reduction, which directly will affect these children that we are talking about in the previous parts of the bill. So we are close. The Senate did some good work yesterday. If we can just in the conference utilize our imagination, as one of the previous speakers over there said, to try to get to some closure on these principles, not harming children, actually making sure that the funding is there to make the system work. I think we are very close to a breakthrough and a conference committee report that we can all support and the President can sign.