Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I commend all these young Members and all the people who have been working for a balanced budget, as well as reserve funds for social security and the efforts we have made. In fact, if the legislative branch, and I owe this to my predecessors, because the last two chairmen have reduced the legislative branch substantially. We are not even back up to where we were in 1993 and 1994, even with inflation. I hope we can stay below that. I also point out that we are substantially below the caps that were given to us. We are going to report a bill that is substantially below the caps. I am not sure any other committee will be doing that. Mr. Speaker, I would say to all of us in the body that if they have a $1.8 trillion corporation, they are not going to talk about not having adequate staff and qualified staff to carry out the funding and the appropriations of that $1.8 trillion appropriations. If one does, then one is pennywise and pound foolish because one has to have adequate people and pay them adequately, especially in today's market, to carry out that task. We have in our report returned a portion of the MRAs to the Members, and I certainly support that. I agree with the gentleman, what he said about a lot of Members will return portions of the budget. I commend them for doing that. If they have the ability to do that, they certainly should. But we all know that every district is different in this country. If I were in, for instance, a district where I had one television station and I could report to the people what was happening in the Congress without mail or without any communication other than that television station, and there are Members of the Congress that do that, then I would be able to return more of my money. But I have 15 rural counties, and the only way I can report is to give them a report by mail. In my district, over 90 percent of the people regard that as favorable, and they respond so. They point out that they want more information, not less, about what is going on in Congress. As I say, if the people in my district support that, then I am certainly going to continue to put my efforts in that area to tell them what is going on in this body. I think that, as I say, we have done a good job. The word ``conference'' means that we go across the body and we have to confer with the Senate. They asked for a lot more money. They did not get it all. They got some. Because, in a conference, one has to give and take. We would have liked to have spent less money, but we held the line very diligently. I think we will be proud of this report. I would also point out that I do not think any Member who has spoken tonight has consulted with either the committee chairman or the ranking member or the staff to see what actually we have done. They may be surprised that we have held the line much better than previously than what they think may have been happening. So I would commend this report to my colleagues. It will be coming before we leave in August. I think that my colleagues may be more proud of it in this body than they might think.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to an unforeseen airline delay enroute to Washington, I was not present to vote on rollcall vote No. 335, the Hoeffel amendment to H.R. 1074. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this amendment. I was also unable to vote on rollcall vote No. 336 on passage of H.R. 1074. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on this recorded vote.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1905) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, there is no dollar amount connected with this amendment. The amendment kills the bill. I am going to work with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) in certain areas that he brought up. We support the amendment of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the work that he has done. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose and vote against the motion to recommit.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this amendment or some variation has been included for the past several years in the bill. We accept the amendment and we commend the three gentleman for offering it tonight.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, when I came here in 1991, this House was much more troubled than the last speaker before the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor) indicated. We had a House bank that had been corrupted by abuses of some former Members of this body, we had drugs being sold in the post office, we had purchases being made by former Members of this body. There were a number of perks that were abusive of this body. Members of both parties got together and eliminated those abuses. We have worked to see that this House is a House that we can all be proud of. We have done that in points of law, and we have done that by cutting our own budget to respect what is happening in the public generally. Most people are having to cut their budgets, and we will have to wrestle with a lot of problems in the other 12 bills that will be coming before us. We have done it in a bipartisan way, and I am proud of our bill that we have now. I appreciate the work of both parties of the committee in this area. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would tell my colleague that since 1995, my predecessors, the last two chairmen, have saved over $1.2 billion in this bill. Now, that is a savings trend established in the 1990 to 1995 period. In addition, the FTEs have been substantially reduced, and we have a work force that is about 16 percent lower than it was in 1994, the last year that the majority party was in power, which at that time were the Democrats. So we have had both a savings in substantial dollar savings and in FTE employment savings.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for her comments and our pages for the excellent work they have done.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I want to begin by thanking the members of my subcommittee for all the hard work in writing this bill. They include the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp); the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson); the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor); the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha); and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the full committee chairman, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full committee, for their assistance. The bill was considered by the full committee on May 20 and reported to the House on May 21. No roll call votes were taken in full committee. The Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill totals $1.9 billion in new obligational authority of which $1.178 billion is for congressional operations exclusive of Senate items. The balance of the bill, $739 million is for the operations of the other legislative branch agencies. The bill, Mr. Chairman, is $116 million below the budget request, a 5.7 percent reduction. Also, it is $135 million below the current fiscal year, including the supplementals, a 6.6 percent reduction. Now, if a further amendment is passed, which I will support later tonight, it will be reduced by 9.3 percent. Major items in the bill: The House of Representatives is funded at $769 million. Primarily, this includes funds for staff COLA's, merit increases, and benefits. There is also an increase for communications costs. The Joint Economic Committee is funded at the request level, an increase of $104,000. The Joint Committee on Taxation is funded at $6.2 million. The attending physician is funded at $1.9 million. That is the amount requested. The funding for the Capitol Police is $85.2 million. That includes $78.5 million for salaries and $6.7 million for expenses. The CBO is funded at $26.2 million. The Architect of the Capitol receives $154 million. The operating budget increase of about $4 million will cover staff costs. The capital budget is lower than 1999 due to one-time costs for the Capitol Visitors Center. Except in a few instances, funding has not been provided for projects which have not been 100 percent designed. The Architect has asked for construction funds for 39 projects that have not been designed, including phase 2 of the Dome Project. We have several instances where the Architect's design team has significantly increased their funding requests after the original construction was funded. So a policy not to provide construction funds until design is finished will create more discipline and fiscal prudence in the process. The Dome will not be delayed. We will still be on schedule if funds are provided in the Fiscal Year 2001 cycle. The Congressional Research Service will receive $71.3 million, and the Library of Congress, $315 million. This provides funds for the current employment level. We have asked the Library to fund $3.4 million of requested program increases through savings. The Government Printing Office will receive $107 million, and a limit of 3,313 FTEs has been set. The GAO will be funded at $372 million plus authority to spend $1.4 million in receipts from audits that they do for other agencies. The GAO funds include COLAs for 3,245 FTEs, a slight decrease under the current level projected for 1999. General administrative provisions have been included. We have also made some technical corrections asked for by the Committee on House Administration. We have included a provision of permanent law, section 101, that gives House counsel comparable authority and notification as the Senate counsel now has. The bill equals the subcommittee 302(b) allocations. The bill continues with constraint. The bill is substantially under our appropriations of last year, not counting the supplemental, and is substantially under the 1995 bill. I urge all Members to support the bill. Mr. Chairman, I include the following tables for the Record: [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JN99.000 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JN99.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10JN99.002 Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000. I want to begin by thanking the members of my subcommittee for all their hard work in writing this bill. They include myself, as Chairman, Zach Wamp of Tennessee; Jerry Lewis of California; Kay Granger of Texas; John Peterson of Pennsylvania; and Ed Pastor, the ranking minority member from Arizona; John Murtha of Pennsylvania; and Steny Hoyer from Maryland. I also want to thank the full committee chairman, Bill Young of Florida; and David Obey, the full committee ranking minority member from Wisconsin, for their assistance. The bill was considered by the full committee on May 20 and reported to the House on May 21. No rollcall votes were taken in full committee. recommendations for fiscal year 2000 The fiscal 2000 legislative branch appropriations bill totals $1.9 billion ($1,916,967,000) in new obligational authority of which $1.178 billion ($1,178,027,000) is for congressional operations exclusive of Senate items. The balance of the bill, $739 million ($738,940,000), is for the operations of the other legislative branch agencies. The bill is $116.2 million ($116,162,000) below the budget request, a 5.7% reduction. Also, it is $135.2 million ($135,150,100) below the current fiscal year (including supplementals)--a 6.6% reduction. major items in the bill The House of Representatives is funded at $769 million ($769,019,000). Primarily, this includes funds for staff COLA's, merit increases, and benefits. There is also an increase for communications costs, some of which are made necessary by the cyber Congress initiative. The Joint Economic Committee is funded at the request level, an increase of $104,000 for committee staff COLA's. The Joint Committee on Taxation is funded at $6.2 million ($6,188,000). The Attending Physician's funding is $1.9 million ($1,898,000). That is the amount requested. The funding for the Capitol Police is $85.2 million ($85,212,000). That includes $78.5 million ($78,501,000) for salaries and $6.7 million ($6,711,000) for expenses. The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $26.2 million ($26,221,000). The Architect of the Capitol receives $154 million ($154,327,000). The operating budget increase of $4 million ($3,973,000) will cover staff costs. The capital budget is lower than FY1999 due to one time costs for the Capitol Visitors Center. Except in a few instances, funding has not been provided for projects which have not been 100% designed. The Architect asked for construction funds for 39 projects that have not been designed, including phase 2 of the dome project. We have several instances where the Architect's design team has significantly increased their funding requests after the original construction funding. So, a policy not to provide construction funds until design is finished will create more discipline and fiscal prudence in the process. The dome will not be delayed--we will still be on schedule if funds are provided in the FY 2001 cycle. The Congressional Research Service will receive $71.3 million ($71,255,000) and the Library of Congress $315 million ($314,953,000). This provides funds for the current employment level. We have asked the library to fund $3.4 million of requested program increases through savings. The Government Printing Office will receive $107.7 million ($107,690,000) and a limit of 3,313 FTE's has been set. The General Accounting Office will be funded at $372.7 million ($372,681,000) plus authority to spend $1.4 million ($1,400,000) in receipts from audits they do for other agencies. The GAO funds include COLA's for 3,245 FTE'S, a slight decrease under the current level projected for FY 1999. General and administrative provisions: Several standard general provisions have been included. We have also made some technical corrections asked for by the House Administration Committee. And we have included a provision of permanent law, section 101, that gives House counsel comparable authority and notification as Senate counsel now enjoys. Bill summary: BA compared to: 1999 level: A reduction of 6.6%, or $135.2 million--(-$135,150,000). 2000 request: A reduction of 5.7%, or $116.2 million-- (-$116,162,000). 302b: The bill just equals the 302B allocation (Senate excluded). Here are some additional interesting comparisons: Since 1995, the legislative bill has produced savings of $1.2 billion below the trend of appropriations levels during the previous 5 years. If all Federal outlays had been constrained at the same rate as the legislative budget, the entire Federal budget would have produced a cumulative additional surplus beyond those currently projected of $1.1 trillion during these past 5 years. Since 1994, the legislative branch has downsized by 4,412 employees. That is a 16% reduction. The bill continues that constraint, but it will provide the Congress and our support agencies the resources needed to carry out our jobs. I urge all Members to support the bill and I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1905, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to our former colleague James McClure Clarke of Fairview, North Carolina who passed away last night. Although we were of different political parties and had our differences, James Clarke was a distinguished politician and, at all times, a gentleman. Originally from Manchester, Vermont, Congressman Clarke graduated from Princeton University in 1939. He served as a Naval officer in the Pacific Theater during World War II from 1942-1945. Upon returning from the war, he began a lifetime of public service to the people of Western North Carolina, service that included the role of senior editor of the Asheville Citizen-Times from 1961-1969 and eight years on the Buncombe County School Board. He served with distinction two terms in the North Carolina House of Representatives from 1977-1980, and one term in the state Senate from 1981-1982. He represented North Carolina's 11th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1983-1985 and again from 1987-1989. Congressman Clarke set a standard of service for the people of North Carolina to which every future member who has the privilege to represent them will be held. In every aspect of his professional and personal life, Congressman Clarke exhibited a gentility that is rarely seen in politics today. We will all certainly miss him. My prayers and those of everyone in Western North Carolina are with the Clarke family.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, Buncombe County, Western North Carolina and America lost a true leader this week, R. Curtis Ratcliff. ``Curt'' was a leader in Buncombe County government for nearly two decades and fighter for the taxpayers. I am honored to share with my colleagues The Asheville Citizen Times of March 18th appreciation of Curt. [From the Asheville Citizen Times, Mar. 18, 1999] Ratcliff Remembered as Friend to Taxpayers (By Barbara Blake) Leicester--R. Curtis ``Curt'' Ratcliff was a man who ruffled plenty of political feathers during his 16 years at the helm of Buncombe County government. But few would argue with the fact that he was a champion of the ``little man'' and a passionate advocate for county taxpayers. Ratcliff, who died Monday at age 69, had friends and foes in the political arena. But community leaders who worked with Ratcliff during more than two decades in public service said Wednesday he was a man of his word, a tireless proponent of fiscal responsibility and a friend to the community. ``Sure, there were partisan politics,'' said former County Commissioner Doris Giezentanner, one of many Democrats who squabbled with the Republican leader during his four terms as chairman of the county board. ``That always happens on a mixed board or even one that is one party or another,'' Giezentanner said. ``But it's quickly forgotten; I will always remember Curtis as a kind, generous person even when we differed politically.'' Ratcliff, who served as commission chairman from 1972 until he was defeated in 1988 by UNCA political science professor Eugene Rainey, differed politically with a lot of elected officials over the years--sometimes even those of his own party, if they seemed to favor citizens inside rather than outside the city of Asheville. Former Asheville Mayor Louis Bissette was one of them--a Republican, but a champion of the city's interests in divisive issues like the revamping of the city-county water agreement. ``There were some very difficult issues that arose during the 1980s between the city of Asheville and Buncombe County,'' Blasette said. ``But even in the midst of those emotional times, I always found you could depend on Curt Ratcliff's word, and he always acted in what he believed to be the best interests of the people of Buncombe County.'' Tom Sobol, current chairman of the board, was a newcomer during Ratcliff's last term, 1984-88. One of two Democrats-- with Giezentanner--on the five-member commission, Sobol clashed frequently with the Republican leader. ``Even though I was in the minority party, Curt was always up front and totally honest with me on every issue that came up,'' Sobol said. ``We had different political philosophies, but he was always up front about where he was going to be (on an issue) and what was going to happen.'' Ratcliff also kept his door open to the freshman commissioner and offered help when it was needed. ``I never went into Curt's office that he wouldn't take time to explain to me the workings of some county government problem I had a question about,'' Sobol said, ``That meant a great deal to me, that he would take time to deal with me when he didn't have to.'' Former Republican Commissioner Jesse Ledbetter, who served two terms with Ratcliff, said the long-time chairman was ``an advocate for the little people of Buncombe County, particularly those living outside the city.'' ``During this century, I do not know of a better friend to the taxpayers than Curt Ratcliff was,'' Ledbetter said. ``He was always very meticulous in the wise use of public funds, and in safeguarding all public assets.'' ``He was a good friend in every way,'' Ledbetter said.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, due to inclement weather I was unavoidably detained in North Carolina this morning and was therefore unable to cast a vote on rollcall Votes 34, 35 and 36. Had I been present, I would have voted ``YEA'' on rollcall 34, ``YEA'' on rollcall 35 and ``YEA'' on rollcall 36.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our Nation, but, unfortunately, a necessary one. The President took an oath to uphold all the laws of the Nation. I recognize in that many respects the Nation has become a morass of regulations that have the effect of law, which sometimes contradict each other and can confuse the average citizen. The Congress, to its shame has allowed such regulations to become so multiplied and so confusing. This President was not caught up in bureaucratic regulations, but has been charged, and an overwhelming amount of evidence has been produced, which proves he has violated some of the most fundamental laws recognized by almost every government. The President had violated common law and some of the first laws adopted by this country, perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice. He has added insult to our constitution by abusing his power in covering up his crimes. These are serious felonies for which convicted citizens are placed in prison and Federal public official have been and are impeached and expelled from office. I and other Member of Congress did not wish to be here today, however, we must fulfill our constitutional oath. Serious charges, which go to the heart of our constitution and rule of law, were placed before the Congress. As required by law, we have to fulfill our oath and vote for impeachment to send the matter to the Senate for trial if there is sufficient evidence. It is clear that after serious and due consideration of the evidence presented and available that the President committed felonies of which he is charged. I believe that his actions of perjury, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury and abuse of power are of a serious nature and that they merit impeachment by this body and trial by the Senate. If they were committed by any citizen, they would be serious. When they have been committed by the Chief Executive Officer who functions as the chief law enforcement officer of the Nation, they merit impeachment by this body and trial by the Senate. Accordingly, it is my duty to the Constitution, the people of the United States, and to the rule of law to vote for impeachment of the President.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. That was Frank, and certainly it was a tribute to Frank and to his district to return him back here, and he has been with us since. I think that is a tribute to the people of his district to see and to overcome the heavy spending and the negative attacks and to become a permanent Member of this Congress, where he has been always steadfast in his search for truth and his search for the best interests of the people of California as well as the United States.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I, too, appreciate the tribute that is being offered to Congressman Riggs. Frank has been a good friend and an outstanding Member of this Congress. I knew he had courage when he joined our freshman year as a Member of the Gang of 7 to protest what he thought, and we all thought, was illegal and unjust activities of the House of Representatives. Of course, the truth proved out and, as we know and as was mentioned a moment ago, there were a lot of things that went on from that investigation. We have a much cleaner and more responsible Congress because of that. I found that Frank had courage in the district also. Frank is an environmentalist in the sense that he cares about the environment and he works to promote real science in the area of the environment. A lot of people do not realize that here in Washington the environment has become a tool for people to scare money out of individuals. They take in over $600 million, putting false science out and trying to scare people into spending money for ridiculous ideas, and these programs often result in legislation that takes jobs away from people unnecessarily and promotes pseudo science. Frank has worked with us on many of our efforts, especially in the area of forestry, to promote what our best universities teach and our best experimental stations teach. He stood up to the claims of the so- called pseudo environmentalists and stood with the people of his district and the people of California in recommending good, sound science in the area of forestry. That was hard for him to do because they put a lot of money against him in the campaign. In fact, he was defeated after his first term, but he had the courage to maintain truth and he fought back. After the next 2 years, he was reelected to Congress, where he has remained. That told me a lot about Frank's tenacity for the truth. It would have been very easy for him to sell out his ideas. He would have gotten contributions. He would have gotten the accolades of groups that are not promoting truth, but it would not have been Frank Riggs. His stand was bought dear, but it was something that impressed me about his character. He has been involved in a variety of those areas, as well as other outstanding legislation here in Washington, and I am honored to be a friend of Frank and to see him as an outstanding Member of this Congress since we have been here. I appreciate the tribute that is being brought forth tonight.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, last month, the United States Park Police Aviation Unit celebrated its 25th anniversary of service to the nation's capital. We all remember the vivid heroics of the unit in the Air Florida crash rescue on the Potomac River in 1982, and the valiant effort here at the Capitol earlier this summer. I know all Members will want to join me in congratulating Park Police Chief Robert Langston and the Unit on this important anniversary of service. As the Washington Times puts it ``Park Police take to the air in any and all emergencies.'' Park Police Take to the Air in Any and All Emergencies [By Kristan Trugman] A 36-year-old man on a motorcycle collides with another motorcycle as the two men swerve to avoid a piece of wood in the road near Crofton. The man slides across Route 450 and is in need of medical help. Within minutes, the phone rings about 5:20 p.m. Saturday at the U.S. Park Police Aviation Section--called the Eagles Nest--at Anacostia Park. Sgt. Kevin Duckworth, 36, a pilot, and Officer Doug Bullock, 32, a rescue technician, look at a map, grab their helmets and climb into Eagle 1, a twin-engine helicopter. They head to Crofton to fly the victim to Prince George's Hospital Center in Cheverly. The helicopter lands in a grassy field at Crofton Middle School and waits about 10 minutes for an ambulance to arrive from the accident scene about 6 miles away. At 5:55 p.m., Sgt. Duckworth lifts the helicopter off the ground; five minutes later, doctors at the hospital are examining the man, who will recover. The Saturday mission is one of more than 6,000 medical evacuations performed by the helicopter section since 1973. The section is best known for its rescue of passengers in the January 1982 crash of an Air Florida jet into the 14th Street Bridge and Potomac River. Most recently, it flew a mortally wounded Special Agent Officer John M. Gibson, 42, to the Washington Hospital Center on July 24 after the shooting at the U.S. Capitol that also killed Officer Jacob J. Chestnut, 58. While those missions highlighted the aviation unit in the news, its primary role and about half of its work is law- enforcement operations. The officers in the sky patrol assist officers on the ground almost daily. Since the demise of the Metropolitan Police Department's helicopter branch in 1996, the Park Police has the only law- enforcement aviation unit in Washington. Its main function is to assist the U.S. Park Police, but it also helps medical and law enforcement agencies across the metro area. At the crew's discretion and depending on the number of hours the helicopters have flown in a month, officers can patrol in the air, usually for about an hour. ``You fly for an hour and you feel you've been through the wringer. It can be fatiguing,'' says Officer Ronald Galey, 49, who has been a member of the unit since 1977 and a pilot since 1987. A few minutes later, he and Officer Bullock take Eagle 1 up for patrol about 9 p.m. Saturday night. The helicopter whirls past the U.S. Capitol, the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial, all glowing in the night. The officers let dispatchers know they are in the air and available for assistance. ``Let's see if we can find an aggressive driver or two,'' Officer Bullock says. In the next few minutes, the officers spot aggressive drivers along the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and again on the Capitol Beltway near the American Legion Bridge. The officers shine a spotlight on the drivers, who quickly slow down. ``It lets them know someone is watching them,'' Officer Bullock says. The rain and chill in the air Saturday night apparently kept criminals indoors. ``It's pretty quiet out there,'' Officer Bullock says as his eyes scan the ground and he listens to the police radio. ``I'm not at all surprised, given the weather,'' Officer Galey says. After an hour, the officers land the helicopter, refuel, fill out paperwork and wait for the next call. In its 25 years--an anniversary the unit celebrated in a recent ceremony--the section has flown more than 25,000 hours without an accident. Since January 1994, the unit of 15 officers--six pilots, seven rescue technicians who are certified paramedics, and two administrators--operates 24 hours a day. Park Police formed the aviation section in April 1973. It provides support for law enforcement, emergency medical evacuation for trauma patients, search-and-rescue missions, presidential and dignitary security, and transportation of high-risk prisoners. Congress funds the unit--part of the U.S. Department of the Interior--that flies about 1,000 hours each year. The unit has two helicopters--Eagle 1, a Bell 412 SP, and Eagle 2, a Bell 206 Long-Ranger. Funding for a third helicopter is included in the $8.5 million budget for the aviation unit in the D.C. appropriations bill. The two helicopters have thermal imagers that indicate heat and help officers find criminals hiding in woods or trespassers in federal parks after dark. They also have high- intensity searchlights, which is what the officers focused on the aggressive drivers. The twin-engine helicopter has a rescue hoist system that has 245 feet of cable and can lift 600 pounds. The officers also have radios on board that allow them direct contact with officers on the ground. From 1991 to 1997, the unit responded to more than 9,500 calls for assistance, performed more than 2,376 medical evacuations and responded to more than 730 search-and-rescue operations. It assisted on more than 3,360 criminal calls and 979 arrests and provided more than 812 flights for the president and other dignitaries. ``That's why I like it here. There's a variety,'' Sgt. Duckworth says. When the helicopters are in the air, the rescue technicians handle the operation while the pilot concentrates on flying. Officer Galey particularly enjoys the flights chasing fleeing criminals in cars. They are challenging, he says, because while watching sky, the pilot also is forced to divert his attention to the car on the road. ``And you're a little lower than you normally would be. There are a lot of towers to be cognizant of,'' he said. Most pilots and rescue technicans agree that the most difficult operations are those involving injured children.``Nine times out of 10, it's because an adult messed up. They are victims of circumstance,'' Sgt. Duckworth said, sitting at aviation headquarters, where a gray cat has taken up residence and keeps the mice away. Officer Galey said fewer patients are dying while en route to hospitals because, through the years, medics on the ground have been better trained and are more equipped to stabilize patients before they are put into the helicopter.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, in 1991, a young woman in my district, Sandy Andrews, was tragically killed when a train struck her vehicle at a railroad crossing. But sometimes, out of such tragedies, come good things. Sandy Andrews was active in youth sports in North Cove, North Carolina, where she lived with her husband and three sons. So to honor her memory, her family donated approximately 10 acres along U.S. Highway 221 for building a park. With the involvement of the McDowell County government, many volunteers, and local grant monies, that park was built. On Saturday, September 12, 1998, the Sandy Andrews Memorial Park was opened, providing a ball field with dugouts, a playground, basketball court, and a volleyball court. In this day when so many senseless tragedies occur, the building of this park is a tribute to both the memory of Sandy Andrews, and the resolution of her family and her community to honor her memory. It is an honor to share the story of that tribute with my colleagues today. [From the McDowell News, Sept. 14, 1998] Family Hopes Memorial Park Will Benefit County's Children (By Ragan Robinson) A host of North Cove residents and county officials were on hand for the dedications of the Sandy Andrews Memorial Park Saturday morning. Approximately 10 acres of land located on U.S. 221 North was donated for the park by Roger, Tom and Louis Andrews. The county put up funds, enlisted volunteer and inmate labor and received grant money to add the ballfield, dugout, playground. basketball court and volleyball court. It was named after Roger Andrews' late wife, Sandy, who was killed in 1991 when a train hit her vehicle at a nearby railroad crossing. ``This could not have happened without the generosity of the Andrews family,'' said Commission Chairman Butch Hogan during the dedication. Sandy Andrews would have been very excited to see the park finished, according to her family. She was involved in youth sports in the North Cove community, where she and her husband lived. ``It's a great tribute to a great woman,'' said Hogan. Ben McCall, president of North Cove Youth Activities, spoke to the group, saying that area residents are proud of their community and of their children. ``America will hopefully return to a lot of the things North Cove never left,'' he noted. ``Ours are good kids and they're worth our effort. This is only a portion of what we should do for them.'' He also praised the hard work many in the community had put into making the park a reality, adding that Roger Andrews had spent many long, hot days laboring to get it finished. Roger Andrews acknowledged the effort so many had made and said watching the park benefit local children would be all the reward he and his family wanted for their investment. After introducing Sandy Andrews' three sons, Benji, Brian and Lee, he read a chapter from Corinthians which he said had been his late wife's favorite. She always had tremendous amount of patience, he said, and possessed the ability to endure ad great deal without complaint. ``Charity, which Sandy possessed such a great measure of, is the only thing that exists beyond the grave,'' he said. ``We got this done with the inspiration she left with us.'' After the dedication, organizers held a potato sack rack, a three-legged race, a wheel-barrow race and an egg and spoon race. There was also youth softball, volleyball, soccer, basketball and softball for the visitors.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 1998, I spoke to the issue before the House regarding the sense of the House regarding law enforcement officers who have died in the line of duty. At that time, I noted that every day in America, police officers keep the peace in our communities. They stand as guardians of that line that too many thugs and hoodlums dare to cross. Tragically, in the line of that duty, some of these brave protectors are killed. Indeed, this very House has recently been the scene of such a tragedy. In my remarks at that time, I added the names of North Carolina's fallen peace officers to the Congressional Record so that their sacrifice would always be remembered. Since then, my constituents brought one more name to my attention for inclusion in the Congressional Record, that of Officer Denny Quay Enevold of the Hendersonville Police Department, who died in the line of duty on November 23, 1982. I am pleased and honored to do so at this time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, spending the taxpayers' money, first of all, I somewhat resent the fact that we talk about D.C.'s money or the Federal tax dollars. We have a budget here that is $5.2 billion. The Federal taxpayer picks up about 40 percent of that, over $2 billion of that money, to do ordinarily in the District what the citizens of the District would have to do. We just picked up, for instance, $800 million approximately to handle the area's prisoners that the District had paid for a number of years. And we will continue to work together in maintaining this city. So it is disingenuous to talk about what the local residents pay versus the national taxpayers pay because what the national taxpayer pays usually is in place of services that the local taxpayers have to pay. I am also a taxpayer here, as are most of us in this room. Every time we eat, every time we have lodging, D.C. has a tax rate in sales that is twice what it is across the river. They have a local income tax twice as greater as it is across the river. And so, most of us are paying a property tax or sales tax or other tax here in D.C. Now, I can share the desire of the gentlewoman to bring forth her argument. But there is a proper way to bring it forth. It is to bring the motion before the Congress of the United States, have a debate, have a vote. If the Congress decides for a Constitutional amendment, it will go out to three-fifths of the States and they will decide whether or not the District of Columbia will be changed from what the framers of the Constitution intended, that is a Federal district, a special consideration, we have them throughout the country in military bases, in other areas, where the Federal Government chose specifically to have total control in that area, or whether or not we will have a State or some other type of organization. And that is the proper way to do it. What the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) is asking us to do is to spend U.S. taxpayers' money to bring forth an argument that the same U.S. taxpayers will have to answer on the other side, and that I think is a waste of the taxpayers' money when we have a solution to this problem. I am not necessarily saying that I would vote for it, but it is a solution. It is a way that anytime the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) wants to bring that before this body, we will debate it, vote on it, and if it moves forward it will go out to the people to see whether or not the Constitution will be changed. It is wasteful for us to sue ourselves on this issue year after year. I would point out that the Corporation Counsel's office has increased this year from 271 attorneys up to 503 attorneys in the District of Columbia. We have increased the number of attorneys by 232 members. And to spend the millions of dollars that it will take to fund this type of argument is I think unjust to the people of the United States and the city of Washington, especially with the number of needs we have in this country and in this city.