Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for my speech at the moment, but considering where it was 6 or 8 weeks ago, it is much better and I appreciate the comments from my fellow colleagues about my health. I want to also thank the members of my subcommittee, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann], the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt], the gentlewoman from Kentucky [Mrs. Northup], the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Aderholt], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] for all their hard work on this bill. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member and I have disagreed on many parts of the bill, but he has always been very supportive in his efforts, with polite debate and working with us in those areas where we could agree. It is often a thankless job, but a necessary one, for we frequently hear about the residents of the District, but we have a responsibility to the 260 million Americans to whom this city is very special. H.R. 2607, the District of Columbia appropriations bill, fully funds the District of Columbia at $4.8 billion. It pays down $200 million of the District's short-term debt and provides $100 million additional if savings are provided. It provides $269 million for needed capital improvements, school and street repairs. It reforms medical malpractice. It provides scholarship choice for Washington, DC students. With the enactment of the Balanced Budget Act early this summer, the Congress relieved the District of some $700 million in spending responsibilities and provided the District with some $235 million in net savings. Now, this was not saved by the District, but it was able to be used toward reducing the District's debt. Our bill uses these savings to pay down debt and to fix the crumbling schools and streets which have been disregarded in many cases in the Nation's Capital. The bill provides that additional management savings the District promised in its fiscal year 1999 budget be moved to fiscal year 1998, with any savings realized devoted to further deficit reduction. Finally, District revenues over estimates will be placed in a D.C. taxpayer's relief fund. That fund will perhaps provide somewhere between $75 million and $100 million in much needed taxpayer relief. With over 100,000 taxpayers having left the District in the past few years, our bill tries to reach the twin goals of making the city government more effective and keeping in place a tax base. It really does not matter how efficient we make D.C., because if we continue driving taxpayers out of the District then all we may be doing is just processing welfare payments. Our bill also includes groundbreaking provisions to provide educational scholarships for the District's children and places noneconomic damage limits on medical malpractice awards up to $250,000, and permits the schools to waive Davis-Bacon so that needed school repairs can get done in a timely, cost effective manner. The House passed education scholarships as part of the fiscal year 1996 bill, and the medical malpractice reform in this bill is based on the House passed medical malpractice provisions of this year's budget bill. Our bill also removed the tax exemption for the National Education Association and devotes their property tax payment to charter schools. Our bill also funds the University of the District of Columbia Law School. However, if it does not receive full and unconditional accreditation, the funds appropriated will be used for those students currently enrolled to gain an education elsewhere. We provide District of Columbia police officers and fire fighters with a needed pay raise based on merit--and performance, for officers on the street, not behind a desk. And we make sure that school teachers have valid credentials before they can receive a raise. And, finally, our bill contains a number of important provisions to strengthen the independence of the D.C. inspector general and the chief financial officer, and to provide the D.C. Control Board with congressional direction and priorities. Our manager's amendment, drafted with the full support of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], my ranking minority member, and incorporated into the rule just passed, resolves several thorny issues, including making sure that the control board selects an independent vendor qualified by the Office of Management and Budget to update the District's current financial management system. Our bill also recognizes the policing activity made by the U.S. Park Police by providing, for the first time, funds to reimburse the Park Police for their major contributions to public safety. Regarding Federal funds, the bill provides a total $827 million, including: $180 million in Federal contribution to the District, $169 million to corrections for operations, $302 million to corrections for facilities, $123 million for courts, $23 million for pre-trial services, $5.4 million for police merit raise, $2.6 million for firefighters payraise, $12.5 million for Park Police, $7 million for Parental Choice Educational Scholarships, $1 million for District Educational Learning Technology Advancement Council [DELTA Council], and $2 million for the DC Inspector General. The windfall of $235,000,000 realized from the Revitalization Act is allocated as follows: $200 million in deficit reduction, $30 million in PAYGo street and school repairs, and $5 million in management performance fund. In the bill we establish a D.C. taxpayer relief fund and require that any District revenue in excess of estimates be deposited into the fund. It is estimated that perhaps $75 will be deposited. Tax cuts will be enacted by the District City Council based on the recommendations of the D.C. Tax Revision Commission and the Business Regulatory Reform Commission. The bill also moves up to $100 million in fiscal year 1999 management savings initiatives to fiscal year 1998, savings realized devoted to deficit reduction. In addition the bill includes several other provisions. Law School: Fully funds UDC School of Law contingent upon receive full and unconditional accreditation. If accreditation is not received by February 28, 1998, school closes and remaining funds re for D.C. resident student scholarships at area law schools. Davis-Bacon waiver, Permits D.C. public schools to waive Davis-Bacon requirements for school construction and repairs, saving the District up to 20 percent. Similar waiver have been granted for natural disaster like Hurricane Hugo, the D.C. school situation is a man made disaster but a disaster nevertheless. Pennsylvania Avenue reopening: At the recommendation of a District City Council Member, the bill re-opens that section of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House to traffic. The closure has disrupted the flow of traffic and impeded citizen access to the White House. Welfare Cap: Places District Council enacted welfare caps--holding payments to the higher of surrounding jurisdictions--into that portion of the D.C. Code which is unamendable by the District Council. This provision ensures that the District will not again become a welfare payment magnet. Medical Malpractice Reform: District physicians continue to pay medical malpractice premiums as much as two times greater than in neighboring States, reducing the number of physicians willing to practice in the city and limiting access to health care. The bill's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, and joint and several liability reform could reduce such premium by 20 percent. Five of the District's thirteen hospitals operated at a loss last year, and the cash strapped city government paid $15 million in tort recoveries last year. The District of Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the country with no limits on malpractice awards. Repeal of National Education Association Tax Exemption: The bill eliminate the property tax exemption for the National Education Association. Currently, some 34 organizations are congressionally chartered and exempt from paying District of Columbia property taxes. Only one, the National Education is a labor union. The NEA has announced that it agrees, it principal to pay it's one million, one hundred thousand dollar tax bill. There are many changes in this legislation that are very much needed, and many of the provisions are not in the Senate bill. The Senate bill does not restrict pay raises to those teachers who have valid teaching credentials. The House bill does. The House bill also on a bipartisan basis strengthens the independence of the District's inspector general and chief financial officer so they can carry out their duties without interference. The Senate does not. The House bill also tightens up the use of detailees and requires the user office to pay for the detailees. This is very much needed based on recent reports showing certain city offices with more employees than they admit to. The Senate bill does not address this issue. The House bill also caps the outrageous tort awards which are driving medical providers out of the District and making medical care more difficult and more expensive to get. The Senate bill does not. The House bill also cuts the size of the Mayor's security in half, from 30 members to 15, and puts those highly trained police officers on the street to go after criminals. The Senate bill allows the mayor to keep the largest security detail in the Nation. The House bill gives the city important tools to improve its finances by allowing for the recovery of fees and costs for bad checks and by clarifying the city's authority over unclaimed property. These are tools that are essential if the city is to improve its finances. The Senate bill is silent on those issues. The Senate bill does not provide the District with the authority to make direct deposits for all payments. The House bill does. The House bill makes sure that the congressionally created Control Board is audited and that the funds it earns as interest are appropriated by this body. The Senate bill does not. The House bill caps the District's welfare payments at the higher of the surrounding jurisdictions. The Senate bill permits the District to raise welfare payments to as high as 50 percent above the surrounding jurisdictions, once more making Washington the welfare capital of America. The House bill includes language restoring fairness in the application of the local property tax among labor organizations in the District. This provision will generate an additional $1.3 million in local tax revenues. The Senate bill does not address this issue at all. Those are just a few of the differences between the House and the Senate bills. The work that we provide in this bill is certainly commendable. We urge Members' support for this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment to establish a pilot program to provide affordable housing in the Russian Federation. This program would prohibit any funds from being used to support Russian military housing. It has the support of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] the authorizing committee chairman, and also the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking member. I understand that the gentleman will pursue this program with the executive branch. It is my understanding that he will also pursue this concept in conference. Therefore, my legislative language is not necessary. Is that the understanding of the gentleman from Alabama?

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to speak out of order. On rollcall vote 231, House Resolution 79, to disapprove most-favored-nation treatment to the products of the People's Republic of China, I was recorded as voting ``no'', it was my intention to vote ``yes'', to deny MFN to China. I ask that this statement be printed in the Congressional Record immediately after rollcall vote 231.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of a truly fine gentleman and friend, Donald Grady ``Jack'' Ward, a lifelong resident of Henderson County, NC, in the Eleventh Congressional District. Jack was the son of Katherine Harris Ward of Hendersonville and the late Donald G. Ward. He served his country in the Army during World War II, and was a member of the VFW and American Legion. Jack continued his service to America very ably as a member of the Republican Presidential Task Force under Ronald Reagan and George Bush. Further, he was a member of Dana United Methodist Church. As founder of his own business, Ward Brothers Tractor, he was a 10- time honoree of the Red Book Business Character Award. He was also a long time leader in the apple industry in Henderson County. Henry David Thoreau once said that doing good was the only full profession. Jack believed that doing good was not only a profession but a way of life. I join Jack's family, friends, colleagues, and the citizens of Henderson County, in recognizing Jack for his leadership, community service, and service to the country. Jack was a fine American and a loyal friend and supporter. My sympathy is extended to his lovely wife Katherine, his son Donald III, and the rest of the Ward family. It was indeed an honor to represent him in Washington, and to be an honorary pall bearer at the request of his family.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I abhor excessive Government spending as much as anyone and, as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, try to take that position. I also support many of the things that my good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Sanford] supports. I think his outreach to cut spending in all areas of Government is certainly prudent. I cannot defend the State Department on every expenditure or everything it does. I have watched it do many foolish things over the years, as we have all in this body. But I have to oppose this amendment because it is the wrong amendment in the wrong place. This authorization bill will go to the Appropriations Subcommittee. I would advise and invite my colleague, as a member of that subcommittee, to come in and let us look at areas where there might be savings, where there might be opportunities to cut waste, and then deliberately take those one piece at a time if clear explanations are not there for the expenditures. But to arbitrarily cut this much money from the State Department's budget at this time would do exactly what the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has indicated and said clearly it would do. It would create cuts in our security at embassies. It could cut vital expansions of embassies in areas, for instance, such as Russia; badly in Russia. We need a country with 11 time zones, a country with an enormous amount of work to do to the projected market system, to convince them to continue along the ways of the market system and freedom. We need to be putting more and more information and communication there. We need to have availability for their members, for their citizens to be able to come to the United States for both business opportunities as well as educational opportunities. We need to have opportunities for our citizens to travel in Russia. That is just one part of the world that is changing dramatically where we need more communication, where we need more representation rather than less. As we try to project our message through Radio Free Asia or the broadcasting to Cuba or any of the other areas where we are trying to project our point of view, as we try to expand services for the new countries that have been under totalitarian control and are now allowing their citizens to travel and to come out and see what is happening in the free world, we need to be expanding our efforts in these areas. There are opportunities to save, but across-the-board cuts such as this would not be beneficial to any of the efforts for freedom in this country.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. It would mandate, though, if the need were there, it would restrict us in a way that we would not have the freedom of making that decision. If it was not a question of shifting or if we needed more resources in areas as we mentioned a moment ago, either to project our message across the world or to increase our representation in countries such as Russia, it would limit us from doing that. I would urge, rather than a broad cut, come sit with us in the meetings and work toward seeing which areas could be changed, rather than locking the hands of the appropriators and the authorizers, for that matter, in any further deliberation by a direct freeze at this time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. It would be difficult without reviewing the entire bill to see. It may be, more than a cut, it may be a shift in resources might be needed more than a cut itself.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record the following statement which I presented to the House Committee on Resources today: Statement of the Honorable Charles H. Taylor Before the Resources Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to provide my thoughts on the upcoming meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). As you are aware, the Clinton Administration has petitioned CITES to list the commercially valuable S. maccrophylla (Big-Leaf Mahogany) as potentially endangered under Appendix II of the treaty. My interest and experience in this area is two-fold. As you may be aware, I am the only registered forester in Congress, and it is important to me that the policy of the United States on timber issues be informed by sound science and proven principles of forest management. My concern in this area also derives from the importance of wood products to the economy of North Carolina and the nation. Mahogany has always been prized by consumers for its beauty, functionality, and weather resistance. The production of furniture, decking, and decorative arts represent the highest valued uses of this resource. This translates into good jobs in North Carolina, Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Indiana, and many other U.S. states--as well as in range states such as Brazil and Bolivia where economic opportunities are not as abundant. By lending economic value to the forest ecosystems in that region, Mahogany production provides incentives to keep these ecosystems intact. Clearly, all of us should be striving for a sustainable utilization of the Mahogany resources with which this hemisphere has been generously endowed. I have a number of concerns with the proposal to list Big- Leaf Mahogany under CITES Appendix II, and the leading role of the U.S. delegation in that effort. Most fundamentally, the weight of scientific evidence does not show the species in decline. Unfortunately, for some time now the debate over Mahogany has been guided more by emotion and ideology than facts. Based on what has been presented in the media and by advocacy groups, many Americans would be surprised to learn that the range of Mahogany is very large, extending from Mexico to Bolivia. Jack Ward Thomas, who until recently headed the U.S. Forest Service, concluded after a comprehensive review of the evidence that Big-Leaf Mahogany is abundant, with an extensive range, and not threatened with extinction. In all parts of the range, the tree occurs in relatively small quantities in comparison to the total standing timber in the forest, a growth pattern characteristic of many of the species in Latin America. This creates opportunities for selective harvesting in which the majority of trees in a forest are left healthy and standing. ``Range states'' are increasingly relying upon such practices, and many U.S. importers of Mahogany insist on shipments from properly managed forests. South American governments are also more aggressively combating illegal clearing, tightening allowable harvests, and repealing tax incentives that had contributed to deforestation. Brazil recently suspended logging permits for two years, and my understanding is that Peru is in the process of implementing a similar restriction. These facts are acknowledged by the U.S. Forest Service-- the recognized tree experts in the U.S. Government. The Forest Service's leading Mahogany expert, Dr. Ariel Lugo has published a detailed critique of the Appendix II listing proposal, and concluded that it is a ``poor proposal and a bad example of how science is used by the U.S. Government to guide the management of natural resources.'' Dr. Lugo notes more specifically that the * * * proposal does not measure up to the standards of science and fairness required to solve complex and contentious issues, does not reflect the current understanding of the ecology and biology of Big-Leaf Mahogany, it is strongly biased, contains inaccurate statements, and ignores available information that would provide decision-makers with a more accurate understanding of the Mahogany issue. For this reason, the proposal is not a useful policy-making document and should be abandoned. In November 20, 1996 comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), then Chief of the U.S. Forest Service Jack Ward Thomas reached the same conclusions, noting succinctly that ``none of the criteria for listing a species on Appendix II are met.'' Unfortunately, it appears that the Administration has neglected the informed input of its own experts in favor of a more political approach. The process of formulating a U.S. position has been characterized by haste and the exclusion of divergent views. The USFWS participated in three different gatherings of forestry, timber-trade, and plant and Mahogany experts this fall, but engaged in no substantial discussions of the Mahogany proposal. During these meetings, USFWS had an excellent opportunity to inform the groups that an Appendix II listing proposal for Mahogany was being considered, and to solicit their expertise. This was not done, resulting in a foregone opportunity for informed input and discussion. Even the scheduling of CITES action on Mahogany appears to reflect political dynamics more than sound fact gathering. Acting on the proposal in June would moot the efforts of the specially-formed CITES Timber Working Group (TWG) which has completed its work and has submitted its report and recommendations to the CITES Standing Committee. It is premature to forward a listing proposal until this group's report and recommendations are received and considered by the Conference of Parties in Zimbabwe in June. The listing proposal is also premature with respect to the report of an internal study on the Convention's effectiveness which was commissioned by the CITES Standing Committee. The results of this study also will be presented in June. The consultants found (among other things) that certain governments and advocacy groups are disproportionately represented in the work of CITES, and that CITES pays a disproportionate amount of time and effort dealing with the issues surrounding a relatively small number of popular species, such as mahogany. I am also concerned with the characteristic positions of the range states on restricting trade in mahogany. USFWS claims that the majority of the range states support the listing of S. macrophylla. It is notable that only one nation (Costa Rica) has placed unilateral restrictions on mahogany exports. This is explicitly allowed under Appendix III of CITES. Additionally, it has been reported that only Ecuador expressed support for the Appendix II proposal during the USFWS consultation process, and that Peru and Brazil have registered their strong opposition. The whole CITES proves on mahogany reflects an all too familiar pattern of northern hemisphere advocacy groups dictating resource policy to their southern neighbors. The handling of the listing petition for Big-Leaf Mahogany could set an unfortunate precedent. The recently revised listing criteria for CITES are being interpreted by advocacy groups very broadly and in a fashion which would allow almost any commercial tree species to have a CITES Appendix I or II listing. There is a widely-held belief that CITES is not a suitable forum for the regulation of widely traded tree species. CITES was never intended for this purpose. If S. macrophylla is listed on Appendix II, we expect that many additional species will soon be proposed for listing as well. Many other species are prime candidates for listing proposals at subsequent CITES meetings. We call attention to the report of the first phase of a study commissioned by the Netherlands CITES Authorities and conducted by the World Conservation Monitoring Center (WCMC) that evaluated numerous timber species vis-a-vis the new listing criteria adopted in Fort Lauderdale. Phase one of the study examined 58 species, primarily from Africa and Asia. Of the 58, 41 species overall (29 from Africa alone) were found to qualify for listing in either Appendix I (a complete BAN on trade) or Appendix II (trade allowed but heavily regulated). Proponents of listing have argued that Appendix II listing is not equivalent to an export ban. However, Appendix II listing would require certification of Mahogany exports as obtained from sustainable forests, and require routing of shipments through CITES-approved ports. This could create additional bureaucratic and logistical burdens, as well as opportunities for corruption in the allocation of permits. Finally, it is highly questionable that trade restrictions will improve the protection of Mahogany forests, and in fact, they could have the opposite effect. History has shown that people in developing nations will not resign themselves to economic stagnation, but will choose between competing development options. In fact, it is generally recognized that the greatest threat to tropical ecosystems is clearing and burning related to housing, ranching and agriculture. By providing an economic incentive to maintain hardwood forests, responsible timber production forestalls less attractive development options. As Dr. Thomas Lovejoy of the Smithsonian Institution has said, ``the key component in preserving and maintaining the tropical forests is to ensure these resources maintain their economic value.'' It is for these reasons that I draw the Committee's attention to the Mahogany listing proposal. Appendix II listing by CITES would directly impact the future of the U. S. furniture workers and other American industries that rely on this resource to meet consumers' preferences. Also at stake are the emerging economies of South American nations, with whom the United States hopes to build stronger trading relations in coming years. I encourage the Administration to reconsider their support for this proposal and to withdraw it from consideration at the upcoming CITES Conference of Parties in Zimbabwe.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scripting contest. This year more than 109,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 54 national scholarships which were distributed among the 54 national winners. The contest theme this year was ``Democracy-Above and Beyond.'' I am proud to announce that Ms. Erin Watson from my district won the 1997 Voice of Democracy broadcast scripting contest for the entire State of North Carolina. A senior at Franklin High School in Franklin, NC, Erin is the daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Mart T. Watson of Franklin. This is indeed an honor of which all North Carolinians can be proud. The Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program was started 50 years ago by the National Association of Broadcasters, Electronic Industries Association, and State Association of Broadcasters. In 1960, the Veterans of Foreign Wars assumed sole sponsorship responsibility. That year, a total of four scholarships were presented, totaling $3,750. Under VFW sponsorship, the annual national scholarships have increased to 55 fully funded scholarships totaling $125,000. During this past year, 117,000 students participated, 7,900 schools, 5,200 VFW posts, and 4,200 Ladies Auxiliaries. Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in saluting Erin Watson for contributions made to her country, North Carolina, and the Franklin community. She is a shining Example of what young people should be today and an asset to the 11th District of North Carolina, and I am honored to share her award winning remarks with all of my colleagues. ``Democracy--Above and Beyond'' (By Erin Watson--1996-97 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Program) Who in his right mind could even consider building an industrial park in the middle of our beautiful mountain valley? The county commissioners talked like it was a done deal, and it looked like the project would be railroaded through, when the question arose, what do the people of that area think? At the public hearing, citizens from all over the county spoke emotionally against it, 10 to 1. But, when the meeting ended, it appeared that the people of this valley could not be heard. ``Why should we bother to have such a meeting?'' I asked my Dad. ``Did anybody say anything that mattered? Who says we have such a great country?'' Many times I have wondered why my ancestors would sell all, leave family, and suffer greatly to come to America. I have imagined their joy when into view came that tall shining figure standing on the shore with her torch held high, offering warmth, safety, and freedom. It must have been this light my ancestors sought for the promise of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' But on this night I wondered, why this country? What burning desire pushed them forward at all costs? And what did they see here that I was not seeing as I learned more about our democratic system? Then I was given the chance to spend a month in the country of Russia. I really wasn't searching for answers when I moved in with Masha and her family in Rostov. But soon I could see everywhere people would give all for that precious gift of freedom. My Russian Mama and Papa warned me not to be opinionated in public. The freedom of speech I understood was not practiced nor allowed, Papa gently explained. I also discovered that the creativity of school students was very limited, and they were not taught how, but what to think. All students studied American History, and most of them knew English. I thought about the little Russian History I knew, and marveled that they would learn all they could about my country. It soon became apparent that these students harbored a hope of going to America, and prepared for that day. As time passed, I began to long for my home in America, where I knew I was safe and free. Masha and her family hugged me tearfully as I boarded the departing train. I waved from the window as Masha ran alongside the train, calling ``I will come to America.'' Then she was out of sight. I longed to take my Russian friends with me, fulfilling their lifelong dream. On the trip home, I reflected on those brave people who saw and followed the light of America's democracy. I felt like my ancestors embarking on my own journey to freedom. My family laughed as I hugged the ground in my yard. How could they know of the pride and love I had for my country, and the newfound respect for her democracy? I, too would have given all to come home to America. I have learned that to be an American is more than simply partaking of the freedoms we enjoy. It is our right and obligation to be a working part of our democracy, which is truly a government ``of the people, by the people, and for the people'' of America. I understand my part in keeping democracy's light burning bright, so others can enjoy these same freedoms. I know I must encourage others to show their love for America and take an active part in our democracy, too. And, when I have a family of my own, I will share my experiences as I teach them to respect and love their country and the principles on which she was founded. I will teach them to be proud to be governed as a free people, and to be willing to defend and serve whenever needed. I will teach them to speak out when issues affect their homes and lives. I will teach them to vote, and be active in their communities so our light may continue to shine. I will point to our beautiful valley, and recount the events that caused the county commissioners to swallow their pride and abandon the industrial park project. I will proudly explain how the voice of the people was heard in our community, and how our democratic system worked again. At last I do understand why America is the place my ancestors turned for hope. It is the shining light of democracy, the freedom to be what each person wishes to be. It is the freedom to succeed, and be useful and needed in a society that fosters individual creativity, and allows each person his full potential. And it is the promise that the next generation can have a better life than the last, if we uphold the values and statutes that our ancestors sacrifices for and loved so dearly. For my friend Masha and those like her around the world, we must continue to hold our democratic ideals high. We cannot bring other nations to democracy, but we can lead so that all may see and want to follow. American Democracy, like that shining statue, does stand as a light above all others, and reaches out to those far beyond its borders.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, a former chairman of the Legal Services Corporation several years ago, seeing the multitude of abuses in the big government Legal Services Corporation, tried to reform it. He was sued with taxpayers' money by the Legal Services Corporation and never got through any of those reforms. Today he stands as a strong opponent to the big government Legal Services Corporation that the gentleman wants funded for $250 million. I would say most of the people on this side of the aisle who have spoken to increase the funding amount to $250 million voted for the budget amendment that actually would hold it at $95 million, while we are talking about $141 million today. I would say also to the question, they will go where they go now, which is the great majority of legal services in this country is provided by non-Federal Government programs, the over 900 programs that are out there that are private programs, the millions of dollars that fund other non-Federal funded programs and pro bono programs. The myth is these folks think legal services will come to a halt if we do not keep the Federal Government, that is, the big government that is hurting the poor more than it is helping, involved. That just is not true. We will continue to have legal services programs. In fact, the 82 percent increase that we have shown in nonlegal service funds, Federal big government funds, and the 21 percent in IOLTA funds will continue to increase, so we shall continue to have good programs for the poor, but without the big government national meddling that has embarrassed and in fact turned much of this Nation against Legal Services because of hat mismanagement. The gentleman also suggests taking $57 million from our Federal Prison Program and our courts. That will keep more violent criminals on the street. So while he is working for a national program, a big government program, we in fact will be hurting the justice system of this country. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]. (Mr. DORNAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind this body that the Committee on the Budget only approved $95 million for Legal Services, and the CJS committee is putting up a 50-percent increase over that, and now it would be a 250 percent increase if we adopt this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. (Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I wish to add my compliments and thanks to Chairman Rogers and the staff for their hard work in crafting a bill that has such widespread support. The chairman and the subcommittee staff have put together a very solid bill. Although discretionary spending is above last year's level, it remains below the level enacted 2 years ago. The members of the subcommittee faced extremely difficult decisions in determining the funding levels for the various programs funded in this bill. The bill reflects the Republican commitment to public safety and law enforcement by targeting resources toward the war on drugs, important crime initiatives, and the protection of our Nation's borders. Over $7.1 billion is included in the bill to restart the war on drugs, including a $167 million increase for the Drug Enforcement Administration. This includes a new $75 million initiative targeted at source countries, restoring successful international drug efforts to 1992 levels, and a $56 million initiative to stop trafficking on the Southwest border. We are seeing increased drug activity and illegal alien immigration occurring on Federal forest lands along the Southwest border. In response, the committee report urges both INS and DEA to work collaboratively with the Forest Service to reduce illegal alien and drug activity on Federal forest lands. With the increased resources provided to both agencies, the committee expects additional efforts will be undertaken to address this pressing problem. I was pleased that the bill continues the 3-year phase-out of the Legal Services Corporation and continues the restrictions we placed on LSC's activities. I am aware of at least one amendment that will be offered later today to increase the funds provided to LSC. I urge all of my colleagues to vote against such an attempt and continue the phase-out of Federal funding. Finally, I appreciate the chairman working with me so that a provision dealing with religious broadcasters could be included in the bill. The language in the bill simply prevents the FCC from using appropriated funds to deny a license, license transfer or assignment, or license renewal for any religious entity on the grounds that its recruitment and hiring of employees is limited to persons of a particular religion, or persons having particular religious knowledge, training, or interest. I would like to address the provisions of this addition, which I authored and which is strongly supported by a number of our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee. I wish to outline the intent of the provision, and the direction we have provided to the Federal Communications Commission. First, I wish to be sure that the requirements of the provision are not misrepresented as the debate over this bill continues to the other body. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I wish to provide clear direction to the FCC, and do everything possible to assure that the agency understands, and can execute the direction we have provided. The Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary Subcommittee has discussed the matter in the past with the FCC. Last year, I offered a similar amendment but chose to withdraw the legislative solution to the problem in favor of report language. Unfortunately, we saw no response to the direction the committee provided the Commission, and this year bill language was included in the appropriations legislation. In January 1994, Chairman Hundt announced that the agency's priority would be to promote diversity in broadcasting. Because the policy came on the heels of a 2-year FCC inquiry into NAACP allegations that several radio stations had not fully complied with the FCC's equal employment opportunity [EEO] rule, the policy was apparently aimed at stations that discriminated against minorities. In reality, the FCC has used its new charge to challenge and deny radio license applications or renewals for religious broadcasters on the grounds that they discriminate by requiring religious knowledge, training or expertise for employees. In secular stations, there is a fundamental necessity to hire people who have a certain level of knowledge of the format and content of the station's programming. For example, an all-sports station hires people with adequate knowledge of sports. Financial and economic news stations require staff with an education or experience in such issues. And classic rock stations need people who know the difference between Frank Sinatra and Led Zeppelin. The absurdity in the FCC's diversity policy is that it discriminates against religious broadcast stations for attempting to insure some knowledge or expertise by employees of the station's content. The conflict lies in the FCC's determination of which positions have substantial connection with program content. For example, the FCC believes that a receptionist is not connected with the espousal of a licensee's religious views, and therefore, a knowledge of the station's position is an inappropriate job preference. However, when the public calls in to comment on a program or to question a particular aspect of a broadcast, the receptionist is usually the first person at the station with whom they have contact. A basic knowledge of the station's programming would certainly be useful. My provision exempts a case currently pending at the Federal Communications Commission. In Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod, the Commission designated for hearing the license renewal applications of two radio stations owned by the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod [LCMS]. Although the FCC staff concluded that there was no evidence of any intentional discrimination by the church, the staff recommended to an administrative law judge that the church lose its license for the station despite the station's exemplary compliance record with all other commission rules and regulations. The FCC staff contend that the church violated the Commission's equal employment opportunity rule by requiring knowledge of Lutheran Church doctrine and practices for many positions at the station. The ALJ did not find denial of the renewal applications to be appropriate given the lack of evidence of intentional discrimination against minorities. The ALJ's decision was appealed to the Commission's Review Board, which adopted a decision affirming the ALJ's decision and ordering the license renewal applications granted for a short term. Although the Lutheran Church/Missouri Synod case was exempted in the provision, this case was the impetus for inquiries to the FCC and the basis for the legislative language. In my opinion, this case is in more need of the bill language than any other. I agreed to the exemption so that Congress would not be interfering with an ongoing case at the FCC. However, I hope that the Commissioners and staff will take note of the strong congressional support for the bill language and will move forward expeditiously to settle this matter with the Lutheran Church/ Missouri Synod. It is my understanding that a number of license renewals are pending before the Commission. This limitation language will only apply to religious broadcasters and their recruitment and hiring of employees based on religious knowledge, training or interest. This language does not limit the Commission's ability to deny a license for other reasons, including EEO violations.