Charles Taylor

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we finally completed fiscal 1996 appropriations action late last month. And although we were forced to add back funds to get the President's signature, the final product reflects the Republican party's commitment to cutting government programs. The fiscal year 1996 bills cut $23 billion from last year's levels. As my colleague from Louisiana, Appropriations Chairman Bob Livingston, said in announcing the programs and projects terminated in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills: ``We are cutting government beyond targets set by the budget resolution. These numbers are proof that we're doing our part to balance the budget in 7 years. While President Clinton fights to preserve bureaucracies, Republicans are fighting to relieve the American taxpayer. This is a dramatically different way of doing business in Washington.'' I couldn't agree more. That is why I want to submit the terminations that were included in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bills. This list was compiled by the Appropriations Committee, and demonstrates our commitment to a balanced budget in 7 years. Eliminations The following are terminations included in signed bills and levels negotiated in H.R. 3019, the omnibus spending bill: transportation Highway demonstration projects ($352 million). Local rail freight assistance ($17 million). Penn Station Redevelopment ($40 million). Interstate Commerce Commission (after Jan. 1) ($15.4 million). Coast Guard buoy replacement project ($8.5 million). Coast Guard 82-foot WPB capability replacement ($4 million). Coast Guard HH-65 helicopter gearbox upgrade ($2.5 million). Coast Guard GPS 2nd District ($2.4 million). FAA ``Quality through partnership'' program ($1.79 million). FAA NAS management automation program ($2 million). FAA traffic management system ($10.8 million). FAA Digital BRITE display ($5.5 million). FAA remote maintenance monitoring system upgrade ($3 million). FAA Integrated network management system ($300,000). FAA precision runway monitors ($1.2 million). FAA future airway facilities technologies (R&D) ($3.4 million). FAA general aviation renaissance ($1 million). Federal Hwy. Admin. OJT/supportive svcs. ($5 million). FHWA ITS advanced technology applications ($10 million). FHWA ITS priority corridors ($10 million).

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to speak about an issue which I believe to be very important. I requested that the committee consider including language in the fiscal year 1997 Defense authorization bill authorizing additional funds for the purchase of combat boots during fiscal year 1997 and directing the Defense Personnel Support Center [DPSC], a unit of the Defense Logistics Agency [DLA], to procure a minimum of 85 percent of the anticipated consumption of combat boots. Over a period of 3 years this plan would provide a reduction in inventories of 557,000 pairs. At the end of that time, this country would have a 38-week peacetime supply of combat boots--including a 20-week mobilization stock. This supply, only a few weeks of boots at Desert Storm consumption rates, compares to an 18-week supply currently planned by the DPSC. Late last year the Military Boot Manufacturers Association [MBMA], which is comprised of the four manufacturers of combat boots for the military services, brought to my attention the fact that the DPSC planned to continue its reduction in inventory of combat boots over the next 3 years from the present 65-week supply to an 18-week supply of boots. By letter dated February 29, 1996, Congressmen Hefner, Costello, Lewis, Romero-Barcelo, Kingston, and I wrote to the Department of Defense and expressed concern about the DPSC's plan to purchase between 579,000 and 869,000 boots per year, when the annual consumption of boots is expected to be 1.2 million, resulting in an inventory decrease of approximately 380,000 pairs per year, or 1.14 million pairs over a 3-year period. While I recognize and appreciate the need to reduce inventories to the lowest practical level, the 18-week supply contemplated by the DPSC may be insufficient in the event of a national emergency or mobilization and could impair the viability of our producers. Moreover, in view of the fact that 90 percent of the footwear in the United States is imported, the Department of Defense has recognized the importance of preserving the small industrial base represented by the MBMA. The January 30, 1996, response we received from Brig. Gen. Carl H. Freeman of the DPSC, confirmed the statistics cited in our letter but asserted that ``DPSC is no longer authorized to carry mobilization stocks, only to maintain safety levels.'' According to the DPSC, due to the need to prioritize limited funding and to comply with a September 5, 1991, Department of Defense comptroller decision which requires DPSC to reduce mobilization stocks to ``safety levels,'' DPSC plans to continue purchasing reduced numbers of boots over the next 3 years unless it receives additional funding specified for boots and an authorization to carry additional inventory. Mr. Chairman, I also wish to bring to the committee's attention an innovative distribution plan for combat boots which the MBMA members recently proposed to the DPSC. Under the plan, boots would be shipped by contractors directly to recruit induction centers and other boot consumers, bypassing the present Government depots and saving the Government freight and administrative costs. Each contractor would provide quick response shipment upon receipt of Government delivery orders transmitted via electronic data interchange [EDI]. The plan is consistent with the DLA's goal of lowering costs and improving customer service through director vendor delivery [DVD] and EDI. Inventories would be reduced at a rate of 15 percent of consumption per year rather than the more drastic reduction in inventory contemplated by DPSC. I hope that the committee will encourage the DLA to give careful consideration to the plan as a means of ensuring an adequate supply of combat boots in the event of a national emergency or mobilization and preserving a fragile industrial base. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I look forward to working with you and the DLA on this crucial matter.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Young amendment to strike title 3 from H.R. 3268. Yesterday, I met with the principal chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Joyce Dugan, from my district. While title 3 is being pushed to rectify a very small number of problematic Indian adoption cases, the Indian Child Welfare Act, in fact, works quite well. Very few cases are contested and out of the thousands that have been processed, only 40 have been litigated. Until now. Title 3 would limit the application of the Indian Child Welfare Act to certain Indian children whose parents have maintained a significant social, cultural or political affiliation with an Indian tribe. Title 3 will create a whole new layer of redtape on adoptions, and leaves implementation to the courts. State courts will now have to hold additional hearings on what sort of affiliation certain Indian children's parents have had with a tribe. Courts will have to decide what is significant and what is not. Courts will have to decide what amounts to affiliation and what does not. Courts will have to decide what affiliation can be expected of a 16- year-old mother or of a 16-year-old father. And then they'll have to reconsider the same question for a 30-year-old set of parents. The one thing you can count on is that title 3 will be litigated and litigated and litigated. Title 3 is an adoption lawyer's dream come true. More litigation, more proof, more time in court arguing about whether the law says this or that or more redtape. More billable hours. More expenses. Everybody loses except the lawyers. I urge my colleagues to adopt the Young amendment and delete this redtape from the bill.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise the work and service of two very special people from western North Carolina, Ruth and Billy Graham, who last week received the Congressional Gold Medal. Reverend Graham was extremely humble in acceptance of this honor but I believe our Nation will have no greater recipients this century than the Grahams. For more than 50 years, they have traveled the globe bringing the word of God to more people than anyone else in history. But their work was not done for the history books but for their love of God and his message of mercy and forgiveness. Based on that message, the Grahams have devoted their lives to address major problems facing our society such as racism, hunger, and homelessness. And still today, they continue their efforts to reverse the decline of our society's moral consciousness by stressing ethical and spiritual values. In accepting our appreciation for their life-long commitment ``toward improvements in racial equality, morality, and philanthrophy,'' Reverend Graham told us that the message he has devoted his life to represents the cure to our Nation's ills. In his words ``There is hope! Our lives can be changed, and our world can be changed.'' Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Grahams for their lifes' work and ask that Reverend Graham's remarks in accepting the Congressional Gold Medal be inserted in the Record for all the world to know his message: ``There is hope.'' The Hope for America Mr. Vice President; Speaker Newt Gingrich; Majority Leader Bob Dole; Senator Strom Thurmond; Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate; distinguished guests and friends. . . Ruth and I are overwhelmed by the very kind words that have been spoken today, and especially by the high honor you have just bestowed on both of us. It will always be one of the high points of our lives, and we thank you from the bottom of our hearts for this unforgettable event. We are grateful for all of you in the Senate and House who have had a part in it; and President Clinton for his support in signing the resolution. As we read the list of distinguished Americans who have received the Congressional Gold Medal in the past--beginning with George Washington in 1776--we know we do not belong in the same company with them, and we feel very unworthy. One reason is because we both know this honor ought to be shared with those who have helped us over the years--some of whom are here today. As a young boy I remember gazing at that famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware. Only later did it occur to me that Washington did not get across that river by himself. He had the help of others--and that has been true of us as well. Our ministry has been a team effort, and without our associates and our family we never could have accomplished anything. I am especially grateful my wife Ruth and I are both being given this honor. No one has sacrificed more than Ruth has, or been more dedicated to God's calling for the two of us. However, I would not be here today receiving this honor if it were not for an event that happened to me many years ago as a teenager on the outskirts of Charlotte, North Carolina. An evangelist came through our town for a series of meetings. I came face-to-face with the fact that God loved me, Billy Graham, and had sent His Son to die for my sin. He told how Jesus rose from the dead to give us hope of eternal life. I never forgot a verse of Scripture that was quoted, ``As many as received him, to them gave the power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name'' (John 1:12, KJV). That meant that I must respond to God's offer of mercy and forgiveness. I had to repent of my own sins and receive Jesus Christ by faith. When the preacher asked people to surrender their lives to Christ, I responded. I had little or no emotion; I was embarrassed to stand with a number of other people when I knew some of my school peers saw me: but I meant it. And that simple repentance and open commitment to Jesus Christ changed my life. If we have accomplished anything at all in life since then, however, it has only been because of the grace and mercy of God. As Ruth and I receive this award we know that some day we will lay it at the feet of the One we seek to serve. As most of you know, the President has issued a proclamation for this day, May 2, 1996, to be a National Day of Prayer. Here in Washington you will see and hear of people throughout the District of Columbia praying today. It is encouraging and thrilling that here, and across the country, people have committed themselves to pray today for our leaders, our nation, our world, and for ourselves as individuals. I am so glad that before business each morning, both the House of Representatives and the Senate have a prayer led by Chaplain Ogilvie of the Senate, who has had so much to do with this event today, and Chaplain Jim Ford, who used to be chaplain at West Point when I went almost every year to bring a message to the cadets. Exactly 218 years ago today--on May 2, 1778--the first recipient of this award, George Washington, issued a General Order to the American people. He said, ``The * * * instances of Providential Goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success demand from us * * * the warmest returns of Gratitude and Piety to the Supreme Author of all Good.'' It was a message of hope and trust, and it also was a challenge for the people to turn to God in repentance and faith. We are standing at a similar point in our history as less than four years from now the world will enter the Third Millennium. What will it hold of us? Will it be a new era of unprecedented peace and prosperity? Or will it be a continuation of our descent into new depths of crime, oppression, sexual immorality, and evil? Ironically, many people heralded the dawn of the 20th Century with optimism. The steady march of scientific and social progress, they believed, would vanquish our social and economic problems. Some optimistic theologians even predicted the 20th Century would be ``The Christian Century'', as humanity followed Jesus' exhortation to love your neighbor as yourself. But no other century has been ravaged by such devastating wars, genocides and tyrannies. During this century we have witnessed the outer limits of human evil. Our mood on the brink of the 21st Century is far more somber. Terms like ``ethnic cleansing'' ``random violence'' and ``suicide bombing'' have become part of our daily vocabulary. Look at our own society. There is much, of course, that is good about America, and we thank God for our heritage of freedom and our abundant blessings. America has been a nation that has shown a global compassion that the rest of the world seemingly does not understand. After World War II, because we had the Atom Bomb, we had the opportunity to rule the world, but America turned from that and instead helped rebuild the countries of our enemies. Nevertheless, something has happened since those days and there is much about America that is no longer good. You know the problems as well as I do: racial and ethnic tensions that threaten to rip apart our cities and neighborhoods; crime and violence of epidemic proportions in most of our cities; children taking weapons to school: broken families; poverty; drugs; teenage pregnancy; corruption; the list is almost endless. Would the first recipients of this award even recognize the society they sacrificed to establish? I fear not. We have confused liberty with license--and we are paying the awful price. We are a society poised on the brink of self-destruction. But what is the real cause? We call conferences and consultations without end, frantically seeking solutions to all our problems; we engage in shuttle diplomacy; and yet in the long run little seems to change. Why is that? What is the problem? The real problem is within ourselves. Almost three thousand years ago King David, the greatest king Israel ever had, sat under the stars and contemplated the reasons for the human dilemma. He listed three things that the world's greatest scientists and sociologists have not been able to solve, and it seems the more we know, and the greater our technology, the more difficulties we are in. In perhaps the best-known passage of the Old Testament, Psalm 23, he touches on the three greatest problems of the human race. First, David said, is the problem of emptiness. David wrote, ``The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.'' He was not talking just about physical want, but spiritual want. I stood on the campus of one of our great universities some time ago, and I asked the Dean, ``What is the greatest problem on your campus?'' He replied in one word: ``Emptiness.'' The human heart craves for meaning, and yet we live in a time of spiritual emptiness that haunts millions. ``Nirvana'' is the Hindu word for someone who has arrived into the state of perpetual bliss. Media reports said that Kurt Cobain, the Nirvana rock group's leader, was the pacesetter for the nineties, and the ``savior of rock and roll.'' But he said the song in the end which best described his state of mind was ``I hate myself and I want to die!'' And at age 27 he committed suicide with a gun. Second, is the problem of guilt. David wrote: ``He restoreth my soul, he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness.'' Down inside we all know that we have not measured up even to our own standards, let alone God's standard. Third, David pointed to the problem of death. ``Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me.'' Death is the one common reality of all human life. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown did not realize his time had come when he stepped on that plane in Croatia a few weeks ago. From time to time I have wandered through Statuary Hall and looked at all those statues of some of the greatest men and women in our nation's history. But one thing is true of every one of them; they are all dead. Yes, these three things--emptiness, guilt, and the fear of death--haunt our souls. We frantically seek to drown out their voices, driving ourselves into all sorts of activities--from sex to drugs or tranquilizers--and yet they are still there. But we must probe deeper. Why is the human heart this way? The reason is because we are alienated from our Creator. That was the answer David found to these three problems; ``The Lord is my shepherd.'' This is why I believe the fundamental crisis of our time is a crisis of the spirit. We have lost sight of the moral and spiritual principles on which this nation was established--principles drawn largely from the Judeo-Christian tradition as found in the Bible. What is the cure? Is there any hope? Ruth and I have devoted our lives to the deep conviction that the answer is yes. There is hope! Our lives can be changed, and our world can be changed. The Scripture says, ``You must be born again.'' You could have a spiritual rebirth right here today. What must be done? Let me briefly suggest three things. First, we must repent. In the depths of the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln called for special days of public repentance and prayer. Our need for repentance is no less today. What does repentance mean? Repentance means to change our thinking and our way of living. It means to turn from our sins and to commit ourselves to God and His will. Over 2700 years ago the Old Testament prophet Isaiah declared: ``Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon'' (Isaiah 55:6-7, NIV). Those words are as true today as they were over two and a half millennia ago. Second, we must commit our lives to God, and to the moral and spiritual truths that have made this nation great. Think how different our nation would be if we sought to follow the simple and yet profound injunctions of the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. But we must respond to God, Who is offering us forgiveness, mercy, supernatural help, and the power to change. Third, our commitment must be translated into action--in our homes, in our neighborhoods, and in our society. Jesus taught there are only two roads in life. One is the broad road that is easy and well-traveled, but which leads to destruction. The other, He said, is the narrow road of truth and faith that at times is hard and lonely, but which leads to life and salvation. As we face a new millennium, I believe America has gone a long way down the wrong road. We must turn around and go back and change roads. If ever we needed God's help, it is now. If ever we needed spiritual renewal, it is now. And it can begin today in each one of our lives, as we repent before God and yield ourselves to Him and His Word. What are you going to do? The other day I heard the story of a high school principal who held an assembly for graduating seniors, inviting a recruiter from each branch of the service, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines to each give a twelve minute presentation on career opportunities they offered to the students. He stressed the importance of each staying within their allotted time. The Army representative went first, and was so eloquent that he got a standing ovation, but went eighteen minutes. Not to be outdone, the Navy presentation was equally superb, but took nineteen minutes. Air Force then gave a sterling presentation, which lasted twenty minutes. By now, the principal was irate, and admonished the Marine recruiter that he had only three minutes before the students had to leave for the next class! During the first two minutes of his shortened time, the Marine didn't say a word, but individually and carefully studied the faces of each student. Finally, he said, ``I've looked across this crowd and I see three or four individuals who have what it takes to be a United States Marine. If you think you are one of them, I want to see you down front immediately after the assembly.'' Who do you think drew the biggest crowd! This afternoon, as I look out across this distinguished group gathered here, I see more than a few men and women who have what it takes, under God, to lead our country forward ``through the night'' into the next milennium--individuals who represent civic and governmental authority--as well as doctors, lawyers, clergy, artists and media. Again, Ruth and I are deeply humbled by this award, and we thank you for all that it represents. We pledge to continue the work that God has called us to do as long as we live.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on March 12, I was unavoidably detained in my district during rollcall Nos. 56-59. Roll No. 56 was on the rule accompanying the conference report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Roll No. 57 was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass House Joint Resolution 78, granting additional powers conferred upon the bi-state development agency by the States of Missouri and Illinois. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Roll No. 58 was on a motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Concurrent Resolution 149, a resolution condemning terrorist attacks in Israel. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' Roll No. 59 was on passage of the conference report to H.R. 1561, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.'' This would be consistent with my ``yea'' vote on the bill June 6, 1995--rollcall No. 366--when it first came before the House.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Allow me to compliment and put in perspective what these freshman Members of Congress, and we have two with us tonight, have done. And not only the freshmen but the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston], a Member of the 103d Congress. In the 102d Congress when I came in, we had a Congress that had been controlled for almost 50 years at that time by one party. We had a situation where in the House bank, Members were writing checks freely. They were not paying the money back. They were laundering money and selling drugs from the post office, which is not a U.S. post office. We are not making these things up. There have been numerous convictions and investigations to prove this to be true. That party from this side that had controlled the House for so long could have reformed it. They did not. Seven of us, became known as the Gang of Seven, started unraveling the twine with a request for an investigation. We finally after 8 months forced an investigation because the people of this country demanded it and we started with the investigation into the House bank, which followed in the post office and made the changes. Even after all of that became known, we could not make the changes in Congress that needed to be made until this 104th Congress and our majority with our freshman class came on board. And now during the last 18 months for the first time in the history of the country, we have had an audit, an audit that has disclosed discrepancies in the past in the House. We have had numerous changes with the Contract With America that was offered. This House has passed most every aspect of that, certainly with the majority in Congress, and has sent it on, most of it has been sent to the President who has vetoed tax reform, tax relief for people in this country. They have vetoed welfare reform and other areas that the freshmen of this group have put through. There answer to the American people has been not to join and do what the American people want, not to pass the reforms the American people have demanded and that this freshman class and this Republican majority Congress has given. It has been to try to go back to the dirty politics side, try to run ads with millions of dollars against freshman Congressmen and try to win back control. What will they be winning back control to do? To return back to the same situation we had before, where house bank scandals and house post office scandals were common. I commend their class for the work you have done. Those of us that fought in the 102d Congress and later when the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] came in the 103d Congress and fought, are being joined by you, and I think the people will make the same decision. In my first race, I won by about 3,000 votes. They immediately gerrymandered my district and put 30,000 votes against me by taking 15,000 from one party out and putting 15,000 new in. And although the President, President Clinton, carried by district, I won in a hard campaign by 55 percent. Last year all the liberal organizations joined, the Democratic women's organization of Emily's List that you are going to find and those contributions do not have to be reported. They can be bundled and slip under the law in a method that allows hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to campaigns unreported. And we won 61 to 39 percent. What I am saying is the people out there are living and listening to what is happening and the things you are doing and I think they will, with knowledge of what is going on, return you to office in order that reform may continue in this body, that you are carrying out and have been working on. I want to commend you for the work you have done.

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

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, if we knew that government was perfect and it was all goodness and light, we might not need this amendment. We know from the Travelgate revelations that justice is not always blind. In fact, it is not even always just when administered by individuals. We know that the government will mess up a one car funeral, and, when dealing with our civil rights, that is a mistake we do not want to make. I support the Barr amendment because it would protect innocent firearm vendors who could be held liable for failure to know they are lending support to those who may commit crimes. The amendment corrects privacy concerns by eliminating the right of law enforcement officers to access certain consumer, hotel, telephone, and employer records in order to conduct a criminal investigation. Most importantly, the Barr amendment corrects the overreaching language in title III which would allow for good faith exceptions to the exclusionary rule for permitting evidence obtained by wiretaps. I have serious concerns about giving law enforcement officers even more power to use wiretapped evidence, and therefore I support the Barr amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman for giving me this time, and I also want to thank the ranking minority Member for the eloquent remarks he made about Reverend and Mrs. Graham. Mr. Speaker, in sponsoring this legislation and talking to various Members to cosponsor, there was no problem in getting hundreds of Members of this House, all of whom had separate and individual reasons for endorsing this legislation. As one of the most revered evangelical leaders in modern history, Billy Graham has helped the less fortunate and prescribed the need for a moral society. He has been spiritual adviser and confidant to 10 Presidents. Over 100 million people have come to see Billy Graham at crusades, and another 2 billion people have watched him on television. His character and strength have made him America's most admired man. He has used his immense popularity to confront major social problems, such as racism, the homeless, and hunger. He continues trying to reverse the decline in our society's morals by emphasizing ethical and spiritual values. Billy Graham was reared in Charlotte, NC, and upon finishing seminary began preaching his message in Tampa, FL. He now has preached to more people than anyone else in history. To extend the reach of his message, he used television, magazines, and a weekly radio broadcast for which he was given a gold star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He has also spread his message through his daily newspaper column and 14 books. The Billy Graham Training Center in Black Mountain and the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, have become beacons of spirituality for people around the world. Billy Graham adheres to the principles of which he preached. He and his wife of 52 years, Ruth, live their lives with the commitment to their family, each other, and God. The other side of Billy Graham is the humanitarian and champion of the disadvantaged. He helped the flood victims of India rebuild their villages. He arranged for food and supplies to be flown to the earthquake victims of Guatemala and aided refugees fleeing political oppression. Reverend Graham was also deeply involved in the fight for racial equality in the South. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., declared, and I quote, ``that had it not been for the ministry of Billy Graham, he could not have done the work that he did.'' People with Billy Graham's strength and devotion are very rare. His duty to God has led him to be the great man that he has become today. It is fitting for this Congress to honor both Reverend Graham and his wife, who has been by his side. His son, Franklin Graham, who heads the Samaritan Purse, and is now moving into his father's ministry, has carried on works for many years helping the poor, helping disadvantaged around the world. Most recently, the Grahams have devoted themselves to the establishment of the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Health Center at Memorial Mission in Asheville, NC. They share the vision of this new center in its efforts to improve the health and well-being of the children of the southern Appalachia and the world. Their goal is for the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Center to become a new resource for ending the pain and suffering of children. We hope that once this legislation is passed by the Congress, the Congressional Gold Medal will be presented to the Grahams at a joint session of this Congress, and I take pride in being one of the many cosponsors of this legislation.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard from our constituents about the Government shutdown. Closure of our National Parks and Forests has attracted a great deal of attention. In my district--where we have National Park Service units and national forest land--over 500 Federal workers have been furloughed. Those that are at their jobs are working without pay. However, the situation is even worse for those who rely on visitors to western North Carolina for their business. Concessioners, for instance, are private enterprises and are losing money because of the reduction in tourists to our area. These people will not receive the back pay that the Federal workers will be getting. I was extremely disappointed that President Clinton vetoed our bill on December 18. As you know, we worked very hard to craft a bill that the administration could support--one that addressed the concerns expressed by various administration Representatives. I don't know if the President was even aware of what was in this bill--I think he simply vetoed it to pander to the more radical environmental groups who claimed it would severely damage the environment. But of course these claims are completely false. This bill does not harm to our natural resources; in fact, it addresses many concerns expressed by this administration. This bill increases funding for the National Park Service's operations and maintenance. We are well aware of the backlog of needed projects in our National Parks--basic projects like updating the sewage system at Certain Park sites or upgrading Visitor Centers. This bill will allow those projects to be completed. This bill also provides additional funds for our country's Native Americans. The administration requested $110 million more be added to the Senate's $3.5 billion for Indian affairs. We added $137 million more. We restored the mining patent moratorium that the administration requested. We lowered the ceiling on logging in the Tongass National Forest from 450 million board feet to 418 million board feet. In fact, we responded as best we could--give the severe budget confines of this bill--to all the administration's concerns. And yet, President Clinton vetoed the bill and jeopardized the livelihood of thousands of Americans. We keep hearing that a clean CR will fix the current situation. This is not true. A CR is simply a temporary solution. This bill is the true cure. Rather than keeping Federal workers at these Federal agencies guessing about whether they will be shutdown in 2 weeks and then another 2 weeks for the rest of the fiscal year, this bill will fund the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service for the remainder of the fiscal year--9 months rather than 2 weeks. Again, I cannot be sure that the President knew of the wonderful things we had in this bill. He listened to the radical leftwing environmental community and vetoed this bill to pander to them. Let us not continue this terrible travesty. Support this bill, vote to override the President's veto and let us put these fine men and women back to work.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act, and in support of overriding the President's veto. This bill does exactly what needs to be done in this time of fiscal restraint: It sets priorities and it trims the fat. This bill recognizes the fact that President Clinton's COPS Program is a myth; the communities will never see the 100,000 cops that the President has promised--the numbers just don't add up. Instead, the bill empowers communities by providing for the block grants that passed as part of the Contract With America. We offer more funding and more flexibility; most of all, we have an approach that is realistic and very workable. It places power in the hands of our local governments, who can use the money to address the problems unique to their area. This legislation also reduces funding for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC], an entity that has systematically abused taxpayer money by, for example, representing drug dealers in public housing. I would have preferred to eliminate the LSC altogether, but the bill makes a step in the right direction by placing restrictions on the types of cases it can engage in. We also devote additional resources to combat illegal immigration by providing increased resources for the Immigration and Naturalization Service [INS]. New border patrol agents will enable us to police our borders more effectively, thus preventing the problems that arise once the illegals sneak in. Mr. Chairman, I therefore urge my fellow Members to vote in support of overriding the President's veto of this Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Act. Let's get the Federal workers in these Departments back to work.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, let me first applaud Chairman Rogers, the Committee, and the Committee staff for their extraordinary efforts in producing this fiscal year 1996 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary appropriations bill. Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the Committee's support for initiatives under the National Institute on Justice [NIJ] account, and in particular the language that encourages the NIJ to undertake a national study on correctional health care. This language carries a considerable amount of importance to our Nation's criminal justice system and not-for-profit organizations devoted to assisting states with correctional health care programs. For example, in North Carolina, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care has been working with health and correctional officials in an effort to stem escalating costs and other problems associated with correctional health care. Understanding the potential health risk associated with the more than 11 million persons that are released from jails, prisons, and juvenile correctional facilities annually, the National Commission assists correctional and public health officials throughout the country with correctional health care concerns. As we look to advance the efforts that provide data relevant to crime and the criminal justice system at NIJ, efforts like that of the National Commission should be encouraged. I thank Chairman Rogers for his support on this matter, and I urge the committee's continued support for activities related to the National Commission and correctional health care.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce on behalf of 222 original cosponsors, legislation to honor Ruth and Billy Graham with a Congressional Gold Medal. William ``Billy'' Franklin Graham has been America's most revered evangelical leader for the past 45 years. He has helped the less fortunate and prescribed the need for a moral society. Graham, 76, has been spiritual adviser and confidant to 10 presidents. Over 100 million people have come to see a Billy Graham crusade and another 2 billion people have watched him on television. His character and strength have made him America's most admired man. He has used his immense popularity to confront major social problems such as racism, the homeless, and hunger. He continues trying to reverse the decline in our society's morals by emphasizing ethical and spiritual values. Billy Graham was raised in Charlotte, NC, and upon finishing seminary school began preaching his message from a street corner in Tampa, FL. He has now preached to more people than anyone else in history. To extend the reach of his message he used television, magazines, and a weekly radio broadcast for which he was given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He has also spread his message through his daily newspaper column and 14 books. The Billy Graham Training Center in Black Mountain, NC, and the Billy Graham Evangelical Association headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, have become beacons of spirituality for people from around the world. Billy Graham adheres to the principles of which he preached. He and his wife of 52 years, Ruth, live their lives with a commitment to their family, each other, and God. The other side of Billy Graham is the humanitarian and champion of the disadvantaged. He has helped the flood victims of India rebuild their villages. He arranged for food and supplies to be flown to the earthquake victims of Guatemala and has aided refugees fleeing political oppression. Billy Graham was so [[Page E 2217]] deeply involved in the fight for racial equality in the South. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., declared, ``that had it not been for the ministry of Billy Graham that he could not have done the work that he did.'' People with Billy Graham's strength and devotion are very rare. His duty to God led him to be the great man that he is today. It is fitting for this Congress to honor these great Americans with a Congressional Gold Medal. Most recently, the Graham's have devoted themselves to the establishment of the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Health Center at Memorial Mission Hospital in Asheville, NC. They share the vision of this new center in its effort to improve the health and well-being of the children in southern Appalachia and the world. Their goal is for the Ruth and Billy Graham Children's Center to become a new resource for ending the pain and suffering of children. We hope that once this legislation is passed by the Congress, the Congressional Gold Medal will be presented to the Grahams at a joint meeting of the Congress.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, on October 24, I was absent due to a family medical emergency and thus missed roll no. 733, the vote on the Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995 and roll no. 734, the vote on the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both of these measures.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's amendment. I heard the gentleman from California [Mr. Herger] a moment ago, and everybody ought to listen to the folks that are speaking on this. Now, the gentleman is a good friend. He has tied his bark on a tree. I am no big spender. We are here supporting the gentleman's amendment, so this is clearly not a situation where we are talking about saving a lot of money. We are talking about public safety, we are talking about the need to pay attention to what the gentleman is saying. He is saying, keep the language, as has been repeated, calling for certification, but before any closure of any station we will determine whether or not there is a degradation of service. I serve the western part of North Carolina. A few days ago I was catching a plane, sitting on the runway, and we could not go out because of fog. Probably 200 yards down the road it was clear, but we had to sit on the runway because it was too foggy for us to take off. We sat a considerable period of time. I doubt if a station of some distance would have picked that up. I also know that many times we have squalls, small storms, things that occur in the mountains that the two stations that are going to be handling our area may or may not pick up. Now, I am perfectly willing to see the station close. I am perfectly willing to see the new stations take place. But I am not willing to see that happen until we have certified, until we have determined, whether or not the public safety is being met. Now, if you believe that the Federal bureaucracy is 100-percent perfect and you are willing to bet your lives and the friends and family on the fact of that perfection, then you do not need to pay any attention to this argument. If you believe as I do, though, and the people of western North Carolina, first of all, the Federal Government will mess up a 1-car funeral in most cases, and there was a recent ABC report just a few days ago that showed that millions of dollars of new technology that was being put into airports was failing a substantial portion of the time, then you will see that the gentleman's amendment is necessary until we see whether or not that new technology works, and whether or not we need to change it before we close the existing service. Mr. Chairman, that is why I support the gentleman's amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, this week--perhaps as early as tommorow--the House is expected to consider sweeping telecommunications legislation, H.R. 1555. This landmark regulatory reform bill will offer countless benefits to American consumers and open telecommunications markets to competition by eliminating layers of burdensome Federal regulations. I would like to include an editorial from Friday's Washington Times for the Record. It sets out the reasons why the long distance carriers withdrew their support for H.R. 1555. I hope that my colleagues will read this article, and I urge them to vote in favor of the bill with the manager's amendment. [From the Washington Times, July 28, 1995] Who's afraid of the Baby Bells? Up for a vote next week in the House is the long-awaited and hard-fought telecommunications legislation. Accordingly, the AT&T, MCI and Sprint coalition got down to the serious business of retail politics yesterday, busing and training thousands of their employees into the Capitol to flood members' offices and to demand that the telecom bill be changed to their advantage. Happily, that is not likely to happen. the bill, as it originally emerged from Rep. Thomas Bliley's House Commerce Committee, was packed full of the long-distance companies' druthers. The package of goodies for AT&T, MCI and Sprint posed a big enough threat to competition that the Republican leadership had a talk with Mr. Bliley, who agreed that when the bill comes up for a vote next week he will offer what is known as a ``Manager's amendment'' stripping the legislation of the provisions expected to hobble the Baby Bells. With Mr. Bliley offering the amendment, it is expected to pass easily, which is why the long-distance coalition put the full-court press on yesterday. For all the complexities of the bill, the basic issue dividing the Baby Bells from the long-distance group is fairly simple. Marketing studies done by both camps show that the big prize goes to whoever is first at offering consumers simple, complete phone service. Phone customers are tired of having separate bills and companies for local and long distance, and would sign up with the first company to offer inexpensive combined service. All the jockeying between the Bells and the long-distance firms is about determining who will get the first shot at combining local and long-distance plans. The provisions that AT&T et al. succeeded in working into the original committee bill, H.R. 1555, would have placed a series of hazards and roadblocks in the way of the Bell companies, while leaving their path to the market wide open. The most important of these was the requirement that a local Bell company have a ``facilities-based'' competitor in its market before being allowed to compete in the long- distance market. In other words, the local company would be blocked from offering long-distance service until some other company had come into its market and built a physical network of wires comparable to the network the local Bell already has in place. In practice, that would be a very, very long time. Since the legislation also requires the Bells to sell time on their own networks to the long-distance companies at a discount so the time can be resold as part of a local and long-distance package. AT&T, MCI and Sprint would have no reason to build local networks of their own. They would have been able to use the Bell local networks to get into the local service business, while at the same time keeping the Bells from competing with them in the Long-distance business. The Bells successfully fought that provision, arguing that the market should be opened for everybody all at the same time. So too a slew of other provisions that would also have hindered the Bells' entrance into the long-distance market. That entry is feared by a long-distance industry that appears to have a very cozy environment going for itself. For all the television ads touting the cut-throat competition among AT&T, MCI and Sprint, it turns out that basic long-distance rates have been going up for the last couple of years, by more than 5 percent a year. More disturbing still, the big three companies, which account for more than 95 percent of the long-distance market, have raised their prices in lock step. This is a happenstance that will likely end once the various Baby Bells are able to bring a new round of competition into the long-distance market. As for the long-distance companies' argument that the Bells will be able to use their ``monopoly'' position to dominate the market, it is a little hard to see how a financial behemoth like AT&T is going to be intimidated by a regional phone company. Given that the Bells will be required to discount their lines to the long-distance companies for resale, the Bells' local monopolies become meaningless. The long-distance coalition plans to do everything it can to kill the telecom bill as it now stands--with the manager's amendment. No bill at all, from the big three's perspective, is almost as good as a bill written to their liking. The long-distance companies can get into the local phone business if local law allows, as it does in almost half the states. But it takes a change in federal law to allow the Baby Bells into the interstate business of long-distance. Nonetheless, the bill is expected to pass next week with the support of the House leadership and Mr. Bliley. That is good news for consumers, for whom the greater the competition, the better.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Livingston-Smith amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill's provision to transfer funds from title X to State health programs, and in support of the Livingston-Smith amendment. We have heard some Members argue that we need to fund title X to ensure that money is available for family planning. Mr. Chairman this simply is not the case. As we all know, the title X funds are being redirected to the maternal and child health block grant and community and migrant health centers. The fact is, these State health programs have always been able to use money for family planning, and will still be able to do so. Under this bill, family planning will simply have to compete with other health needs when States set their funding priorities. Competition on a fair basis is a very reasonable approach. Funds can be used for the most serious health needs in each State, and family planning can be a part of that. Mr. Chairman, I think it is also important to point out that this bill ensures that money for health needs will go to those who are truly poor. Instead of going to affluent or middle-class teens as it does in title X, the funds in the State programs will be used for the poor, and that group is the one that we are really trying to help here. And let's talk a little bit about what title X was intended to do when it was brought about, as opposed to what it has actually accomplished. Since we introduced title X in 1970: The teenage out-of-wedlock birth rate has doubled. Sexually transmitted diseases among teens is at an all-time high. The teen-age abortion rate has more than doubled. These figures indicate many things, but success is not one of them. Mr. Chairman, let's be honest with ourselves. Title X has not achieved its goals. The States are in a better position to understand the particular needs of their areas, so let us give them the opportunity and the money to do so. The maternal and child health block grant and community and migrant health centers are a proven success--let these organizations determine the greatest health needs within their State. Mr. Chairman, this Congress has demonstrated a remarkable commitment to put an end to failed or low priority Government programs. TItle X is one of these failed programs, which is why I strongly urge my fellow members to vote for the Livingston-Smith amendment.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I offer my congratulations to Terry James McCoy of Franklin, NC, who has been named a national winner in the 1995 Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. The program was started 48 years ago and since 1958 has been sponsored each year by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary. Students competing in the contest write and record a 3-to-5-minute essay on a patriotic theme. This year more than 126,000 secondary school students nationwide participated in the contest competing for the 54 national scholarships. McCoy, a recent graduate of Franklin High School, was named the North Carolina State winner for his script, ``My Vision for America,'' and was awarded the $2,000 Jesse A. Lewis Memorial Scholarship Award. I congratulate Terry on an outstanding accomplishment and ask that his script be placed in the Record. My Vision for America (By Terry James McCoy) The United States of America was, and is, an experiment. In its brief two hundred and eighteen years as an independent nation, America has stood the test of destruction many times. Every time this nation is engaged in a battle, it is tested. Every time America experiences a lapse in its economy, it is tested. When American citizens burn the symbol of this great land, it is tested. The Civil War was possibly this nations greatest trial. Descension among citizens has never been this high. As states began to secede, hatred towards one another began to grow. Many were declaring this, ``the end of democracy, and this nation.'' How fortunate, that from the fields of Illinois there came a tall, powerful man. This man has vision for America. He could see past the hatred and the violence. He saw America as it should have been. Abraham Lincoln led a nation out of its greatest test and left it far better than he found it. The Great Depression is yet another potentially disastrous predicament that America has had to face. The United States' economy was in shambles. It was not only an economic depression but a social depression as well. Unemployment was at an all time high. Yet again there were those who said that, ``capitalism has failed, its the end of this nation.'' Children were starving, families were destroyed, and American citizens were without hope. Through the midst of this terrible time, a great leader cam to the forefront. He showed the American people that there was hope. He promised them that America could pull through this evil beast, called the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt had a vision for America. Roosevelt knew that America could quickly become the worlds largest economic and militaristic super power. Franklin Roosevelt never saw the day when America became what he dreamed it to be. His vision is still very much alive in this country and will continue to be alive as long as American citizens are students of its history. These two men contributed more to this nation than we will ever realize. Their visions are still very much a part of this country. However, their visions are not the only visions that have influenced America. Every citizen of this nation has had a vision for America's future. For example, Susan B. Anthony had a very simple vision. It was a vision in which all Americans had the right to vote. Henry Ford had a vision in which all the people of this country could afford and own their own car. The Wright brothers dreamed of an America in which people could travel through the air to get to their destinations. These visions for America were not just fantasies that only existed in these dreamer's heads, but they were attainable ideals that many other American's shared with them. What is my vision for America? It is one of idealism, but attainable idealism. I see an America in which citizens can put faith in those that govern them. I see an America in which if you destroy the United States Flag, the very symbol of our freedom and our pride, not only will you be breaking a federal law but you will be directly defying the United States Constitution. My vision for America is one in which we stand proud of those that have served this nation so well, both in military service and civilian service. I foresee a nation where school children are no longer afraid of violence in their own schools. I dream of the day when the people of this nation can once again stroll the streets in safety. I look forward to an America where people are proud of it and its rich history. This is my vision for America.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank, first of all, our chairman and the hard-working staff on both sides of the aisle and our minority ranking member for the work in putting this bill together. Our chairman has spent a lot of hours, and this is his first time at this, and very trying time, and I especially appreciate the good job that he has done. Now, there is no bill that is perfect. I, in fact, would like myself to have seen the Legal Services zeroed out, but it was cut, and we moved it in the right direction. In the area of the police program, and I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and respect him a great deal for what he was saying, that many of the police organizations may question block grants, this is going to give local law enforcement officers a chance to put the money where they will. I talked with a Democrat sheriff now, but he was former president of the National Sheriff's Organization, and he pointed out that the 100,000 COPS Program was a myth. First of all, you have got a few dollars to start, maybe 10,000, 15,000 police all across the country. Then after each year, money was taken away until after, I think, the third year it was down to zero. He said, ``If we had the money to put more people on the force now, we would have already done it. A program that withdraws the dollars quickly from us is no help at all,'' and he would not, as a past president of the National Sheriff's Organization, even participate in the so-called 100,000 police program. We will take monitoring from Congress. We have to work with our local governments, but I think the block grant can be of enormous benefit to individual police departments. I cannot go back to the 1960's and debate what the gentleman said about areas where there might have been waste. But we can have, with local governments and local forces trying to utilize these funds rather than Washington bureaucrats dictating, we can, I think, get a law enforcement program that will be far more secure, demanding the kind of accountability and giving people what they want, which is a lower crime rate. I hope that we will support the block grant program and support this bill, and again I thank our chairman and our staff for the work.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in favor of the point of order offered by the gentleman from Utah. It is not as simple as the gentleman from California would present it. We are trying to open a broad road here to run through a herd of buffalo instead of just some technical amendment. First of all, under the Wilderness Act, the Secretary of Agriculture has surveyed National Forest lands of at least 5,000 acres which are roadless and meet certain other wilderness criteria, such as first, affected primarily by the forces of nature; second, has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; and third, contains ecological, geological, or other features of scenic, or historic value. If a forest area of any size is roadless but does not meet these other criteria, the Secretary can harvest timber, build roads, or engage in other types of multiple use activities. The Secretary of Agriculture may not have made determinations of roadlessness in nonwilderness forest lands because the lands did not meet other wilderness criteria. This would be a new test. For forest areas between 3,000 and 5,000 acres, the Secretary has never been required to make a determination [[Page H 7128]] of roadlessness. This is a new requirement imposed on the Secretary by the Kennedy amendment. Determinations of roadlessness cannot be made solely from maps but requires on-site inspections. The Secretary must also conduct legal and historical research to determine if States and counties have pre- existing RS 2477 rights of way for the construction of highways, which by operation of law can be converted into roads and therefore not subject to the prohibition on road construction and timber sales in the Kennedy amendment. The last time the Secretary of Agriculture had to survey forest lands for road determinations under RARE II, it took 10 years. And in the 10 years since RARE II, more roads have no doubt been built, requiring new surveys to see if these lands are subject to the Kennedy amendment ban. The Kennedy amendment cannot execute without substantial new determinations of facts based on physical surveys of 191 million acres of National Forest lands, plus legal and historical research conducted by the Secretary of Agriculture. The Kennedy amendment creates a new class of de facto wilderness by barring timber sales and road construction without meeting all of the Wilderness Act requirements. The Kennedy amendment creates a new 3,000-acre wilderness requirement in contradiction of the wilderness release language--language which says that multiple use activities are allowed on nonwilderness designated areas--contained in each State's wilderness bill that passed the Congress. And the Kennedy road amendment deals with timber primarily and does not consider the fact that many of the roads in the national forest are multiple-use roads.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, let us see what is going on here. What we have done to our natural resource policy in this country is like the cat eating the grindstone, just a little bit at a time. We take a few acres here, a few acres there. What have we done to 191 million acres of U.S. forestlands that were heretofore reserved for timber, one of the prime, part of the multiple- use purpose? We have reduced that to about 25 percent. We already have 100 million acres of that 191 million acres in roadless or wilderness areas--25 percent, less than 50 million acres, of the 191 can even be considered for harvest. This amendment will cost us another 45,000 jobs. It will cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. It will cost the local taxpayer who gets this money--primarily for education--millions of dollars, and these gentlemen know this. This is another way of saying we do not want any trees cut in the U.S. forests, and we know that is certainly not the policy of the great portion of the people. We voted almost two-thirds in this House to have a timber salvage bill in order to see that we could start saving tens of thousands of jobs we are losing all over this country.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Mr. Chairman, before I came to Congress, I was chairman of the State Parks and Recreation Council in overseeing our State parks and facilities, and we never had enough money to do the things we wanted to do or do all the maintenance we wanted to do. And I found it the same on a national basis, but I think the gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the committee, working with Members and the authorizers, have done as much as they possibly can to see that the needs of our Parks and Forest Services are met. The actual maintenance, park maintenance, even though the total committee was ordered to reduce the cost in order to meet budget reductions, and we reduced this $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill, maintenance for the critical areas were held even. I think that is amazing, given the cuts that had to be made. It also addresses the concerns and the desires of many of the Members' specific things that they had to do, and I again want to thank both Chairman Regula and ranking member Yates for the work that has been done in this bill. We have increased, and I feel very strongly about this, our timber sale program some $7.5 million above current levels. This will increase our timber sale program by 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million feet of salvage timber. This is a modest increase, but it is moving in the right direction. [[Page H 6937]] We are now in this country in a dangerous situation regarding forest health. We have not been removing salvage as we should have been. We have not been addressing the concerns of management, silviculture concerns of management by professional foresters and science that has been lost in much of our forest management, and it has cost us tens of thousands of jobs. It has cost us millions of dollars in taxes, and it means that we, today, are importing over one-third of our timber. Mr. Chairman, I certainly urge support of this bill, and will be voting for it. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Not only does H.R. 1977 reflect the serious will of this body to reduce spending--it is $1.5 billion below the fiscal year 1995 bill--it also addresses the concerns, desires, and suggestions of many members and the authorizing committees. Chairman Regula and the staff have done a terrific job in putting this bill together, and I encourage all my colleagues to support the bill. One aspect that is particularly pleasing to me is the commitment by this committee to turn the management or our national forests around. This bill moves the timber sale program forward, in a new direction from the past. The increase in the timber management and sales program and road construction funds will allow the Forest Service to increase the timber sale volume to its maximum capacity in fiscal year 1996 of 4.3 billion board feet. We have increased the timber sale program only $7.5 million above current levels, but this will increase the sale program by at least 418 million board feet of green sales and 300 million board feet of salvage volume. This modest increase will not only maintain jobs, it will create job growth and return many times the amount in timber sale revenues and income taxes. Although the road construction account has been cut, we have increased the timber road construction account to correspond with the increase in the timber sale program. This account has been maligned for a long time, and I would like to set the record straight. First, roads in the national forests serve many purposes. They provide the primary access to the 191 million acres that make up the National Forest System. These roads provide access for recreation, for wildlife and fisheries projects, for fire protection, for monitoring water quality, and for many other aspects of ecosystem management and timber harvesting. Funding for road construction ensures watershed protection through better road design, improves safety for road system users, and provide access for fighting wildfires and responding to other emergencies. The bulk of road construction funds are for reconstruction, that is, restoration and maintenance of existing roads. In fact, the number of miles of new roads has dramatically declined over the past several years. Also, the Forest Service has obliterated more roads than were constructed and the same pattern is being proposed for the next fiscal year. In fiscal 1994, the total road system actually decreased by 1,780 miles and only 519 miles of new roads were constructed. Today, millions of acres of our forest lands are in need of attention. We are well aware of the forest health problems that pervade our Federal forests--approximately 6 billion board feet of timber dies each year. The road budget is one step toward assuring access for salvage sales and forest restoration projects. This bill is only a first step. The Forest Service is so depleted of adequately trained personnel that it is still incapable of establishing a timber pipeline, which is desperately needed in many parts of the country. However, by providing funds for timber sale preparation above the level requested by the administration, we expect the Forest Service to make a significant contribution toward the national need for lumber and wood products. I don't know if this body is aware that we are currently importing a third of our wood needs--much of it from environmentally sensitive areas of the world with less sensitive harvest methods than those used here. For too long, we have ignored professional foresters and silviculture science when managing our national timber assets. Instead, we have relied on the pseudo-science of the environmental community to dominate the discussion. The pendulum swung too far--encouraging the locking up of these valuable assets instead of their wise use. We have a responsibility to protect, conserve and maintain the ecosystems of our Federal forests. To do that we must provide our land management agencies with the resources and tools necessary to get the job done. H.R. 1977 does that. We are all aware of the widespread forest health problems in our national forests across the country. Chairman Regula and Chairman Livingston have been real troopers for including the salvage timber provision in the fiscal year 1995 supplemental-rescissions bill and continuing to fight for its passage. I know we are all looking forward to getting a final resolution on the rescission bill. The committee understands that the Forest Service can use the timber sale program as a cost-efficient tool to thin and restructure forest stands. Timber harvests improve the forest health by clearing out the dead and dying trees and solving the overcrowded conditions found on many of our national forests. Harvests will also improve the habitat for many creatures that live In the forests and lead to less destructive forest fires. Although we continue to receive criticisms regarding below-cost timber sales, these determinations have not been based on an evaluation of all the factors that contribute to the profitability or cost of the timber program. Those opposed to timber sales encourage greater costs by supporting more costly harvest methods but have not come forward with proposals to minimize costs incurred by the Forest Service. This, combined with specific direction to manage the timber program for a broader variety of program objectives, continues to drive costs upward. I remain concerned that staff reductions within the agency to meet the administration's governmentwide FTE reduction targets have been to date disproportionately directed toward staff professionals with expertise in timber management and timber sales planning and preparation. In attempting to meet any future goals relative to agencywide staff reductions, I expect the agency will seek opportunities in other areas to reduce personnel, before considering reducing staff in timber management programs, particularly with regard to personnel stationed in the field. It is my hope that the Forest Service will not only take the necessary steps at all management levels to provide the maximum amount of timber sales possible in the next year, but also continue to seek ways to more efficiently provide for a timber sales program in a manner that reduces bureaucratic requirements. Again, I want to thank Chairman Regula and his staff for working to accommodate the concerns and wishes of many Members, myself included, and I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman, ``I appreciate your including me and the other members of the authorizing committees and their representatives in this discussion with the administration. It has been a long, arduous task, but I think we made progress.'' We have been losing the forestry infrastructure in this country, along with it tens of thousands of jobs and our forest health in the long run. If we lose that forest infrastructure, then the decisions that are made in the future are moot because we will not be able to carry out those silviculture practices that our best universities, that a hundred years of forestry and a hundred years of experimentation with private, State, and Federal experiment sites have given us. We need harvest to carry out and save that infrastructure. We need it in an environmental way, and we have tried to craft a bill that will protect the environment, that will give us forest health at the same time it saves that infrastructure and provides jobs.

Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina

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