Mac Thornberry

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, my constituents believe we need to be trying to move the Federal Government in two directions; one to make the Federal Government smaller, get it out of many of the aspects of our lives where it has placed itself; and the second is to try to make the Federal Government work smarter, to put a little dose of common sense into many of the things that the Federal Government does. That is exactly where this piece of legislation fits in because it will simplify and streamline, and make more certain royalty collections off of Federal lands and lands off the outer Continental Shelf. That process today is an endless morass that I find very few people completely understand and it costs an enormous amount of money to comply with, both from the taxpayers' standpoint and from small independent oil and gas companies. As a result of simplifying and streamlining these procedures, we can actually save the Federal Government a little money as well as the States which are involved. We are not talking about a tremendous amount of money, it is several million dollars, but it is a step in the right direction and it seems to me we should do it. It gets the States more involved in royalty collection, and I think that is a step in the right direction. Personally, I would like to go further in that respect. I would be very interested in exploring a royalty in-kind program where the States could actually get the crude oil or the gas as it is produced, but at least this moves in the direction of having more State participation and I think that is good. The other thing this bill does is it provides opportunity to diminish some of the regulatory burdens which are such a problem with oil and gas business across the country at this point. We are in a situation where the price of oil or gas is not terribly high and yet the cost of production is terribly high. And the Federal Government adds to that cost of production through taxes and regulations and paperwork such as are involved in this bill. If we can reduce the cost of production, we can prevent the thousands of wells from being shut in and that is happening today. The United States continues to grow more dependent upon foreign sources of oil because we cannot economically produce oil in this country. To the extent this bill takes a small but significant step towards reducing the regulatory burdens that drive up the costs, we can encourage exploration and hopefully encourage the production of domestic oil and gas upon which our security is based. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to do that not just on Federal lands but throughout all of the private sector in oil and gas production to increase our energy independence, but, again, this bill takes a step in the right direction and, therefore, I urge its adoption.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by putting this amendment in a little bit of context, because I think the American people do not understand exactly where we are with regard to missile defense. There are missiles that threaten people in the United States today. There are some now and there will be more in the future. There gets to be a debate about how quickly we will have more and how quickly other countries will have this capability, but there will be more and nobody denies that. Second, there is absolutely nothing that we can do today to stop a missile from hitting the United States. That is a fact. The children in this country are absolutely vulnerable, as is everyone else, to a missile attack by a country that has missiles now or someone that may have missiles in the future. This amendment asks us to tie one hand behind our back as we seek to find the best way to meet that threat in the future. The truth is this is not the area where most of the work is going on now. It is not the area that offers the best possibility for an immediate kind of protection against a small sort of launch, but it is something we should explore. We ought to look ahead to the kinds of threats we will have in the future and the best and most effective ways to prevent it in the future, and that is why I think it is foolish for us to tie one hand behind our back as this amendment seeks to do. We should explore all the options and we should take advantage of the best option to protect our people and our children, because I think that is the first obligation of this Congress and the defense that we are responsible for.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the exact same as an amendment that was accepted by all sides on this bill last year and its seeks to deal with a subset of the problem that we have already heard some discussion of, and that is inadequacies of coverage in the new dopler radar system. Most of the country is protected by radar which are run by the National Weather Service. However, some of the country is protected by radars which are run by the Department of Defense, and it is those radars which feed into the National Weather Service system to provide coverage. For example, in a great part of my district, primary coverage is provided by a radar run by the Air Force near Frederick, OK and backup service for that area is provided by a radar by the Air Force out of Dyess Air Force Base near Abilene. Now, the difficulty arises because the radars run by the Department of Defense are not held to the same standards as the radars which are operated by the National Weather Service themselves. So what we have experienced in our area are that communication lines go down, power to the radar goes down, and often, when we most need these radars, they are simply unavailable. As a matter of fact, studies by the National Research Council and the GAO confirm that these DOD radar are simply not available as much as National Weather Service radar, and the effect is they simply do not offer the same level of protection as the National Weather Service radar. My amendment simply says that DOD radar in the system have to meet the same standards as the National Weather Service radars so that there will be no second class of coverage for anybody in this country. Now, since we have had this debate last year, I have to report that the situation in my particular region has gotten better. And I appreciate the efforts of the Air Force, the National Weather Service, and others involved in making sure the radar is available more of the time than it was the time before. In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the committee, who has helped bring this problem to the attention of the relevant agencies and pressed them as we move forward for modernization to make sure nobody is left behind. The chairman of the subcommittee has been helpful as well. I know all Members share my determination to make sure that there is no second class of coverage and that those folks who are relying on the DOD radar get the same amount of coverage at least as the folks who rely on the National Weather Service radar. Mr. Chairman, hopefully, one of these days we will have a rain cloud in my district so that we can really put this system to the test. We look forward to that day, but in the meantime, I appreciate my colleagues supporting this amendment. 1615

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot about the trillions of dollars involved in the Federal Government's budget today, but I think it is also important to focus on the family budgets in this country, because in truth, the economic security of the country is only as strong as the economic security of the American family. There may be some who think that the family budgets in this country are the strongest they have been in 30 years. That is not what I am hearing in my district. Everywhere I go people are squeezed. People are working harder and harder and having a tougher time making ends meet. If we look at the statistics, they bear out that feeling. Since 1992, median family income in this country has gone down. Since 1992, the average Federal tax rate has gone up. The result is that Americans are left with less money in their pockets because the Federal Government is taking more and more money away from them. Recent surveys show the American people across all lines think the Federal Government, government at all levels, should take about a quarter of what they make; it should take about a quarter of someone's income to pay for government, and yet the number today is more like 38.2 percent. That is, of course, as opposed to about 5 percent in 1950. Today parents are working harder and longer and have less time to spend with their children. If Members do not think this country is experiencing the effects of people having to spend more time making ends meet, just to pay for food and shelter and away from their kids, I do not think they are in touch with what is happening. This budget includes a $500-per-child tax credit, so a family with two kids is going to get $1,000 more a year. Some people say that is not enough to make a difference. I will tell the Members, that is. That $1,000 for a typical family will pay for 3 months of groceries, it will pay for 1\1/2\ months of mortgage payments, it will pay for 3\1/2\ car payments, it will pay for 14 months of health insurance. In my district alone, it will mean $322 million more dollars over 7 years. That makes a difference in people's lives. It makes a difference at times that they need some relief. The bill has a lot of other good things for families. It allows senior citizens to keep more of the money they earn and not be penalized on their Social Security. It repeals the gas tax and the rest. The problem with taxes is sometimes people in Washington get confused about whose money it is, but it is a fundamental issue, I think, on who can better spend the people's money; whether the Washington bureaucrats can spend it better or whether the families themselves can spend it better. I put my trust in the American people. I think this country will be better off by letting people keep more of the money that they earn and spend it on themselves and their families and their food and their shelter and their communities and their churches, rather than sending it all to Washington. That is a lot of what is at stake here. That is a fundamental difference in this budget. It is the reason the American people need this kind of tax relief.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It enhances the security of the United States in ways that are going to get very little notice today. One of those ways is in people issues. The bill has a pay raise for our troops and it increases their housing allowance substantially. It also fills a $500 million shortfall in the administration's request for health care. Although more work is needed here so that we provide the health care we promise to those who serve and those who had served, there is a lot to be proud of. Another key issue in this bill is the safety and effectiveness of our nuclear weapons. Making sure that our nuclear arsenal is safe and reliable and effective is as important now as it has ever been. We received testimony that at least $4 billion a year is required to ensure that our nuclear arsenal works without nuclear testing. Yet here again the administration request was severely short. Mr. Chairman, we should not forget some basic facts. First, our nuclear weapons were designed to last about 20 years. We are about at the end of that design life. Someday soon we are going to have to build weapons again, to modernize and replace those that are getting out of date. Second, we are going from 18 facilities down to 8 facilities in our nuclear weapons complex. We are going to have to modernize those 8 facilities to do the job of 18, to make sure they can do the job and do it safely and effectively. Third, to make sure that our weapons work well without nuclear testing is going to be an expensive proposition. All those fancy machines we have got to buy to replace testing is expensive. It is absolutely essential that we get and keep the best people we can at the labs and at the production facilities, and we should not forget them. With the Communists threatening to return to power in Russia, with China, North Korea, and other places, nuclear weapons is not the place to be penny wise and pound foolish. This bill takes steps in the right direction, but more work will be needed.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time, and I appreciate my subcommittee chairman's tolerance of hearing my views on this issue. I certainly appreciate the ranking member working with us on this issue as well. He is certainly one Member of this body that is willing to question and to look beyond maybe his preconceived ideas and has worked to make this bill a better bill. I certainly appreciate his efforts in that regard. Mr. Speaker, there is a legitimate question about whether the Federal Government ought to be in the helium business or not. I think we are beyond that. I think that this body has decided the Federal Government will get out of the helium business. But just to show my colleagues that it is not a completely one-sided issue, I will insert a couple of articles, one from the New York Times, one from the Washington Post, talking about the importance of this strategic material to defense, to our space program, to medical research, and the rest. But I want to go beyond that. The decision has been made to get the Federal Government out of the helium business, so we ought to do it in the best way possible. I am going to vote no on this bill today because I think one of the key flaws in this bill is that it prevents the Federal helium assets from being privatized. Now, the text of the bill says that it is OK, it will be put up for sale and somebody can buy this stuff. But as a practical matter, the formula in the bill makes it economically impossible for any company, whether it is an individual in Amarillo, TX or Exxon, from buying any of the helium that is stored in the ground. The formula in this bill has the price of helium about 25 to 48 percent above the current market price. Now, if somebody wants to spend that much more, they can do it. But I suggest that there is nobody who will do that. So what we have are some folks in my district who might be interested in buying the refinery and buying some of the helium and competing in the market, who are essentially shut out from doing that because the formula is skewed to prevent somebody from doing it. I have other constituents interested in buying some of the helium and building perhaps even a new refinery and to refine some of the natural gas out of it. They are shut out because of this formula. So as we move to the other body, I suggest that one of the key improvements that must be made in this bill is looking at the formula by which the Government sells the helium that is in the ground. As a matter of fact, not only does this prevent us from privatizing the operations, as we are doing in so many other cases in this body; it also prevents us from accruing the real savings that are being advertised by this bill. One of the projections by OMB showed that at least $43.9 million of the saving accrued by this bill would come as a result of the sale of helium that is in the stockpile and in the ground. If it is priced 25 to 48 percent above the market, not only can it not be privatized, the taxpayers will not see the benefit of that $44 million that they are supposed to get, because it is priced far above where it should be. In committee I offered a substitute that was very much closer to the administration's plan to end the helium program. It would have provided that the Secretary could sell some of the helium at market price within his discretion so there is not a disruption in the market. But I think it would make far more sense to do so that way. It would enable some of the helium workers to perhaps even get a job at a new privatized helium plant. Yet this bill prevents that from happening. Mr. Speaker, I do not know, this has been around so long, I am not sure if we are really interested in doing this thing the right way for the right reasons. It is an easy program to make fun of. It is an essential program in many ways. But I suggest that if we are going to do it the right way and if we are going to do the right thing by the workers and by the country, then major revisions need to take place in this bill with a formula, as well as the way the workers are treated. We all ought to strive to not just make the Government smaller, but smarter. In that effort I will be voting no on this bill today. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the articles referred to. [From the Washington Post, Dec. 18, 1995] U.S. Helium Reserve Finds a Champion (By Curt Suplee) The venerable National Helium Reserve--32 billion cubic feet of the stuff, stored beneath the Texas Panhandle--has become the federal government equivalent of laughing gas. Marked for extinction in the Republican budget plan, the 70- year-old stockpile program has been travestied on Capitol Hill and in the news media as ``a symbol for obsolete federal ventures,'' ``the government-waste poster child'' and ``amazingly stupid even by government standards.'' But to many scientists, it's no laughing matter. Earth's tiny supply of helium is ``finite and irreplaceable,'' the American Physical Society (APS) warns in a strongly worded new statement, and doing away with it could prompt a national catastrophe. When present reserves are exhausted, the world's leading organization of physicists argues, there will be no economically feasible way to replace them. That might not matter much if helium were used only for levitating blimps or filling birthday balloons. But it has become one of the most important materials in modern science. The physicists are worried that if it's left up to private industry to extract it from natural gas (the main source), much of the nation's helium simply will go up in smoke. Liquid helium has the lowest boiling point of any substance and is essential to the production of practical superconductors--materials that have no resistance to electricity--and devices that rely on them. That includes a wide range of cutting-edge technologies such as medical MRI scanners, ultra-sensitive diagnostic detectors, weapon- guidance and astronomical systems, particle accelerators, magnetically levitated trains and resistance-free power lines. Moreover, helium is as close to chemically inert as elements get and thus is crucial to operations in which chemical reactions could be destructive, including pressurizing space shuttle tanks (NASA is NHR's biggest customer), welding such reactive metals as aluminum and forming delicate silicon crystals. Yet there is strong bipartisan support for selling off the federal reserves--housed in underground facilities near Amarillo, Tex.--on the private market over the next 20 years to raise an estimated $1 billion or more for the treasury. In his last State of the Union address, President Clinton cited the National Helium Reserve as one of ``over 100 programs we do not need.'' The Republican budget reconciliation bill vetoed by Clinton earlier this month called for a shutdown of the NHR's helium-extraction activities (which make up about 10 percent of U.S. production) and gradual sale of its inventory between 2005 and 2015. The revised balanced-budget plan Republicans are proposing contains the same provisions. That leaves the program, which originated in 1925 to ensure ample gas supplies for ``national security'' uses such as dirigible inflation, with no visible means of support--except for the physicists, who have taken their case to the Office of Science and Technology Policy in hopes of emphasizing that helium is not a renewable resource. The only commercially viable source is natural gas, some deposits of which contain as much as 0.3 percent helium. Such ``helium-rich'' fields exist only in the United States and, to a minor extent, in Canada. If helium is not extracted from the fuel before the gas is burned, it disappears irretrievably into the atmosphere. Some 3.2 billion cubic feet per year--approximately the same amount that is commercially extracted--is lost this way, the APS estimates. (Theoretically, helium could be recaptured from the air, where it makes up about five ten-thousandths of 1 percent by volume. But the cost would be astronomical. Recovering even 3.2 billion cubic feet--about one year's domestic production--would require 5 percent of the annual U.S. energy consumption, according to the APS analysis.) There are only a couple of deposits in the United States that are particularly rich in helium, said Charlotte LeGates, a spokeswoman for the Natural Gas Supply Association, who estimates that those resources probably will be exhausted ``60 or 70 years from now.'' But that situation she said, has nothing to do with whether the federal government remains in the helium business or not. She said the current budget legislation simply aims ``to turn government stockpiling-- which is sort of nonsense--into an orderly private market.'' A spokesman for Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), who introduced the National Helium Privatization Act of 1995 that both houses of Congress incorporated into the budget bill, agreed. ``The private sector is well situated to fill the need,'' said Vincent Sollitto. ``We are extremely confident that there's going to be plenty of helium in this country.'' This is plausible in view of the fact that demand for U.S.- produced helium has nearly doubled since 1985, according to the Department of Interior. But the APS is skeptical. The physicists are not opposed to privatization of the NHR. ``It will little matter to future generations whether the helium they use was extracted and stored by the government or by private industry,'' said APS spokesman Robert Park of the University of Maryland. ``But it cannot be assumed that private industry, motivated by short- term profits, will decide to extract more helium than there is an immediate market for. Any helium that is not extracted will be lost forever as the natural gas is burned. Some incentive or requirement to store it must be in place.'' For years, that incentive was the Helium Act of 1960, in which Congress authorized the NHR--operated by the Interior Department's Bureau of Mines--to make purchases of the gas and store it. The government is uniquely positioned to do so, because 64.2 percent of ``helium-rich'' gas resources are on federal land, according to the Bureau of Mines. The purchases were halted in 1973, and the size of the reserve has changed little since then. The program's financial situation, however, has changed drastically. Because it was launched with a congressionally mandated $252 million loan from the Treasury and has paid back little of its debt, the National Helium Reserve ``owes'' the federal government about $1.4 billion, most of which is compound interest accrued in the past 35 years. It is this obligation that the sale of the reserves is intended to pay off. And it is this ostensible debt that Cox spoke of in October when he said that the NHR is ``continuing to lose tens of millions of dollars a year.'' The APS disputes the logic of such reasoning. ``From the viewpoint of the U.S. government's net worth,'' the group's statement says, ``regarding this $1.4 billion as a `debt' . . . is purely illusory. . . . Any transfer of funds from one government agency to another neither reduces the Treasury's national debt nor increases the budget deficit by a single penny.'' Besides, said Park of the APS, if money is the principal issue, helium is likely to appreciate in value at least as much as any other government-held asset over the next few decades. ``It's a good investment over the long term,'' he said. ``It makes far more sense than storing gold at Fort Knox.''

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Chad Thompson of Amarillo, TX who is the State winner of the Voice of Democracy broadcast script writing contest, administered by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. His essay is a reflection of our American heritage, to do what we can for our neighbors, community, and our Nation: The great red sun peeked over the blue horizon. Just as dawn broke a young woman was strolling barefoot along the beach. She breathed in the cool morning air and felt the sand between her toes. The uniform stretch of beach was broken only by starfish washed in by the tide. There were thousands of them covering the beach. Too bad, the young woman thought, that all of them would dry up and die before long. Starfish thrive in shallow water, but once they are beached there is no other option but death. She picked up one of the starfish, took a long look at it, and threw it far back into the ocean, giving it a second chance at life. Then she picked up another and hurled it back into the water too. She had been doing this for a while when a casual jogger passed by and asked, ``Are you crazy? Do you realize there are millions of starfish here? You can't make a difference.'' She looked up at him, propelled another starfish to safety and replied, ``I made a difference to that one.'' Behind this simple story lies the solution to answering America's call. I believe America's call is for its citizens to love their country, to cherish its traditions while making room for new ones, and to work for the betterment of their fellow countrymen. Each person can make a tremendous difference--whether to the nation as a whole, their state, their community, or in their own neighborhood. The time is now for Americans to respond. Every American should realize large problems can be surmounted--that for every Goliath of society, there is a David who, with the courage to act, can solve what seemed to be an impossible task. David was able to conquer the huge giant Goliath with just one stone, in the same way we can eradicate any problem in America with a positive attitude and willingness to work hard. I believe that cherishing America is to show pride in its symbols. For example, last summer, as I stepped out of my house early on July 4th to jog, something seemed a little strange. It wasn't anything that could hinder me physically, but it wounded by sense of patriotism. The problem was that no one had the American flag displayed. Before I ran to the end of the street, I turned around, walked back in to my home, found the fabric of our nation, and proudly put it in its place in our yard. Afterwards I continued my job, but when I returned a smile came across my face, for the neighborhood was now splashed with red, white, and blue. You see, as everyone around the block saw the flag in our yard, they put theirs out as well. This incident shows how the power of one small act can cause a chain reaction that makes a big difference. Independence day in my neighborhood was a little brighter which in turn made me proud to be an American. In April of 1995 tragedy ate at America's heart. When the Alfred Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed, it created a black hole that pulled everyone to its center. Everyone pulled together in the terrible tragedy that took so many lives. There were no problems to race, religion or politics--just fellow humans who needed help and the people of the community responded. Soon offers of help poured in from all quarters of the country. Americans took off work across the country in hopes of helping the victims. Some were only able to offer teddy bears for the wounded children, while others could offer free intensive care; either way though, the lives of all Americans were altered in some form or fashion from that senseless act. Captain Scott O'Grady knows what it takes to make a difference. His fighter plane was downed over Bosnian territory, and while the nation feared he was dead or captured, he lay hidden in bushes surviving on ants and rainwater. His life was saved because his fellow soldiers kept listening for him long after common sense told them to give up. The United States military was flawless in his rescue. His willingness to survive as an American played an extremely important role, but the unsung heroes were the men who answered America's call by serving in the Marines. Just by his will to live and to return home, Scott O'Grady made a difference by focusing America's attention on the honor, strength and determination held by our servicemen. America's call can be answered by young and old, by a small act such as helping a child learn to read, the heroic deeds of a fireman saving a life or a soldier defending the nation in war. Anything positive counts. It is up to every American to take part in this government. Make a difference, and fill out that ballot. Remember it is your obligation to do something. It is time now to answer America's call. Like the woman on the beach saving one starfish at a time, decide today to be that person who can make a difference.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Madam Speaker, those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are condemned to repeat them. It has been 5 years since the gulf war, and yet the United States has not yet seemed to learn the dangers of being dependent on other for our energy needs. In fact, the United States is more dependent on foreign oil than ever before. More than 50 percent of our oil is imported, with about 20 percent coming from the Persian Gulf. We continue to lose producing wells, independent exploration and producing companies, as well as expertise. Talk about downsizing and exporting jobs--more than 500,000 jobs have been lost in oil and gas. And yet we go right along--acting as though domestic energy production is a luxury rather than a necessity of life in an unstable world. Madam Speaker, it's time we learned from the past and take steps now to put us on the road to energy independence.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as we continue in our struggle to balance the budget and return government power to the States and local communities, I thought it would be a good time to remember what one of America's greatest patriots had to say about the cost of our national debt and the burden it places on current and future generations: I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our choice between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities, and in our labors and in our amusements. If we prevent the Government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of caring for them, they will be happy. These words are drawn from a speech given by Thomas Jefferson shortly after the birth of our country. This speech, sent to me last week by one of my constituents, Mrs. Louis Seewald of Amarillo, TX, should remind us all that we cannot continue the business as usual practice of spending more than we take in. As Jefferson foresaw, running up a debt serves to enslave the entire Nation. The last 25 years have proven him right. Despite movement toward a plan to balance the budget, the fact of the matter is that we still face a national debt of nearly $5 trillion. A child born today will have to pay $187,000 in taxes over his or her lifetime just to pay off interest on the national debt. If unchecked, the national debt will soon consume nearly 75 percent of our entire budget. This will leave virtually no funds for critical areas such as education, the environment, and crime prevention, and could possibly lead to a tax rate of over 50 percent. This is not what Jefferson would have wanted from the Government he helped create more than 200 years ago, and it is not what the American people want from the leaders they elect today.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the chairman of the committee and all the members for the good job they have done in very difficult circumstances. Mr. Chairman, there are three things the agricultural economy in my district desperately needs. First is a good gain. No matter how important we think we are, I do not think we can do much about that. We need better cattle prices. I am not sure we can do anything about that today. Third, we need a farm bill. We are the only ones that can do something about that. It is too late now. We have got farmers, we have got bankers, fertilizer dealers, all sorts of people in the rural economies who are trying to make decisions, and we need a farm bill now so they can know what the rules of the game are going to be. I may not be thrilled with every nook and cranny of this bill, but it is something rural America can live with. It is something that will continue to provide an abundant, cheap source of food and fiber for this country that I think all too often we take for granted, and it is something that should not be broken up piece by piece, because I am concerned the whole thing would unravel at that point. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good bill. It ought to be passed. It should not be broken up, and farmers need to be able to get on about their business. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I wish that we could put the debate in context in that one would not go from one end and one would not go to the other. My distinguished colleague and friend from Texas just mentioned, ``Got to act now.'' We had all of last year to act. But you were doing some contract business of some kind and forgot the contract with American farmers and agriculture. And also that we are forcing. No one has to join the program. Any farmer anywhere in the United States is free to do what he or she wants. They do not have to join the program. They can do the free market. I know agriculture, fruit and vegetables, they do the free market and do not rely to any extent on Government. But their costs keep escalating. The costs of seed goes up. The cost of fertilizer goes up, and you do not know what the market is going to be, up or down. So, Mr. Chairman, we must remember this as one Member comes on the floor, says his thing, the one that is not here comes and say another thing; I wish we could keep it all in context.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, when we look at all the different approaches that have been tried in agriculture since the 1930's, I think the marketing loan has got to be one of the most successful and it seems to me silly to throw out one of the things that has worked the best. If we looked at the estimates, better than 90 percent of the cotton that trades on the world market has some sort of price support or subsidy of one kind or another. When we look at the amount of agriculture that we produce in this country, about one-third is generally exports, but about half the cotton is exported. Our key competitors in cotton are the centrally planned economies, like the Soviet Union, former Soviet Union, and China. In that environment, our cotton exports have gone up from about 2 million bales to about 7 million bales under the marketing loan program when we are competing against countries like that. The marketing loan has allowed us to compete with these other countries without big government costs, without costing the taxpayers a lot of money. If we have a program like that that moves the commodity, does not incur storage costs and yet allows us to compete in the world market, why would we not want to do more of it? As a matter of fact, that is exactly what his underlying bill does. It expands it to other commodities. The amendment should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, all of my colleagues are anxious to get home for Christmas, and no one more so than this Member. But I recognize that the best Christmas present that we could give to all our children is to stop adding debt upon debt which they must repay. I recognize that if we do not do it now, then it probably will not ever get done. And, while it may be more convenient to put it off yet again, as has been done so many times in the past, that would be wrong, and that would be going back to business as usual in Washington, DC, and that is what this Republican freshman ran to stop. Mr. Speaker, we must act now to balance the budget for our kids. We must act now to save Medicare for our parents and grandparents. We must act now to reform welfare for all our sakes, and we must do so with or without the President. Whatever it takes, Mr. Speaker, we must do the right thing.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, what some people have yet and may never understand is that you cannot provide security with pieces of paper, you can only provide security with strength, and this bill does make us stronger. With young American service men and women moving to Bosnia today, every Member has a responsibility to support them. But we have to support them with more than just speeches and fancy resolutions. I think we have to support them by voting for this bill, which does support them with a pay increase and a 5.2-percent increase in the housing allowance. This bill supports them by beginning to address our critical modernization needs, where we are sending kids out to fight with equipment that is older than they are. It supports them and those who have served before by fixing the COLA and equity problem, and it also pushes the development of new weapons which will not only be more effective against the enemy, but safer for our soldiers to use, and thereby further protect their lives. To truly support our troops with more than just words, Members should vote for this bill, and the President should sign it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add my support to the effort being made to assist our Nation's charities, universities, hospitals, and other organizations that hold as their sole objective assisting the needy. The Philanthropy Protection Act and the Charitable Gift Annuity Antitrust Relief Act are necessary steps toward restoring the interpretation of the purpose of charitable gifts. Without these two pieces of legislation, the foundation for donating charitable gifts and trusts will be eliminated. Because of a lawsuit filed in my district, organizations ranging from the Girl Scouts of America and the Southern Baptist Foundation to the Red Cross and Texas Tech University will be in true danger of losing their primary source of revenue. In an era when we are asking Americans to take greater responsibility for themselves, their families, and their neighbors, we must protect charitable organizations' ability to continue their work. The two acts offered on the House floor today will establish charitable gift annuities as an exemption from Federal antitrust and securities laws that require interest return at market rates. This will enable charitable organizations to continue to accept planned giving donations from individuals, pay out reasonable annual returns to the donor and provide the excess interest to benevolent activities. People who give charitable gifts do not do it to get rich--they do it mainly to help others. Using charitable gift annuities and charitable trusts makes it possible for donors to make a contribution, while still retaining some income from their gift. This flexible arrangement allows the funds to be used to care for and educate the less fortunate while at the same time providing investment income for the donor. In light of the immense benefit of these kind of gifts, it is only unfortunate that these bills were precipitated by some heirs seeking to retain the donations for their own use. Although this originated in the 13th District in Texas, the effects of these two acts will benefit the entire Nation. It is for these reasons that I am proud to join in this bipartisan effort.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, voting to prevent the President of whatever party from sending troops somewhere should never be done lightly, but no Member of this body can ignore our responsibility to our soldiers and to our Nation as well. The issue is not whether a peace treaty or a piece of paper gets signed in Ohio this weekend. That is not what we are after. What we are after is a peace that will stick, a peace that will be enforceable. It has to be based on solid ground. If they negotiate a treaty that assumes U.S. combat troops will be part of the peace enforcement, they are making a false assumption because the support is not there in the Congress or the country to do that. It is better they know the facts now and tonight rather than find out the hard way later. The fact is the President promised to send in troops without consulting Congress and now he is asking us to back him up. Our job, on the other hand, is to ask whether there is a vital national security interest in Bosnia that justifies risking the lives of young men and women. I do not think there is. Risking their lives just to make good on a rash, premature promise by the President is flat wrong and we ought to stop it.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my support for the Seven Year Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act of 1995. I do so with concern over several of the bill's provisions, particularly those relating to the Federal Helium Program, the Freedom to Farm Act, and certification requirements for weather radar service office. But these concerns are outweighed by the historical significance of the bill, and the singular importance of its No. 1 goal--mainly, to balance the budget in 7 years. It has been 27 years since the Federal Government passed a balanced budget. In that time, a burden of debt has been placed on American families that casts a long shadow over current and future generations. A child born today will pay an average of $187,000 in lifetime taxes just to pay off interest on the national debt. It is a moral imperative that we get this weight off this shoulders. It is what we were elected to do. But just as important as removing this burden for those coming into the world is restoring economic opportunity and security for those already here. The single most imposing obstacle to economic advancement in our Nation today is the Federal Government. It discourages savings and security by overtaxing middle-income families. It stifles growth and investment by overregulating small businesses. And, for the less fortunate, it smothers hope and independence by promoting welfare over work. What Ronald Reagan said more than 15 years ago still holds true: In our country today, government is not the solution to our problem-- government is the problem. This legislation addresses this problem in many important ways. Among the bill's many worthwhile provisions, I am especially pleased with those which reform the welfare system in a way that emphasizes work and family. I am also happy that this bill takes a much-needed first step toward reducing the outrageous pensions Members of Congress receive. Finally, I am pleased with the provision that replaces the current Medicaid system with MediGrants, which will not only benefit taxpayers by controlling runaway spending, but will also benefit States by giving them the freedom to develop health care delivery systems that suit their needs the best. As I indicated, I do have concerns about the provisions relating to three specific areas. The Federal Helium Program has become an easy issue to demagogue, but the provisions included in this legislation do not provide the guarantee of a reliable, affordable supply of helium which this country must have. In addition, I am concerned that the provisions relating to the Freedom to Farm Act are not in the best interests of the country. However, my reservations in this regard are overcome by the certainly that the problems with these provisions will addressed in conference. I am also concerned with possible lapses in public safety caused by repealing the requirement that no weather service offices be shut down unless there is proven to be no degradation of radar coverage. This is critical to my region of the country, where radar coverage is not up to par. We should use House- approved language providing for a streamlined procedure which reduces unnecessary spending and emphasizes quality of service in problem areas. I would also like to briefly touch on why I voted against the alternative measure introduced by a coalition of Members from the other side of the aisle. The coalition should be commended for offering a substantive alternative that balances the budget in 7 years. Both the leadership of their own party and their President have failed to do either of these things. However, the coalition proposal falls short in several critical areas. For one thing, it would provide for an adjustment in the consumer price index, which could lead to a reduction in Social Security benefits. Second, the coalition plan fails to provide tax relief for the middle class, thereby breaking the promise we made to American taxpayers. I am pleased that the majority reconciliation bill fulfills this important promise by providing tax relief to families and incentives for job creation, both of which are absolutely essential and long overdue. These provisions will allow taxpayers to keep a portion of the money taken in the tax increase passed in August 1993, and correct an ill-conceived policy that even the President admits was a mistake. I am also happy that this legislation includes the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which will provide taxpayers with protections from a wide range of Government abuses. Mr. Chairman, this bill is truly historic. While is not perfect, it represents a giant leap toward keeping the promise we made to the American people to balance the budget and get our Nation heading in the right direction.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, following on the last discussion, my amendment attempts to deal with some of the specific problems that have been incurred around the country because of holes that have developed in the National Weather Service radars. I think everyone agrees that modernization is very important. We need to have our people protected by the best technology possible. But what has happened is that some of the radars that are protecting people are managed by the Department of Defense rather than the National Weather Service, and those Department of Defense radars do not necessarily have to meet the same standards that the National Weather Service radars have to meet. As a result of that, sometimes the Department of Defense radars are not doing the job. As so many of my colleagues who spoke on the previous amendment, we have an example in my district that shows just how serious this question is. On May 27, 1995, a tornado touched down in my district in Vernon, TX, and there was absolutely no warning because there was no radar operating at that time. As a matter of fact, the backup radar was not operating at that time. All the radars that were covering that area were not operating. Ten minutes after the tornado passed through, as a result of eyewitness accounts, then there was a warning that was issued. Luckily that storm did not cause serious injuries, although it did cause some property damage. But the point is that some of these DOD radars are not operating the way they should. I want to take a second to thank the chairman of the full committee in particular because he has gone out of his way to work with us in resolving these particular problems, but what we have found in my district is that sometimes [[Page H 9937]] the communications line taking the radar signal to the National Weather Service office goes down, sometimes lightning knocks the power out of the radar, and then it takes as much as an hour to get the radar back on line. Several of the previous speakers have mentioned GAO reports and the National Research Council reports which talked about these particular problems with the 15 DOD radars. The National Research Council recommended that immediate steps be taken to ensure that the 15 NEXRAD's under the control of the Department of Defense function as fully committed elements of the national weather radar network operating with the same standards, same quality and same availability as the National Weather Service NEXRAD's. Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what my amendment does. It simply says the DOD radars that are an essential part of the system, that are the only thing some people have to rely on, must meet the same standards as the National Weather Service radars. We should not have some people disadvantaged in this new system of new technology because they happen to be covered by a DOD radar rather than a National Weather Service radar. This seems to be the least we can do to take the additional steps, not just require the Secretary to sign a piece of paper that says people will be protected, but make the changes in the field that will make sure people are protected. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Speaker, Each year the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and its Ladies Auxiliary conduct the Voice of Democracy broadcast scriptwriting contest. This past year more than 126,000 secondary school students participated in the contest competing for the 54 national scholarships totaling more that $109,000, which was distributed among the winners. The contest theme this year was ``My Vision For America.'' Ms. Erin Kenyon of my district was the State winner for Texas. The following is her winning script: My Vision for America We all have a vision of America. Thomas Jefferson saw independence. Abraham Lincoln envisioned unity. Susan B. Anthony pictured women voting. Martin Luther King, Jr. foresaw a land of equality for all races. My vision for American isn't too different from theirs--I see a diverse nation, unified by a people with a generous spirit, who are willing to be a beacon of hope and democracy to the whole world. Throughout history, Americans have faced and met the demands of life in the frontier with a patriotic zeal. Early in America, pioneers were faced with the challenge of building their homes and barns quickly to avoid the ravages of winter. Instead of each man taking on this incredible task by himself, people decided that by working together more could be accomplished. In much the same way, my vision of America ha citizens working together for the betterment of our country. The rallying cry of the American revolution, ``United we stand, divided we fall,'' can be a guide for us in solving the problems which now plague American society. A man in California who was tired of the gang graffiti sprawled on walls across his neighborhood formed a group to paint over it. Volunteers help with youth programs such as boy's and girl's clubs and scouting which provide interests to keep kids off the streets. Volunteers across the country devote their time to teaching the illiterate how to read. These are just a few examples of how ordinary Americans can make an extraordinary difference in the lives of their fellow countrymen. In my vision, every person would see citizenship as a shared responsibility. We must not only be a United States, but a United people. Webster's dictionary defines patriotism as love, support, and defense of one's country. It seems sometimes as if Americans become so torn with their difference that they lose sight of what really matters. That diversity doesn't have to divide us; it can be the glue that binds us to our goals and dreams. The same is true for our government. Our representatives should realize that the national interest comes before political partisanship. Political campaigns should be based on constructive ideas, not destructive mudslinging. In my vision racial and political differences aren't inevitable obstacles, but solvable problems. Conquering them will lead us to a more perfect union. Finally, my vision is for America to be a world leader. Now is not the time to be isolationists. We must maintain our military superiority in order not to use it. For with that very strength, we have the power to promote world peace-- economically and diplomatically. Like President Woodrow Wilson said, ``America cannot be an ostrich with its head in the sand.'' Shrinking from our responsibility leaves the rest of the world with nowhere to turn. We should be a role model for countries throughout the world to follow. In my vision of America, hope and opportunity exist for each and every one of us. We owe much to those whose visions of America have changed our lives--Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Jr. and many other patriots. My vision is for America to be a country of patriotic people, united in being a model of democracy and hope to the world with the courage to look unafraid towards the future.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the Texas panhandle is a long way from either Savannah River or from Nevada where the accelerator would be built, but I think it is very important to make these basic points. We have no choice on tritium. Everyone has agreed with that. And we need it quickly. Now, this is a gas that deteriorates at a rate of approximately 5 percent a year. We have built none in this country since about 1988. And the longer we take, particularly with an unproven technology, the worse off it is for the security of this country. I think the key point, however, that I want to make is this. The committee version advances both options. Currently, the Department of Energy is only looking at one option and that is an accelerator. They are not considering in any manner the sort of reactor that would be considered under this bill. Now, I will tell my colleagues that in my district we have got a lot of excess plutonium that is building up as we dismantle weapons that we are bringing back from Europe. We have got to figure out what to do with that plutonium and the reactor is one option that we ought to consider as a way to dispose of that excess material. The Department of Energy will not even consider it and there are no other technologies that are even close to being considered at the current time. The committee bill gives approximately the same amount of money toward the accelerator as the gentleman's amendment would do, but it adds to that. It doubles the amount of money because of how important this gas is and it gives us another option to look at. We are not bound to any option forever, but it does push forward the process on both counts so that we can find the best, most economical, safest way to produce tritium and that can accomplish our other security goals as well.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Berman amendment. The defense export loan guarantee program is good public policy for several reasons. No. 1, it does not require an appropriation of public funds. Second, it does not affect our national nonproliferation policy at all. What it does is provide American firms with a modest competitive tool to use against foreign defense exporting companies. Defense exports are a major source of employment and a key to sustaining our industrial base. Yet we are losing about 20,000 jobs every month in the defense industry now. Participating in the defense global market is a key way to stabilize employment and protect our national technology and manufacturing resources. I think more than anything, though, this program provides a way to keep our production lines warm and preserve our ability to protect ourselves in the future. What we are talking about in much of this bill is the expense of letting a production line go cold and then having to come in with a large investment to get it going again. It will ultimately, I believe, save the taxpayers dollars if we can draw on some of these foreign countries to keep our production lines warn and, therefore, the taxpayers will have lower unit costs, and it will save us money in the long run. I think this defense loan guarantee program is a good economic policy. It is a good trade policy. It is a good military policy . And it is a good foreign policy. The Berman amendment should be rejected.

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am a new Member of this body. I have not been a part of the debates that have gone on on this issue for the past years. I have tried to look at it from the ground up and maybe from a fresh perspective. It seems to me when you get down to the basics, the question is whether we are willing to defend our people. The fact is that we have absolutely no way to stop a missile that is fired at the United States. The fact is that there are other countries who have missiles that can reach the United States. The fact is that there is instability and uncertainty in Russia. And the fact is that just 2 weeks ago, China fired a new mobile missile that can reach the United States. The fact is there are a number of other countries that are working as hard and as fast as they can to put our people at risk by acquiring missile technology. The fact is today we are vulnerable to accidental launch, to a rogue general acting on his own, or to some outlaw state such as Hussein or Qadhafi buying missiles, and we can do absolutely nothing to defend our people against a missile attack. I think that is wrong strategically, and I think that is wrong morally. We cannot, of course, build a bubble and protect ourselves from all threats, but we can do what we can do. We have technology to make us safer than we are today, and it is silly to tie our hands and not make available for ourselves the possibilities which exist. I think we have to be particularly careful of those who say, ``Yeah, I'm for a missile defense, except'' or ``under these circumstances.'' There should be no conditions on whether we protect the United States or its people. This bill does not alter existing treaties, but it does allow us to be free to look at all the possibilities. The Spratt amendment would handicap us by only looking at certain possibilities that apply to certain treaties. We ought to see what works the best, then go about developing that technology, change the treaty as ought to be appropriate and get something there that will protect our people. Frankly, I would push harder and quicker toward deploying a defense than is in this bill, but I think this bill is a minimum of what we can do to protect our people and fulfill our oath.

Mr. THORNBERRY

Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, there are many issues in this bill, and I want to make just two brief points. No. 1, it is quite a well-balanced bill. Defense spending has been cut every year for the past decade, and there is a lot of ground to make up for. But in the areas of modernization, in getting and keeping good people, in readiness and in reforming the Pentagon, this bill makes substantial progress. It does not do as much as I would like in all the areas, but it makes substantial progress in each of them and deserves my colleagues' support. The other issue is dealing with getting and keeping good people. For me that includes how we treat our veterans and military retirees. More and more in the future, I believe, that will be determined on, or one of the key parts of that will be health care. This bill, again, does not solve all the problems with regard to access to health care for military retirees, but the report it requires, as well as some of the other studies, will move us toward solving that problem. The bottom line is the Government must keep its word to those people who have served their country. Mr. Chairman, the first function of this Government is to provide for the defense of its citizens. This bill deserves the support of my colleagues.