Pat Toomey

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a brief response. Then I am going to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma. I would point out that there is nothing in these instructions which set levels of staff salaries and nothing in the instructions which would forbid Members from changing the level of staff salaries. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time, it is my understanding that it has not yet been filed, so it is not a moot point until it is actually filed. It is my hope that when it does get filed, it would reflect the levels that the House voted for.

Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, this chart depicts the spending of the legislative branch appropriations bill in fiscal year 1999, and it reveals the instructions that I would intend in my motion for fiscal year 2000. As Members can see, the Senate vote for 1999, the Senate appropriation was $524 million. The House was $776. The joint other category, which as we know covers such things as buildings and grounds and the Library of Congress, comes to $1 billion and 50 million. The grand total is $2,350. On June 10 this body adopted a bill that allocates basically the exact same level for the House, $777 million. It voted for a slight increase in the joint other category of $1,085,000,000. The Senate in its bill voted for a $554 million, which is about a 5.7 increase, and 11.24 for the joint other category. What my motion simply does is it asks our conferees to reflect the will of the House. That means that the House number would be reflected, or the House number for both the House itself and for the funding of the joint and other categories would be the House numbers, and the Senate would stick with its own number. That would leave the total funding for the bill at $2,416 million. That would be a 2.8 percent increase over fiscal year 1999, and would be approximately $62 million lower than the new 302(b) appropriation allocation, if it were fully funded. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is very important, as I said earlier, that our conferees reflect the will of this body, which has already voted on this matter, which has voted for these numbers. I am not suggesting that we change the number that the Senate has voted for itself. I think it is important that we do this to simply lead in the process of demonstrating our fiscal discipline. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleague, has the conference report been filed?

Mr. TOOMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. TOOMEY. It is up to the individual Members to decide how they spend their Members' account.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, of what I said at the beginning, which is I think our appropriators have done an excellent job thus far this year, and I think we are going to finish up the process with an excellent track record. My colleague indicated that there are, in all likelihood going to be pleasant features to this bill when we see it. I hope, in fact, that the conferees did hold the line and that the funding levels will, in fact, reflect the will of the House as it was voted on back in June. Again, we have done a great job thus far ensuring that we are going to see the surpluses that we believe we will see, and that means we are going to be able to do the right thing with respect to Social Security, with respect to lowering the tax burden on the American people. I just hope that we finish the job and we show that we can lead by example that a 2.8 percent increase in our own budgets is sufficient for us. We do not need to go higher than that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TOOMEY. There is no cost of living adjustment for the staff that I am aware of in the current bill.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 7(c) of House rule XXII, I offer a motion to instruct House conferees on the bill (H.R. 1905), making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, all year long as we have been wading through the budget and the appropriations process, we here in this House have been debating the proper level of the Federal Government spending. Despite a clear institutional bias I would argue on the part of the Federal Government in general to spend ever more dollars, by and large the Republican majority in this House and many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have exhibited a great deal of restraint in the growth of government in general, and, frankly, we have been very responsible with our budgeting thus far. I would like to reflect for a moment just on what we have done. First of all, we have set aside the Social Security surplus for the next 10 years in our budget. We have provided priority funding for key government functions, such as defense and education. I think we have recognized by and large the importance of maintaining the projected surpluses so that we can pay down some debt and reduce taxes. My point is, Mr. Speaker, that, by and large, this body has been doing a great job demonstrating some fiscal discipline. We think our leadership deserves a lot of credit and think the appropriators deserve a lot of credit, as do my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Just as a reminder, we are at the point of passing ten appropriations bills, and it is a remarkable accomplishment what we have done with these thus far. We have essentially freezed spending on Agriculture, Treasury and the Interior Departments, we have got a small reduction in military construction, a 4 percent reduction for the Energy Department, an over 4 percent reduction for the Transportation Department, an over 5 percent reduction in foreign aid, and about a 25 percent reduction for the District of Columbia. Now, there are two exceptions to this trend that we have established. The first is defense. I think it is clear that it is high time that we started to rebuild our military forces and provide our men and women in uniform the resources they need to carry out their job, and we begin that with the defense appropriation bill. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the other exception to this trend of holding the line on spending now appears to be the bill that funds Congress itself. Just last Friday the House Committee on Appropriations significantly increased the 302(b) allocation for the legislative branch appropriations bill. This new 302(b) allocation will increase the overall non-emergency spending in this bill by 5.4 percent over last year's number. Now, in order to spend that much money, to reach that level, the conferees would have to substantially increase the funding levels within this bill well beyond the levels that were approved by this body on June 10, just two months ago. Mr. Speaker, I just do not think that is right, and I am therefore offering a motion to instruct conferees that is really very simple. My instructions would say, stick with the numbers we gave you. Hold the line on spending. Let the legislative branch of this government lead in the fight for fiscal discipline by example. Finally, let us reflect the will of the House. I would like to go to my chart to explain exactly what my motion would do.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 7(c) of House rule XX, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 1905, making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, rejecting this resolution and renewing NTR with China will help to safeguard American security with respect to a potential adversary, will serve American economic interests, and will encourage policies that will allow individual liberty, the rule of law and thus respect for human rights ultimately to flourish in China. On the security front, NTR and the expanded trade opportunities that it brings in nonmilitarily sensitive goods reduces the likelihood of military conflict between the United States and China. Countries with extensive trade relations are simply less likely to go to war with each other than countries without these ties. Renewing NTR with China will benefit our economy by expanding U.S. export opportunities and by providing American consumers access to low- cost goods. Finally, Mr. Speaker, renewing NTR with China will help the Chinese people to liberate themselves from the dictatorship under which they live. Chinese Communist leadership has embarked on, what is for them, a dangerous course. Unlike most other Communist dictatorships this century, Deng Xiaoping chose to open China to foreign investment, limited free enterprise and engagement with the West. His bet was that he could enjoy the economic benefits of capitalism without losing the Communist Party's monopoly on political control. If we engage China, Deng's successors will lose that bet and the people of China will be the winners of freedom. Freedom is ultimately indivisible and once tasted, Mr. Speaker, it is irresistible. People who enjoy economic freedom will demand political freedom. People who read American newspapers will eventually demand their own free press. People who travel to the United States on business will see the incomparable superiority of freedom and in time demand it for themselves. I urge a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on the issue of our policy towards the People's Republic of China. I believe the United States' policy toward China should be guided by three primary and pragmatic goals. First, we must safeguard American security against a potential adversary. Second, we should pursue economic trade relations that promote American economic interests. And finally, we should encourage policies that will allow individual liberty and the rule of law and, thus, respect for human rights to flourish in China. Today, Mr. Speaker, Congress voted to renew normal trade relations, or NTR, with China for another year. This renewal of NTR will advance all three of the above-mentioned China policy goals. On the national security front, NTR and the expanded trade opportunity that it brings in non-militarily sensitive goods and services will reduce the likelihood of military conflict between the United States and China. Countries with extensive trade relations are simply less likely to go to war with each other than countries without those ties. This is no surprise. With extensive trade comes extensive interests in maintaining peaceful relations and thus more trade. But make no mistake, NTR does not and should not imply trade in militarily sensitive technologies. Any technology with a direct military application should not be exported to China nor to any other country that is not a close ally of the United States. The Clinton administration's appalling lapses in safeguarding military technology must be rectified immediately. But denying American and Chinese citizens the opportunity to exchange non-military goods and services will not accomplish that. Instead, the U.S. should reinstate penalties on companies whose negligent sales compromise our security and rebuild a system of controls on the spread of potentially dangerous technologies. Renewing NTR with China will benefit our economy by providing American consumers access to low-cost goods and by expanding U.S. export opportunities. Revoking NTR would have subjected Chinese imports to dramatically higher tariffs, and that is another word for taxes. These taxes would not be paid by China but by American consumers. Revoking NTR would have subjected American consumers to up to $29 billion in new taxes. A second economic benefit from extending NTR will be accelerated growth in high-paying, export-related jobs across America and particularly in my home State of Pennsylvania. Exports in industries such as chemical products, industrial machines, and computer components, where wages average 20 percent higher than the national average, are already fueling much of Pennsylvania's impressive economic growth. Renewing NTR is a prerequisite to China's ascending to the WTO, which, in turn, will dramatically accelerate further growth and opportunity in U.S. and Pennsylvania exports to China. But finally, Mr. Speaker, freedom works. By renewing NTR with China, we are helping to provide the opportunity for the Chinese people to liberate themselves from the dictatorship under which they currently live. China's communist leadership has embarked on what is, for them, a very dangerous course. Unlike most other communist dictatorships this century, from Stalin to Mao to North Korea's Kim Il Jong, Deng Xiaoping chose to open China to foreign investment, limited free enterprise, and engagement with the West. His bet was that he could enjoy the economic benefits of capitalism without losing the communist party's monopoly on political control. Well, in the long run, Mr. Speaker, if we continue to engage China, Deng's successors will lose that bet and the people of China will be the winners. And they will be the winners of freedom because freedom is ultimately indivisible. People who enjoy economic freedom will eventually demand political freedom. People who read American newspapers will eventually demand their own free press. The people who travel to the United States on business will see incomparable superiority of freedom and will eventually demand that liberty for their own country. Freedom once tasted is irresistible. Eventually the Chinese people will demand a free, open, and just Democratic society, just as their fellow countrymen enjoy on Taiwan. Only that kind of society will properly respect the Chinese people's human rights. These changes to Chinese society will not happen overnight, but having extended NTR will increase the pace at which they develop and, best of all, will be helping ourselves in the process.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I would like to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this very fair and reasonable rule. Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this bill in some context. First of all, the Federal Government today is bigger than it has ever been in our history. We will spend more money this year than ever before, and next year more money still, and the year after more money than that. Taxes are at a record high level. Not since World War II has the Federal Government assumed a larger share of our economic output. And let us look at the budget. Our budget has taken Social Security totally off the table. Every penny of Social Security revenue is going to go to the Social Security program; $1.9 trillion over 10 years. We have set aside the money to start rebuilding our defensive forces. We have set aside the money to increase spending for primary and secondary education, more than the President called for in his budget. And we refused to make the cuts in Medicare that the President called for in his proposal. Now, after paying all those bills, and keeping the budget balanced, and setting aside two-thirds of total surpluses for debt reduction and Social Security and Medicare, when the American people have paid for all that, I say they have paid enough. And that is when we have an opportunity and, in fact, a moral obligation to allow them to keep the surplus that they are creating. Why? Yes, because tax cuts are good for the economy. It will in fact increase the growth and opportunity, increase the savings rate, create more jobs and more wealth. And, yes, in fact these cuts will increase the probability that the revenue and expenditure projections will materialize rather than new spending programs, which will most likely result in excess of their original projections. But there is a more important reason, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in a free society, it is people who are sovereign. And it is the people's money, not the government's money. That is why we have an obligation to let them keep as much of their hard-earned money as we possibly can. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule and a ``yes'' vote on final passage of this bill.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share my Report from Pennsylvania for my colleagues and the American people. All across Pennsylvania's 15th Congressional District there are some amazing people who do good things to make our communities a better place. These are individuals of all ages who truly make a difference and help others. I like to call these individuals Lehigh Valley Heroes for their good deeds and efforts. Today I would like to recognize Kevin and Shawn Kelly of Wilson Borough as Lehigh Valley Heroes. These young boys have truly made a difference in their community. Kevin, 8, and his brother Shawn, 11, recently extinguished a fire that threatened a nearby home in their community. Recently, they were playing outside when they noticed smoke coming from a grassy area near their neighbor's home. Kevin and Shawn reacted instantly to douse the small fire with water and as a result saved a neighbor's home. These brave young boys made a difference in Wilson Borough and therefore they are Lehigh Valley Heroes in my book. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my Report from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today as a proud cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, all across Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley where I come from, I have heard one message loud and clear, and that is to stop spending our Nation's Social Security funds on other programs, and this is the measure that will enable us to do just that. My constituents are right, and they are right for many reasons but I want to emphasize two. The first is that this is the honest thing to do in budgeting. And let us face it, Congress has been engaged in misleading and deceptive budgeting for decades. The American people are told their payroll tax goes to Social Security. In fact, it goes to many other places as well. Now, some Members of Congress want to oppose this, and they, like the President, would rather be able to grab some of that Social Security money and spend it on other programs. And I would suggest if these other programs are so important, so vitally important that they are worth spending Social Security for, then I suggest that my colleagues make the case for these programs to the taxpayers and raise the taxes necessary to fund them. If that fails, I would suggest rethinking the programs and the overall level of spending. The American taxpayers deserve honest, transparent, straightforward budgeting, and this helps us to get there. The second reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the retirement security of baby boomers, my generation, my kids and my grandchildren, absolutely depends on saving this money. Social Security, as currently structured, is simply not sustainable. The system is fundamentally flawed and it will go bankrupt if we do not make fundamental reforms and restructuring. We need to give workers the freedom to take a portion of their payroll taxes and invest that money so that it will grow and provide a retirement benefit and security greater than what Social Security promises. But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that transition to that system will cost money. The sooner we start, the less it will cost. But whenever we start, it will cost the Social Security surplus. So we cannot squander those funds on anything other than providing the retirement benefits to the seniors that we have promised and providing for a retirement future for future generations.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deliver my Report from Pennsylvania. Today, I would like to share with my colleagues and the American people the remarkable efforts of individuals in Schnecksville, Pennsylvania. All across the Lehigh Valley, my wife, Kris, and I meet so many wonderful people. We learn of and hear about amazing individuals who strive day and night to make our communities better places to live. I like to call these individuals Lehigh Valley Heroes. Lehigh Valley Heroes make a difference by helping their friends and neighbors. Mr. Speaker, everyone involved with the Schnecksville Community Fire Company are Lehigh Valley Heroes. This weekend, the Schnecksville Fire Company will celebrate 75 years of service to their community. For this reason, I would like to commend and applaud their efforts--both past and present--in making our community a better place. Mr. Speaker, this concludes my Report from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for printing in the Record: The 1998 Schnecksville Fire Team Richard Ruch, Keith Fenstermacher, Asst. Engineer; Steve Fetherolf, Lieut.; Todd Kern, Asst. Chief; Keith Zehner, Asst. Chief; Jason Zellner, Ronald Paulus, Scott Gicking, Rev. Michael Bodnyk, Chaplain; Ronald Dunstan, Engineer; Tim Henry, Marvin Belles, Nelson Fogle, Lieut.; Tom Hourt, Captain; Ronald Stahley, Chief; Keith Stahley, Charles Weidaw, Daniel Wehr, Jody Blose, Brad Petrahoy. Fire Police Nelson Fogle, Karl Haas, Fire Police Captain; Roy Kern, Fire Police Lieut.; Glenn Stahley, Ronald Paulus, Robert Bold, Dennis Oels North Whitehall Township Rescue Squad Ron Rutt, Rescue Lieut; Tom Hourt, Rescue Lieut.; Ronald Stahley, Rescue Capt.; Steve Fetherolf, Scott Gicking, Ronald Paulus, Richard Ruch, Marvin Belles, Keith Fenstermacher, Charles Weidaw, Charles Eckhart, Todd Kern, Nelson Fogle, Keith Zehner, Daniel Wehr, Robert Rudelitch, Gary Cederberg, Jamie Ebert, Mark Kaintz, Kenny Reimert, Jim Steward, Gary Frederick. 75th Anniversary Committee George Wessner, Harold Ruch, Rose Bobin, Eleanor Kressley, Carol Wessner, Faye Ruch, John Schaeffer, Delores Wehr, Jean Horwith, Betty Moll, Ron Nederostek, Bernie Molchany, Eva Feinour, Sandy Bradley, Marie Bittner, Betty Holler, Nancy Kern, Roy Kern, Wayne Moll, Nelson Fogle, Terry Dunbar, Ellsworth Meckel, Dennis Bittner, Richrd Solt, Kathy Ruch, Richard Ruch, Diane Fries, Eleanor Stettler, June Handwerk. Officers 1924 to 1998 Presidents' Names and Years Served J. Eric Linde, 1924-1941. Victor Haas, 1942-1945. David Klotz, 1946. Raymond Baer, 1947-1948, 1950-1951. Warren Rohrback, 1949. Mosby Heinly, 1952. Ellsworth Meckel, 1953, 1967-1972, 1982. Robert Heinly, 1954. Carl Correll, 1955. Wayne Moyer, 1956-1957. Donald Hersh, 1958. Paul Schneck, 1959. John J. Meckel, 1960. Russel Grim, 1961-66. Gordon Werley, 1973-75. Ted Rothrock, 1976-1978, 1980-1981, 1983-1986, 1997-1999. John Schaeffer, 1979, 1988-1989. Karl Haas, 1987. Robert Gibiser, 1990-1994. John Ruch, 1995-1996. Vice Presidents' Names and Years Served Stanley Peters, 1924. William Long, 1924. M.D. Wehr, 1924-1926. Asa M. Stopp, 1924-1925. Wilson Shankweiler, 1924. William Heiney, 1925-1932, 1951. Guy Kohler, 1925-1944. Wilson Schuler, 1925, 1927-1945. Steward Peters, 1926. Preston Holben, 1926. William Peters, 1927-1941. Homer Frey, 1927-1928. John Henninger, 1928-1932. Howard Heinly, 1929-1932. Walter E. Bittner, 1933-1942. Malcolm Hummel, 1942. Donald Best, 1942-1943. Richard Reitz, 1942. Ellsworth Meckel, 1943, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1975-1981. Theodore Rau, 1943. David Klotz, 1944-1948. Raymond Baer, 1944-1945, 1948-1949. Wm. J.D. Heintzelman, 1945. Fred Dotterer, 1945. Franklyn Bittner, 1945. Walter Best, 1946-1950. Victor Haas, 1946. Wilmer Stahley, 1946. Willis Smoyer, 1947-1950. Warren Rohrback, 1948, 1957. Jacob Weber, 1950. Henry Musselman, 1951-1953. Mosby Heinly, 1951-1953. John J. Meckel, 1952-1963. Raymond Krause, 1952. Roy Smoyer, 1954. Leroy Krause, 1955-56, 1961. Mike Kondravy, 1955. William Jones, 1957-1958. John Liscka, Jr., 1959. Earl Warmkessel, 1959. William Schock, 1960. Wayne Moyer, 1960-1962. Stewart Helfrich, 1960. Donald Bittner, 1962. Donald Kern, 1963, 1965. Warren Follweiler, 1963, 1973-1974. Russell Rader, 1964. Willard Holben, 1964-1966. Thomas Dennis, 1966, 1971. Harold Schoch, 1967-1969. Zolton Papp, 1967-1968. Stanley Traub, 1967. David Schneck, 1969-1970, 1973. Frank Kovacs, 1970. David Samuels, 1971-1972. Gordon Werley, 1972. Robert Haberern, 1973. Warren Follweiler, 1973-1975. David Schneck, 1973. Harold Ruch, 1974. Zolton Papp, 1976, 1978. Harold Schoch, 1977. Donald Briam, 1979. Dean Lobach, 1980-1981. Danny Yankovich, 1982. Karl Haas, 1982-1986, 1988, 1997-1999. Jody Blose, 1983-1986, 1989, 1992. Richard Ruch, 1987-1988. Gordon Steigerwalt, 1987. Edward Frack, 1989-1992. Keith Zehner, 1990-1991. Wilson Klotzman, 1993, 1996. Gary Kressley, 1993. Jack Ruch, 1994. Betty Moran, 1994-1995. Eva Feinour, 1995. Emory Minnich, 1996. Paul Schwarz, 1997-1998. Todd Kern, 1999. Fire Chiefs' Names and Years Served Preston Holben, 1924-1928. Guy Kohler, 1929-1943. Mosby Heinly, 1944-1954. Nelson Tyson, 1955-1977. David Samuels, 1978-1986. Milt Brown, 1987-1988. Ron Stahley, 1988-1999. Assistant Fire Chiefs' Names and Years Served Ralph Rabert, 1924-1944. Guy Kohler, 1924-1928, 1944. John Henninger, 1928-1932. Fred Heinly, 1929-1932. Wilson Schuler, 1933-1941. Ellsworth Meckel, 1942-1943, 1945. Raymond Baer, 1945-1946, 1949, 1951-1961. Raymond Krause, 1946-1948, 1950-1956, 1958. Frank Kovacs, 1947. Roy Smoyer, 1948-1949. Philip Anthony, 1950. Nelson Tyson, 1954. Wayne Moyer, 1957, 1961-1966. Paul Schneck, 1959-1962. Russell Rader, 1963. Warren Follweiler, 1964-1969. Floyd Fenstermaker, 1967-1970. David Schneck, 1970-1972. Stanley Bruder, 1971-1973. David Samuels, 1973-1974. Robert Newhard, 1974. Russ Fetherolf, 1975-1976. Keith Stahley, 1977-1981. Ron Stahley, 1978-1985, 1987. Roger Yorgey, 1982-1983. Richard Ruch, 1984, 1986. Milt Brown, 1985-1986. Tom Hourt, 1987-1988. Wilson Klotzman, 1988-1993. Keith Zehner, 1988-1991, 1993-1999. Josh Bingham, 1992. Todd Kern, 1994-1999. Financial Secretaries' Names and Years Served John J. Meckel, 1924-1926. Homer Frey, 1927-1938. Walter Best, 1939-1943. Donald Best, 1944-1945. Raymond Baer, 1946-1953. Jacob Weber, 1947-1948. Ellsworth Meckel, 1949-1952. Wayne Moyer, 1954-1955. Carl Carroll, 1956. Donald Bittner, 1957-1959, 1963. Harold Schoch, 1960-1962, 1967-1970. Warren Follweiler, 1964. Carl Madtes, 1965-1966. John Schaeffer, 1971-1974. Frederic Xander, 3 Mos. 1973. Lee Merkel, 1975-1979. Mervin Peters, 1980. John Ruch, 1981. Keith Stahley, 1982-19987. John Strauss, 1988. Mike Bennett, 1990-1991. Dennis Oels, 1992-1996. Bea Kuntz, 1997-1999. Treasurers' Names and Years Served Alphenus Guldner, 1924-1948. David Klotz, 1949-1958, 1967-1974. Ellsworth Meckel, 1959-1966. Harold Ruch, 1975-1979, 1987-1989. Randy Stahley, 1980-1985. Kathy Lindenmoyer, 1990-1996. Shirley Bachert, 1997-1999. Recording Secretaries' Names and Years Served Frank W. Bechtel, 1924-1927. Edwin K. Greenawald, 1928-1930. Roy Schneck, 1931-1932. William Heinly, 1933-1946. Robert Heinly, 1947-1960. Russel Grim, 1949-1960. Erwin Warmkessel, 1961-1963. Russell Rader, 1964. Warren Follweiler, 1965-1967. James Kohler, 1968-1975. Paul Schwarz, 1976-1992. Delores Wehr, 1993-1996. Elsie Schwarz, 1997-1999. Membership Secretaries' Names and Years Served Joseph Horwith, 1975-1985. Robert Gibiser, 1986-1989. Ray Saltzman, 1990-1991. Roy Kern, 1992-1997. Faye Solt, 1999.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following proclamation for the Congressional Record. Proclamation Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley joins the CFIDS Association of America in observing May 12, 1999 as International Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Awareness Day; and Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley, a member of the CFIDS Support Network of the CFIDS Association of America, is celebrating their seventh year of service to the CFIDS community; and, Whereas, the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Association of the Lehigh Valley has been awarded The CFIDS Support Network Action Award for Excellence in Service in the area of CFIDS Awareness Day in 1996, and for Excellence in commitment and service to the CFIDS Community in the area of Public Policy in 1995; and, Whereas, chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS), also known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a complex illness which affects many different body systems and is characterized by neurological, rheumatological and immunological problems, incapacitating fatigue and numerous other symptoms that can be severely debilitating and can last for many years; and, Whereas, it is imperative that education and training of health professionals regarding CFIDS be expanded, that further research be encouraged and that public awareness of this serious health problem be increased. Now, therefore, Congressman Patrick J. Toomey recognizes May 12, 1999 as International Chronic Fatigue and Immune Dysfunction Syndrome Awareness Day, commends the Chronic Fatigue Association of the Lehigh Valley on its Seventh Anniversary, and pays tribute to its efforts to conquer CFIDS on behalf of those battling this disabling illness. Signed and sealed this Twelfth Day of April, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Ninety-Nine.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to share my Report from Pennsylvania with my colleagues and the American people. Today, I would like to highlight the lifelong efforts of a remarkable woman. On June 4th of this year, Marguerite Tremaine of Hellertown, PA, will turn 100 years old. In reaching her centennial birthday, she has made so many rich contributions to others along the way. Just like so many of us, her family is her most cherished gift. She'll often boast about her nine grandchildren and 13 great-grandchildren. Additionally, her gift of writing poetry has been enjoyed and taken up by so many in her family. As my wife, Kris, and I travel across the 15th District, we meet so many remarkable people. Their stories have truly touched our lives. The life story of Marguerite Tremaine has touched our hearts. This concludes my Report from Pennsylvania.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for the Kosovo emergency appropriations bill. It is an open rule. It is a fair rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. The Committee on Rules was given a tough task this week, and I commend them for their hard work. In two important ways the rule provides an opportunity to add a critical component to the underlying bill: specifically, how to pay for it. First, it protects a provision that I authored to force the President to pursue NATO reimbursements for our costs in Operation Allied Force and report back to Congress on its progress by September 30 of this year. Second, the rule gives priority to an amendment by myself and two colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from South Carolina. Our amendment uses a combination of NATO reimbursements and across-the-board reductions to ensure that the new, additional emergency spending in this bill will be fully offset. We give the President to the end of this fiscal year to secure NATO reimbursements, and the remaining amount of offsets, if necessary, would come from small reductions in non-defense discretionary spending in the next fiscal year. It is important to note that the amendment uses a sequester mechanism already in budget law and would exempt several programs from any reductions. Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge my colleagues to pass this rule.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Chairman, the United States is engaged in a war. It is a war not of Congress' making, but a war, nevertheless, and one that has revealed for the whole world to see the inadequacy of the resources available to our military services. We have a moral obligation to provide the necessary resources to the men and women whose lives are at risk fighting this war, but we have another obligation as well. That is an obligation to the American taxpayer and our senior citizens to maintain integrity in our budgeting, to pay for the additional necessary emergency military spending without using social security funds. We have an obligation to maintain fiscal discipline and achieve truly honestly balanced budgets. This amendment represents the honest, responsible way to pay for this military emergency. It recognizes that, first of all, the President has a responsibility to secure reimbursements from our NATO allies for our military operations in Yugoslavia. Currently the United States is bearing the overwhelming majority of the military burden of this NATO bombing campaign. It is our pilots whose lives are at risk, it is our reservists being called up, it is our forces stretched too thin around the world. It is unconscionable that we should also be bearing the overwhelming majority of the financial burden, so I offered a provision in this bill that forces the President to pursue reimbursements from our NATO allies and report back to Congress on its progress by September 30 of this year. I hope the President takes this responsibility as seriously as President Bush did in the similar circumstances of the Persian Gulf War. This amendment today reasons that the President may not succeed in seeking equitable reimbursements. To the extent that the reimbursements from our NATO allies fall short of the total emergency expenditures, then this amendment will force across-the-board reductions in most nondefense spending, and it will fully offset this new emergency spending. It is important to note that if the President does his job and secures the appropriate reimbursements from our allies, for whom we are fighting, the spending cuts necessary will be very small, indeed. In fact, under this amendment, the size of any spending reductions is really up to the President. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and offset the costs of the war we are waging in and for Europe. Mr. Chairman, if we pass this amendment we can keep our moral obligation to both our soldiers and our seniors, but a vote against this amendment forces us to choose between soldiers and seniors, and that is a choice we should not have to be making.

Mr. TOOMEY

Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support as a proud cosponsor of this amendment, and I am proud to submit for the Record a letter from the great governor of my great State, Tom Ridge, who like so many other governors across this country endorses this amendment. I find it ironic that some of my Democratic colleagues find this amendment such a grave assault on the principle of majority rule, yet this very amendment will not succeed unless it garners a supermajority in this House. Now, I have heard no opposition to the constitutional requirement for a supermajority to amend the Constitution, nor have I heard any objection to the supermajorities required by our Constitution to ratify a treaty or convict on articles of impeachment. It is clear to me the opponents of this amendment do not oppose all supermajority requirements. Rather, they simply oppose those which get in their way. And of what does this amendment get in the way? It gets in the way of future easy tax increases. This amendment merely says it will require a broader consensus of this Congress before we take even more money from the American workers than we take already. There are many issues on which we require more than a simple majority, we require a broader consensus than just 50 percent plus one, and taking still more of the fruits of American labor should also require a broader consensus of Congress. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers and support this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I submit the letter I referred to earlier for the Record: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of the Governor, Harrisburg, January 15, 1999. Mr. Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Norquist: I am very pleased to add my name to the list of Governors endorsing the Tax Limitation Amendments: to the Constitution to require a supermajority vote of the Congress to increase all federal taxes. The TLA will better protect taxpayers and restrain government spending and taxation. I have proposed a supermajority requirement for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. My Taxpayer Protection Amendment is a guarantee to Pennsylvania families and employers that their taxes will not increase absent a broader consensus in the legislature. We need to make it harder for government to take more of the hard-earned dollars of our citizens. Sincerely, Tom Ridge, Governor.