David Vitter

Mr. VITTER

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

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would block the implementation of unratified limitation on missile defense. Precisely the same amendment, word for word, passed the House last year by voice vote and the previous year before that by a significant margin. And so, this amendment would merely continue that status quo in the law and not change present law. Mr. Chairman, on September 26, 1997, the Clinton administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding and related treaties with Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and the Ukraine. If ratified, these treaties would strengthen the 1972 ABM Treaty with the former Soviet Union and impose new and severe restrictions on America's ability to develop and deploy missile defense systems. But these agreements have not been submitted to the Senate and they have not been ratified. And that is why this amendment should pass, so that they are not implemented unless and until the U.S. Senate considers and ratifies those agreements. Mr. Chairman, these agreements, the MOU and related documents, essentially do two things. First of all, they change the parties to the 1972 ABM Treaty, substituting for the USSR: Kazakhstan, Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine. Secondly, and more importantly, they really expand the Treaty and expand the scope to disallow more theatre and missile defense systems. The original 1972 Treaty places no limitations on theater missile defense. These new demarcation agreements would prohibit the U.S. from being able to fully develop our theatre missile defense systems. And that is, of course, why these agreements are so important. Now, the Clinton administration has frankly admitted there is no debate, and this House has voted many times that this is a new treaty and, therefore, must be put before the United States Senate and ratified by the United States Senate. This has never happened. And that is why we should pass this amendment to prevent implementation unless and until the Senate takes up and ratifies these new treaties. As I said, this passed last year by a voice vote. It passed the year before that by a substantial margin. I would certainly implore the House to pass it again this year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the subcommittee chairman for his kind words. I too hope that the State Department does the right thing, whatever action or lack of action this House would take. I simply do not have full confidence in that; and I think it is reasonable for me, for all of us, to lack that confidence given the past recent history of security breaches under this administration, and that is really the very important context in which I bring this amendment. I do realize that this amendment only covers the next fiscal year, but I hope that a significant vote by this body will be a very strong and telling message to the State Department that they must act decisively to block the Communist Chinese Government from obtaining this literal spy tower on the Pentagon. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that, in fact, we are talking about brand new agreements, treaties, which have never been submitted to the Senate, never been debated or ratified by the Senate. So clearly this is an appropriate, a wise, a conservative and cautionary amendment. It has been adopted the last 2 years. I would not object to the certification language if it is included as it moves through the process. So in that vein, I urge the House to adopt this amendment as it has the previous two years. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, last year, following disturbing reports of lax security at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Congress passed and the President signed a law creating an Under Secretary for national security at the Department of Energy. This new position was created to strengthen security at our labs. Now Secretary Richardson objects to filling this post; and as a previous speaker said, he specifically took personal responsibility for security. Now we know of another massive security breach at the lab. But is Secretary Richardson taking personal responsibility for these lapses occurring on his watch? Nope, not a chance. He has found a scapegoat in the University of California. Madam Speaker, UC does have a contract to manage the lab, but responsibility for security lies with the Secretary. Mr. Speaker, blaming the University of California for the security breakdown at the lab is like the captain of the Titanic blaming the head waiter for the iceberg. Of course, the captain did not; he took responsibility and went down with the ship. It is time for the Secretary of Energy to do the same and resign.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing on this side, I want to make two fundamental points. First of all, this amendment only involves cuts by the Washington definition of the term. In the real world, across the country, people know what a cut is, and they know the difference between a cut and a lack of increase in spending. This keeps our same level of spending on other vital education programs as last year, and it only moves what would be new and additional spending dollars to special education. So it is not a cut except in the old, stale Washington definition and Washington sense of the term. We do this in the amendment, we move that money, those additional new funds to special education for a very good and compelling reason, because we voted twice this year, in the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) by an overwhelming margin and in the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution to put special education and meeting our Federal commitment to special education at the top of the priority list. It is time we did that.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I bring before the House today an amendment to fully support over time our Federal commitment to IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This has been a long-running frustration in the education community and across our country, Mr. Chairman, the fact that since 1975, the Federal Government has created an enormous burden and mandate with IDEA but has not kept its commitment to adequately fund that mandate. In 1975, IDEA was passed, and part of that passage was the notion that the Federal Government would fully fund over time that additional mandate on local government by funding 40 percent of the national per- pupil expenditure for students with disabilities. Unfortunately, we have never come close to that mark. Now, recently, just about a month ago, we took an important vote on H.R. 4055 by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling). I was a cosponsor of that measure. That measure, which passed overwhelmingly, 421-3, said that over the next 10 years, we would increase IDEA funding by $2 billion per year, and, therefore, over that 10-year period, we would get to our full Federal commitment on the issue of IDEA, something we have promised to do but have failed to do since 1975. That was just a month ago. 421-3. Also this year, we passed a budget resolution, the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution. That committed us to the same thing, an increase in $2 billion per year to, over a reasonable amount of time, get us to our full funding commitment. In fact, that budget resolution went further. It said that we would commit ourselves to fully funding special education before appropriating funds for new Federal education initiatives. My amendment, which I bring before the House today, lives up to that promise, lives up to the promise of the budget resolution that we passed recently and lives up to the promise of H.R. 4055 which we passed recently by an overwhelming margin. It is really quite simple. It would take any increases in funding on education initiatives and shift those increases, only increases in funding over last year, to IDEA, and that would fully fund our $2 billion per year commitment so that we will stay on track to get to full Federal funding of our Federal commitment over 10 years. Now, I know some of these increases in other areas are very warranted, are very popular. But we need to keep this fundamental Federal commitment which we have just restated this year twice through both the bill of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the fiscal year 2001 budget resolution before we move on to new programs and to new spending in existing programs. My amendment will do that. In summation, Mr. Chairman, there are many good reasons to pass this amendment. Number one, we should keep our commitment, a commitment restated twice this year. Number two, we should support Federal education initiatives and our special education students. Number three, and perhaps even most importantly, we should give local systems additional flexibility, because every time we give them more special education dollars to keep our Federal commitment, we free up local and State money, and that gives more flexibility, more power to the local level where it belongs. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I offer this amendment to prohibit any funds under this act from being used for engineering work on an additional runway at New Orleans International Airport. We offer this because we want that airport to be properly developed into the powerful economic development engine it could be, and we know that this will never happen without fundamental reform in the areas of regional governance and professional management. The City of New Orleans runs New Orleans International Airport, but the facility lies well outside the city, surrounded by other communities, most of which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I represent. For too long, the city has made unilateral decisions that have a major impact on these surrounding communities, creating real and growing tensions. Our citizens continue to be dramatically affected, and they have no real governance voice, no real seat at the table. Now the city wants to build a new runway, wholly within Saint Charles Parish, which the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) represents, and still not address the governance issue. They want to do this with about 70 percent Federal and State money, almost $500 million. This is not only unfair, it just will not work. It is doomed to failure, particularly since the airport is without appropriation power. Regional governance is the key. Recently an independent study by the Bureau of Governmental Research recommended the transfer of airport control to a broader-based regional entity that would facilitate regional governance cooperation and expansion. Another outside study conducted by Mitchell & Titus recommended that ``The airport's future vitality depends on gaining cooperation from Kenner, Saint Charles and Jefferson Parish,'' all areas that my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), or I represent. Another need is professional management. New Orleans Airport continues to be poorly managed, spending virtually the same amount of money as Charlotte Airport annually, but offering service to half the number of cities, with one-third the takeoffs and landings. Mr. Chairman, we would also request that the committee pursue a Federal Inspector General study of the current management practices at New Orleans International Airport to underscore this need. Regional governance, professional management, let us address these needs on the front end, so that local concerns, very legitimate ones, do not hopelessly stall progress until it is too late to recover. This is essential to make our airport the powerful economic development engine it could be. This amendment should serve as a wake-up call to the city administration that we must address these needs. I look forward to continuing to address these needs through the conference committee on this bill.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make four points quickly in response to some of the comments from my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). I believe he said he had no notice of this amendment. If he said that, I certainly want to make the record clear that I informed him of this amendment.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VITTER. Okay. I appreciate the clarification because, in fact, I gave him notice yesterday of this amendment within 5 minutes of deciding to move forward with it. Secondly, I want to underscore why the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I are doing this. It is because we want progress; we want to move forward and build toward a great airport which can be an economic development engine, and this will never happen without starting these discussions about regional governance and professional management. Thirdly, I want to address the comments of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) about a local discussion. I would love a local discussion. We have been asking the mayor for a local discussion and the mayor has specifically refused to be a part of any meeting where the term ``regional governance'' is on the agenda. So the whole purpose of this exercise is to begin that absolutely essential local discussion which the mayor of New Orleans has absolutely refused to participate in. Finally, with regard to the suggestion that this is not the place to bring up this issue, if this is not the place to talk about these needs then presumably this is not the place to look for half a billion dollars for this runway work because my constituents pay into that fund and the constituents of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) pay into that fund and they deserve to be heard on these important related issues. So if this is not the place, then fine. Perhaps the airport and the city should go back to the drawing board and look for a half a billion dollars somewhere else.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to respond to the remarks of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). We do not want to slow anything down. That is specifically why the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I chose a spending item that is virtually certain not to occur under the normal timeline this next fiscal year anyway. So we specifically chose that spending item with that in mind, and I certainly want to pledge my active cooperation to work on this issue. Again, all we are trying to do is begin the discussions which, quite frankly, the mayor of the City of New Orleans, going back to our efforts last year, has refused to initiate. He will not attend a meeting with regional governance on the agenda, and that is the heart of the problem. Certainly I pledge my cooperation to work with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and we look forward to doing that in a timely way so we do not slow anything down and, of course, we fashioned our amendment with that in mind.

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

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman very much, and I also want to pass along the thanks of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and that of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson). We all appreciate the gentleman's speaking on behalf of the Information Technology Center and pledging his support, and we all look forward to working with him and other members of the committee.

Mr. VITTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) whether the committee was able to consider the issue of the Information Technology Center located in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind words. Today, of course, I rise in strong support of this Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act, H.R. 2957, because it truly will revitalize a national treasure for the American people. The Lake Pontchartrain Basin is about 5,000 square miles. It encompasses 16 parishes in Southeast Louisiana, as well as four Mississippi counties. It is one of the largest estuaries in the United States, and at the center of this basin is 630 square miles of water, Lake Pontchartrain, that is surrounded by almost 1.5 million residents, making it the most populated area in the State of Louisiana. The problem with this area is that over the past 60 years wetlands loss, human activities, natural forces have had a lot of adverse impacts on the Pontchartrain Basin. Wetlands around the basin have been drained, dredged, filled and channeled for oil and gas development. Storm water discharges, inadequate waste water treatment, agricultural activities, they have all significantly degraded water quality. Loss of wetlands due to subsistence, salt water intrusion, and hurricanes also have harmed basin wildlife populations and placed 13 species, 13, on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened or Endangered Species List. Today, swimming is still not allowed on the south shore of the lake due to the high levels of pollution. Because of all of this, last September I introduced one of my first pieces of legislation in the Congress, the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Restoration Act. This is designed to facilitate and accelerate the restoration, maintenance, and cleanup of truly one of America's most significant bodies of water. This act will create a coordinated technically-sound program for the restoration and sustainable health of the ecosystem. It will amend the clean water act to establish a program for water quality restoration activities in the basin. Most importantly, it will focus on voluntary, positive, proactive restoration projects, not an increase in government regulation, not bureaucratic finger-pointing. There will also be extensive input by all of the local stakeholders in Southeast Louisiana and the four Mississippi counties affected, including all government entities in the basin and universities and restoration groups. So it is a great productive, proactive model to use. Since introducing this act, I have held town hall meetings on the bill in Louisiana. I have met with hundreds of citizens and local elected officials to solicit their input. Their response has been overwhelming and enthusiastic and positive. These meetings were important because they affirmed the right model we are using for this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I do want to say, though, this legislation builds on a lot of local support and activity that has been going on for some years. There has been progress in cleaning up the lake and the basin, and I want to, in particular, highlight and salute the Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation for its superb work in turning the corner and cleaning up the lake and bringing all parts of the community and all interested citizens and elected officials together. Their past efforts and outreach programs have informed many citizens in Southeast Louisiana about the steps we can all take to reduce pollution. Tremendous success has been achieved already. For instance, last summer I saw porpoises and manatees in Lake Pontchartrain, and that was something just a few years ago no one would have ever guessed and soon, many of the no swimming signs on the south shore will be taken up. Those signs first began to appear in Lake Pontchartrain in 1962 when I was one year old. Unfortunately, not all of the news is good news. On the north shore of the lake where there is tremendous development, some of those ``no swimming'' signs are soon to be erected, so there is still a long road ahead before we regain a sustainable, fully functioning ecosystem. For as long as I have lived, I have never known the lake as a place to swim, as I mentioned. Hopefully, my three daughters, Sophie, Lise, and Airey will not have to say that, will not have that same perception and memory when they are my age. Mr. Chairman, this legislation was reported unanimously from both the subcommittee and the committee with unanimous bipartisan support. I urge all of my House colleagues to vote in favor of it. I want to thank again the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski), and all of the staff who have assisted on the bill, particularly Ben Brumbles and Susan Bodine of the Subcommittee on Water Resources.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, certainly, it is the intention of this legislation to address inflow and infiltration problems of the municipal sewer systems in the estuary that are adversely affecting the ecosystem of the basin and to provide the assistance necessary to focus on voluntary restoration projects that will benefit the health and productivity of the Lake Ponchartrain Basin. It does not provide any new regulatory authority in the basin. I intend to more clearly define the goals of the legislation and management conference in the conference report of this bill.

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly my intention to clarify that representation from each of the 16 parishes in Louisiana in the Lake Ponchartrain Basin estuary will be included in the management conference.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong support of this bill, which I have cosponsored, and I applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his leadership. Over the last Christmas recess, I spent a lot of my time visiting dozens of schools in my District, and I heard one theme over and over and over again, and it was with regard to IDEA and full funding. We have all heard how, since 1975, the Federal Government has been quick to put mandates on local school systems but has never lived up to its financial commitment. That is what this bill is all about, to finally fund what has been heretofore an unfunded mandate. It is also important in so many other ways because we talk about reducing class size, putting computers in the classroom, all of these other needs. Fully funding IDEA is probably the quickest way to do that, because this will free up local and State money for other needs that school systems need to address and give them flexibility in the process. That is another reason it is so important. I have sponsored a separate bill to immediately fully fund IDEA, and I certainly would like to do it quicker. But this bill is very aggressive, very productive. I am a proud cosponsor, and again I applaud the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) on his very productive efforts.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise before the House today to urge my colleagues to support this tax limitation amendment, an important joint resolution that will help rein in creeping big government. To listen to the minority, we would think this is some radical idea that is just from outer space. The fact of the matter is, this is a good idea that has come to us from States around the country, as so many of our good ideas and reforms that we have been trying to implement at the Federal level do. It is not a radical idea. It is an idea in practice in many States across the country, including my State of Louisiana. States, particularly in recent years, have approved all sorts of restrictions on the ability of their legislatures to raise taxes. Voters in these States have agreed with this overwhelmingly. They have responded with overwhelming margins in terms of passing constitutional amendments to heighten the bar, to raise the bar, to limit State legislatures in terms of their ability to raise taxes, make it harder for State legislatures and local governments to increase taxes. The tax limitation amendment on the floor today embodies these principles and this common practice in many States. I said it is in practice in Louisiana. It has been for some time. We require a two- thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. That is not a new idea. It has been in practice for many years. When I was in the State legislature over the past 7 years, we went a step further and we adopted the same rule to even raise what can fairly be categorized as fees. So we put the same two-thirds vote burden even in terms of raising what could be fairly called a fee versus a tax. And again, this is not a radical idea. It has been in practice, and it has worked. Now, some on the minority side would say, well, this is unfair because it tilts the playing field, it favors tax decreases, which would require a simple majority, and disfavors tax increases, which would now require two-thirds majority. Let me be very direct about that point. You bet it does. That is why I am for the proposal. This is a good, solid reason behind the proposal, in fact, to tilt the playing field because we have an unacceptably high level of taxation in this country. What this vote will largely be about is our level of taxation, the highest in peacetime ever. Is that reasonable? Should we rush to increase it? Or is it reasonable to say that should be the limit, and we should try to go down from here? So when Democrats take to the floor and say we are creating a bias against new taxes, we are creating a bias for tax cuts, I say amen, yes, we are. That is a large reason I am for this proposal, and I think it is very interesting and instructive that that is the reason many Democrats will oppose it, and that is the reason many Republicans, certainly including me, will speak for and vote for the proposal. We also have to recognize that this is not being done in a vacuum. This is not being done in some era of historically low taxes. It is being done in a very specific context, an era of the highest peacetime tax burden on American working families in history. That is something we need to face and work toward reversing, the highest tax burden peacetime on American working families. In that context, is it not fair to say we are going to put this two-thirds vote into effect to not raise taxes? Finally, one of the most important things this tax limitation amendment will do is to help bring this body together, to help bring the American people together and achieve solid consensus on a very important question of raising taxes. All too often very important measures like tax increases are passed by the slimmest of majorities. That really fractionalizes our House and the American people in the national debate over these questions. Should something as significant as increasing a historically high tax burden even further not require a solid consensus? Should that not require a supermajority? Will that not be good for our national debate and our body politic? I think a two- thirds majority should be required, I think that would be good for this institution and for the body politic and for the debate around the country so that we only do that when we have a solid consensus in favor of it.

Mr. VITTER

Mr. VITTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry). (Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)