C. Young

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I rise to make just this announcement, and I would hope that we can expedite consideration of this rule and get to the bill and get the bill finished tonight. As my colleagues know, the House is scheduled to leave Washington on next Friday for the August recess so the Members can return to their districts and spend time with their constituents. But all the Members know that the Speaker has stated that if we have not completed our work on the appropriation bills, as scheduled, that that recess will not go forward until that work has been completed. Now the reason that we need to expedite this rule and to finish this bill tonight is that on tomorrow it is necessary for the committee to take up the last two bills that it will take up and present to the House before the House recesses for the August recess. So tomorrow we, the Committee on Appropriations, need all day tomorrow to deal with those last two bills. Because of this we cannot be on the floor with this bill tomorrow, and if the committee cannot report those last two bills tomorrow, there is no way to get them on to the floor next week prior to the recess taking effect. So it is essential that we expedite and get this business done tonight if we want to go on our August recess as has been scheduled. So, other than that, Mr. Speaker, I ask support for the rule, that we expedite that support, and I ask that we do the very best we can to expedite this bill so that we can continue the appropriation process, and, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) mentioned that we passed now 10 appropriation bills. The fact is, counting the supplementals, we have passed 12 of the appropriation bills and two conference reports as well. So the Committee on Appropriations is on schedule. We can keep on schedule if we expedite tonight. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I will be brief. This is a good bill. This committee has worked extremely hard to do the right thing for America and for those who serve in our Armed Forces who keep America strong. This bill is a commitment on the part of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of this subcommittee, who has done an outstanding job in bringing together all of the thousands and thousands of issues that he is faced with as he proceeds with the development of this appropriations bill. He has done a remarkable job, and I applaud him and compliment him for having done so. Also, to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), there is no Republican and there is no Democrat on this Appropriations Committee who relates more to national defense. The gentleman is the epitome of that. His commitment is to the security of our Nation and to the well- being of those who serve in uniform. Just one more point without getting into the details of the bill. All of us on this committee have a commitment to do the very best we can to avoid getting into any wars or battles or combat by having a strong force. We are also committed to the proposition that if our Americans in uniform must go to war, must go to battle, that they will go, having had the very best training that can possibly be available to them, to have the very best weapons possible available to them to accomplish their mission and to give themselves protection at the same time. And that if we do, indeed, have to go to battle again, that we go with such a strong force, that we accomplish our mission while keeping our casualties at an extremely, extremely low rate. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) deserve just tremendous commendations, as do their staff. Having chaired this committee for the last 4 years, I can tell my colleagues that the staff have been so diligent, have put in so many hours and worked so hard, and they deserve a tremendous compliment as well.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman from Florida is opposed to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, I want to say to the gentleman that he and I have worked together for so many years on the Subcommittee on Defense, as he has so ably pointed out. The gentleman from Washington is one of the most outstanding Members of this House, and he is totally dedicated to the principle of a strong national defense, totally honest, while sometimes a little abrasive, but totally honest and sincere; and I look forward to continuing our great relationship.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order by the rule.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would just like to ask the gentleman a question. If this cut is so small and so infinitesimal, how does it do so much damage as the gentleman spelled out in the earlier part of his comments?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, before I begin on the amendment, I want to say a strong congratulations to the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and the ranking member on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and all of the members of the subcommittee and the staff for having produced an outstanding appropriations bill, especially outstanding considering all of the budgetary restraints and all of the changes that had to be put in place during the consideration of the bill in the markups. They have done an outstanding job as usual. I would hope that all Members would be supportive of this bill. The amendment that I offer is the manager's amendment that most of us have been accustomed to so far on appropriations bills this year. The amendment has three parts: First, the amendment decreases land acquisition in the Bureau of Land Management by $5 million. This will eliminate the acquisition at the Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River in Montana. It is our understanding and the committee understands that there is local opposition to the acquisition at this time. We believe this amendment is compatible with the wishes of the people of that region. Second, the amendment increases the deferral of clean coal funding in the Department of Energy by $66 million, for a total clean coal deferral of $256 million. This, Mr. Chairman, conforms to the administration's budget request which proposed a $256 million deferral of clean coal funding. Third, Mr. Chairman, in order to get to the number, the bottom line, that we have all been determined to arrive at on this bill, maybe I should not say all of us but some of us, the amendment provides for something that I really am uncomfortable with but I am not sure of any other way to get where we have to be, and, that is, a 0.48 percent across-the-board reduction to domestic discretionary programs in this bill. The result of this will be a reduction of approximately $69 million, which will be assessed on a pro-rata basis against each account and each individual project in the bill. In total, the amendment will reduce the bill by approximately $140 million. In combination with the amendments that have already been adopted thus far, this amendment will result in a final total for the bill which is approximately $100 million below the freeze level as identified by the Congressional Budget Office for domestic discretionary programs in this bill. In a year of very tight budget restraints with the 1997 budget agreement that placed our budget cap at $17 billion below last year's spending, there are things that we might have to do that we do not like to do in order to get where we have to be. This amendment is part of that process. And so I offer this amendment, Mr. Chairman, for the Members of this House to work their will to determine if they want to bring this bill down below the freeze level which is where we would ask them to come. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of the amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when the House earlier this evening overwhelmingly adopted the Young amendment, it did so with the intent of reducing the overall amount appropriated in this bill. That was the intent. That is why the amendment was offered. This motion to recommit will undo the good work that the House did earlier this evening, so I would ask my colleagues to stick with their original vote when they overwhelmingly voted for the Young amendment. Defeat this motion to recommit the bill. Let us get on to final passage and try to get home sometime this morning.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until Friday, July 9, 1999 to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations may have until Friday, July 9, 1999, to file a privileged report on a bill making appropriations for the Department of Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 2000, and for other purposes.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to agree with what the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said and what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) said and just make one further comment on the chart of the gentleman from Wisconsin. There is another number that should have been on there. That is the agreed-upon budget as established in 1997, which would be $17 billion below the lowest number that the chart of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) showed. Whether we like it or not, everybody has pretty much signed off on that number. That is the number we are working to, and not to the $25 billion or the other.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is authorized by the rule and it is an amendment to reduce the unobligated balances in the FAA airport improvement program by $300 million. Because of a limitation on obligations, most of these funds would not be obligated over the next year, so we estimate that the impact on the program will be relatively minor. The obligation limitation in the bill for fiscal year 2000 will remain at $2.25 billion, which we believe will provide adequately for our Nation's airports. Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good bill, and it has been worked out by the subcommittee and the full committee to bring to the floor under a pretty good bipartisan agreement. But we were able to reduce this $300 million without having a severe impact on the programs. Now, this bill, because of the T-21 program, has been stripped of a lot of its ability to fund other transportation projects. In this bill, some of those other transportation projects are Amtrak, which is funded at only $570 million, but the United States Coast Guard, which was funded at approximately $4 billion. Now, in an attempt to reduce the overall cost of this bill, we could have gone to Amtrak. But to arrive at a number that we thought we should arrive at, we would have to basically wipe out Amtrak, and I do not think that most of the Members of the House want to do that. In addition, we could go deeply into the Coast Guard budget, but the Coast Guard budget is already inadequate, and it is recognized by this bill that it is inadequate by assuming that part of the Coast Guard funding will be taken up by another subcommittee. Now, that has happened in the past, and we have done that, and we have done it fairly successfully. But what the Members need to know is that the Coast Guard as it went to war in Kosovo, and regardless of where that war stands today, the Coast Guard went to war. They were there. They sent three ships. They did not get any extra money in the supplemental that we provided for the other services, except to bring their pay raise situation into line with the other uniformed military services. Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to be cutting into the Coast Guard's ability to do search and rescue missions. We cannot afford to cut into the Coast Guard's ability to do drug interdiction. We cannot afford to cut into the Coast Guard's ability to do port security and other responsibilities they have with seaports, not only in the United States, but in other parts of the world. So in order to get to the level that we thought was more acceptable to the House, we offer this amendment, $300 million. And the $300 million is just coming out of funds that are not going to be obligated over the next year anyway for the most part. So I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a good amendment. This makes this good bill even better, and I would hope that the Members would be willing to accept this amendment and move on to further consideration of the bill.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.J. Res. 33. Madam Speaker, the American flag is a symbol of our nation's freedom and liberty. Today we have an opportunity to protect that sacred symbol by approving House Joint Resolution 33, a Constitutional Amendment authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Our children learn the story of Francis Scott Key waiting throughout the night of September 13, 1813 in hopes that the British had not broken through the American defenses in Baltimore Harbor. At the break of dawn, Key's fears were quieted as he awoke to find that the flag, battered with holes ripped by cannon fire, was still flying proudly over Fort McHenry. Since the early part of this century, millions of visitors have flocked to the Smithsonian to view this huge flag and continue to do so today, nearly two hundred years after that fateful night in Baltimore. This national symbol is so important that it is now being carefully restored so that future generations of Americans can reflect on our distinct and glorious heritage. American service members have proudly marched, sailed, or flown under the flag in every conflict from the Mexican War to the recent Kosovo campaign. Just this past April, an American pilot was shot down deep in Serb territory while flying a mission during the war in Kosovo. Clutching a small American flag that he had kept tucked away in his flight suit, the pilot said it was the Stars and Stripes that gave him the hope, strength, and endurance that was required to withstand such an ordeal. For the benefit of my colleagues who may not have seen this story, I will include this story in the Congressional Record following my remarks. The American Flag is a symbol of courage and bravery. We all recall the famous scene of our Marines in World War II raising Old Glory high above the blood stained beaches of Iwo Jima, signifying that America had just won one of this century's fiercest battles. Today, a sea of small flags quietly stands guard over the graves of these fallen heroes across our nation's cemeteries. These men and women fought and died to protect our nation and the sanctity of our flag, and that is precisely why we must approve this legislation today. We must pay tribute to this strength and pride of America and her people by honoring Old Glory. Madam Speaker, the flag stands for much more than the 50 states and 13 original colonies. It stands for freedom, liberty, and democracy, ideals attributed to our great country by peoples from around the globe. The great naval hero John Paul Jones once wrote, ``The Flag and I are twins . . . So long as we can float, we shall float together. If we must sink, we shall go down as one.'' Madam Speaker, today we must heed the words of John Paul Jones. May the flag always fly freely and proudly over our land, and may we revere and cherish it forever. [From the St. Petersburg Times, April 7, 1999] U.S. Flag Gave Downed Pilot Hope While Awaiting Rescue Washington--Crouched in a shallow culvert deep in Serb territory, one of the worst moments for the F-117A stealth fighter pilot downed over Yugoslavia came when barking search dogs drew within 30 feet of his hiding place. The U.S. pilot reached for a folded American flag that he had tucked inside his flight suit next to his skin and said a silent prayer. ``It helped me not let go of hope,'' the pilot said in an interview released Tuesday by the Air Force News, ``Hope gives you strength. . . . It gives you endurance,'' The dogs moved on, and after he spent six hours watching passing headlights on a nearby road, helicopters from the Air Force's 16th Special Operations Group picked him up, backed by support planes that swooped in for the rescue. The Pentagon is withholding the pilot's name and details surrounding the crash of his F-117A and his rescue, although senior defense officials say a Serb missile probably shot the plane down March 27. It was the first F-117A to go down in combat. The plane went down near Budjenovci, 35 miles northwest of the Yugoslav capital, Belgrade, and the pilot bailed out as ``enormous'' G-forces worked against him. ``I remember having to fight to get my hands to go down toward the (ejection seat) handgrips,'' he said. ``I always strap in very tightly, but because of the Intense G-forces, I was hanging in the straps and had to stretch to reach the handles.'' He can't remember reaching the handle. ``God took my hands and pulled,'' he said. Although slightly disoriented, the pilot began radio contact with NATO forces as he parachuted toward a freshly plowed field 50 years from a road and rail intersection. ``I knew I was fairly deep into Serbian territory,'' he said, but he remembered his training. ``It didn't panic me. I just got very busy doing what I needed to do.'' After he hit the ground, the pilot buried a life raft and other survival equipment and spent the next six hours in a ``hold-up site''--a shallow culvert 200 yards from his landing site. He made only infrequent radio contact with NATO rescuers in order to avoid detection by Serb forces who might be listening and racing to capture him. ``For the downed guy,'' he said, ``it's very unsettling to not know what's going on. You're thinking, `Do they know I'm here? Do they know my locations? Where are the assets and who is involved: What's the plan? Are they going to try to do this tonight?' It's the unknowns that are unsettling.'' Passing cars and trucks might have been Serb military or police, but the pilot said he couldn't confirm they were looking for him, although search dogs came close. ``There was some activity at that intersection,'' he said. ``Thank God no one actually saw me come down.'' The pilot said he concentrated on staying low and on the American flag, which a fellow airman gave him as he strapped in for his mission at an air base in Aviano, Italy. ``Her giving that flag to me was saying, `I'm giving this to you to give back to me when you get home,' '' the pilot said. ``For me, it was representative of all the people who I knew were praying. It was a piece of everyone and very comforting.'' The airman who gave the pilot the U.S. flag was among the first to greet him when he returned to Aviano and he opened his flight suit to show her he still had it, the Air Force News reported. The airman's name also was withheld by the Pentagon. So far, the pilot hasn't rejoined the NATO airstrikes, although he has asked his commanders to put him back into combat. ``All I asked was that I be able to stay here for as long as possible before heading back'' to the United States, he said. The distinctive arrowhead-shaped F-117A, which has a 43- foot wingspan, is armed with laser-guided bombs and equipped with sophisticated navigation and attack systems. Stealth technology uses curved or angular surfaces to reduce radar reflections.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 50th anniversary of American Legion Post 273, in Madeira Beach, Florida, which I have the privilege to represent. Since 1949, American Legion Post 273 has been serving the community of Madeira Beach and Pinellas County. Post 273 has more than 3,100 members, making it the largest post in the Great State of Florida and the 5th largest post in the World. In its 50 years of service, Post 273 has a record of service that is second to none. Post 273 has many volunteers who perform thousands of hours of volunteer service at the Veterans Affair's Hospital at Bay Pines. Among these activities are an annual Thanksgiving Day dinner for disabled veterans, and a New Years Day luncheon. The Honor Guard at Post 273 has performed at 108 funerals in the past 12 months, and has participated in several other functions including the biannual reading of Madeira Beach's deceased veterans. The Post also provides financial assistance to the families of needy veterans. The service of Post 273 goes beyond veterans. Post 273 has sponsored 14 students for Boys State, where enterprising young boys are selected in their junior year of high school to go to Tallahassee and participate in a detailed study of Florida's State Government. In addition, Post 273 also sponsors an annual oratorical contest, where boys and girls compete nationwide for more than $18,000 in scholarships. Post 273 also sponsors activities and events that inform the community's young people about child safety, drug and alcohol abuse, and suicide prevention. In its service to the community, Post 273 has been active in the Special Olympics, giving mentally challenged youth a chance to succeed, assists the American Red Cross with an annual blood drive, has a strong record of environmental protection, as it sponsors a recycling program, and raised money to provide sea oats for the Madeira Beach beach renourishment program. Finally, I would be remiss if I neglected to mention American Legion Baseball. Each year, the American Legion sponsors approximately 86,000 young men in legion ball. Madeira Beach Post 273 sponsors two teams, providing uniforms, equipment, umpires, and travel funds. Mr. Speaker, the service that American Legion Post 273 has provided veterans and families in the community of Madeira Beach for the last 50 years is remarkable and I wish all the members much success as they begin their next 50 years of service.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. On the amendment itself, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say it is supportive of the bill. We do support the bill, but we do not support section 103(b) of the bill, and the reason is very simple. We spent nearly 2 weeks here in this House trying to find ways to save $10 million here and $100 million there. And after 2 weeks, in order to stay within the budget cap set in 1997, we finally saved $150 million, in round figures. We have about $16 billion more to go to get to where we have to be to appropriate within the budget cap. Now, what this amendment that I offer for myself and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich) would do is to try to help us stay within that budget cap, because otherwise we are going to bust the budget. We are going to make it $3 billion a year more difficult to stay within that 1997 budget cap if we allow this bill to go with section 103(b) still in the bill. There is a penalty clause in the language relative to the aviation bill that if they would eliminate that they could solve this problem that the committee is trying to solve today with section 103(b) of the bill. We have got to maintain fiscal discipline in this House. What we are going to see happen is, and we have all heard the talk about spending over the budget cap is going to take from Social Security, well, I want my colleagues to remember that; or spending over the budget cap is going to make it impossible to do a realistic tax cut. We need to remember that, because those same arguments will apply here with this budget-busting bill as long as it includes section 103(b) of the bill. All this amendment does is take out that one section. It leaves everything else. We agree with most everything that was said here on the floor today. We are just trying to maintain the fiscal discipline that this House has insisted that we maintain and stay within the budget cap set in 1997 and allow this House to go forward with the appropriations bills that we must conclude before the end of this fiscal year. As my colleagues have observed, Mr. Chairman, we have had great difficulty in getting spending bills through this House without bringing the spending amounts down to the amount that would be provided for in the budget cap. So I would hope that the House would support this amendment so that we could all support the bill. Because the items that were discussed are important. Airport safety is important. A lot of work needs to be done. But there should be a lot of work done on the fiscal responsibility of this agency. Their own Inspector General has suggested there was a tremendous amount of mismanagement and waste of the dollars put into this fund. I would just like to make one further point before yielding. My friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), made the comment he supported this bill. But the gentleman from Alaska has a follow-on bill that he has introduced that would take the funds for interior projects, land acquisition projects, and move them off budget into a trust fund. Once this process begins to start, the Members of this House lose control over the budget process. The Constitution provides that the House shall have control of the budget process. Moving money from the discretionary accounts to the mandatory accounts destroys the ability of this House to stay within the budget caps and to maintain control over the budget process. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would report to our colleagues on the same statement that I made to the gentleman, that the Committee on Appropriations does not seek to gain votes by offering projects to Members that might not otherwise be considered, nor would the Committee on Appropriations threaten to take away projects because of a lack of voting for an appropriation bill or something that the committee would support, and I thank the gentleman for bringing that to our attention.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time for purposes of control to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Delay).

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) the very able and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. YOUNG of Florida

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Young-Kasich amendment. This amendment guarantees that aviation will get its fair share of the funding. Our amendment allows us to spend all of the aviation revenues and spend them only on authorized aviation purposes. Since the trust fund was created in 1970, we have appropriated all of the ticket tax revenues and more. And my amendment does nothing to undermine that policy. This is a policy that is fair to the traveling public. Our amendment deletes those parts of the bill which bust the budget and put FAA spending on autopilot. Without the amendment, AIR 21 makes already strained budget cap problems $3 billion worse each year because it guarantees a locked-in amount for general fund appropriations. Our amendment preserves the ability of this Congress to control aviation spending and provide real tax relief for American families. This amendment is endorsed by all of the leading budget watchdog groups, including Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord Coalition, and Americans for Tax Reform. Also, we have been advised that because of this section 103(b), the administration is recommending a veto on the bill. So I would suggest that it would be in all of our best interest and in the best interest of the aviation industry and the flying public and in the best interest of those who are committed to balancing the budget and preserving the surplus for Social Security and, hopefully, in the future for a tax break that we support this amendment and take out the onerous part of this bill that is a budget buster. I would ask that our colleagues when they come to the floor to take the opportunity to read the handouts that we will have to show just exactly how this is a budget buster and to be assured that we are not taking one penny away from the monies in the trust fund that have been paid in by the traveling public, the people who fly in airlines all over this great Nation of ours. So the concern that was expressed by my colleague the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) earlier in the debate that that would happen is just not the case. That is guaranteed. That is protected. That is there until somebody changes the basic law. This amendment does not change that. This amendment keeps this bill from being a budget buster.