Mary Bono Mack

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, it is time to declare war against methamphetamines. Meth is a powerful and dangerous drug that harms innocent families and ruins neighborhoods and communities. This dangerous drug is a threat to our society and our prosperity and it is time we take responsibility for solving this problem. I rise to support Congressman Calvert's legislation that will ensure that law enforcement officials are fully equipped with the resources to battle this destructive drug. Meth has become the drug of choice in California and in my district. Worse, it is easy to manufacture and acquire. In fact, in Fiscal Year 1999, there were over 700 meth labs seized in Riverside and San Bernardino counties alone at a cost of $1.3 million dollars to taxpayers. Many anti-government forces believe that the war on drugs is a failure and that we should stop the fight. As a concerned parent, I strongly believe that it is our responsibility to not run and hide, but rather to step up to the plate and increase our commitment to the war against drugs. This legislation represents this continued commitment.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1953. This is legislation that I introduced earlier this term in an effort to assist two tribes and some of the finest people in my community. The ability for these sovereign governments to execute 99-year leases is critical for their self- sufficiency and the diversity necessary for further economic viability. In addition, I support the new provisions added via the manager's amendment and am pleased that all of these contained provisions have been approved by the proper representatives of both parties. Briefly, I would like to explain to my colleagues what Congress is accomplishing with this bill. Currently, federal law limits these tribes to executing a 25-year lease that may be renewed once for a second 25-year term. The bill's stated worthy purposes for public, religious, educational, residential, and business development reflect the future goals of the tribes and require this federal action permitting these entities the ability to grant long-term leases of 99 years. One key principle that must remain fixed within the foundation of federal Native American policy is preserving the sovereignty of Indian tribes. This stated policy is unfortunately meaningless if Congress fails in its duty to exercise its legislative authority and empower tribes. Tribes must have the appropriate legal authority through the necessary tools for true self-sufficiency, governance, and development. They must be free to undertake the type of modern development that this bill contemplates. This is a fair and equitable result for the meaningful self-determination worthy of a sovereign nation and its people going into the 21st century. In conclusion, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Don Young), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished ranking member (Mr. Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), and the other Members who were instrumental in the passage of this overdue and worthwhile bill. In addition, I am grateful that my colleagues and I were able to secure its passage this year, because there is no need to delay the implementation of any bill designed with the sole focus of helping Native Americans and Indian tribes.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in admiration of the service Leslie DeMersseman has given as the 1999 president of the California School Board Association. Prior to serving at the state level, Leslie DeMersseman exhibited her leadership and community concern as a board member of the Palm Springs school board for 12 years, presiding over the board for five of those years. In addition to her work in Palm Springs, DeMersseman has served as a director of the Riverside County School Boards Association since 1987. The California School Board Association is the primary statewide organization with the board point of view to set the agenda for California's school-children. Under Leslie DeMersseman's leadership this organization has been able to work toward improving some of the many problems California's public schools are experiencing. Leslie DeMersseman has risen to the challenge of actively working to better education in the state of California, and as a parent I deeply thank her for her efforts. As we seek to find ways to solve the problems in our public education system, we need more people like Leslie DeMersseman working for our children. It is people like her, working at the state and local level, who inspire us and validate our efforts to give more control to the states and local education authorities. It is with great appreciation and respect that I ask my colleagues to join me to recognize Leslie DeMersseman for the continuous efforts on behalf of children and education throughout Palm Springs, Riverside County and the state of California.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, inscribed in an office building in California's capital Elipse is the quote, ``Give me men to match my mountains.'' My late friend and colleague, George Brown, was such a man. No one knows this better than his wife, Marta, his family, friends, and his loyal staff members. Today our thoughts and prayers are with George and those who loved him. A great man of modest origins, George was neither pretentious nor physically imposing, but the strength of his convictions and the depth of his intellect combined with an unwavering belief in the ideals that he held dear made him a welcome ally and formidable foe. Although I do not share his liberal philosophy, I share the commitment he had to fighting for what he believed was right. George Brown recalled a more gentle era of politics and, indeed, society. With his rumpled trappings and self-effacing style, always courteous in debate, George could charm his opponents while subtly skewering them with the scientific precision of his arguments. Although he was the physical embodiment of the old cigar-smoking pol, he always talked straight and let the public know where he stood on the issues. He never hid his politics within smoke-filled back rooms, nor did he waiver from his liberal beliefs that defined his political philosophy. George was also ahead of his time. Long before it was politically correct, he was a champion of civil rights. Decades before the Vietnam War, he was a conscientious objector to wars, although he later served his country as a second lieutenant in the Army. Before the term ``environmentalist'' became fashionable, he worked in the Civilian Conservation Corps in Oregon, and, of course, as a scientist he advocated the use of science to improve not only the lives of everyday Americans, but also to lay the foundation for a better world. As the distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Science, he never allowed partisanship to interfere with the integrity of his scientific principles. Really, that is the greatest lesson I learned from this wonderful man. Regardless of the issue, George believed that you could work together to find common ground, that rancor and political attacks had no place in a civilized institution. He may have disagreed with your politics, but he would never treat you as less of a person because of your political differences. I had the privilege and pleasure of working closely with George on an issue that was close to both of our hearts, saving California's Salton Sea. George probably knew more about the problems facing the sea and the relevant science than any other Member of Congress. As a scientist, he probably knew more than many of the experts who are currently working to find a solution to this looming environmental crisis. He was born and raised near the sea, and spent years studying its decline. He was passionate in his belief that he could restore it. That is what I will always remember about George Brown, his quiet certitude that our democratic system can be made to work if we are only willing to work together. George proved time and time again that you could find common ground to advance a common good. I will try to honor his memory by following his example. I want to say also to his widow, Marta, I remember sharing many, many a plane ride with George and Marta Brown between the Capitol here and Southern California. Every time we flew together George and Marta had a wonderful embrace for me after I lost my husband, Sonny. I have spoken with Marta on a couple of occasions about her beliefs and her dedication to public service and her dedication to also restoring the Salton Sea. I just want to wish Marta Brown the greatest of strength and God speed in the years ahead.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the worthy bill of my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan), H.R. 3028--Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act. This long overdue legislation is needed to address a novel practice which is essentially one of the most base forms of extortion, the cyberpiracy of famous marks for both wares and services. As the world of commerce evolves as with the growth of the Internet, we in Congress have the obligation to revisit the laws to preserve fairness for the regular order of business. The Lanham Act is an appropriate vehicle to address the concerns raised by consumers and small businesses alike regarding the cyberpiracy of famous marks in interstate, and often global, commerce. However, I am disappointed that this legislation could not go even further and my support is qualified on the ground that I intend to pursue the remaining relating issues in the future. Unfortunately, in our effort to expedite this bill to the floor, we have failed to address another distressing form of cheap extortion, namely the registration of personal names as domain names. My support for today's bill rests on the fact that while we address this worthy commercial problem through trademark law, we are not foreclosing the future opportunity to address this other domain name problem concerning personal privacy and autonomy in one's personae in cyberspace. This protection in my opinion must not be limited to the famous or just celebrities, it must be universal. Certainly, many of my colleagues are aware of this issue. The main sponsor of H.R. 3028 has explained that his good name was spoofed by a political website recently. Several prominent national candidates have fallen prey to this extortion. It is a welcome improvement that the manager's amendment partially addresses the political candidate website issue. Likewise, in all candor, I too was a target of cyberpiracay last year. This is an increasing and serious problem for the parties and the public. In fact, today, I received an e-mail from one of Mr. Rogan's consititutents about this need for Congress to address this visceral problem of innocent people being victimized. Our efforts today may in fact exacerbate this problem. Since these people, whether you call them cyber-prospectors, cyber-pirates or just Joe. Q. Hacker, no longer can register the domain names that correspond to marks used in commerce, they may find profit and create mischief by registering the names of ordinary people. We need to act to remedy this outrageous problem. Unfortunately, the necessary final solution cannot be offered today. The mechanism to remedy the concerns raised by Mr. Rogan's constituent and so many others is difficult to identify and design in a narrowly- tailored way. Members of certain industries have voiced strong opposition to any possible establishment of a federal right of publicity with this bill. The creation of that form of intellectual protection is something that Congress must carefully and fully explore before enactment. Frist, I call upon the companies that provide the registration of domain names to act. They must institute responsible and effective polices to prevent the registrations of personal names in bad faith, as well as provide accessible procedures for dispute resolution. However, I wish to inform my colleagues that it is my intent to revisit this subject in the new year by introducing my own legislation on this topic. This legislation will not create a national right of publicity, but specifically address the problem at hand. It is my hope that my colleagues will join me in the important task of resolving the second and final part of the cyberpiracy problem. I am confident that we can enact such legislation that balances the interests of all concerned, including those of civil libertarians who raise legitimate First Amendment issues, the copyright bar, the e-commerce community, as well as the average citizens whose names are now literally on the line. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to re-introduce the ``State Initiative Fairness Act.'' This commonsense judicial reform is legislation that is already well-known to my colleagues and courtwatchers. It passed the House of Representatives twice in recent memory. First, it passed as the free-standing bill, H.R. 1170, during the 104th Congress in 1995. And again, it passed as part of the Judicial Reform Act in 1998 during the 105th Congress where it was one of the first issues I considered upon joining this institution. This measure gained bipartisan and broad support in the past. This procedure contained in the bill establishing a three-judge panel review is simply the restoration of a judicial procedure that was the norm in the federal system for most of the twentieth century. Strong voting rights are the keystone of our democratic system. It is noted that ``A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our constitutional democracy.'' (See The Coalition For Economic Equity v. Wilson, 110 F3d 1431, 1437 (9th Cir. 1997)). The unjust effect on voting rights created by injunctions issued in California by one judge against the will of the people of the State as reflected in propositions concerning immigration, medical marijuana, and affirmative action is well-known. This bill provides that requests for injunctions in cases challenging the constitutionality of measures passed by a State referendum must be heard by a three-judge court. Like other Federal voting rights legislation containing a provision providing for a hearing by a three-judge court, the bill is designed to protect voters in the exercise of their vote and to further protect the results of that vote. It requires that any state-passed initiative or referendum voted upon and approved directly by the citizens of a State be afforded the protection of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2284 where an application for an injunction is brought in Federal court to arrest the enforcement of the referendum on the premise that the referendum is unconstitutional. It is not my intent to change the outcome of any litigation concerning the past propositions passed by the electorate. The goal of the bill is to secure the judicial process and guarantee to the people it is as objective as possible. For example, where the entire populace of a State democratically exercises a direct vote on an issue, one Federal judge will not be able to issue an injunction preventing the enforcement of the will of the people of that State. Rather, three judges, at the trial level, according to procedures already provided by statute, will hear the application for an injunction and determine whether the requested injunction should issue. An appeal is taken directly to the Supreme Court, expediting the enforcement of the referendum if the final decision is that the referendum is constitutional. Such an expedited procedure is already provided for in other voting rights cases. It should be no different in this case, since a State is redistricted for purposes of a vote on a referendum into one voting block. The Congressional Research Service estimates that these 3-judge courts would be required less than 10 times in a decade under this bill, causing a very insubstantial burden on the Federal judiciary, while substantially protecting the rights of the voters of a State. This bill recognizes that State referenda reflect, more than any other process, the one-person-one-vote system, and seeks to protect a fundamental part of our national foundation. This bill will implement a fair and effective policy that preserves a proper balance in Federal- State relations. In closing, I wish to express my gratitude to my many colleagues who join me today as cosponsors and their support as we strive to amplify and secure the will of the people.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the DeFazio-Bono-Cook amendment to end the United States Forest Service's Adventure Pass program. The citizens within the 44th District of California brought to my attention a great injustice: The Federal Government was charging people to park and use our beautiful forests twice, first through the Federal income tax, second through a per car fee at the forest. Mr. Chairman, we should not give Uncle Sam permission to tax citizens twice. If Congress believes that the Service is underfunded, then we need an increase in appropriations. The fact is, taxpayers' money already goes to the Forest Service, and it is up to the Forest Service to manage their funds properly. But I question whether or not the Service can manage its finances well. In January of this year, the General Accounting Office named two Federal agencies to its financial accountability high risk list. One of those was the Forest Service's financial management system. According to the GAO, the Inspector General of the Agriculture Department found a lack of documents to verify accounts for land, buildings and equipment. Mr. Chairman, I have a proposition. First, the Forest Service needs to manage its finances properly. Then once proven that it is making the most of the monies already allocated, it can come back to Congress with additional requests. I promise to give the Forest Service the due consideration it deserves. Mr. Chairman, I am a great supporter of the United States Forest Service. The local Rangers within my district are dedicated, intelligent, and extremely kind individuals. However, I do not believe that the Washington office of the Service is giving them the adequate support for them to do their job properly. Mr. Chairman, there are some officials who claim that forest visitors like this program. A recent survey conducted by Cal State San Bernardino says otherwise. Within the survey the following information was gathered: 83 percent of visitors noticed no improvement to the area since Adventure Pass began, but only 16 percent said the program greatly improves their recreation experiences. And only 4 percent mentioned that they would like to see improved security and patrol. The Service has constantly said that our constituents say this is a top concern. Although visitors have not noticed improvements, the Service has taken great care to say how it has spent this money. But in Washington and at home we know that a government agency will spend money if we give it to them. Therefore, the question is how much they should spend and in what way they should spend it. But, Mr. Chairman, this issue goes beyond the issue of financial accountability or what the survey says. In fact, this tax goes against the very concept of experiencing our free and open land. To residents in the communities of Idyllwild, Anza, Hemet and San Jacinto and tourists who come to enjoy these precious lands, this fee is a source of hardship. We have come to expect the freedom to enjoy this area without the burden and inconvenience of the tax imposed on us today. This is why the California State Assembly and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors wrote resolutions in support of eliminating the Adventure Pass program. We must encourage people to visit, not discourage them from doing so. When tourists go elsewhere, it hurts small businesses and it hurts our efforts to educate individuals on the importance of protecting this precious resource. This tax serves as a barrier to working families, hikers, nature lovers, and all of those desiring access to our national forests. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to be a user fee country, then we should have that debate and be consistent. We would never want to charge visitors for sitting in the Supreme Court, declaring every Federal highway a toll road, or even charging people to sit in this gallery. All of these Federal properties need maintenance like these forests do, but I never want any of these fees to become a reality. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will join me in repealing an onerous tax and returning the forests back to the people. To tax the great outdoors is offensive to the very concept of the national forest system.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 1568, the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999. Of all individuals Congress attempts to assist, I believe the men and women who served our country in war and peace are especially deserving of our help and special consideration. Over 30 military and veterans service organizations representing more than 12 million veterans support H.R. 1568. These organizations are not asking for a handout. All they want is for us to let them help themselves. One of the most important functions of this bill is to create a national veterans' business development corporation. This corporation will fund centers throughout the country to provide technical assistance for interested veterans, and with the support of veterans groups there is a provision in this bill to make certain that after 4 years these centers will become self-sufficient. I can think of no better way for Congress to give veterans a means toward achieving financial independence. H.R. 1568 also establishes an Office of Veterans Business Development at the Small Business Administration. Over the years, Congress has encouraged the SBA to take up the cause of helping veterans. However, it is apparent that we need to strengthen our will. Hopefully this office within the SBA will serve as a means to highlight and serve the needs of veterans in business. Riverside County in California, a significant part of which I represent, has 143,380 veterans. My resolve to help these brave men and women will never wane. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure our veterans have the best chance available to make it on their own. With a little bit of technical assistance, our veterans will take charge and find the success they so rightly deserve.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, in light of my absence on Thursday, June 10, 1999, I wish to announce my position on the following amendments for the record: the Buyer to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 185)--Yes; the Traficant to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 186)--Yes; the Souder to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 187)--No; the Skelton to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 188)--Yes; the Shays to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 189)--No; the Weldon to H.R. 1401 (rollcall vote No. 190)--Yes. And last, I announce my strong support for final passage of H.R. 1401, to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal years 2000 to 2001, and for other purposes.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, due to an unavoidable travel delay, I missed today's rollcall votes. I wish to announce that if I were here I would have voted for passage for the following: the Speaker's approval of the Journal (rollcall vote No. 167); H.R. 435-- Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act (Agreeing to Senate Amendments) (rollcall vote No. 168); and H.R. 1915--``Jennifer's Law'' Act (rollcall vote No. 169).

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4. As a cosponsor of H.R. 4, I want to give my colleagues the reasons why I support this important legislation. First, the threat to the United States of a ballistic missile strike is real, according to the findings of the bipartisan Rumsfeld Commission, and the President's own Secretary of Defense said that the ballistic missile threat is real and growing. Second, we are on the way to developing a technology for national ballistic missile defense. This legislation does not say what technology is to be used or implemented. Current technology relies on mature ground-based methods. All we need to do is to have the political will and courage to perfect this technology so that it be counter a limited ballistic missile strike. Third, we can afford to do this. The current budget picture shows that for $10 billion we can implement a national ballistic missile defense which would counter a limited strike. I think this is a small price to pay to help ensure that Americans sleep better at night. Fourth, we are no longer bound by the 1972 ABM Treaty. When this treaty was signed, it was signed with the former Soviet Union. That union no longer exists, making the agreement moot. However, let us assume for the moment that the ABM Treaty was still in effect. The treaty was signed to deter both countries from implementing a ballistic missile defense on the premise that if both countries were defenseless to a major ballistic missile attack, neither country would strike. All we are asking for in this bill is to make it the policy of the United States to counter a limited missile attack from a rogue state. We still will not have the defenses to protect us from Russia's 7,000 strong nuclear arsenal, even though I would argue that ought to be our policy. These are just some of my reasons for supporting this bill. However, the most important reason why I am supporting this bill is because today's world is more hostile than it was 20 years ago. Twenty years ago, we knew who our enemies were and containment was possible. Today, with the end of the Cold War, former Soviet nuclear scientists market their skills to rogue nations so that they can survive. North Korea has demonstrated that they have long-range missile capability which threatens the U.S. territory, and of course Iran. These are not safe times, and for those who would argue that a nation would be stupid or insane to launch a missile at the last remaining superpower, I say to them, do you want to make that bet on behalf of the American people? No, Mr. Speaker, the vote we cast today sends a clear message to those rogue nations who would do our people harm. I cast this vote for the people of the 44th Congressional District, for my family, and my country.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce the Produce Consumers' Right-to-Know Act, H.R. 1145. The text of the bill is substantially similar to legislation that was introduced by my late husband, Representative Sonny Bono during the 105th Congress, H.R. 1232. When I joined Congress, I was honored to have the opportunity to work on this important bill last year with many distinguished leaders in Congress including the gentlemen from California (Mr. Hunter and Mr. Condit), the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), just to name a few outstanding individuals. Now, it is appropriate to begin this work again in the hope that we in Congress can help all consumers and families across our country learn the basic information about the fruits and vegetables they bring home. The Global Food Marketplace The reality today is that food is a global product. The General Accounting Office reported last year that our country receives more than 2.5 million shipments of imported fresh fruits and vegetables annually (see GAO Report No. 98-103). I believe strongly in the global economy, because I believe that the U.S. and American consumers always win in a global marketplace. My one qualification regarding this belief is that rules for trade are fair. Fair trade is an essential element of commerce in any millennium. A coordinate element of trade policy for the next millennium must be a global standard. Harmonization is important. Country-of-origin labeling for fresh produce legislation is part of the current harmonization effort. Twenty-two of our trading partners have some type of produce country-of-origin labeling or marking requirement. These nations include, Canada, Mexico, Japan, and many members of the European Union. There is no intent or means to discriminate against anyone or trading partner with this bill. The office of legislative counsel has incorporated into this bill language clarifying that this labeling reform applies equally to imported as well as domestically grown produce. Otherwise, this text is based on the amendment to the Senate Agriculture Appropriations bill that was offered last year by the Senator from Florida (Mr. Bob Graham). Labeling: Simple, Sound, and Inexpensive Briefly, it is worth pointing out that U.S. law already encourages the labeling and marking of fresh fruits and vegetables. The boxes of imported produce, for example, are required to indicate country-of- origin information. These boxes go to the grocery store or retailer, but are often left in the back room. Thus, while this valuable information travels to the store, it does not always make it to the mom, dad, or other consumer at the point of sale. As our Founders envisioned, the states are great laboratories for ideas. In Florida, the state enacted produce country-of-origin labeling more than twenty years ago. The Florida experience is a marked success. Two major Florida supermarket chain stores have reported that this common-sense customer service costs each store less than $10 per month. I am informed that the total cost for more than the 25,000 retail stores in Florida is less than $195,000 annually. It is an easy, low- cost policy that has reaped enormous benefits for consumers by giving them a right to know at the grocery store. In addition, it has helped the stores better market their produce. The American Public Wants this Valuable Information The honest truth laying at the core of this bill is that the people back home in our districts are curious and just want to know this valuable information. Today, virtually everything in the supermarket bears its place of origin, except meat and produce. A CBS/Public Eye Poll taken last year showed that about 80 percent of the American public favor country-of-origin labeling. Why? So that they can have this useful information. There are many ways for consumers to use this information. Individuals who are concerned about international affairs and human rights can know if they are--and hopefully avoid--buying a product that may come from a regime that supports non-democratic or even racist policies, have poor child labor practices, or anything else from a range of legitimate other concerns. It is relevant to give another example of how this is important on a practical level. This is called ``trace back.'' In March of 1996, for example, there was a very serious problem with Guatemalan raspberries that were imported into twenty-states, including my home state of California. These fruits were making people sick through cyclospora, a very serious parasite that invades the small intestine and causes extreme diarrhea, vomiting, weight loss, and severe muscle aches. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia issued an advisory for people not to eat Guatemalan raspberries until the problem could be investigated, contained and eradicated. The average American was unable to find out from what country were the raspberries in the grocery store. In the absence of labeling, concerned shoppers had no choice but not to buy any raspberries. This hurts consumers by limiting choice. It hurts growers from all the other countries with which we import. The current policy also hurts supermarkets, grocery stores, and family businesses of all sizes. Conclusion Unfortunately the nay-sayers have dismissed the importance of this common-sense practice all too quickly. Curiously, it is said that giving the American consumer the information at the shelf or bin is somehow superfluous or confusing. I remind you that this information is already in the back of the store as required by current law. I am very curious to see who will rise to oppose this legislation. Are there Members who do not want any families, children, or women to have the basic right to know from where come the fresh fruit and vegetables they are serving at home? Are there Members who want keep this information from consumers? Are there members who want our citizens to have different information from their foreign counterparts? It is my hope that this is not the case. Certainly, the Members who have cosponsored this bill answered this question decisively and in support of everyday Americans. There is nothing in this legislation that is intended to be or shall prove discriminatory or protectionist. Information is the most important tool for consumers who have a right-to-know. The information that will be easily displayed through this bill on a shelf or bin will empower consumers. And we will certainly continue to import and enjoy produce from around the world, as it is often the only source for fresh produce when our growing season ends. This is common-sense legislation that will lead to a uniform trade policy and benefit all consumers. I thank all of the Representatives and Senators who have supported this policy in the past and those Members who are joining me today as original cosponsors.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 774, the Women's Business Center Amendments Act of 1999. As a business woman, I share a kindred spirit with the entrepreneurial females of today. Anyone, be it a man or a woman, who strikes it on their own takes a certain amount of risk. Not only can you lose your investment if your business does not succeed but also your pride and spirit. So it is comforting to know that there is a resource for women to turn to when they choose to start or expand their business. With women owning nearly 40 percent of all firms in the United States, it is obvious we have come a long way towards achieving equity in the business world. Through programs such as the women's business centers and the hard work of the business women themselves, maybe government assistance will not even be necessary in the near future. Congress can play a vital role in helping women help themselves and achieve this goal of self sufficiency. Currently, women's business centers must raise two non-Federal dollars to obtain one Federal dollar in their fifth and final year of funding. By changing the ratio to one Federal dollar for one non-Federal dollar, we can help these centers achieve an even higher level of success. While we must continue to reassess this program and how it is best administered, I am confident that at this point the women's business centers need and deserve our support. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to pass this important piece of legislation.

Ms. BONO

Ms. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the introduction of the Forest Tax Relief Act (H.R.--), an important bill to let all our citizens enjoy the forests free from burdensome taxes. I am proud to announce that I have co-authored this bi-partisan bill with my dear colleague, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA.) Our original co-sponsors include Congressman Merrill Cook (R-UT), Congressman Peter DeFazio (D- CA) and Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO). Due to enabling legislation passed by a previous Congress, the United States Forest Service has implemented a new pilot project charging day users a per car fee to park on public lands. Dubbed the ``Adventure Pass'' by the US Forest Service, this is nothing but a new tax on using public lands. Many of my constituents question the fairness and merits of this tax, and I share their concern. This tax goes against the concept of experiencing our free and open land making it a hardship on locals and visitors alike. Within the forests of the 44th Congressional district, the per car fee for an Adventure Pass is $5. To residents in the communities of Idllywild, Anza, Hemet and San Jacinto and tourists who come to enjoy these precious lands, this fee is a source of much controversy. We have come to expect the freedom to enjoy this area without the inconvenience and tax imposed on us today. To tax the Great Outdoors is offensive to the very concept of the national forest system. The forests are for the entire nation and therefore should be supported through the traditional funding process. Under this plan, Congress taxes Americans twice. It is now time to remedy this situation. Mr. Speaker, I believe we are deterring individuals from discovering the wonder and beauty of our National Forests. We must encourage people to visit, not discourage them from doing so. When tourists go elsewhere, it hurts small businesses and it hurts our efforts to educate individuals on the importance of protecting this precious national resource. This tax serves as a barrier to working families, hikers, nature lovers and all those desiring access to our national forests. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to return the forests back to the people.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 158, that designates the United States Courthouse located in Billings, Montana, as the ``James F. Battin Federal Courthouse.'' This honor is certainly a very fitting tribute for Judge Battin. He is a remarkable example in our recent history of someone who dedicated himself to public service for the good of our country. After high school, James Battin served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. Following the war he began his career in public service as a city attorney in Billings, Montana. In 1958 he was elected to the Montana State legislature, and in 1960 successfully ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. For five terms, he served in the U.S. Congress with distinction. Judge Battin was appointed to the Federal bench by President Nixon in 1969 to serve as a Federal District Judge for the United States District Court of Montana. He developed a reputation as a fine jurist and went on to serve as Chief Judge from 1978 until he elected to take a senior status in 1990. An even greater monument to this fine man's life is his family. They were always his priority as a husband and parent. Yet, the humble honor that this legislation ensures is certainly a fitting tribute to a distinguished judge and dedicated public servant. I support the bill and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the articles of impeachment. I want to speak about this difficult issue not only to my colleagues but also to the American people. Although there is much disagreement on this issue, most Americans agree that we must resolve this matter as soon as possible. I strongly believe that our troops overseas must be reassured that the business of our Nation will not be interrupted by the actions of a tyrant who will not heed the will of the international community despite the clear and convincing evidence that the President of the United States committed perjury before a grand jury, before a Federal grand jury, lied to the American people. The decision was not an easy one for me or, in my belief, any of my Committee on the Judiciary colleagues. Yet I firmly believe that we would not be fulfilling our oaths of office as United States Representatives if we do not follow our duty as stated in the Constitution. We need to be realistic about what is at the heart of this vote. The central issue is whether the President is above the law and whether sexual harassment in civil rights laws remain viable in effective protections for all Americans. Despite record numbers of women working to support their families, women are all too vulnerable in our society to sexual harassment. If Congress turns a blind eye to the President's behavior, then we are turning our back to those victims of sexual harassment. Every person, including Paula Jones, is entitled to certain rights under our Constitution. This includes truthful testimony from all parties, and that is why we are here, because the President thought he could provide untruthful testimony to obscure the truth first in his deposition in the Jones case and later in his testimony before a Federal grand jury. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States is not above the law. I am deeply disappointed that the President failed to uphold the public sacred trust and his own oath of office, but I am also saddened by the need for this Congress to arrive at this moment. As we debate this issue some will argue that impeachment is too harsh a punishment or too inconvenient for our Nation; however, it is the only appropriate remedy given to us by the framers of our Constitution. As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I must say a final word in recognition of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde). I know that no one could have given the President a fairer hearing. So I appeal to every American to look deep into their conscience and weigh the consequences for our system of justice if we allow the President of the United States to commit felony acts and not be held accountable for his actions.

Ms. BONO

Ms. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 700. The Agua Caliente Band of Indians, located in California's 44th Congressional District, have suffered a dilemma for nearly 50 years. This legislation addresses this problem by seeking to remove the restriction on the distribution of certain revenues from the mineral springs parcel to certain members of the Agua Caliente tribe. H.R. 4699 recognizes that full equalization under the law was provided to all members of the tribe in 1961. Regrettably, the 1959 act that outlined the equalization procedures, failed to contain a critical provision that removed the distribution restrictions once full equalization was attained. That mistake is rectified today by this legislation. Through the passage of this bill, the tribal council has informed me that they intend to provide health insurance and decent housing as well as educational and employment opportunities for its members. This bill will provide the necessary mechanisms for the tribe to make these goals a reality. This bill enjoys a tremendous amount of support. The House of Representatives passed by voice vote similar legislation introduced by my late husband, Congressman Sonny Bono, and Congressman Dale Kildee last year. In addition, this legislation has been reviewed by, and enjoys the support of, both the Justice Department and the Department of the Interior. Finally, this bill reflects an agreement that the tribe and the allottees have reached themselves. As such, it reaffirms our commitment to furthering the Federal policy of self-determination and self- governance. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I am going to start with a personal story. People constantly ask me where do I get the strength to be a Member of Congress at this difficult time in my life. I have to tell my colleagues that the strength boils down to a day in Lake Tahoe still. I had to kneel down before my two children, Chesare and Chianna, and tell them about the death of their father. While they looked at me, it was through their eyes that they gave me the strength that I needed to go on and do the right thing. I think it is now the time that we, perhaps, look at all of our children's eyes. Look at their eyes for the strength that we need to go forward and to do the right thing. This is about the truth, and it is about the Constitution. But the Constitution is based upon truth. I think all of this perhaps is nothing more than the noise of we are being dragged and kicking our way to the truth. That is what it is about is the truth. I do believe that once we get to the truth, all of this will converge, Democrats, Republicans, the spin in fact, polling data, and reality. It will all converge. When we have that, perhaps this will end up being nothing more than the sound that is made when a leader falls off of his pedestal. Perhaps it will be a lot more than that. But I say the only way we can get to this quickly is to vote for the Committee on the Judiciary resolution and put this work behind us.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my deep appreciation to my colleagues, including the gentleman from Florida, for honoring Sonny with the legislation before us today. I support this bill and ask my colleagues to do the same. Copyright term extension is a very fitting memorial for Sonny. This is not only because of his experience as a pioneer in the music and television industries. The most important reason for me was that he was a legislator who understood the delicate balance of the constitutional interests at stake. Last year he sponsored the term extension bill, H.R. 1621, in conjunction with Sen. Hatch. He was active on intellectual property issues because he truly understood the goals of Framers of the Constitution: that by maximizing the incentives for original creation, we help expand the public store-house of art, films music, books and now also, software. It is said that ``it all starts with a song,'' and these works have defined our culture to audiences world-wide. Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress. In addition, this bill also presents a significant change in the music licensing system. Everyone must remember that I was a small business woman before I came to Washington. I am sympathetic to the concerns raised by many industries. Unfortunately the generous exemption included in this bill tests my patience because it comes at the expense of songwriters. The current system has worked for decades, and in my view serves the public well. Yet, we must bring this bill forward today. Our inaction risks a response from the international community. While one of the goals of term extension is having our system conform to a strong international standard, I am troubled to learn that with the music licensing section, we risk violating our international treaty obligations. These treaties protect American property overseas, for example under the Berne Convention and the TRIPS agreement. I ask that the Record include the following letters from the U.S. Trade Representative, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Department of Commerce, and the Register of Copyrights concerning the possible serious international consequences of this portion of the bill. I am hopeful that we in the House Judiciary Committee will have the chance to revisit this issue, and pursuant to our oversight powers, review its effect on American songwriters and our multi-lateral trade obligations. Further, this may be an unconstitutional taking of property. The talented men and women who write our music may rest assured that I will continue to be their advocate in the House. Again, I truly thank all of my colleagues for this tribute to Sonny. The U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC, August 26, 1998. Hon. Mary Bono, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congresswoman Bono: Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Fairness in Musical Licensing Act. As you note in your letter, Administration officials have expressed serious concerns about this legislation on a number of occasions. If this legislation is passed, we believe that our trading partners will argue that it violates our international obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. You have asked whether it is fair to conclude that there would be repercussions in the global community if Congress passed legislation that violated U.S. multilateral treaty obligations. Your question is phrased as a hypothetical one and we assume that it is not limited to the music licensing context. In general, we would expect that our relations with our trading partners would be impaired if the United States enacted legislation that was inconsistent with its previous commitments. In response to your second question--again, as a general matter--we would also expect that our trading partners might pursue action in the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the United States enacted legislation that those countries believed violated our WTO obligations and impaired their interests. You have also asked whether our trading partners could respond to the passage of music licensing legislation in a manner that would compromise the integrity of the copyright sectors and other sectors of the U.S. economy. It is difficult to predict exactly how our trading partners would react to the passage of legislation resembling the Fairness in Musical Licensing Act. We are certain, however, that the reaction would be a strong negative one. One of our most important trading partners, the European Union (EU), has already expressed significant concern about the pending legislation, and we know that EU officials are following its progress in Congress very closely. The EU is currently threatening to bring dispute settlement proceedings in the WTO challenging the existing ``home style'' exception in U.S. copyright law as overly broad. The pending legislation, as you know, would expand that exception, and thus would likely elicit a strong reaction. Finally, you have asked whether it is the policy of the Administration to oppose a legislative package that violates our multilateral trade obligations. We cannot generalize about the Administration's likely position on legislation in the abstract, but can reiterate the seriousness with which we take all of our international commitments. With respect to music licensing, the Administration has opposed the pending legislation for a wide variety of policy reasons. I appreciate this opportunity to reiterate the Administration's concerns regarding the pending legislation and would be pleased to respond to any further questions that you might have. Sincerely, Richard W. Fisher, Acting.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to announce the introduction of the Forest Tax Relief Act, an important bill to let all our citizens enjoy the forests free from burdensome taxes. I am proud to announce that I have co-authored this bi-partisan bill with my dear colleague, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA.) Due to enabling legislation passed by a previous Congress, the United States Forest Service has implemented a new pilot project charging day users a per car fee to park on public lands. Dubbed the ``Adventure Pass'' by the U.S. Forest Service, this is nothing but a new tax on using public lands. Many of my constituents question the fairness and merits of this tax, and I share their concern. This tax goes against the concept of experiencing our free and open land making it a hardship on locals and visitors alike. Within the forest of the 44th Congressional district, the per car fee for an Adventure Pass is $5. To residents in the communities of Idllywild, Anza, Hemet and San Jacinto and tourists who come to enjoy these precious lands, this fee is a source of much controversy. We have come to expect the freedom to enjoy this area without the inconvenience and tax imposed on us today. To tax the Great Outdoors is offensive to the very concept of the national forest system. The forests are for the entire nation and therefore should be supported through the traditional funding process. Under this plan, Congress taxes Americans twice. It is now time to remedy this situation. Mr. Speaker, not only are the fees unjust, but they are generating only half the projected revenue. I believe we are deterring individuals from discovering the wonder and beauty of our National Forest. We must encourage people to visit, not discourage them from doing so. When tourists go elsewhere, it hurts small businesses and it hurts our efforts to educate individuals on the importance of protecting this precious national resource. This tax serves as a barrier to working families, hikers, nature lovers and all those desiring access to our national forests. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this effort to return the forests back to the people.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor H.R. 1542, a bill originally introduced by Representative Bono of California, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2882, a bill originally introduced by Representative Bono of California, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII.

Mrs. BONO

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, in addition to my staff, who have worked long and hard on this bill, I would like to thank Matt Simmons of Duncan Hunter's staff, Jeff Shockey from Jerry Lewis' staff, Catherine Johnson of Ken Calvert's office and the staff on the Resources Committee, Bob Faber and Ken Fisher. Without their tireless efforts on this bill, I do not know where we would be today. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the Salton Sea Authority for their informed input in crafting this bill. Their efforts have been commendable, and I appreciate their assistance.

Mrs. BONO

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

Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and dear friend for, first of all, his leadership on this and steering it through today. I am a little bit disturbed about something I heard earlier in the remarks by one of my colleagues from California when he said that he bowed under pressure that he was facing from certain environmental groups to go ahead and support the Miller-Brown substitute. What about pressure from ordinary people? What about pressure from people who live near the Salton Sea within the 44th district of California? What about pressure from those people, not the pressure from people who live inside the Beltway, who live inside Washington here? Who cares about how we are going to be rated on a score card if this is what is, in fact, right. And it is. One of my greatest political mentors is Bruce Herschson. He said something brilliant. He said, one day as a Member of Congress you might have that vote that comes before you that you know is right. You know you are going to have to make that vote and know that it might cost you something. Perhaps this is that vote for my colleague here. I am deeply concerned about the Miller substitute for a number of reasons. First of all, I think it is a mistake to offer something, a study, again, authorize a significant amount of money to say we will study this again, knowing that perhaps we might not go through with the solution here. I think that is the ultimate deal here. I think we are saying we are going to go ahead and tell the American people again, we are afraid to lead here in Congress so we will write a check and study it again. Three years from now we are going to maybe study it again. That is where we are right here. It is time for Congress to say no more. It is time for Congress to say, we are serious here, and we are going to do this. I think that we need to get away from the Miller amendment just for that very reason. The Salton Sea will never be 100 percent perfect for anybody, their side, our side, whomever. But it can be a lot better than it is. It is a mistake for us to stop what we are doing, to stop the progress simply because it cannot be 100 percent. I think we see that in all of the issues that they have raised. It will never be 100 percent, but it will be close to that. I think to study it again, once more, will just be an insult to the people who live around the area. And when I travel, when I campaign, when I just get out in the district, all I hear is, let us save the Salton Sea. People see the studies, and they know that it is a joke. They will see the front pages and the headlines, and they will say, no more studies. Let us get serious here. The one thing that Sonny said is, no more studies. I think we need to prove that now. I think, again, it is time for Congress to lead. I just think it is time for a bipartisan Congress to prove that we will finally get serious here and clean up the Salton Sea.