Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute. I do not support the substitute because it fails to simplify, clarify, and modernize the law governing electronic commerce. It fails to promote uniformity of law among the States, and it fails to advance American interests worldwide by promoting a uniform legal regime addressing the use of electronic and similar technological means of effecting and performing commercial and governmental transactions. The substitute will not accomplish what should be the basic objective of any legislation on this subject; that is, bringing legal certainty to electronic transactions in commerce. The substitute fails in this regard because, instead of promoting uniformity of law among the States, it will lead to the balkanization of applicable law. This will lead to greater uncertainty. Balkanization will occur because, even with its most narrow scope, the substitute does not apply to States where the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, UETA, is adopted in whole or any substantially similar variation. Between Section 3(b)(5) of UETA, which permits a State to exclude any of its laws from the application of UETA, and the substitute's substantially similar variation language, a State is completely free to institute its own electronic commerce laws regardless of such laws' effect on interstate commerce. That is exactly what happened in California, the first State to adopt UETA. Relying on Section 3(b)(5) of the UETA, better known in some circles UETA's black hole, California excluded many laws from the application of UETA's principles. Those laws include most sections of the following California codes: Uniform Commercial Code, the Business and Professions Code, the Civil Code, the Financial Code, the Insurance Code, Public Utilities Code, and the Vehicle Code. If every State was to take California's approach, the effect would be to further remove legal certainty. Rather, 50 separate legal regimes may arise governing electronic transactions in commerce. This outcome is counterproductive and unacceptable. I therefore urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the substitute.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the gentleman from California (Chairman Doolittle), the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the House leadership for bringing this legislation before the House. The Central Utah Project has allowed for the development and delivery of Utah's water for decades. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Water Conservancy District have nearly completed the planning of the project components and water conservation measures have surpassed expectations, while Federal dollars have been saved at various stages. H.R. 2889 simply allows resources to be shifted from one project to the next as they are needed. This will ensure that the remaining projects can be completed in a timely and cost effective manner. The legislation provides no additional Federal dollars. It only provides flexibility to transfer already authorized dollars and resources as they are needed throughout the project. H.R. 2889 does not increase Federal spending, nor does it increase any Federal spending authority. H.R. 2889 incorporates the changes sought by the administration, and, therefore, we do not expect opposition from the White House. Companion legislation has been introduced by Senator Bennett and consideration by the other body is expected soon. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2889.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1714, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Bliley) for his work on this important legislation. There are still differing opinions between various camps and committees, but I commend the chairman and the House leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, electronic commerce is expanding exponentially. The Commerce Department recently estimated that retail sales might exceed $40 billion by the year 2002 and that all electronic commerce, including business-to-business activity, may exceed $1.3 trillion in the next couple of years. This legislation embraces the model State law called the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, UETA for short. Until all 50 States can act to approve UETA, parallel Federal legislation must be adopted to fill the commercial gap. It must be possible to sign an agreement electronically with the confidence which has historically been given to handwritten signature. UETA and H.R. 1714 embrace the same principles: first, uniformity across State lines in order to provide for reliability and predictability on the part of businesses and consumers alike; second, technological neutrality to allow for the development of new and more efficient and less costly delivery systems; third, party autonomy so that the parties to agreements can decide between themselves how they wish to verify or enforce electronic agreements just as they now do with traditional commercial settings. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1714 is minimalist in its effects and merely provides for the legal validity of electronic signatures under conditions as agreed to by the parties and permitted under State law. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3028, the Trademark Cyberpiracy Prevention Act. I commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Coble) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) for their work on this legislation, and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman). The explosive trends of E-commerce, which some experts predict will reach $1.3 trillion in total sales by the year 2003, combined with the exponential growth of the Internet, has led to a problem: The increasing epidemic known as cybersquatting. Recently, within my State of Utah, a local paper reported that the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee has had to file a cybersquatting lawsuit against a shadowy group of defendants which infringed on its trademark rights by registering Internet domain names that mimicked names owned by the SLOC. A small group located in Delaware registered the names saltlakecitygames.com, saltlakecity2002.com, and saltlake2002.com. These names infringe on the trademark rights of the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee's authorized website: www.slc2002.org and 12 other protected phrases. This bill is part of an overall effort to preserve legally protected names and trademarks. These are valuable corporate assets. This is how people learn to identify and contact these organizations. The SLOC and other companies and organizations like this spend money, time, and effort in advertising these phrases. Unscrupulous cybersquatters are trying to cash in on their hard work. In the Salt Lake example, the Olympic Committee received a phone call from a person, known only as ``John L.'' who offered to sell three sites for $25,000. Investigators went to the address listed on the company's registration and found an empty office with no signs on the door. The registered telephone number did not work. The company was suspended for failure to pay taxes. Another company within my district, Novell, shared with me a current problem. Apparently someone from Brazil has registered the names of each of Novell's product lines and names; but because the person is located outside the United States, there is currently no way for the company to gain judicial relief. This bill resolves that problem by allowing in rem jurisdiction. The Rogan bill will prohibit registration, trafficking in, or the use of a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar, or dilutive of a trademark that is distinctive at the time the domain name is registered. Mr. Speaker, this bill will allow the trademark owners to seek the forfeiture, cancellation, or transfer of an infringing domain name if the trademark owner can prove it has attempted to locate the owner but has been unable to do so. This will discourage cybersquatters who frequently use aliases or otherwise provide false registration on their registration. Industry and academics agree that legislative action is necessary. The uninhibited access to the Internet and E-commerce markets is vital, and First Amendment rights must also be preserved, but we must also respect the integrity of existing trademark and patent law. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 2, the Student Results Act of 1999. I would like to thank Chairman Goodling for his work on this bill. Several weeks ago, I approached the Chairman to discuss some of the education issues facing Utah, including a 20 percent cut in Title I funding due to changes in the allocation formulas implemented this past year. The Chairman has graciously addressed those issues by including language to ``Hold Harmless'' those states that are experiencing dramatic cuts in their Title I funding. This provision will allow Utah, and several other small states, to continue funding levels for the education of disadvantaged students. Today we seek to empower disadvantaged students across the country by providing them access to a better education. We desire to help them develop a foundation from which they can succeed. By providing educational opportunities we will ensure that these children will have the tools to become productive members of society. A good education is essential to achieving success in life. Through this bill we will help to provide funding for teachers, books, and supplies to contribute to a quality education for disadvantaged students, helping them to build confidence and self esteem. We need to provide them with the tools to enter society and not only survive but thrive. In doing so we seek to guarantee the future of our nation and our way of life. I believe that a good education is one of the greatest gifts that we can give our children. By passing this bill we will be improving the education of disadvantaged students all across the country. I urge my colleagues' support of H.R. 2, the Student Results Act of 1999.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1487, which is a bill to ensure public participation in the monument designation process. Our colleagues know all too well how President Clinton recently used the 93-year-old Antiquities Act to create the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in my district in Utah. Although there are certainly lands within the monument that are worthy of designation, I believe that the process, or the lack thereof, was fundamentally flawed. Not one local elected official was included in the planning or evaluation of this designation. This, Mr. Chairman, is wrong and should not continue. Mr. Chairman, millions of people have moved to Utah or remained in Utah for generations to enjoy our beautiful landscape and pristine environment. Utahans are very proud of and cherish our State and want to work to protect our lands. To suggest that Utah officials that have been elected by these Utahans are incapable of making or at least being included in land management decisions affecting our lands is deeply offensive. This is exactly what occurred in 1996 when, literally, during the dark of night, the designation of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument was drafted. Each and every public official in Utah was blindsided. For the last 2 years, businesses, citizens, and local government have had to react to the designation rather than to work with the administration to achieve some kind of beneficial outcome. Since 1906, when the Antiquities Act became law, Congresses have passed legislation which requires public participation and input. Unfortunately, in 1996, the people of Utah were never given the opportunity for input. Had we been included in the deliberations of how to protect this land, much of the bitterness and heartache that is felt in southern Utah regarding the monument could have been avoided. The use of the Antiquities Act in my district was wrong. It should not happen again. I am pleased that the gentleman from Utah (Chairman Hansen) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) were able to craft language to improve the process. I congratulate them both on their work. The Hansen-Vento language simply requires the administration to notify, and consult with, the governor and the congressional delegation of the State at least 60 days prior to any monument designations in the State. Mr. Chairman, there are rumors that many other monument designations are planned before the end of this administration, and to simply to require that the affected local officials be consulted is common sense and consistent with current law and congressional intent. This is a common sense approach that will require that a little light be shed on the land management practices of this administration. The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) worked hard on this bipartisan compromise legislation, and I urge all of our colleagues to support it.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me express my appreciation for the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and that of the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), in putting together this bill that is before us today. I know they were approached with many requests that simply could not all be accommodated. I, along with a number of our colleagues, sought funding for a study to be conducted by Oakridge Laboratory of the Atlas Uranium Mill Tailings site in Moab, Utah. I know the gentleman from California is familiar with this issue as this site sits within 750 feet of the Colorado River which runs drinking water for 25 million people. I understand that funding was not provided because this particular study is not currently authorized. It is my hope that in the coming year, we will secure adequate authorization. At that point would the chairman be willing to work with us to secure funding in the future for this vital study and other remediation efforts?

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1691, the Religious Liberties Protection Act of 1999. This legislation was introduced by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), and it is an important step in preserving the freedom that the Constitution affords religions in America. A little over 10 years ago, 200 of our Nation's leaders from all sectors signed the Williamsburg Charter. It affirmed that, ``Religious liberty in a democracy is a right that may not be submitted to vote and depends on the outcome of no election. A society is only as just and as free as it is respectful of this right, especially toward the beliefs of the smallest minorities and the least popular religious communities.'' The provisions included in the Williamsburg Charter reflect our national commitment to respect and accommodate the philosophies, practices and needs of the many diverse religions in this Nation, even when doing so is inconvenient or annoying. But the realization of these principles is not always simple. The growth of government on every level, combined with government's inherent tendency to over-regulate, requires occasional legislative clarification. Given the complexities, there is no practical way to measure whether anti-religious motivation plays a factor in such matters as cities' planning and zoning decisions. In Senate hearings on this subject there was testimony that, ``Since the Smith decision, governments throughout the U.S. have run roughshod over religious conviction. In time, every religion in America will suffer. Must a Catholic church get permission from a landmarks commission before it can relocate its altar? Can Orthodox Jewish basketball players be excluded from inter-scholastic competition because their religious beliefs require them to wear yarmulkes? Are certain evangelical denominations going to be forced to ordain female ministers?'' I believe that a balance can be struck, but we do not have that balance today. It is somewhat ironic that under current first amendment principles a city can totally zone out a church that desires to construct an edifice for its members and the surrounding community, but it cannot zone out of its community a sexually oriented adult bookstore. Religious freedom should never depend upon the amount of religious sensitivity in a particular community or on the willingness of local governments to craft appropriate exemptions for religious practices. I urge my colleagues to support the Religious Liberties Protection Act with a yes vote.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, this has been a monumental week. We are dealing with two great constitutional issues in the first and second amendments. I rise now in support of H.R. 2122 introduced by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum). He and the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary worked hard. Now we in Congress must meet the two challenges. On the one hand, the Democrats charge that we must immediately address this national crisis of youth violence and on the other we must ensure that prudent steps be taken to protect the liberties guaranteed by the second amendment of the Constitution. I listened with interest to the charges made by my friends on the other side of the aisle. They decry singling out the entertainment industry's responsibility for an increase in violence in our society. They claim it is unreasonable to think that one industry is at fault. But they claim the gun industry is responsible for violence in our society. This is outrageous hypocrisy. The debate today is not about blame. It is about the Federal role in the interpretation of the second amendment. I am going to focus my remarks today on section 3 of the gentleman from Florida's bill, the instant check gun tax and gun owner privacy section. All of us agree that criminals should not be allowed to purchase guns. At the same time, I believe the Federal Government should not keep permanent records and lists of law-abiding gun owners after they have already cleared the hurdles of an instant background check. No law-abiding gun owner has a problem with a background check to purchase a firearm. What he or she resents is the central government unconstitutionally keeping records of gun ownership by innocent, law- abiding citizens. When the Brady bill was passed, gun shows were excluded from background checks because the checks took several weeks to complete. Today we have an automated database that allows background checks to be completed in a couple of minutes. In fact we had testimony that those checks could be completed in 3 to 5 minutes. So we can easily screen out felons attempting to purchase guns at gun shows. With a fully operational database of felons and other classes prohibited from buying guns, we can eliminate any Federal record of law-abiding gun owners. This legislation guarantees no records will be kept of legal gun owners while strictly enforcing current laws for criminals who attempt to purchase guns. I believe the second amendment right to own a gun is inherently tied to the right to not have the government know who owns a gun. This legislation assures that. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, as the father of several children and husband of 20 years, I rise today in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) better known as Aimee's law. I commend him for his hard work in bringing this common-sense legislation to the forefront of today's debate. As on editorial page put it, ``Giving a one-way ticket to a sex offender might improve the community he leaves, but it is the equivalent of shipping toxic waste to unsuspecting States.'' The practice of returning criminals to freedom for which they can prey on the innocent is outrageous and must stop. This body has an opportunity to act with clarity, to demonstrate to law breakers that are serious about keeping these violent offenders off the streets, and from repeating these acts. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, on May 8, 1999 in Los Angeles, Brigham Young University won its first-ever NCAA men's volleyball title in their first-ever NCAA Tournament appearance. They finished the season with a record of 30-1, suffering their only loss to Long Beach State whom they beat in the finals. Joining Penn State, BYU became the second non- California team to win the Championship. BYU men's volleyball program began NCAA competition in 1990, headed by current coach Carl McGown. Initially struggling through some difficult seasons, they quickly rose to ardently compete with traditionally strong California teams. They deftly handled big name schools like UCLA, USC, Pepperdine, and UCSB. I congratulate the fine athletes, coaches, and trainers who comprise the BYU men's volleyball program. Their dedication, endurance, and commitment are examples to all who seek lofty, worthwhile goals.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the efforts of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, in their unending journey to better relations around the world, Brigham Young University in Provo, UT sends various groups from their Performing Arts department throughout the world to better the University's ties, which in turn improves U.S. foreign relations. On May 18th, BYU's Young Ambassadors, Ballroom Dance team, and Folk Dance Ensemble returned from a tour of the South Pacific commemorating the 20th anniversary of their first visit to China. Throughout the past twenty years, BYU has established a name for itself in China and is currently very well regarded by its people. I am very proud to represent the students and faculty members of BYU. They are a model to us all as we work to create a global society of culture, heritage and peace.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am a hawk. I believe in a military so strong that we never have to use it. When we use our military might, it should be with clear objectives after considering our national interests and the limits of our influence. Mr. Speaker, imagine Serbia before we started bombing. The threat of ethnic cleansing clearly existed. About 2,000 innocent people have been killed, and more ominously, 40,000, a manned force, has been built up in Kosovo. Imagine again the White House seeing this threat, recalling the glory of the 1-day wars in Grenada and Panama and, without considering the ramifications, decided to go to war against Yugoslavia. But Mr. Milosevic does not play by our rules. He does not turn on his antiaircraft radar so that we can detect it and destroy it. He uses the bombings as a cover to really do ethnic cleansing and to suppress local domestic opposition. The war drags on. The President and his advisers plead for patience, all the while hoping a cruel, cold winter without electricity and fuel oil will force guilty and innocent Serbs to their knees. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am a hawk. I believe in a military so strong that we never have to use it. When we use our military might, it should be with clear objectives, after considering our national interests and the limits of our influence. Mr. Speaker, imagine Serbia before we started bombing. The threat of ethnic cleansing clearly existed. About 2,000 innocent people had been killed and, more ominously, a 40,000-man force had been built up in Kosovo. Again, imagine the White House, seeing this threat, recalling the glory of the one-day wars in Granada and Panama, and without considering the ramifications, decides to wage war against Yugoslavia. In the process, they demonize a man, Mr. Milosevic, who likely deserves the characterization, to give a face to the American people. But, Milosevic doesn't play by our rules. He doesn't turn on his anti- aircraft radar so we can detect and destroy it; He uses the bombing as cover to really carry out ethnic cleansing and suppress his domestic opposition. The war drags on. The President and his advisors plead for patience all the while hoping that a cruel winter, without electricity and fuel- oil, will force guilty and innocent Serbians to their knees. And we continue to deplete what remains of our military capability. We see the difficulty of integrating our moral sensibilities, the relations between nations, the use of military force and politics. The argument is made that our failure to support this sentimental adventure would undermine NATO and U.S. credibility. That is: Our enemies, petty dictators, and terrorists, will see our weakness and be tempted to exploit it. We have already made our weakness clear with indecisive leadership. Our enemies now see the limits of our strength which we have unwisely used. Their intelligence services have evaluated our actions. They will weigh their options. We must deter them from wrongful action by showing the strength our Constitutional system. This body should constrain the fatuous thinking and unconsidered actions by the Executive Branch, requiring the President to unleash the dogs of war only in extremity and without artificial political constraints. When we make war it should be quick, efficient, brutal, and to be avoided at all costs by the Milosevics of this world. This still leaves the President with wide latitude as he deals with new threats. In fact, eliminating this drain on our resources, will dramatically strengthen our ability to face our enemies.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Satellite Copyright, Competition, and Consumer Protection Act. The act is important to my constituents and the people of Utah. A large number of my constituents cannot receive a clear television signal in their homes. Many of the rural residents of my district live in ``B'' grade or ``White'' areas and have long been isolated because of the geography of the district. They have installed home satellite dishes so they can receive news, educational, and entertainment programming that those who live in urban areas take for granted. Unfortunately, despite available technology, many still do not have access to local network programming. This means they cannot be informed about their communities and State without installing an antenna or other additional equipment, and even then a clear signal is difficult. Rural residents should have the same convenient access to television programming as those who live in urban areas. This bill will allow satellite broadcasters to transmit local programming to the rural residents of my district and across the country. Those living in rural areas will finally be able to receive the same broadcast service as those living in urban areas. This bill also makes great strides toward increased competition in the television broadcast signal delivery industry. Satellite carriers should be allowed to carry the same stations and provide the same services as cable systems. Increased competition between providers will mean lower prices and improved service. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1554.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation to clean up a 10.5-million ton pile of low-level radioactive waste from uranium mill operations just outside Moab, Utah. Currently, this pile sits 750 feet from the banks of the Colorado River, across the road from the Arches National Park, and threatens to contaminate the drinking water supply of 25 million people from Nevada, Arizona, and California. In the 1950's the Atlas Corporation was called upon to process uranium to meet the defense and commercial fuel needs of the United States. As a result, for decades these wastes have accumulated and today we have a pile of low-level radioactive materials that sits just outside of Moab, Utah and at the gates of the Arches National Park, where hundreds of thousands of people visit each year. This is not only an incredible eyesore among some of the most beautiful red rock cliffs in the country, but it poses a very significant environmental risk. As water leaches through this heap of tailings, it flows into the Colorado River, is swept downstream where it contaminates the sole drinking source for tens of millions of people in Nevada, Arizona, and California. These radioactive wastes threaten that delicate water supply and must be removed and relocated to a safe, secure location where neither public health and safety nor environmental degradation can occur. Currently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the responsibility for cleanup of this pile. Unfortunately, the NRC has determined that keeping this toxic mass in place is adequate. This simply is not the case. My legislation will transfer the jurisdiction from the NRC to the Department of Energy, where remediation and relocation can begin. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this sensible and conscientious legislation.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, I rise today on Earth Day to introduce legislation that will clean up a significant environmental problem in southern Utah: the Atlas uranium mill tailings. This legislation will begin the process of removing 10 million tons of low-level radioactive contaminants from the banks of the Colorado River. These wastes sit just outside of Moab, Utah at the gates of the breathtaking Arches National Park where hundreds of thousands of people visit each year. The Colorado River provides the sole source of drinking water for tens of millions of people in Arizona, Nevada and California. These radioactive wastes threaten that water supply. Currently the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responsibility for cleanup. My legislation will transfer jurisdiction from the NRC to the Department of Energy, where remediation and relocation can begin so as to avoid any further health risks and environmental degradation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Today on Earth Day, let us put aside our ideological differences and commit together to accomplish good environmental policy.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I was impressed by the point made by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that major international corporations pay virtually no taxes, and that despite the valiant efforts of the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and others over most of the last 40 years of Democrat control of this House. That illustrates the point that people pay taxes. Mr. Speaker, America is great for many reasons. We have a larger population base than, say, Germany. We have massive natural resources. But the key to America being the world's only superpower is not in the numbers of our people or in the size of our cornfields but in the creativity of the American people. Our creativity derives from the way our predecessors framed the role of government. They recognize government for what it is, force. Some forces are necessary in order to secure the blessings of liberty, but the challenge we will always face is balancing government's access to force and constraining that force. And nowhere is the coercive force of government more broadly felt than in ripping from the laborer a portion of his wages. We, the Federal Government, are now tearing from our citizens a larger portion of their earnings than ever before in our history, more than during the struggle for freedom during World War II. My friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), is embarrassed apparently by the waiving of the Constitution on April 15. This is the day that people feel that pain. Let me just say that when we changed the Constitution and allowed for an income tax, it was only the most farsighted of the men involved and women involved in that process who foresaw, over the promises of everyone, the extent to which we would actually raise taxes in America. As Americans, as representatives of the American people who hold the common dream that makes us Americans, we have an obligation to limit the force brought against us collectively by the grasping government bureaucracy. That may mean that we in Congress must restrain ourselves from attempting to have another program to deal with society's ills. But let me remind my colleagues that compassion does not always mean intervention. If we just do not spend the surplus, we will either continue to grow the economy at phenomenal rates, bidding up salaries in the process, or interest rates will fall. I believe that no bureaucrat will ever come up with a program as compassionate as a 4 percent interest rate. So I believe that we should not expand government, and I also believe that we should constrain our ability to tax. Therefore, I support and I ask my colleagues for their support of this tax limitation amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of our steel industry. The administration, Mr. Speaker, is compromising our national security by failing to enforce our trade laws. Our steel industry is critical to our national security. American steel companies across the Nation are going bust. Yet without American steel companies to supply our Armed Forces, our national defense is useless. Let me cite some statistics. In the Gulf War the U.S. Army relied on the steel in 5,000 tanks, Bradleys and other armored personnel carriers. At the peak of the conflict in the Persian Gulf, the U.S. Navy deployed 120 ships made almost exclusively of American steel. Because the administration has failed to do its job in implementing import controls, Congress has to step in today to legislate trade policy and safeguard our defense. A vote in support of this legislation today is a vote to uphold our national security and stop illegal foreign dumping. This will allow our steel industry to rebuild and our workers to go back to work and save our families. I urge a yes vote.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, many individuals have been recognized for their courage and valor during war time, but it is not often that individuals are remembered for their compassion and generosity under the same circumstances. As part of the ongoing celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Berlin Airlift, I rise today to honor just such a generous man. I am proud to be able to say that he is a constituent of mine, living in Provo, in the Third District of Utah which I represent. United States Air Force Col. Gail S. Halvorsen was one of many who participated in the joint American and British effort to deliver relief to the people stranded in Berlin after World War II. In total, over 277,000 drops were made and 2.3 million tons of relief supplies were delivered. Col. Halvorsen's contribution, however, did more than feed empty stomachs. It fed empty souls as well. One morning, (then) Lieutenant Halvorsen was talking with a group of children gathered to watch the planes take off near the Tempelhof Airport in West Berlin. When it was time for him to leave, he realized how long it must have been since these children had enjoyed something sweet, like a piece of gum or candy. He reached into his pocket and produced two sticks of gum, which he gave to the children. Soon Lieut. Halvorsen began dropping small bags of candy, for all the children, over Berlin, attached to white handkerchiefs designed to act as parachutes. Soon, this small gesture was adopted by the military, and became known as Operation Little Vittles. Shortly thereafter, Lieut. Halvorsen appeared on television to promote the effort, and then thousands of candy donations poured into the program from all over America, as generous families gave to the cause. Col. Halvorsen's effort is universally recognized as one of the keys to the success of the Berlin Airlift, one of America's greatest humanitarian efforts. Often we read the newspaper or watch the television and question if there are any heroes left; people we truly want to imitate. By honoring Col. Gail Halvorsen today, we are reminded that there surely are still heroes in our midst.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak to a couple of key points. First, I would like to create the context by sharing with my colleagues two statements, one by Founding Father John Jay and the other by President Kennedy. John Jay said, ``When oaths cease to be sacred, our dearest and most valuable rights become insecure.'' Four days before his death, President Kennedy visited Florida. There he made the following statement: ``In this country I,'' referring to the presidency, ``carry out and execute the laws of the United States. I also have the obligation of implementing the orders of the courts of the United States. I can assure you that whoever is president of the United States will do the same, because if he did not,'' that is, he, the President, ``He would begin to unwind this most extraordinary constitutional system of ours.'' The President's ability to unwind the constitutional system is significant. The President is the only individual charged with ensuring that our laws are faithfully executed. He is one of the few Americans who always is an example for good or ill. If a president can lie before a grand jury during a civil deposition, engage in obstruction of justice, and abuse power, others will follow. Article III sets forth that the President willfully and deliberately allowed his attorney to make false statements to the court about the affidavit of Ms. Lewinsky. The President's defenders, including his attorney, Mr. Ruff, have said he was not paying attention at the time when Mr. Bennett raised the affidavit, but the videotape of the deposition shows otherwise. He was alert, attentive, and engaged. The President's official defense was that he thought Ms. Lewinsky thought her affidavit was true, and he was just affirming her belief. First, the affidavit was not a statement of beliefs. It was a statement of the facts under oath. The President's response was evasive. Second, in the affidavit Ms. Lewinsky stated she had not received any benefit from her relationship with the President. The facts are indisputable. There was an intense effort by Mr. Jordan on behalf of the President to get her a job. Third, in the deposition, after reading from the affidavit, Mr. Bennett asked the President, ``Is that a true and accurate statement, as far as you know it?'' The President answered, ``That is absolutely true.'' We know today that it was absolutely false. President Clinton's deliberate effort to mislead Judge Wright is a clear obstruction of justice. Others have been prosecuted for less. Under the Constitution, the President is held accountable by the mechanism of impeachment. Impeachment is serious and weighty. My friends on the other side have repeatedly argued that the President's offenses do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. The essence of their argument is that perjury, obstruction of justice, and the abuse of power are not equivalent to treason or bribery. They are wrong. Perjury and obstruction of justice are akin to bribery in many ways. Perjury and obstruction go to the corruption of the judicial system. Bribery amounts to the corruption of a bureaucrat. Both prevent citizens from enjoying their rights under the rule of law. Their treatment by the United States Sentencing Commission, the only thing that helps set forth penalties for Federal crimes, supports the comparison. Under the guidelines, bribery of or by a public official is an offense of base level 10. For a first-time offender, that would translate to 6 to 12 months in a Federal penitentiary. Under the guidelines, perjury and obstruction are base level 12, two levels beyond bribery, and that means for a first-time offender a sentencing range of 10 to 16 months. Someone convicted of perjury, and remember, there are 100 Americans sentenced every year for perjury, can face up to 10 months more in jail than someone convicted of bribery. Based on the U.S. sentencing guidelines, not only are perjury and obstruction of justice in the same ballpark as bribery, they are treated as more grave. I appeal to my colleagues. Let us not allow the President to begin unwinding our constitutional system. Let us protect the integrity of the oaths that underpin our judicial system. Let Congress protect our dearest and most valuable rights by impeaching this president, who has demeaned the sacredness of his oaths.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the views expressed by the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and also by those expressed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich). I am proud that my Republican colleagues have spent more than 5 times as much time reviewing the Starr referral material than my Democratic colleagues. This is a solemn occasion and I feel the full weight of the responsibility that we are assuming today. Some would trivialize this debate by giving it the name of a young intern or by referring to other important matters that face the Nation. They know that this is or they should know that this is inappropriate. Americans want this matter brought to closure. That can only occur if we fully determine the facts, place those facts in the context of the law and weigh the proper response that will preserve the integrity of the office of the presidency and the integrity of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, I pledge to work diligently to move this matter forward.