Chris Cannon

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank also the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) who is also the chairman of the subcommittee, for this opportunity to speak and for what I think is a very good bill. I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) about the rationale, the difficulty of the rationale of Federal people substituting their judgment for that of locals. I think this is a wonderful bill with a lot of local interest that works very well for local people. In my district, we have several bills that are affected. I do not think anybody in America is unaware of Arches National Park. It is the beautiful sandstone, freestanding arches and other beautiful sandstone formations in southern Utah. We have in this bill a bill that would expand Arches to include the full geographic area and that would result in a much more beautiful and satisfying experience in the park. So I urge support for this bill on the basis of that. Also in this bill there is an attempt to make adjustments for some of the technical problems with the Grand Staircase and Escalante National Monument. Members will recall it was well-documented that it was done without consultation with local folks, Congressmen, Senators or county commissioners, and a number of mistakes were made. I think everybody agrees on the changes that need to be made to that and we need to get that passed in this bill. We also have language that would privatize the small Federal town of Dutch John. This is one of those few remaining Federal towns where bureaucratic restrictions cost a million dollars a year in government expenditures that could be borne privately at a much lower cost. We need to pass this law to privatize Dutch John and relieve the Treasury of that kind of an expense. Thirdly, let me point out that we have, as the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) has pointed out, a huge trade of school trust lands that has been negotiated and considered. It is a very important trade and it will do wonderful things for the children of Utah and their schools. Lastly, let me just deal with briefly the San Rafael Swell. This is the area where Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid roamed and was made famous by that movie. It is a harsh and beautiful area that needs to be managed according to what the locals understand and that is appropriate in this bill.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate a constituent of mine, Captain Donald Collins Brown, upon his retirement after 28 years of active duty in the United States Navy. Captain Donald Collins Brown was commissioned through the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corp at the University of New Mexico in 1970. He completed flight training and was designated a Naval Flight Officer in 1971. His sea duty tours include several fleet squadrons in the A-6 Intruder. He also served at sea as Aide and Flag Secretary to the Commander Carrier Group One and Chief of Staff to Commander Cruiser- Destroyer Group Three. Captain Brown commanded Attack Squadron one six five and Carrier Air Wing two. His shore assignments include Attack Aviation Readiness Officer at both Commander Medium Attack Wing and Naval Air Forces Pacific Fleet and most recently as Commanding Officer of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corp at the University of Utah. Captain Brown is a Distinguished Graduate of the Naval War College in Newport Rhode Island. He has completed nine extended deployments with various Carrier Battle Groups in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans, the Mediterranean Sea and Persian Gulf. He has over 4,000 flight hours, primarily in the A-6 Intruder and has experience with the F-14, S-3 and EA-6B. His awards include two Legions of Merit, two Meritorious Service Medals, the Strike/Flight Air Medal, the Navy Commendation Medal, and other campaign and service awards. Captain Brown and his wife, Pauline, have two children and reside in Park City, Utah. Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish Captain Brown my best and commend him on a job extremely well done.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the subcommittee chairman, for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Watt amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3736, the Workforce Improvement and Protection Act. The H-1B program is critical to our Nation, and, in particular, to the state of Utah, which I represent. The engine driving American productivity has performed well beyond anyone's expectations over the past several years, and I am sure we all realize how much of this performance is due to the contribution made by the high-tech sector and its commitment to research, development, innovation and achievement. So today we must make a choice that is critical to this engine of American productivity. We must decide whether this engine will continue to have fuel to run on, because that is what we are talking about here. Our high-tech sector cannot function without the high skilled individuals employed to generate that productivity, and voting in favor of this substitute would effectively put a stop to this productivity. At the same time, I am pleased that a compromise has been reached that safeguards productivity while it, for example, generates additional private sector funds for scholarships for American students in the fields of mathematics, computer science and engineering. The compromise will build our investment in American students and workers, will sustain our high-tech sector, and will allow America to remain the global economic leader it is today. I voted ``no'' during the markup of an earlier version of this language in the Committee on the Judiciary several months ago, for the same reasons I urge Members to vote against it today.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3248, The Dollars to the Classroom Act in my home state of Utah we have a strong public education system with many successful programs. The teachers and administrators at the local level are what has made these programs work so well. They know our children, they know their names, they know their needs. They should not be superseded by a federal program handed down by Washington, D.C. We need to give our nation's teachers the power to make our children's education successful. This bill will do that. H.R. 3248 mandates that 95 percent of the money appropriated under this grant is to be used as we intend it to be used, in our children's classrooms. This bill combines 31 separate programs, eliminates the bureaucracy that administers those programs and makes sure that the money doesn't go to special interest groups. Our children will instead get $2.74 billion in additional federal funding. That is $425 per classroom. What teacher couldn't use an additional $425 to improve the quality of education in their classrooms? This is money that our children's teachers and local officials will be deciding how to spend, not some special interest group or bureaucrat sitting not far from here. The money can be used to purchase supplies, buy computers, pay for Internet access, hire new teachers and increase teachers' salaries. Our nation's teachers are molding the world leaders of tomorrow. They know our children's strengths and their weaknesses. No one influences our children like their teachers. Let's give them the power and resources to do their job right.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, 151 years ago today, Brigham Young led the first Mormon pioneers into the valley of the Great Salt Lake. The next spring, malnourished Mormon settlers began planting corn, beans, wheat, and potatoes. But as soon as they sprouted, the shoots were attacked by hordes of crickets. Dr. Priddy Meeks recorded in his journal that ``the crickets came so thick it made the earth black in places, and it did look like they would take away what little we had growing * * * and we a thousand miles away from supplies.'' Out of desperation, men, women and children poured into the fields to scare the crickets away. They dug ditches around the field. They used fire. But it was all in vain. Just as all seemed lost and starvation likely, help came from above in the form of thousands of seagulls. Eyewitness reports tell of the birds descending on the fields, gobbling up the crickets and sparing the precious crops. Today, Utah celebrates its pioneer heritage. Many of the celebrations will center around Seagull Monument in downtown Salt Lake City, erected in honor of the event I have just described. I encourage my colleagues to join me today in honoring the courageous spirit and the sacrifices of the Mormon pioneers.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of this legislation and would like to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) on her thoughtful work on this issue. Several of my colleagues will come before you today to speak about their reasons for supporting this legislation. I personally have six; that is, six daughters. Mr. Speaker, a yes vote on this legislation allows me to protect them. Our State parental notification and consent laws exist for a reason, to guard our children against individuals who would otherwise risk their physical and emotional health and safety. Allowing the transport of minor children across State lines in order to circumvent these laws makes a mockery of the integral role parents play in the lives of their young daughters. A vote against this legislation transfers to strangers the right of parents to keep their children safe. Mr. Speaker, to protect the precious lives of my daughters and the daughters of parents nationwide, I urge a yes vote on this important issue. May I just add, I have great confidence in the American people, and I believe that they can make a distinction between interstate gambling laws and marriage laws, as opposed to laws affecting such important matters as pregnancy and abortion among young women.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of H.R. 3097, the Tax Code Termination Act. In 1996, during my campaign, I pledged, like many of you, to reduce the tax burden on the American family. This legislation is a step in that direction. The current Tax Code puts an onerous burden on every American family. It is complex, confusing, corrupt, costly, and coercive. Americans work nearly 5 months of the year, until May 10, just to pay their Federal tax bill. We are taking a first step today to reduce this burden. This bill sets a clear direction, a direction toward reforming by triggering a national discussion. A deadline will work wonders in focusing the energy of the American people, Congress, and the President on real tax reform. The national debate is the only real hope of transforming the IRS code to a clear, unimplemented, and fair Tax Code. The American people deserve this debate. It is our job to start this debate with clear action by sunsetting the Tax Code today.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, the most exciting technological development of the past decade is the Internet. This truly global network is a conduit for communication and commerce and is rapidly transforming business, government and virtually every other part of our society. Not surprisingly, Congress in the Telecom Act 2 years ago moved to push the Internet into our schools. The concept was that deregulation would push down phone rates, allowing for some of the savings to be channeled into connecting schools to the Internet. That was the intent. The reality has been much different. Starting July 1, every AT&T customer will begin paying a 5 percent surcharge on every long distance call. MCI customers will be burdened with a 5.9 percent markup. Should every American school have access to the Internet? Yes. Should every American child have the opportunity to tap the wonders of the electronic highway? Clearly, yes. But should every American be forced to pay up to 5.9 percent of their current phone bill in order to funnel funds into a new Federal bureaucracy with the charge to disburse billions of dollars to schools that beg appropriately? The answer to that is no. The power and authority to levy taxes is clearly vested in Congress. We, not the FCC, should be shaping policy in this area.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, one of the common threads throughout the American experience is the strong yearning for religious liberty. It is what brought the Puritans to Plymouth Rock, the Mennonites to Lancaster County and the Mormons to Utah. It is part of what we are as Americans. Protection of religious expression is a bedrock principle of the Constitution enshrined in the very first amendment to the Bill of Rights. The freedom to fully participate in religion includes the right to make offerings. Sometimes those who make contributions will fall into financial problems and end up before the local bankruptcy court. Over the past few years bankruptcy courts with neither divine guidance nor the direction of Congress have struggled with reconciling competing interests of creditors and churches. In my view, it is inappropriate for the bankruptcy court system to force religious denominations to disgorge good-faith offerings or tithes in order to comply with rigid formulas. S. 1244 seeks to resolve this by establishing a simple formula: Religious contributions by a debtor, if consistent with past practice or if totaling less than 15 percent of gross income, shall not be reachable by a creditor in the context of bankruptcy. In a sense, this measure follows Christ's admonition to render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's. It avoids the effect of our current course that puts Federal bankruptcy court judges in the position of knocking on the doors of our churches wearing the hat of the repo man and demanding the return of tithes, offerings and other contributions. I compliment the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for their hard work and encourage a yes vote.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honor an extraordinary American and constituent of mine from the Third District of Utah. On March 12, 1998, Sgt. First Class Bryan Smethurst, a recruiter for the Army National Guard in Utah, was on his daily morning commute through Provo Canyon. Little did he know at the time that he would perform an uncommon act of bravery that Thursday morning that would save the life of a woman, her pregnant daughter and her three year old granddaughter. The morning was pretty typical for that time of year and Bryan Smethurst was driving the icy and wet Provo Canyon road to work. But through the hazy windshield that morning he spotted something a little different--fresh skid marks on the asphalt were up ahead and then veered toward the river to an overturned car. Realizing that the accident must have just occurred--it would have been cleaned up by then if it had happened earlier--he stopped to investigate. The sight to behold left him no time to assess the danger to himself: He dove into the freezing Provo River to rescue the occupants of the overturned car. In moments, Bryan was struggling out of the river and pulling to safety the driver of the car, a young and pregnant woman who was frantically trying to help her mother and daughter still trapped. Rushing back into the river and moving against the current, Bryan was able to open one of the car doors and pull the grandmother to safety. The third passenger of the overturned car was a child, who although quite secure in a car seat, was trapped upside-down with the icy river flowing just below her eyebrows. Battling an impending numbness in his hands from the freezing water and weather, Bryan released the child from the car seat and brought her safely to shore as well. All three occupants of the car had to be treated at a local hospital for hypothermia, minor cuts and bruises. They were able to return to their homes later in the day. Three lives were saved on the morning of March 12 by Sgt. First Class Bryan Smethurst, a courageous individual who acted without regard for his own life, but rather in the name of unselfish and brotherly love. It is precisely for such acts of bravery and kindness that we must strive to convey the appropriate recognition, honor and gratitude.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 3534. Just as this great body voted in 1995 to release state and local governments from the stranglehold of unfunded federal mandates, we must vote today to free our private sector as well. Our booming economy thrives on the ability of our private sector to continue flourishing. We must ensure that government does not impede this development. I have received letters in support of this legislation from all groups involved in our growing economy: consumers, taxpayers, farmers, and small businesses. I would like to emphasize that this latter group, in particular, succeeds or suffers in direct proportion to the increased government mandates placed on it. Federal mandates discourage development of small businesses and start-ups, the most valuable, yet most vulnerable engine furthering growth and job creation in our economy. We have voted time and time again over these past few years to lessen the government burdens on this sector. This legislation represents the next logical step in making this body more cognizant of the impact of our actions on our developing economy.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the arguments time and again against this amendment. This is straightforward. Government survives on the generosity of its citizens. Should not changes that affect that generosity require more than 50 percent plus one vote? When the people put on the cloak of responsibility inherent in citizenship of this great country, they understand that they will have an obligation to contribute. They must keep vigilant of the issues of the day, express their opinions, vote their conscience, and actually pay money into the system. This is the price of democracy. Government has a responsibility, in turn, to respect its citizens. When we talk about legislating an increase in the cost of government, we are talking about taking by force more of the hard-earned money of our own constituents, the people who voted to have us represent them here in Washington, D.C. In 1996, during my campaign, I pledged, like many other Members, to reduce the tax burden put on American families and to require a supermajority to raise taxes. Today, just a few days after April 15, we all agree that our Tax Code is too thick, our tax laws are too complicated, and our tax system is too burdensome. Our constituents agree. In fact, that is why many if not most of us are here. An editorial from yesterday's Investor's Business Daily makes this point clearly. The tax limitation amendment is key to reforming a corrupt system that pushes the average American family's tax bill beyond the combined costs of food, clothing, and housing. It is hard to imagine that anyone could find fault with it, certainly not the taxpayers who will work until May 10 just to make enough money to pay taxes. It is our responsibility today to restore respect for our citizen's generosity with the accountability that the they deserve.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, when my office and I considered honoring one of the great Americans who has had an impact not only on my own district, but at the national level, our thoughts turned almost immediately to Howard Nielson. I approached several of Howard's former colleagues including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) the chairman and the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, on which Howard sat. They wholeheartedly supported this tribute and recalled fond memories. Elected in 1983 to this great body to be the first to represent my district, the Third District of Utah, after reapportionment, Howard is probably best known as a relentless public servant, a brilliant man who legislates honesty and integrity. A native of Utah, Howard Curtis Nielson was born on September 12, 1924, in the city of Richfield in Sevier County, Utah. In 1947, after attending Richfield High School, he graduated with a Bachelor of Science from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. He went on to receive a Master of Science from the University of Oregon at Eugene, and an MBA and Ph.D. from Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. Howard served in the United States Air Force during World War II. Then, after graduating from the University of Oregon in 1949, Howard accepted a position as a statistician with C&H Sugar. From 1951 until 1957, he worked as an economist at the Stanford Research Institute and then obtained a professorship at Brigham Young University where he taught statistics, economics and business management from 1957 to 1976. In 1960, Howard became active in politics and after spending 6 years as a district GOP committeeman in Provo, Utah, he was elected to the State House. Quickly earning a reputation as a man who knew how to read the fine legislative print, Howard became Majority Leader in 1971, and 2 years later was elected Speaker. In this capacity Howard fought hard to see that a State budget surplus was used for tax relief rather than new programs. When the speakership came to an end, Howard retired from the legislature, but remained active in State politics serving as a party chairman in Utah County from 1979 to 1981. So, with this background, when Howard was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, his first assignment was on the Energy and Commerce Committee. In the 99th Congress, he also secured a position on the Government Operations Committee, and by 1986, was ranking member of the Government Activities and Transportation Subcommittee of this committee. Most notably, Howard was active throughout these committee assignments on several issues ranging from the deregulation of broadcast, telephone and the natural gas industries, to the commercial interests of the motion picture industry. Howard was also integral in spotlighting the problem of waste dumping by Amtrak and by focusing on the health consequences he urged the railroad to take corrective measures. At the completion of his fourth term in Congress, Howard decided not to run again. Instead, he and his wife, Julia, moved first to Sidney, Australia, for 18 months and then to Budapest, Hungary, for 2 years where they served as missionaries for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I am proud to be joined today not only by several of Howard's colleagues here on the floor, but with all of Congress in expressing our gratitude. Those of us who have had the opportunity and privilege of serving with Howard Nielson know him as an honorable man, a good friend, and in the words of Doris Wilson, a friend and former staffer, Howard was a model of what the Founding Fathers envisioned legislators to be. Both sides of the aisle respected his integrity and willingness to make the tough decisions with fairness to everybody. Today, Howard continues this dedication to his community serving as a member of the Utah State Senate.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise as the sponsor of the Arches National Park Expansion Act of 1997. I represent Utah's Third Congressional District, a huge and incredibly scenic district that is nearly the size of Ohio. One of the true gems of my district is the Arches National Park. Arches is world-renowned as the home of hundreds of spectacular stone arches created by wind and water erosion. This poster depicts one of those arches, Delicate Arch. When Arches National Park was created, the park boundaries were drawn here in Washington using straight lines. But Mother Nature's creations are not linear. In the northeast corner of the park, the boundary was drawn through the middle of the arch through Lost Springs Canyon, leaving it half in the park and half outside. Currently, the Bureau of Land Management manages the upper half of this canyon, while the National Park Service manages the lower portion. This bill will simply move the park boundary to the far edge of the canyon to include all of Lost Spring Canyon. By doing so, the park boundary will be redrawn where it should have been originally. In doing so, this bill adds approximately 3,140 acres to one of our most spectacular national parks. This is an area of hundred-foot canyon walls, gentle grass valleys and delicate sandstone arches. This common- sense boundary adjustment will bring at least 10 new arches under park protection. It will also have the side benefit of allowing the park to offer a back-country experience, an aspect that is currently missing. But this addition does not just make sense aesthetically. It also makes sense from a management standpoint. The proposed new boundary will put the National Park Service in charge of an area with clear geographic division, specifically the rim of a canyon. Visitors, park, and BLM employees will know where the park ends and BLM land begins. Part of the proposed addition also includes a section of school trust land owned by Utah's school children. That section really should be part of Arches. My staff sat down with the Utah School Trust and the Bureau of Land Management to find a section of Federal land that could be traded for the school trust section. A section was identified, and a trade for that section is in the bill. I believe this is one of the key provisions of the measure. In Utah we have had a long history of our school children being forced to bear the burden of Federal land management decisions. In contrast, this bill protects both the land and Utah's school children. We worked long to ensure that this bill had the input of all the different parties concerned with the park expansion. Comments were taken from elected officials, local citizens, interest groups, Government agencies, and a wide variety of groups who cherish this land. Their opinions were considered carefully during the drafting and redrafting of this bill. I feel strongly that this bill is a good balance of the competing interests. I believe that is why 49 of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, have joined me on this measure. That is why the Utah School Trust, local officials and I believe a majority of the residents of Grand County favor this proposal. That is why both the Grand Canyon Trust and the National Parks and Conservation Association are on board, and that is why the National Park Service and the administration have indicated support. This is a pro-environment, pro-open process, pro-park vote and, most importantly, it is the right thing to do. Mr. Speaker, I ask for an affirmative vote.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coble]; the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]; and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], the author of the bill, for their hard work on this matter. Mr. Speaker, information technologies are the wellspring of our Nation's future, and my home State of Utah is one of the primary sources. The idea of networking computers came from Novell. WordPerfect created the standard for word processing. Utah is one of the top five U.S. centers for software development. Utah high-tech companies have generated sales in excess of $6.5 billion last year. The heart of the Utah software industry is Utah County, the largest county in my district. Given the composition of my district, I am honored to be an original cosponsor of the NET, No Electronic Theft Act. I also need to compliment again those who worked so hard to bring this issue to a head today. This is an important issue. In today's booming economy, U.S. computer software is one of the primary driving engines, with exports topping $26 billion per year. But software piracy is a significant and unjustified burden that American software companies are bearing. Last year piracy cost U.S. software companies an estimated $11.2 billion globally. The NET Act is a concrete step toward curbing both domestic and international software theft. Current copyright law has a loophole for thieves who give software away, but do not sell it. Three years ago a Massachusetts Federal district court in U.S. versus LaMacchia held that a pirate who had given away 1 million dollars worth of commercial software through a bulletin board could not be prosecuted because the pirate had not been compensated by his fellow thieves. Playing Robin Hood may have made sense when the Sheriff of Nottingham was extracting tribute from the peasantry, but playing Robin Hood on the Internet is a recipe for disaster for our domestic software industry. That is why we need the NET Act now. The act is simple. It focuses on the damage done to the software owner, not just the money put into the pocket of the pirate. By doing so, the act gives the Department of Justice the tools to pursue U.S. software pirates who use the Internet as their primary conduit. By shutting down U.S. pirates, we can simultaneously curb domestic and overseas piracy. By doing so, we will boost one of our leading industries, enhance our exports and strengthen our competitiveness in a critical technological area. For these reasons, I urge an affirmative vote.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the problems of illegal immigration, while predominant in, are certainly not confined to, California, Texas, and our other border States. Illegal immigration has become a nationwide problem across Interstate 80 from the west and up Interstate 15 from the south. Illegal immigration has infected States within our interior, States like Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, and others. These areas are the new and easy targets of illegal aliens, criminal aliens, who bring drugs with them. The most recent Salt Lake City police records, for example, indicate that 80 percent of arrests for felony level narcotics violations are undocumented aliens. H.R. 1493, the legislation we are discussing today, expands the pilot program that has been extremely successful in the city of Anaheim to several prisons across the Nation. It is of particular interest to areas like Salt Lake County. One of the main challenges facing Salt Lake County at this time is inadequate jail space and lack of identification capabilities for aliens arrested by local authorities. By identifying illegal aliens prior to arraignment under this program, they can be deported immediately, rather than held in local jails at the expense of local taxpayers, rather than taking up space better used to hold more violent criminals arrested for committing local crimes, or worse yet, rather than being set free due to lack of jail space, and endangering the local populations. By identifying illegal aliens, the burden which the Federal Government is currently placing on local entities can be significantly relieved. We live in times of limited resources. I was concerned that States like Utah would not be selected to participate in this very effective program, so during consideration of H.R. 1493 in the Committee on the Judiciary, I was pleased to have the opportunity to work with the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], and other distinguished members of the subcommittee to ensure that our interior States will be able to reap the benefits of this program. Of the qualified facilities selected across the Nation for participation in the program, 20 percent of those must be located in areas that are not adjacent to a land border. This means that beginning in 1999, of the up to 25 sites selected for participation, about 5 must be located in interior areas with high concentrations of illegal immigration. While we continue to read report after report of the problems with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, we must lend our support today to a program with a proven track record that will assist our local and State communities to stem the problem of illegal immigration.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] for yielding me the time and for his comments. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to explain exactly why we need to rein in the power of the President to create national monuments. I represent Utah's Third Congressional District. Within its borders is the year-old Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Last fall, President Clinton stood across the State line in Arizona, as so graciously pointed out by the ranking member, on the other side of the Grand Canyon, and, with a few quick words and the stroke of a pen, created this 1.7-million-acre monument. It is massive, larger in scope than Rhode Island and Delaware combined. To create the monument, President Clinton used the 1906 Antiquities Act. This designation was not about the environment. This was not about doing the right thing. It was about power, politics, and the deliberate abuse of Presidential power. Those are bold statements, but the events of last September justify them. September 7, 1996, 11 days before the designation, was a Saturday. Utahns, including the Utah congressional delegation, were startled to read in the Washington Post that President Clinton was planning to designate a massive national monument in southern Utah. The next Monday, Utah's two Senators and three U.S. Representatives placed calls to the White House and to the Interior Department to see if there was any truth to the Washington Post story. During a series of meetings that week, both Secretary Babbitt and Katy McGinty, the President's Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, assured the Utah delegation that nothing was imminent. They explained that the administration had done some internal discussions but nothing was about to occur, and if it became more likely, the administration would closely consult with the Utah delegation. That was clearly untrue. Towards the weekend, word leaked that the President and Vice President were going to do an environmental event at the Grand Canyon the following Wednesday. The rumored topic was the announcement of a new monument in southern Utah. Alarmed and angry, the Utah delegation met with Secretary Babbitt and Ms. McGinty. This time they were asked to detail any general concerns about the concept of a monument in southern Utah. The Utah officials asked to see maps. They were told there were none. They asked for details. They received none. The day before the expected announcement, Utah Governor Mike Leavitt flew to Washington to meet with the President. President Clinton left the Governor cooling his heels while he boarded a plane to Chicago bound for Arizona. White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta met with Governor Leavitt. The Governor outlined a long list of concerns and proposed a Utah- developed plan to protect the area without harming the local economy. Mr. Panetta promised the Governor that he would let him speak to the President that night. The Governor asked for a map of the proposal but again was told one was not available. Governor Leavitt spent the evening before the announcement waiting at the hotel for a call from the President. At 2 a.m., actually 2 minutes to 2 a.m., he had a conversation with the President where he outlined his concerns. The President did agree to consider a few of the Governor's points. But the President refused to allow logic, details, or local concerns to get in the way of his photo opportunity. Utahns, except for a few friendly Clinton supporters, were excluded from the announcement. To add insult to injury, Governor Leavitt, still in Washington, DC, picked up the New York Times to find a map of the monument, a map that had been denied to every Utah official but which apparently had been turned over to the press. On that day, I went down to the southern Utah town of Kanab where the residents released dozens of black balloons. The people of Kanab then suspected what we now know. At a time when the Green Party in California was holding roughly 10 percent of the vote in public opinion polls, President Clinton saw southern Utah merely as an item to sacrifice on the altar of Presidential ambitions. Mr. Chairman, I sit on the House Resources Committee. Thanks to the leadership of the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young] and the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Land, we have been able to extract a slew of documents concerning the creation of the Utah monument. Though much remains hidden, we have learned much. First, this decision was not driven by a desire to protect our environment. On the contrary, documents indicate that the administration knew that the monument designation would not improve protection of these lands. The most fragile areas were already in wilderness study areas. In fact, the designation and attendant publicity has probably attracted more visitors than would otherwise come to this delicate area. Second, law and courtesy dictate that local officials and local residents have a chance to give input on decisions that directly affect them. In this instance, 6 weeks before the designation, the administration contacted the Democratic Governor of Colorado, the two Democratic Senators from Nevada, the former Democratic Governor from Wyoming, the former Governor of Montana, and even a Democratic House Member from New Mexico to discuss the Utah monument plan. They did not bother to contact any Utahns, not even Utah Democrats. I might point out that these people had expertise in the politics of the West but not in the particulars of southern Utah. Third, the administration went to great lengths to avoid public scrutiny of its proposal. The law requires that public land decisions be made in the open so as to be improved by the light of public scrutiny. We now know that the administration went to great lengths to avoid application of the public disclosure requirements of NEPA, FLMPA, and FACA. Because of its sloppy process, the White House failed to deal with problems created by its haste. Within the monument are vast deposits of coal and a large potential for oil, gas, methane, and hard rock minerals. The total value would be well in excess of $1 trillion. The 10,000 residents of the two affected counties were counting on those resources to provide jobs for their children and grandchildren. Some of those resources are located on school trust land property held by Utah's schools. They contain mineral resources with value potentially in the billions. The Utah School Trust expected to reap millions a year from its lands within the monument. A year ago, the President stood in Arizona and promised that, ``creating this national monument should not and will not come at the expense of Utah's children,'' and vowed to create a working group, including Utah's congressional delegation, to find equivalent lands for exchange. Of course, a year later, no working group exists, no member of the Utah delegation has been contacted, and the Utah School Trust has been unable to open negotiations. The only thing Utah's schoolchildren are left with is a Presidential promise that is already of questionable value. The story of the creation of the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument is important because it shows what can happen when respect for a legal process is casually set aside. America itself was founded on process. Our Constitution is an elaborate set of checks and balances designed to preclude precipitous action by any leader or any group. For this reason, I support the bill of my colleague from Utah. I dare the opponents of this bill to justify the administration's actions with regard to this monument. I challenge opponents of this bill to convince me or anyone in Utah that such abuse will not happen again. They cannot, and that is why we need this bill. Utah paid a price last fall for being in the way of a President's political agenda. This measure is a reasoned step in response to a gross abuse and is worthy of an affirmative vote.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I believe that argument we just heard is a strawman: The idea that taxpayers are going to be ripped off earlier. I think it was said there would be claims filed that would take the value that belongs to American people. If we look at those issues, and water was mentioned. The fact is water is already taken in these areas. We will not have spurious claims on waters. As to minerals, those that are known are pretty much taken. Those that are not known, if someone randomly goes out and decides to file a claim, they will not have value. And when they come back to the process of proving value, they will not have any. We do believe in America still in the rule of law and in supporting contracts and the obligations of the American people. In this particular case, in the case of Utah, I do not think there is any question but that the President abused his power. There is no question by people looking at this dispassionately at how he hid his actions. What we are talking about in this amendment is restoring balance to the process, limiting the extremes to which a President can go, and this President has said he would go or has gone. This is not only about the people of Utah, though. It is not just about the people in the western United States, the public land States. It is not just about those kinds of things. This is about the abuse of Presidential power generally and this is a particularly good bill that will rein in that power and allow this House its proper role in the balance of the policy decisions about how we use our public lands.

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Minnesota has said several times today, and in the prior debate on the rule, that the problem is that Congress has not acted. Now, what the premise of that is is that there is a problem out there that needs to be solved. It is an urgent problem that requires what the Governor of Utah called a dictatorial action. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a straw man. The fact is, what we are saying here is that the people of Utah were somehow out committing depredations on this area. Remember, this is an area bigger than New Hampshire and Delaware combined. It is a huge area that has only about 10,000 people in the periphery, not even on the area. Therefore, I would like to just point out that I do not think it is a reasonable thing for this body to look at itself and say we need to give up any authority we have because of some potential depredations and give dictatorial powers to the Presidency. I think in a matter of balance in this body that we should retain that balance, as opposed to the Presidency, and at the same time give him the ability to do what we need to do with monuments. Mr. Chairman, no one could love monuments more than I. I grew up with Arches National Monument. I grew up with that monument. It is now a park, but I have a hard time calling it a park because it was such a wonderful monument. We want monuments. America wants monuments, but we want them done in the light, not in the darkness, not hiding in saying, if people find this out, we will not be able to do it, not suggesting a straw man of people going out and making claims on land. Those are not fair things to do. We need policy and balance, and that is what this bill represents.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, today is the 1-year anniversary of President Clinton's declaration of the massive Utah monument in my district. Within the monument are 175,000 acres of school trust lands. They contain vast deposits of coal, large quantities of oil, gas, and hard rock minerals. The total value is in the billions of dollars. A year ago, the President stood in Arizona and promised that creating this national monument should not and will not come at the expense of Utah's children and vowed to create a working group, including Utah's congressional delegation, to find equivalent lands for exchange. A year later, no working group exists, no member of the Utah delegation has been contacted, and the Utah School Trust has been unable to open negotiations. Mr. President, I ask for your help. With 48 of my colleagues, I am sending you today a letter asking for the creation of the promised working group. The burden of your decision to create the monument should not, and it must not, fall on Utah's schoolchildren.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, the issue we face today is an emotional issue. Like my friend and colleague from Arkansas, I have several children, seven to be exact, all of whom but two are also boys. In my case, like my friend, the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey], I have a Laura and a Rachel. I also have a Jane, Emily, Elizabeth, and another possibly on the way. As we consider the issue before us, it is in the context, of course, of this growth in unmarried teens having pregnancies leaving us a legacy of single family homes, higher welfare costs, and extensive juvenile crime. Everyone agrees that something should be done. On one side some believe that easy access to contraceptives will make the problem go away. Others, including me, believe that the fundamental problem is the diminished role of the family, not the lack of pharmaceuticals. Families are the building blocks of our society and even the best clinician can never be the equal to a caring parent when a child begins to think about sex. That is why I support the Manzullo- Istook amendment and why I oppose the Castle amendment. It sets forth a simple minimal standard when it comes to taxpayer-funded contraceptives for our children; that is, that parents must be at least notified before services are provided. As legal and moral guardians of our children, we as parents have a right to know. We require parental consent before giving immunization or providing surgery to minors. We must at least notify one parent before a child is given birth control. Parents, not clinic workers, must be able to help their children with such sensitive decisions, and parents deserve the opportunity to make their views known to the child before the child makes a life altering decision. This measure reaffirms and reinforces our central role as parents in the lives of our children. If this Congress believes that Government should strengthen families, not pull them apart, we will reinforce parental authority by supporting this amendment. One of the unintended consequences of this law, title X, birth control funding, is that the Federal Government becomes the widely recognized schoolmaster who our children then look to in making decisions about morality. That is the impropriety of our current situation and why I support the Istook-Manzullo amendment. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in honor of today's 150th anniversary of the entry of the pioneers into Utah. The pioneer exodus was an event of monumental proportions. Seeking a land of opportunity and freedom, over 80,000 Mormon pioneers made the trek west in wagons, on horses, and on foot, covering the rugged trail from the shores of the Mississippi to the valley of the Great Salt Lake. It was blistering hot in the summer and deathly cold in the winter. Obstacles included disease, fatigue, hunger, and hostile natives. My great grandfather, George Q. Cannon, was among those pioneers. At the age of 17, he lost both parents along the trail. Yet young George trekked on. He went on to become a Utah leader, fighting for statehood while serving in this very body as a territorial representative. Today I honor my ancestor and his fellow pioneers for having the courage, fortitude, and the faith in every footstep to push on despite the obstacles, creating a legacy of faith and freedom.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing appreciation to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] for the fine legislation that is before us, but would like to say a few words in support of the Bass- Sanders amendment and give an example from my own district. Last fall, as many of my colleagues know, President Clinton, with a few quick words and the stroke of a pen, created the massive Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in southern Utah. Contained within the 1.7 million acre monument are two counties in Utah, Kane and Garfield Counties. Thousands of tourists are now flocking to this area because it has been advertised in virtually every travel magazine in the country and the burden of those tourists falls squarely upon the 10,000 residents of those two counties. These small counties have excruciatingly small tax bases. Garfield County, for instance, is 98 percent owned by the Federal Government. Yet every local resident must now pay for the costs of law enforcement, search and rescue, trash pickup, and other services incurred by tourists to the monument. That is fundamentally unfair. Since we as Americans own the land, the Federal Government, not the residents of Kane County or Garfield County, should pay those bills. This amendment is an important incremental step toward placing more of the costs of Federal lands where they belong, on the Federal Government. I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the Sanders-Bass amendment.

Mr. CANNON

Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today regarding H.R. 1500, a bill introduced last week by the gentleman from New York, to designate 5.7 million acres in Utah, almost all of it in my district, as wilderness. Within the 5.7 million acres in H.R. 1500 are more than half a million acres of school trust lands, and those are lands that are given to Utah in statehood to support our schools. By surrounding these school trust lands with wilderness, H.R. 1500 would dramatically hurt their value, hurting Utah schools. The fact is, there is not one word in H.R. 1500, not one, that would protect the value of Utah's school trust lands either by trading the lands out or by providing cash value. That is why the Utah State School Board, Utah PTA, the Utah school superintendents and Utah Education Association all oppose H.R. 1500 as written. The sponsor says he does not want to hurt Utah's school children, but that is exactly what H.R. 1500 does.