Mac Collins

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which provides much needed tax relief to working Americans who travel extensively for a living and are subject to the hours of service limitations of the Department of Transportation. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 included a provision which phased in over ten years an increase in the deductibility of business meal expenses from 50 percent to 80 percent for these individuals. However, that phase in is simply too long. My legislation is very straightforward. It will accelerate the timetable and make the 80 percent deduction effective for tax years beginning after December 31, 1999. Like current law, the acceleration is applicable to individuals subject to Department of Transportation hours of service limitations. This measure is important because the Federal government requires thousands of workers to spend many nights away from home. As a result, these individuals spend funds on meals that would otherwise not be expended. These expenses are not made on elaborate, expensive business meals. These purchases are more typically made at roadside facilities when travelers must stop for the night in order to comply with Federal regulations. However, the consistency of these required purchases ensure even frugal meal purchases add up to significant amounts annually. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in the effort to provide a modest tax reduction for the working men and women of this country who travel the highways for a living.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, the post World War II, culturally diverse Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was comprised of a number of different ethnic groups living together under the rule of Josip Broz Tito. The death of Tito and the ensuing breakdown of the communist world led to the partitioning of the Yugoslav federation into semi- autonomous states. The partitioning of the federation led to increased instability and animosity between the different ethnic groups. In 1987, Slobodan Milosevic came to power as Yugoslav president. The different provinces of Yugoslavia had been treated as equal entities, but in 1989 Milosevic abolished the semi-autonomous status of Kosovo, which is comprised of 90% ethnic Albanians. Although Albanians are the overwhelming majority, the Serbs consider Kosovo to be an historic landmark where their ancestors attempted to fend off the assault of the Ottoman Empire, and these conflicting interests have led to great controversy and fighting. In 1991, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia declared independence from Yugoslavia. Although Milosevic had sought to protect the Serb influence in those countries, the Serb populations were so small in Slovenia and Croatia that it was not feasible to fight for political control. Milosevic was, however, a major instigator of the all-out war for control of Bosnia, where there was a very large Serbian population. A peace agreement to end the Bosnian war was signed by the warring parties in late 1995. The conflict over Kosovo has continued to heighten. When Milosevic revoked its autonomy, many Kosovars said they would settle for nothing less than complete independence, and since 1995, the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and Serb policemen have been fighting for political control. Milosevic's desire to maintain the integrity of the Yugoslavian territory and the historical value of Kosovo, coupled with the Kosovar Albanians' drive for independence has evolved into today's conflict. Aggression has continued to escalate, and after failed attempts at a diplomatic resolution, NATO air strikes began on March 24, 1999. The air strikes, however, have neither prevented nor hindered Milosevic's violent reign. Indications are, in fact, that violence has accelerated since the air strikes began. While humanitarian issues are of grave concern, the effectiveness of the NATO air strikes remains questionable. Having recently traveled to Tirana, Albania, and Skopje, Macedonia, I have witnessed first-hand the humanitarian crisis facing Europe. I have also participated in extensive briefings on the crisis by Supreme Allied Commander--Europe (SACEUR) General Wesley Clark. There is no question that the situation on the Balkan Peninsula is grim. The question that remains is what the United States and its European partners in NATO should do to end the violence and help rebuild the lives of hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Ablanians that have been driven from their homes. Slobodan Milosevic is a shrewd and experienced military commander who has used military power to expel the Kosovar Albanian rebels (the Kosovar Liberation Army or KLA) from Kosovo and to put extensive defenses in place in Kosovo, significantly enhancing his military position on the ground. President Clinton and the other 18 NATO leaders have, on the other hand, allowed political considerations to govern military decisions in the air campaign. In spite of the campaign, ethnic cleansing has accelerated and the FRY military has now fortified its southern defenses, presenting a greater threat to a potential invasion force today than was present when NATO bombing began. Because NATO air strikes have little chance of accomplishing their stated goals, and because the human and economic costs of launching a ground campaign far outstrip the potential benefits of such an action, I believe that the NATO air campaigns must stop immediately. It is time for NATO to seek a negotiated settlement that will allow the Kosovar Albanians to begin to rebuild their lives. I have represented the views of many of my constituents throughout this crisis and have exercised my conscience and judgment in doing everything possible to end the Balkan conflict. I voted against sending ground troops to the area. I voted against continuation of air strikes, I voted to withdraw our troops, and I voted to prohibit the President from sending ground troops without the express authorization of Congress. However, despite the clear messages of opposition form the U.S. House of Representatives, the war continues. Now only two people can stop it: President Clinton or Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Congress has no means of direct recourse against Milosevic, so we are left to deal with the other leader, our Commander in Chief, who has chosen to continue the engagement. I believe the President's actions are dangerous to this country. He has placed our men and women in harms way, yet continues to oppose providing the resources to support them. He has yet to recognize the ramifications of his drastic downsizing of our military. But his deployment in the Balkans has exposed the critical nature of the situation. The armed forces' ability to prevail in two major theaters of conflict in a reasonable amount of time and with minimum casualties has long been the acceptable level of defense. The President has created a third combat theater of contingency operations which the military is not prepared to handle. It has been reported: --The U.S. Army conducted 10 operational events from 1960-1991, 31 years. Since 1991, the Army has conducted 26 operational events. At the same time, the President has drastically reduced our military capabilities. --Since 1987, active duty military personnel have been reduced by more than 800,000. In 1992, there were 18 Army divisions. Today there are 10. In 1992, there were 24 fighter wings. Today there are 13. In 1992, there were 546 Navy ships. Today there are less than 330. --On recent inspection of one base, Lemoore Naval Air Station, in California, it was found that 43% of the Hornet strike fighters were ``not flyable'' due to a lack of parts. The squadrons had 61% fewer jet engines than needed to keep all their aircraft flying. --In order to carry out operations in Kosovo, the President ordered a temporary suspension of enforcement in the Iraqi Northern no fly zone; removed a carrier battle group from the Western Pacific; called 33,102 reservists; and committed nearly 7 of the American military's 20 combat air wings. --If there were another military flare-up somewhere else in the world, the U.S. would not have the military resources to respond. Over the past many months, I have joined other Members of the House and Senate in exercising my Constitutional duty to prevent Presidential actions detrimental to our country. This extended to voting to impeach. However, all efforts to curtail these actions have failed. I can assure you, however, I will not fail in my Constitutional duty to protect the security and freedom of this nation, and most importantly, to protect those who defend it.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man whose record of community service to the State of Georgia is paralleled only by that of his contributions to the American judicial system. Judge Lewis Render Morgan was a judge for the United States Board of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit until his retirement in 1996. During his illustrious career, he maintained his office and chambers in the Federal Building and Courthouse located in Newnan, Georgia. Largely because of his efforts, this facility was constructed in 1968 and stands as a symbol of his integrity and commitment to American law. Therefore, it is very appropriate that the building be named for him. Mr. Speaker, I will repeat many of the fine compliments that have already been made by my colleagues in my remarks, but I think this man well deserves a repetition of those remarks. Judge Morgan was born in LaGrange, Georgia, July 14, 1913. He received his primary education in the LaGrange public school system before heading off to the hills of Ann Arbor to begin a pre-law program at the University of Michigan. Those studies culminated with a law degree from the University of Georgia in 1935. Following his graduation, Judge Morgan began a distinguished career of public contribution to the State of Georgia, which included service as a member of the Georgia General Assembly, representing Troup County, Georgia; administrative assistant to the Honorable A. Sidney Camp, Member of Congress; member of the Signal Corps of the United States Army, World War II; city attorney for the City of LaGrange, Georgia; and county attorney for Troup County, Georgia. The people of Coweta County were very fortunate when Judge Morgan was appointed as a United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Georgia on August 10, 1961. That appointment served as the beginning of a long and productive relationship between Judge Morgan and the Coweta County residents. Four years later, he served as Chief Judge of the Northern District, a position which he held until 1968, when he was appointed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. And on October 1, 1981, Judge Morgan was appointed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. During that tenure, Judge Morgan served the Federal judiciary in many ways, including being a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States' Committee on the Budget from 1969 to 1979, serving as a judge of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals from 1979 to 1987, and as a member of the Special Division of the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals for Appointing an Independent Counsel from 1978 to 1988. Judge Morgan is married to the former Sue Lorraine Phillips; and they have two children, Parks Healy and Sue Ann Morgan Everett. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Law Institute, the American Judicature Society, the Georgia Bar Association, the Troup County Bar Association, and the Coweta Judicial Circuit Bar Association. Throughout his distinguished and celebrated career, Judge Morgan has served the City of Newnan, the State of Georgia, and the United States with honor and commitment. In recognition of this service, and for the high esteem with which he is held by the members of his community, it is very fitting, Mr. Speaker, that the site of his office and chambers bears his name. I am very honored to have worked with many individuals in this legislative process, including the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) who has supported this endeavor from the start; Howard ``Bo'' Callaway, former Congressman and Secretary of the Army; L. Keith Brady, Mayor of Newnan and counsel of Newnan, Georgia; Walter Jeff Lukken, Mayor of LaGrange, Georgia; the Newnan-Coweta Bar Association; the Coweta County Board of Commissioners; United States District Court Judges Jack T. Camp and W. Homer Drake, Jr.; United States District Court Chief Judge G. Ernest Tidwell; and many others. Generations to come will now have a lasting reminder of what Judge Morgan has meant and continues to mean to the City of Newnan, Georgia. My thanks to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), subcommittee chairman, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), chairman of the Committee on Transportation, for this legislation, and to the ranking member for his assistance. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following resolutions from the different cities and organizations praising the accomplishments of Judge Morgan: Newnan-Coweta Bar Association Upon motion and second at a regularly scheduled and noticed meeting of the Newnan-Coweta Bar Association, the members of the Newnan-Coweta Bar Association unanimously voted to adopt the following resolution honoring United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Lewis Render Morgan, requesting that the United States Courthouse and Federal Building located at 18 Greenville Street, Newnan, Georgia be named in his honor by the United States Congress. resolution Whereas, Judge Lewis R. Morgan is held in great esteem by all of the members of the Newnan-Coweta Bar Association and has long been a friend of this bar; and Whereas, five current and active members of the Newnan- Coweta Bar Association are fortunate enough to have served as law clerks for the Judge; and Whereas, many lawyers and former lawyers were friends and contemporaries of Judge Morgan throughout his legal career, including Walter D. Sanders, formerly City Attorney for the City of Newnan and county attorney for the county of Coweta; J. Littleton Glover, attorney for Newnan Utilities; Byron M. Matthews, former State Court Judge of Coweta County; Jack T. Camp, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; William F. Lee, Jr., Chief Superior Court Judge for the Coweta County Circuit; and W. Homer Drake, Jr., United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Northern District of Georgia; and Whereas, Judge Morgan established his office and chambers in the City of Newnan since his original appointment to the Federal Bench in 1961 through his retirement 35 years later in 1996; and Whereas, the Federal Court Building was constructed at its current location in 1968, largely due to the undertaking of Judge Morgan to locate the facility in the City of Newnan for the benefit of not only the citizens of Coweta County but also to benefit citizens throughout the entire Newnan Division, Northern District of Georgia; and Whereas, Judge Morgan has had a prestigious and respected tenure on the judiciary as well as serving as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States' Committee on the Budget from 1969 to 1979, serving as Judge of the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals from 1979 to 1987, and as a member of the Special Division of the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals for Appointing Independent Counsel from 1978 to 1988; and Whereas, Judge Morgan had a successful and thriving private practice wherein he developed his reputation as a fair, upstanding, and admired attorney prior to his appointment to the bench; and Whereas, in the opinion of the members of the Newnan-Coweta Bar Association it would be appropriate for the Federal Building in Newnan to be named in honor of Judge Lewis Render Morgan. Therefore, Be it Resolved that it is our desire that the United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Newnan be named as the ``Lewis R. Morgan United States Courthouse and Federal Building''; and That it Be Further Resolved that we as an Association request the aid and support of the Honorable Mac Collins, United States Representative in Congress, for the purpose of introducing and sponsoring the necessary legislation to effectuate this Resolution in naming the United States Courthouse and Federal Building for Judge Lewis R. Morgan. It is so resolved this 10th day of March 1999.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Atlanta Police Officer Russell Stalnaker who was killed in the line of duty earlier this month. Known to his family and friends as Rusty, the 24 year old officer was a graduate of Stockbridge High School in Henry County. He followed in the footsteps of his uncle and joined the Atlanta Police Department three years ago. Rusty was an asset to his community, not only as a law enforcement officer, but in his work with the Special Olympics and other community organizations. In 1997, Rusty married Dana Bertholf. The couple made their home in McDonough, Georgia. I offer my heartfelt condolences to Rusty's wife and parents, Linda and Larry Stalnaker of Rex, Georgia. Our nation is fortunate to have guardians who put their lives at risk every single day to protect us from violence. Rusty Stalnaker was one of those guardians who watched over his family and community. Rusty's life was cut tragically short, but his bravery and heroism will long be remembered.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support for this resolution. I share the concerns of many Third District residents regarding ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and current North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). Having recently traveled to Tirana, Albania, and Skopje, Macedonia, I have witnessed firsthand the humanitarian crisis facing Europe--a crisis that has intensified since the beginning of the allied bombing campaign. There is no question that the situation is grim. Slobodan Milosevic is a shrewd and experienced military commander who has used military power to expel Kosovar Albanians from their homes and to put extensive defenses in place in Kosovo, significantly enhancing his military position on the ground. The President and the other 18 NATO leaders have, on the other hand, allowed political considerations to govern military decisions, resulting in NATO's failure to accomplish the goals established by the President at the outset of the air war. Ethnic cleansing has accelerated and the FRY military has now fortified its southern defenses, presenting a greater threat to a potential invasion force today than was present when NATO bombing began. Because NATO air strikes have little chance of accomplishing their stated goals, and because the human and economic costs of launching a ground campaign far outweigh the potential benefits of such an action, I believe that the NATO air campaign must stop immediately. It is time for NATO to seek a negotiated settlement that will stop this expensive and counterproductive bombing campaign and allow the Kosovar Albanians to begin to rebuild their lives.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce legislation that will return common sense to the Internal Revenue Code by changing the depreciation period for computer equipment. Currently, for tax purposes computer equipment must be depreciated over a five year period. Ironically, rapid technological advancements now being made in the computer industry guarantee that the average useful life of this equipment is 14-24 months. Highly competitive manufacturing businesses must continually replace computer equipment if they are to remain competitive. Although a business will often purchase a new system after 2 years, it must keep the outdated equipment on the books for 5 years. This legislation will update the tax code to ensure that it acknowledges ongoing, rapid advancements being made in the computer industry. This measure will change the depreciation period from 5 years to 2 years, ensuring that businesses are nor penalized for making investments that ensure their ability to compete. This change will serve to promote economic growth and job creation within these competitive industries. I strongly encourage my colleagues to join Representative Ben Cardin, me and other original cosponsors in support of this important legislation.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a resident of my Congressional district from Locust Grove, Georgia, who recently demonstrated extraordinary courage and bravery in the face of extreme danger. Atlanta Professional Firefighter (member of Local 134) Matt Moseley began his day on April 12 like many others, at 7 am. He was called to a chemical spill in the morning, ate lunch at Fire Station 4 on Ellis Street, and then planned to spend the afternoon training. Little did he know what lay ahead. A fire raging at the 120 year old Fulton Bag and Cotton Mill in southeast Atlanta had trapped construction worker Ivers Sims on a crane for over an hour some 220 feet above the ground. After arriving on the scene, Moseley was hooked to a harness and flown in by helicopter to battle the intense heat, smoke, and swirling winds. His incredible skill and courage, along with that of pilot Boyd Clines and navigator Larry Rogers, all provided for a very daring and unbelievable rescue. This is but another achievement in an already distinguished career for Mr. Moseley. He began his service as a firefighter with the Fayette County Fire and Emergency Services in 1991. He then went on to become a paramedic and a member of the department's hazardous materials response team. His hard work and dedication earned him recognition by his fellow department members as Firefighter of the Year in 1995. Shortly thereafter, he joined the Atlanta Fire Department where he continues to serve. Following his brave act, Firefighter Moseley humbly remarked, ``Heroes are for the last show.'' Well they are also for towns like Locust Grove, cities like Atlanta, and states like Georgia. Mr. Speaker, we often overlook the daily sacrifices our brave firefighters make each and every day to our communities. I would like to extend my personal commendation and gratitude to Mr. Moseley and to all the men and women who put their lives on the line serving as firefighters. They truly are heroes of our Nation.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, when I first came to Congress in 1993, the budget debate was a very different one. Under the current President, but a very different majority in Congress, we were faced with deficits as far as the eye could see. The budget resolution brought before Congress then addressed these problems with a very different set of solutions. That 1993 legislation included the largest tax increase in history, significant increases in Federal spending, and it repeated the mistakes of the past by including continued annual deficits. When the current majority took over, we inherited the same budgetary problems. Despite the 1993 tax increase, which was sold as the answer to the deficit, in 1995 the new majority still faced an unbalanced Federal ledger, escalating spending and future deficits stretching out as far as the eye could see. But we proposed a very different set of solutions to those problems. We introduced a balanced budget that reduced Federal spending and provided tax cuts for the American people. As a result of that legislation, today our Nation's budget is balanced. We even have a unified budget positive cash flow, and it appears certain that we will have a real ``on budget'' surplus this year. The budget resolution under consideration today continues the effort we began in 1995. It is balanced, it preserves the spending caps that we established in the balanced budget agreement of 1997, it ensures that 100 percent of payroll taxes, or $1.8 trillion, are preserved for the future of our retirement program. It also allows the Congress to give back $800 billion in taxes to American wage earners. That tax relief is still far less than what the President raised through higher Social Security taxes and marginal rates in the 1993 tax increase legislation. The Joint Committee on Taxation has stated that the President's 1993 tax increase will tax the working people of this country for over $850 billion over the next 10 years. The budget resolution reported by the Committee on the Budget will balance the budget, it will preserve payroll taxes for the preservation of Social Security, it will hold the line on Federal spending, it will make a downpayment on repealing the President's 1993 tax increases, and it will reduce the public debt. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this important legislation.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize Fort Benning, GA, the ``Home of the Infantry'' and the Army's premier installation, for being recognized with the 1999 Army Communities of Excellence Commander-in-Chief's Award. This is the fourth Commander in Chief's Award Fort Benning has received in the last five years. The annual award recognizes the best Army installation in the world. Fort Benning has also been awarded, for the seventh consecutive year, the Chief of Staff, Army Award which recognizes the best Army installation in the continental United States. The ability and professionalism of the tens of thousands of soldiers and nearly 7,000 civilians who pass through Fort Benning's gate each and every year are responsible for this recognition. The awards are also indicative of the successful partnership that has been developed over the years between Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia, and Phenix City, Alabama. Major General Ernst, Commanding General, and his able staff continue to reinforce Fort Benning's longstanding commitment to military quality, focusing on the watchwords ``first in training, first in readiness, and first in quality of life.'' As the home of the infantry, Fort Benning's mission is to produce the world's finest combat-ready infantry and to continue to be the Army's premier installation and home for soldiers, families, civilian employees, and military retirees. This mission is achieved with distinction on a daily basis by Fort Benning soldiers who constitute a cornerstone of our Nation's Armed Forces. While the infantry remains the central focus of activity at Fort Benning, other specialized units have been added over the years, enhancing the ability of the installation to accomplish its mission. Fort Benning houses, among others, the 11th and 29th Infantry Regiments, the 36th Engineer Group, the Ranger Training Brigade and the 75th Ranger Regiment, the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, the Drill Sergeant School, the Henry Caro Non-Commissioned Officer Academy, and the U.S. Army School of the Americas. Each of these units work tirelessly to defend our national interests around the world and to serve our communities at home. To the military and civilian personnel of Fort Benning, I offer my sincere thanks and congratulations for a job well done.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the deployment of U.S. ground forces in Kosovo. I base my opposition on three principles: first, that the administration must abide by U.S. law in the event of a deployment; second, that the Kosovo issue represents a threat primarily to European, rather than American interests; and third, that intervention in Kosovo at this time would set a dangerous precedent for NATO and the U.S. armed forces by providing military support to an independence movement within a sovereign nation--a far different mission than that currently underway on the Balkan Peninsula. With particular regard to the administration's legal obligation, I believe it critical for the President to abide by last year's defense authorization measure (P. Law 105-262), which the President signed into law. This law requires that before American troops are deployed to Kosovo, the President must (1) certify that the presence of U.S. forces in Kosovo is necessary to the national security interests of the United States; (2) provide the reasoning behind this certification; (3) report the number of American men and women who will be deployed; (4) establish the mission and objectives of U.S. forces in Kosovo; (5) detail the expected schedule for accomplishing mission objectives; (6) outline the exit strategy for U.S. forces; (7) provide an estimate of the costs of the deployment and the funding sources that will be used to pay those costs; and (8) estimate and report the potential effects of this additional deployment on the morale, retention, and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. These eight requirements are, in my view, the minimum amount of information a President should provide the people and their duly elected representatives prior to sending American men and women into harms way. President Clinton should follow the example of President Bush in the months leading up to the American deployments and military action in Operation Desert Storm. During that time, President Bush reached out to Congress and the American people to explain why the action was necessary and the extent and nature of its risks. Not only does President Clinton have a moral and ethical obligation to the American people to explain our interests before risking the lives of our soldiers, he has a legal obligation to report to Congress, as well. Congress was clear in its requirements, and the President must be held accountable to the law. Regarding the interests at stake in Kosovo, it is clear that the conflict represents very little threat to American military, diplomatic, economic, or other interests. While protecting human rights is clearly an important goal of American foreign policy, it is unclear whether the deployment of U.S. ground forces will serve or complicate attempts to accomplish this goal. A long-term solution would likely be all the more difficult to reach if the U.S. intervenes as Turkey, Greece, and Russia would all likely oppose such an action. Intervention would, therefore, put U.S. troops at odds with allies and adversaries alike. While it is unclear what effect American military action would have in Kosovo at this time, it is obvious that the current fighting has significant ramifications for Europe and North Africa. Albanian minorities in Montenegro and Greece will take cues from the international response to Kosovo, and Albania itself could face severe difficulties if NATO actions force the repatriation of tens of thousands of refugees. Clearly, Europe has an interest in stopping the violence and the flow of refugees from Yugoslavia. It is the nations of Europe, therefore, that should lead the peace effort in Kosovo and that should bear the human and economic costs of any military action. Finally, I believe the United States should be very wary of setting a precedent for supporting independence movements within sovereign nations. While there is no doubt that Serbian forces have committed and, apparently, continue to commit deplorable acts of violence and oppression, there are political minorities in virtually every country in the world that legitimately claim some degree of oppression. I do not think the American people are ready to deploy U.S. armed forces throughout the world to establish new countries for every group that seeks greater political influence. And I know that our armed forces-- already stretched so thin that our readiness for engagement in a major contingency has come into question--will find it even more difficult to accomplish their primary function of national defense if the President chooses to engage in yet another unfunded, open-ended operation on foreign soil. I have traveled to Bosnia three times and have great sympathy for all of the people living on the Balkan Peninsula. I also have great respect for the accomplishments of the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia. The crisis in Kosovo, however, represents a very different threat in need of a very different solution. I do not believe that the deployment of ground troops will serve the interest of peace, the interest of human rights, or the interests of the United States. Furthermore, I demand that President Clinton and his administration abide by the law and provide Congress and the American people the information required under the Fiscal Year 1999 Defense Authorization Act (Pub. L. 105-262). Only through full disclosure will Congress and the American people have all the facts necessary to make a fully informed decision regarding the proposed deployment.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Electric Vehicle Consumer Incentive Tax Act ``EVCITA'' of 1999. This legislation provides important tax incentives for electric vehicles. It is important because the widespread use of electric vehicles can result in significant environmental, energy security, and economic development opportunities in the United States. How Can Electric Vehicles Tax Incentives Benefit the Economy? Each major automobile manufacturer, domestic and foreign, has, or plans to offer, electric vehicles for sale or lease. As in the case with any new, advanced technology that is initially offered to consumers, the price of these early vehicles is significantly higher than the expected lower price for EVs when greater volumes are achieved. The government can play a role in making these vehicles more affordable by reducing the tax costs. Doing so can help increase consumer access and stimulate rapid growth of the industry. Why Are Environmentalists and State/Local Governments Interested in Electric Vehicles? Many metropolitan areas in the United States suffer from poor air quality and are falling under the definition of ``non-attainment zones.'' The use of electric vehicles, especially in these areas, could provide an effective means to reduce transportation-related pollution. Electric vehicles emit no hydrocarbons, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide or nitrogen oxides. Why Are Electric Vehicles Important to Energy Security? According to the Department of Energy, U.S. net imports of petroleum in the year 2000 are forecast to account for 52 percent of total U.S. petroleum demand, up from an estimated 50 percent in 1998. Making alternative fuel vehicles a more affordable option ensures lower dependency on foreign supply. How the Legislation Would Work One key to weaning the country off of imported oil and into alternative fuel vehicles, like electric cars and buses, is bringing down the high initial purchase price of the vehicles and assuring that targeted, early markets are better able to take the steps necessary to purchase the vehicles. The provisions included in the EV Consumer Incentive Tax Act of 1999 are intended to do just that. The tax incentives included in EVCITA will make early EVs and electric buses more affordable to consumers, and will allow an important market segment--governments, universities and other non-taxpaying fleets--to take advantage of the savings provided through the federal tax incentive. Tax Equity for Oversized Electric Vehicles Under current law, electric powered buses are allowed to only take advantage of the existing $4,000 tax credit for electric vehicles while all other alternatively fueled buses are eligible for a $50,000 tax deduction. EVCITA equalizes the tax treatment by allowing oversized electric vehicles the same benefit provided oversized clean-fuel vehicles. Electric buses can be used by many urban transit authorities. According to the Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, there are 179 electric buses in operation throughout the United States as of December, 1998. Maximizing the Benefit of the Electric Vehicle Tax Credit Current law provides a tax credit of the lesser of 10% or $4,000 against the cost of a standard-size electric vehicle. This provision expires December 31, 2004. The investment value of this credit has eroded since its enactment in 1992. EVCITA will restore the value of the credit by making the benefit a flat $4,000 against the cost of the vehicle. In addition, this legislation will extend the credit through December 31, 2008. Providing Federal and Local Governments the Benefit of Reduced Costs Current law prohibits the use of tax credits for electric vehicles used by a federal, state or local government entity. Across the country, local municipalities are leading the charge in reducing environmental costs by putting electric vehicles into service. In instances where local governments lease electric vehicles, EVCITA will permit the owner of the vehicle to be eligible for the tax benefit. Endorsements The provisions of this legislation have been endorsed by the following organizations: Union of Concerned Scientists, Coalition for Clean Air, American Methanol Institute, the Georgia Conservancy, the Edison Electric Institute, the Electric Transportation Coalition, Clean Cities--Atlanta, the Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation, Georgia Power, and the Clean Air Campaign. The provisions of the EV Consumer Incentive Act of 1999 are comparatively modest in cost. According to the Joint Tax Committee estimate provided in 1998, the cost associated with the provisions of the EV Consumer Incentive Tax Act between FY 1999-2002 was $44 million. These tax incentives will help ensure that electric vehicles are a viable transportation option for consumers.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and commemorate the anniversary of the Securus House in Clayton County, Georgia. In 1983, three members of the Clayton County/Henry County Women's Council of Realtors, Tricia Capps, Jane Cox, and Betsy Ramsey discussed options for a community project with Anne Plant, Director of Family and Children Services. These concerned citizens joined together to establish a badly needed facility for battered women. On March 9, 1999, the Securus House will celebrate fifteen years of work to ease and overcome family violence. With well over 82,000 men, women, and children requesting assistance from this community project, the Securus House is a daily, working example of what local communities are capable of accomplishing. Every day, the Securus House makes strides toward the elimination of domestic violence. Although it has sheltered over 3,400 women and children, tragically, between 1988 and 1998 in Clayton County, one hundred and seventeen women, children, and men died as the result of domestic violence. Their lives will be remembered in a candlelight vigil as part of the anniversary commemoration. I congratulate and commend the Securus House and Clayton County for their tremendous efforts on behalf of the community and for the difference they make every day.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and thank the Colorado-based Trident Foundation for its tireless work in communities across the United States. The Trident Foundation is a network of highly skilled men and women from around the world, who come together as volunteers, bringing specialized equipment and the latest technology to offer water recovery support. Recently, that commitment brought the group to Columbus, Georgia, to solve an unsuccessful three month search for the body of 14-year-old Kelvin Moreland. Kelvin, a resident of the Carpenter's Way Ranch, a Cataula home for boys who cannot live with their natural families, drowned while on a supervised outing. The Trident Foundation's recovery of Kelvin's body provided the community needed closure with use of specialized sonar equipment and its team of volunteers from law enforcement agencies, fire departments, the medical profession, the U.S. Navy, and technical and scientific diving fields. Although their operations generally cost about $50,000 a day, the group provides the services free of charge. In addition, services for the divers were provided by area companies. Kelvin's body could not have been found and properly buried if not for the efforts of the Trident Foundation and local organizations. I commend their commitment and service to Columbus and other communities across our nation. Their work has allowed Columbus and the Carpenter's Way family to mourn, and Kelvin Moreland to rest in peace.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Distilled Spirits Tax Payment Simplification Act of 1999, also known as ``All-in- bond'' legislation. This legislation streamlines the way in which the Federal Government collects the Federal excise tax on distilled spirits. Specifically, the legislation would extend the current system of collection now applicable for imported products to domestic products, thereby reducing unnecessary cash-flow costs for U.S. wholesalers of distilled spirits, most of which are family or closely held businesses. In addition, the Federal tax collection process would be simplified by providing that only one Federal agency collect the tax, not two as is currently the case. Today, wholesalers purchase foreign bottled distilled spirits ``in- bond'' (tax free), paying the Federal excise tax directly after sale to a retailer. In contrast, when the wholesaler buys domestically bottled spirits (nearly 86 percent of total inventory) the price includes the Federal excise tax, prepaid by the distiller. Carrying costs are increased by 40 percent for U.S. goods. Freeing up working capital for reinvestment will generate more jobs and more tax revenues.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, recently, I attended the ``kickoff event'' for Red Ribbon Week in Columbus, Georgia. Red Ribbon Week highlights the combined efforts of public and business groups to fight drugs throughout the community, but particularly in our schools. The event brings together and encourages participants in this outstanding effort. This year, Mr. Jack Pezold was chosen to be the keynote speaker. Mr. Pezold has been an extremely active member of the Columbus community and has set an example which should be an inspiration to young people. Although Mr. Pezold has been very successful in his business endeavors, it is his altruistic activities for which he will longer be appreciated and remembered. Mr. Pezold has been a major contributor to the ``Drug Free You and Me'' program in the Muscogee County schools for many years. He also has contributed his time and plane to fly for the ``Angel Flights'' program, an organization which flies sick children and their families to different cities to receive medical treatment. In addition, he is Honorary Chairman of the Childrens' Miracle Network. He is involved with the Partners in Education Program, and this year purchased a portable classroom for the school, in addition to the other things he does for the school throughout the year. Mr. Pezold is extremely active and supportive in the maintenance of the Ronald McDonald House of West Georgia, of which he is Chairman. It was because of his concern over the contents of broadcast programming for children that Mr. Pezold bought his first television station. In the ensuing years, he worked to provide a high quality of viewing from this media which has such an impact on growing children. Although he no longer owns his stations, he continues his efforts in support of actions and programs which will build character and integrity in our young people . . . and adults as well. Therefore, it was particularly appropriate for Jack Pezold to provide the keynote address to the adults and young people involved in ``Red Ribbon Week.'' Because his remarks which uphold the need for character, honor and integrity are so pertinent to our debate in Congress today, I submit them for the review of my colleagues. I hope we will all keep these standards in mind as we work to uphold the trust which have been placed in us by the American public. Remarks by Mr. Jack Pezold, Red Ribbon Week, Columbus, GA. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. First I want to congratulate each of you for your part in kicking off this Special Week, Red Ribbon Week. There is a genuine spirit of partnership here in Columbus, between the public and business sectors that is bridged, to large degree by our Chamber of Commerce. I want to commend you for that in helping to deal with the scourge of drugs in our community. Each of you understand the importance of healthy lives and lifestyles. We are gathered here to celebrate, highlight and recommit ourselves to what we believe to be the standard for ourselves, our families, and our community. I think it is good that this body of leaders have individually and collectively committed to do something about our problem, on a local basis in a positive way. These are the people that stand for what is right, even if it isn't cool. How did we get where we are today, we ask. All too often we have stood back as the experts, the secular humanists, who believe that we are our own God, who have told us throughout sixties and seventies that we are each islands, that we should be free to do whatever feels good, and if it doesn't feel good, do it until it does. Let me tell you about those kind of experts. These are the intellectual elite who denigrate our heritage and spiritual underpinnings as old fashioned, out of date and out of step with the current politically correct thinking. These are the Hollywood Icons that have been created as prophets by Godless, shameless, money mongers who would sell their mother to Satan for money. They are masters of the glitz and the glamour and deceit. They fill our television and movie screens with the images of lifestyles and behaviors, always without consequences, that feeds our prideful spirits. A 30 minute or 2 hour episode of mind numbing violence, sex, drugs, alcohol and any other form of outrageous behavior imaginable and unimaginable. I know from which I speak. On May 1 of this year I sold 2 television stations. I bought that first station because I felt strongly about the content of children's programming. I regret that I was unable to do more to influence the direction of that programming, but I was able to do some things. My point is that I have seen the inside of this industry and while there are many fine individuals, they are on a slippery slope. This culture is cultivated by some of the richest and by virtue of their industry, the most powerful people. Their power rests in their ability to shape the huge entertainment industry, even our daily newscasts. They fill our children's minds with experiences so incredibly graphic, they could pass for real. How in the world can this happen, that our values and ideals are sacrificed without insurrection right before our very eyes? How did the Adolf Hitler come to power? Both are just as insidious and pervasive. Both promised a break from the past, that because of who we are as human beings, we have a divine right to a special heritage. Parents and the conventional leadership are preventing us from achieving the divine utopian place of happiness, and prosperity where we deserve to be. Not once have I heard the Hollywood Money Mongers mention consequences for the lifestyle influence they exerted on our lives. Never once did Adolf Hitler mention to the German people the destruction and ruin that his quest for power would bring upon them. The result is millions and millions of men, women, and children lost their very lives so that one man's greed could be satisfied. The money Mongers are costing lives as well, sacrificing the souls of our children for lining their pockets with absolutely no thought given to the long term consequences of their greed. Just a few days ago, I read where Clarence Thomas asked an elementary class what they would do if a monster were trying to suck out their brains. The answer the kids gave was to throw their TV in the dumpster! Perhaps they know better than we!! The result is that we now have all sorts of behavior being justified under the guise of It Doesn't Matter. I am here to tell you this morning that it does matter. It matters to the children, who are our future, who without love and attention and nurturing will grow up with the TV as their mentor. Have we forgotten that each of us is born on this earth inherently ignorant, but with a phenomenal learning capacity for good or evil. But is it not true that good or simply ``doing the right thing'' requires some degree of pain and suffering. At times we must forfeit immediate gratification, making short term sacrifices for long term gain. But the Experts would have us believe that we can have it both ways. You can have it all. Just drink this, smoke that, say that, act this way and you will be cool and accepted and rich and powerful and beautiful and gifted and smart and admired and loved and all of the marvelous positive adjectives that our vocabulary can command. The problem is, sooner or later, reality steps in. The world nor life itself in any way resembles the conjectures that we are led to believe are accurate. Remember a few years ago when the women's revolution came about. The word from the Experts was that you can have it all. Not only that, but having any less than a career was degrading. Mothers were degraded for staying at home to raise their children. That is not smart work. Put someone in your place at home and go out into the exciting life of the world. Children don't need mom's and dad's are totally irrelevant. Only recently has this theory been proven to be overblown and downright wrong. We now await the next version of social experiment that these Experts will impart on us, tearing apart our families, the very fabric of our society. A few years ago, we were assured by these Experts, that ability mattered, not character. We now, as a result of our Expert engineered dumbing down, have our leaders deliberately lying to us, and telling us that It Doesn't Matter. We can have it all. We have a strong economy, everyone that wants a job can have one, we have a budget surplus, and we are at peace. As a result, a full majority of the population agree that this is OK. Because making us feel good far overshadows a little anomaly like lying! And their spin doctors nightly remind us that it doesn't matter, because everybody does it, and besides, where would we be if they were not our leaders. Besides, These leaders are doing a good job! Imagine the arrogance. Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you this morning that the beginning of the end of all of the greatest civilizations that have ever inhabited this earth began with a lie. A lie, by their leaders, to the people in order to curry some form of favor or power or money to those leaders. How could they have not seen through this thin mask, you might ask? Because they, as we, are intoxicated with the visions of a glorious future where we are cool and accepted and rich and powerful and beautiful and gifted and smart and admired and loved and on and on. We need to be vigilant, not of the threats from outside, but from inside our own homes. We need to come together as one community, one family, committed to the good that God has ordained us for and stand up for rightness, what we know in our hearts to be right. Not the Expert Version of Rightness, for the long term good of our family, our community, our nation. We are the beacon to the world. We are the children of the poor, humble descendants of the immigrants who migrated here in search of a better future. Which of us would return to our forefathers native land in search of a better lifestyle and future? Our forefathers forsaked all that they had in their homeland in search of opportunity. God has chosen to bless this nation far beyond any riches accumulated by any civilization in history. These blessings are ours to use and multiply and safeguard and cherish for future generations. Or to squander on ourselves under the delusion of becoming cool and accepted and rich and powerful and beautiful and gifted and smart and admired and loved. . . . . The choice is ours. Our freedom demands the choice be made. We need to be bigger than our individual selves in the here and now and look at what is best for our children's future. What legacy are we going to leave for them, that we stood up for the Biblical standards of moral character, of right from wrong, of honesty, integrity, and righteousness and pass on this high threshold of absolute standards. Are we going to pass on to our children the slippery slope of a declining empire whose inhabitants are so consumed in themselves that they fail to recognize the worth of our heritage, the very moral fabric which sustains our freedom in this country. Can we long endure this slide? Is there not a bottom to every fall? Are there not consequences? Ladies and Gentlemen, I want to challenge each of you today, to go out of this facility committed to embrace the faith of our forefathers and share the standards and ideals of rightness with our children, grandchildren, students, employees, and co-workers. I truly believe that God will honor our efforts by blessing and rewarding us and our community. Your reward will surely be exceeded by many, many magnitudes, the small sacrifices which you have made. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and may God continue to bless you and your family.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the RECORD the following statement supporting the articles of impeachment: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the impeachment of President William Jefferson Clinton as recommended by the House Committee on the Judiciary. This is a decision that I have not reached lightly.I have carefully reviewed the evidence against the President, and I am convinced that he perjured himself in the Paula Jones deposition and before the grand jury. Furthermore, the President has lied to this House and to its Members and continues to mislead the American people in a clear attempt to subvert and obstruct justice under the very laws that every American President takes a solemn oath to execute. The President has violated his oath and has violated federal law. If Congress turns away and does nothing, the meaning of the Presidential oath and the strength of the rule of law in this country will be permanently diminished. The oath will, in effect, be reduced to a casual commitment to administer and enforce the laws only when hey serve the President's personal and political ends. The law will apply only to those who do not have the political power and influence to escape its requirements. I have spent six years in the house working to insure that the laws that are applied to every American taxpayer and business are applied equally to the Congress and agencies of the federal government. This was a central idea in the Contract with America, and I am not prepared to abandon it today. It is also important to note that we have troops stationed around the world to protect peace and civil order in nations in which the rule of law has failed. The primary threat to stability on the Balkan peninsula, for example has been lack of respect for the rule of law. I believe such respect starts from the top. If a nation's leaders will not abide by the law, why should the rest of that nation do so? I find the President's hypocrisy striking. The President seems to find it acceptable to send Americans to fight for the rule of law around the world, but he will not even respect it at home. Some Members have made the responsible argument that this impeachment is a partisan ``witch hunt,'' but I believe the division between Members supporting impeachment and those supporting censure is about much more than partisan politics. Honestly, this proceeding is not about overthrowing the government. We are not discussing taking power from the hands of one party and giving it to another. If President Clinton is removed from office, he will be succeeded by Vice President Gore--not exactly stunning Republican victory. Furthermore, I'm sure that most of us on the Republican side of the aisle understand politics well enough to know that President Gore will be much more difficult to defeat in 2000 than Vice President Gore would be. Therefore, describing the actions of those who support impeachment as politically motivated just does not make sense. There is no political advantage to be gained by unseating the President. I believe the division we are experiencing is a true reflection of the differences in Republican and Democratic approaches to the Federal Government. As a Republican, I believe in a Federal Government of sharply limited powers. The limits to these powers are clearly expressed in the Constitution. Each of the three branches is granted clear, limited powers to serve specific governmental functions. With regard to the powers of the legislative branch relative to he executive branch, the Constitution is clear. While Article I of the Constitution provides both the House and the Senate the open-ended authority to ``punish its Members for disorderly Behavior,'' the provisions for impeachment are much more strictly limited. Article I states ``Judgment in Case of Impeachment shall not extend further than the removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.'' Unlike the provision dealing with Members of Congress, this provision specifically limits Congressional sanctions to removal and disqualification. Therefore, it seems clear to me that censure is a valid option for punishing Member of Congress, but should not apply to the President. If this House were to pass a censure resolution, there is no guarantee that it would not be expunged by a future Congress (as well as done in the case of Andrew Jackson) or overturned by the Supreme Court. They only action that this House can take that will be both permanent and Constitutional is impeachment. Many of us on both sides of the aisle agree that the President has not been honest in answering legitimate questions asked under oath. In spite of the President's dishonesty, some Members, lawyers, and professors suggest that because the President's statements may not meet the strict legal standard for perjury, he should not be impeached. I disagree. While I may not be a lawyer or a history professor, I do have a fair share of common sense. Common sense tells me that if some is dishonest while giving legal testimony under oath, that person has violated the spirit, if not the letter. If the perjury law. The law is there to provide for the fair administration of justice by insuring he legal process is based on accurate information. There is no doubt in my mind the President has frustrated this goal by consistently providing incomplete and inaccurate information after promising explicitly ``to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'' In 1974, the Arkansas Gazette quoted then Congressional candidate Clinton saying there was ``no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and CIA is an impeachable offense.'' He did not say false statements were impeachable only if they met the strict standard of perjury. He did not say that they were impeachable only if the answers addressed issues of public policy. He said that making false statements to government officials is impeachable, and he was right. Speaking of President Nixon, Candidate Clinton argued, ``there's not any point in his putting the country through an impeachment since he isn't making any pretense of innocence now.'' Today, even some of the President's strongest supporters in Congress no longer make the pretense that the President has been honest in his sworn testimony. The President should hold himself to his own standard and resign. We know, however, that the President does not intend to do so, so Congress must do its duty. It is clear to me that the President has done and continues to do everything in his power, both legal and otherwise, to derail the legal process and to obstruct the pursuant of justice. Now, the House must decide if it will legitimize the President's actions or condemn them in the only manner provided by the Constitution--impeachment. The demands of both my conscience and my constituents re clear. I will cast may vote in favor of impeachment. I would like to close by again submitting for the Record the following words of President Theodore Roosevelt. We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is * * * an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest we have no right to keep him in public life, it mattes not how brilliant his capacity. Without honesty the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty to his community. If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread and more pernicious. We need absolute honesty in public life; and we shall not get it until we remember that truth-telling must go hand in hand with it, and that it is quite as important not to tell untruth about a decent man as it is to tell the truth about one who is not decent.'' (from The Strenuous Life)

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H. Res. 598 introduced by the gentleman from Ohio. There are dramatic changes that are occurring in our domestic industries affected by increases in steel imports. That impact is affecting all levels of U.S. business and their employees--from the small scrap dealers all the way up the industry chain to the large manufacturers who have a high production demand for steel. The steel market is extremely reactive to supply and demand. Consequently it is one of the strongest indicators of the economic strength of our domestic manufacturing industries. Even the chairman of the Federal Reserve has stated that he closely watches steel market indicators in evaluating the progress of our national economy. While steel industry prices have grown relatively steadily over the past ten years in the last 10 months there has been a dramatic drop. The change indicates that something unusual is currently going on in the market place. According to American Metal Market Weekly Steel Scrap Price Composites, between January and October of 1998, the price per gross ton for heavy melt steel scrap has dropped from $140 to $83.67. In addition, the gross ton price for shredded scrap metal has dropped form approximately $146 in January of this year to the current price of $94.84. Mr. Speaker, opponents of H. Res. 598 argue that this is a consumer issue--that a higher presence of foreign steel makes end-stage manufacturing cheaper and ultimately the final price to consumers lower. However, it is more than simply cheaper steel prices because final manufacturing is not the only line of business affected by an increase in steel imports. There are broader implications for our economy. The failure to enforce the terms of existing trade laws, which essentially sanctions the dumping of foreign products in this country, hurts U.S. businesses that supply scrap steel to end-stage manufacturers. Cutting off the demand for domestic steel means the elimination of their business and ultimately a reduction in U.S. jobs. I have small business scrap metal suppliers in my district who sell their scrap metal to U.S. manufacturers. They have told me that there is so much foreign metal pouring into this country through southern ports it is having a real impact on their business. In fact there are at least 2 steel mills in the southeast who, as a result of the increase in imports, have not purchased any U.S.-sourced scrap metal in the past 2 months. That means U.S. suppliers are losing business--and that means another nail in the coffin for businesses that supply domestic manufacturers. The resolution before us today simply states that the Administration should make studying the recent shift in the domestic market a priority. At minimum, the President should focus on whether violations of current trade laws and agreements are being committed to the detriment of U.S. business and the loss of U.S. jobs. Cheaper steel attributable to increased imports may mean cheaper prices for consumers, but in the end it may mean fewer jobs for Americans and that possibility is worthy of our attention. I urge support for H. Res. 598.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate five teachers from Columbus, Georgia, who have been selected from over 600 of their colleagues to be honored for their outstanding commitment to our children. Coleen Cotton, Deborah Greene, James Pippin, and Amy Willis of Arnold Middle School are among the twenty-three teachers named to the ``USA Today's All-USA Teacher Team.'' Nicknamed the ``Dream Team,'' the four have worked together to integrate their school subjects (language arts, science, social studies, and math) in order to make learning relevant for their students. The symbol of their creation is a ball of yarn 37.5 feet in diameter. An example of the yarn's usefulness as a learning tool was described in yesterday's USA Today. ``The project has snowballed since the yarn ball was started seven years ago. Last year, Amy Willis' math classes calculated the mathematical qualities of the ball, predicted that year's expansion and estimated its weight. Debbie Greene's science classes learned about yarn's role in textiles, a Columbus industry. Jim Pippin's social studies classes investigated similar large balls of yarn and twine. And Coleen Cotton's reading classes read some `yarns.' '' I also extend my congratulations to Nan Pate of Brookstone School in Columbus on being awarded with an ``All-USA Honorable Mention.'' These five teachers from Columbus, Georgia, represent the kind of devotion and ingenuity that is needed to take our country and our children into the 21st century. It is these teachers, and others like them, who will strive to make our education system the best in the world. I thank them for their commitment, and I congratulate them on their excellence.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my congratulations to the Martin Army Community Hospital at Fort Benning, Georgia on the announcement of its third ``Accreditation with Commendation'' by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, an honor bestowed upon only the finest hospitals in the nation. It is also the only hospital in the U.S. Army Medical Command to receive this acknowledgment for three consecutive tri-annual surveys. Martin Army Community Hospital (MACH) was named in honor of Major General Joseph I. Martin, MC, a pioneer in field medicine and medical military education and training. The hospital has served the Fort Benning/Columbus communities since 1955 and provides quality care to approximately 9,000 inpatients and 585,000 outpatients. MACH's principal customers are active duty and retired members and their dependents who are eligible beneficiaries for DOD health services. Receiving ``Accreditation with Commendation'' is a significant achievement, one that recognizes exemplary performance and commitment to providing quality care. Fort Benning is fortunate to have as incredible a facility as MACH serving its community. I congratulate Martin Army Community Hospital on its continued excellence.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 100th Anniversary of the Butts County Courthouse in Jackson, Georgia. The anniversary celebration is being held tomorrow, and I wish to submit the remarks I prepared for the occasion for the Congressional Record. I want to express my deep appreciation to the citizens of Butts County for inviting me to be a part of the 100th anniversary celebration for our county courthouse. During the long and rich history of our county, this beautiful building has endured the test of time. It has long out-lived its predecessors which were all destroyed by fire. And over the past century, it has seen many fine men and women elected by their fellow citizens to honorably serve Butts County. It is good to see so many of those who have served here today for this celebration. I myself had the honor and privilege to have served as Chairman of the County Commission. It was 22 years ago Julie, my family and I began our public service. But I had public service running through my veins long before I ran for office. As most of you know, I was born here in Jackson at the O.B. Howell Clinic. In fact, I was spanked to life by three-term Commission Chairman O.B. Howell himself. I was raised by a mother who was a Flovilla City Councilwoman and a father who always said he wanted to serve on the County Commission. I was destined to be in politics. But my career in public service would never have occurred without the support, hard work and endurance of my wife, Julie, and my children. I began that career right here at home as Chairman of the Butts County Commission. I then moved to the Georgia State Senate where I served two terms. Today, I have the honor of serving as a United States Representative in the peoples' house in our nation's capitol. I would not have been able to persevere unless my family had been at my side through all of those years and all those campaigns. I also owe the people of Butts County a debt of gratitude for the support you have given me. I regret that state politics prevented me from representing you in the United States Congress. I have been asked, ``was it worth the time, the effort and the money?'' My answer is always, ``Yes.'' I have always had a strong desire to give something back to the community, the state and the country that have been so good to me. And, at each step of the way, I have grown a little more. In many respects, the most challenging and rewarding office I have held is County Commissioner. I was young, energetic and a know-it-all. Serving as a Commissioner taught me the rigors of public service, and it taught me humility. During my first month in office, January of 1977, a winter storm with freezing rain brought the rural roads of our county to a standstill. Many fine citizens volunteered to help the county meet the challenge of getting our roads open and people moving again. I have laughed and joked that we broke up DUIs in Butts County by bargaining with Probate Judge Gene Blue to sentence all of those convicted of DUI to 30 days on the County Commission. DUI arrests declined dramatically. The accomplishment for which I am most proud was negotiating the contract to install water lines connecting Jackson with Flovilla and Jenkinsburg. The saddest experience I had as Commissioner was my defeat for reelection in 1980. I had many goals I still wanted to accomplish for the people of Butts County. My good friend and fellow Commissioner, Mr. Everett Brisco, and I knew we would be defeated. I told him during one of our many rides around the County that ``a loss in this election may lead to a major victory in the future.'' Time and the people of Butts County were good to me. You elected me to represent you in the Georgia State Senate. During my four years there, I had the opportunity to participate in shaping the laws on issues of great importance to us all--education, taxes, crime, the economy and many others. In 1993, I took on a new challenge--United States Representative for Third Congressional District of Georgia. I have found that many of the issues and concerns in which I was involved as a Butts County Commissioner and as a Georgia State Senator are also issues that concern the Congress--only on a national scale. But while we in Congress engage in great debates over our national defense, the direction of our government, the fate of the President and the future of our children, I am always reminded from where I come. Shortly after my election to Congress in 1992, I received a letter from my childhood friend, Frank Duke. In that letter Frank wrote, ``It is a long way from Flovilla, Georgia to Washington, D.C.'' He also enclosed a photograph of the town of Flovilla. We are now grown and gone our separate ways. But Frank's letter and photograph remind me of the hopes and ambitions we had. And it reminds me of the values and principles we were taught by our parents, our teachers, and the wonderful people of a small town. I have kept that letter and photograph to remind me of my home and the lessons I learned with Frank and the others so many years ago. As I conclude, I would like to read to you the quote by the great poet Longfellow which is printed in the dedication of the History of Butts County Georgia. It is worthy of reflection by all those who are elected to serve. It reads: Each one performs his work and then leaves it Those that come after him estimate His influence on the age in which he lives. Thank you and God Bless You.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard accusations from the other side of the aisle that this bill would endanger the Social Security system. That is false. This again is another clear attempt to scare our seniors. Our seniors should know that, with or without the enactment of this bill or this substitute, the Social Security trustees have reported to the Committee on Ways and Means that their retirement check is sound for another 33 years. That means, if you are 65 today, your check is sound until you are 98. If you are 80, it is sound until you are 113. If you are 90, your check is sound until you are 123. And Godspeed to you to live to collect each and every one of those checks. My age is 54. My check is sound until I am 87. Social Security is my old-age pension. It is different for many Members of this body. I declined the congressional pension. Social Security is my old-age pension. What this legislation does is ensure that generations behind those collecting Social Security checks today get to keep more of the money that they earn today for their family. Let me remind the opponents of this bill who use the Social Security scare tactic. There is no surplus in the ledgers of small business who create most of the U.S. jobs. There is no surplus for middle-income married couples working to provide for their family. There is no surplus for seniors who go back to work to supplement their Social Security check. There is no surplus for farmers struggling against low prices and natural disasters. This legislation provides these Americans who have paid the money into the so-called surplus a small piece of the benefit that comes with a balanced budget and a strong economy. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the Members of this body to support this bill, to give tax relief to middle-income working Americans and families.

Mr. COLLINS

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to join in a colloquy with the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I have serious concerns about whether the United States Trade Representative is actively enforcing the terms of existing trade agreements. Specifically, compelling evidence has been provided by the U.S. industry which indicates that actions by at least one Japanese company involved in selling insurance products in Japan's third sector insurance market are in direct violation of the U.S.-Japan insurance agreement. For over a year I have asked the USTR to open an investigation into this matter, but until recently such acts has not been taken. However, in a recent meeting the USTR committed to several Members of Congress that she would hold an open, fair, and complete interagency review of this matter. However, unofficial reports from the interagency meetings indicate that government officials outside of the USTR are calling for a full 30-day investigation of these allegations. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope that the USTR will hold a fair and open interagency review and will heed the advice of those agency officials calling for a full investigation. As the chairman knows, I was prepared to offer an amendment to reduce funding for the USTR, but because of my concerns that existing trade agreements are not being enforced, I will not offer the amendment. And at this time, as the bill moves forward through the process, I would appreciate the support of the chairman in pursuing alternative remedies if the USTR fails to live by the commitment that she has made to the Members.

Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. COLLINS. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.