Tom Davis

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we have worked on this legislation for a long time, Members from both parties. I feel genuinely conflicted about this. With the inclusion of section 201, this legislation has proved more controversial than I think it needed to be. If we had spent some more time on this legislation working with some of the affected groups, we might have been able to come up to a better resolution. I am afraid that its inclusion is going to poison the well for this when it leaves this body and goes to the other body, and it may end up meaning that we do not end up with a bill. I think that is unfortunate, because there are a number of good provisions in this bill. I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], the chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Wynn], and others who have worked to try to get some of these provisions in that I think give soft landings to Federal employees at a time of downsizing. It authorizes, for example, making Thrift Savings Plan loans to employees who have been furloughed due to lapses in appropriations when Congress and the President do not get their jobs done. This gives them out. It distributes life insurance proceeds in accordance with divorce decrees, and it permits retirees to elect to continue unreduced life insurance policies. It provides management flexibility in reorganizing agencies, including allowing voluntary RIFs for all agencies. And it provides soft landing support to employees affected by downsizing, something that we need to be ready for over the next few years as government continues to reorganize itself and become more efficient. I am concerned that as the Federal Government shrinks and as we make the transition to an information and high-technology-based society, the need for a highly qualified and professional work force increases. The Federal Government must be able to recruit and retain the best qualified professionals. Therefore, we have to provide a compensation package that is competitive with the private sector. We also need to provide extensive training opportunities for employees while developing appropriate soft landing and job transition services for our departing Federal workers. The American taxpayers, our customers, demand excellent government service provided by qualified professionals who are treated fairly. This bill incorporates a variety of provisions originally introduced by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], myself, and others that will help do this by serving to soften the landings of Federal employees who face the loss of their jobs due to downsizing. Under H.R. 3841, they would specifically be authorized to continue their coverage under the Federal employees group life insurance program if they pay the full premiums. Agencies could also extend health insurance coverage for as long as 18 months for RIFed employees, with the Government continuing to pay its share of the premiums. The reform bill also authorizes priority placement programs in agencies and outplacement assistance for Federal employees and incorporates a right of first refusal for jobs with a contractor if Federal jobs are converted to contract. This title would also create educational accounts and allow for reimbursement of retraining and relocation expenses of up to $10,000. These are good, solid provisions that ought to be enacted into law. I hope they are not jeopardized here at the last minute by the inclusion of section 201. By voting today to send this over to the Senate, perhaps they can make their amendments, and it is our only chance because these provisions, I think, are demanded if we are to have a professional work force for our Federal employees in the future.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us today, House Joint Resolution 194, would grant the consent of Congress to amendments made by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the State of Maryland, and the District of Columbia to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Compact. The Compact Amendments that are being proposed today govern how the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA], better known as Metro, conducts its daily operations as a transit provider. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority was established in 1967 by Congress when it consented to an Interstate Compact created by Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. The authority was established to plan, finance, construct, and operate a comprehensive public transit system for the Metropolitan Washington area. Today, Metro operates 1,439 buses and 764 rail cars serving the entire National Capital region. The Metrorail system, sometimes called America's Subway has 89 miles and 74 stations currently in service. Over the next several years, Metro will construct another 13.5 miles of the rail system, with the planned 103-mile rail system being completed in 2001. The WMATA Compact has been amended five times since its inception. The amendments that are before the House today are a sixth set of amendments that will enable the transit agency to perform its functions more efficiently and cost effectively. description of amendments The proposed amendments primarily, and most importantly, modify the Authority's procurement practices to conform with recently enacted Federal procurement reforms. Currently, the Authority must use a sealed bid process in purchasing capital items. As you can imagine, the Authority conducts extensive procurements in constructing the rail system. The proposed amendments will enable Metro to engage in competitive negotiations on capital contracts, as an alternative to the sealed bid process. This amendment is particularly important as a means for the Authority to reduce its costs. The transit agency will be better able to define selection criteria and eliminate costly items from bid proposals. If a prospective contractor recommends a change in a bid specification, under the proposed amendment the Authority will be able to take advantage of this cost savings. The proposed amendment will also allow the Authority to raise its simplified purchasing ceiling from $10,000 to the Federal level. The Federal Transit Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, has encouraged States and localities to raise the dollar threshold for small purchases to $100,000 to come into conformity with Federal procedures. The Authority and the jurisdictions it serves strongly endorse this proposed amendment, allowing the Authority to conduct its business in an efficient, businesslike manner, rather than being required to publish voluminous bid specifications, even on small purchases. Under this revision, WMATA will be able to publish a simplified bid specification and accept price quotations, thus streamlining its procurement procedures. Given inflation rates over the past several years, this amendment provides a much better definition of ``small purchase'' for a Government agency. Finally, there are several administrative matters addressed in the proposed Compact Amendments that are certainly of a housekeeping nature. These amendments are largely codifications and clarifications of current practices. They relate to, for example, the primacy of D.C. Superior Court in cases involving WMATA, and the definition of a quorum at WMATA Board meetings. In closing, I would like to thank the Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law for their expeditious handling of this resolution. These amendments are of the utmost importance to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. I appreciate the Judiciary Committee's willingness to move this matter along so that we can assist the Authority in its constant effort to reduce costs. As Metro reduces its cost, it can use its limited public resources to provide more and better service to the citizens of the national capital region and to the millions of visitors to the Washington area each year. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting House Joint Resolution 194. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to thank the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law for their expeditious handling of this resolution. These amendments are of the utmost importance to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] and to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], who has been a long-time supporter of this system in the State legislature, I appreciate their willingness to move this matter along so we can assist the authority in its constant efforts to reduce costs. As Metro reduces its costs, it can use its limited public resources to provide more and better services to the citizens of the Nation's capital and to the region and to the millions of visitors to the Washington area each year. I ask for its support.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Speaker, let me first say that I think the incident the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] has referred to was regrettable. We know it was not sanctioned from Sallie Mae. It was not requested from our office, I can tell the gentleman, in terms of a candidate package. We obviously are always happy to hear from our corporate constituents over any issue of concern, but somebody I think acted a little overzealously. I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri for the way he has handled this and note how, on our side, when there were efforts to take away the tax exemption from the NEA, I was one of the Republicans who do not believe in getting even with your enemies, and am in support of their continued tax exemption, and the same with the PIRGS. In that spirit, we are moving ahead and staying with the issue. Sallie Mae has permanent roots within the 11th Congressional District. When I was chairman of the county board we helped move their permanent headquarters out there, and they have been a great corporate citizen. I have seen the kind of partner they have been to our northern Virginia community, bringing hundreds of high technology jobs to our community and the promise of stable employment for years to come. But they bring a lot with it. Already, their work in the Reston community with the Reston Interfaith Center and the Embry Rucker Shelter are legendary. I know their employees will touch many more northern Virginia charities as time goes on. Sallie Mae is about to embark upon a great new adventure as a corporation, which will benefit northern Virginia and the American people. For northern Virginia, privatization will mean more jobs as Sallie Mae expands its business beyond student loans. It means that the state-of-the-art Reston technology center is a resource for more than just students and parents, but for more of Virginia's and America's families and businesses. Congress should not miss this historic opportunity to recharter a Government-sponsored enterprise as a fully private company, but it must act while the company is still healthy and before it encounters further economic uncertainties. Sallie Mae is a company on the cutting edge of technology with a rare knowledge of the higher education community. I am confident that by allowing the company to build upon its student loan business, it will serve a number of public needs that could not be anticipated by this Congress or the next. We should not pass up the chance to relieve the American taxpayer of nearly $50 billion or more in implicit liability for Sallie Mae's obligations. I therefore urge passage of this bill. Madam Speaker, I would express my thanks to the chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and all those concerned.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and pay tribute to Mr. David V. Brown, who has served the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority for the past 29 years as the executive director of operations and finance. September 29, 1996, marks the retirement of this exceptional member of our local community, who has dedicated years of service to northern Virginia. Dave began his long, distinguished career with the Regional Park Authority on June 5, 1967, to work at the Bull Run Marina, Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority's first developed facility. Over the next three decades, he rose from park manager to superintendent of parks, director of operations, and finally in 1994, was appointed to his current role, executive director of finance and operations. In 1992, Dave was recognized for his valuable contributions to the Park Authority by being awarded the Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority's Ira Gabrielson Award for 25 years of service. Dave's numerous, notable accomplishments with the park authority have provided the citizens of northern Virginia recreational places and events for the enjoyment of the whole family. Dave was instrumental in developing and implementing the operations of the 19 regional parks owned and administered by the regional park authority, which include three public golf courses, five outdoor swim and play complexes, two campgrounds, gardens, historic structures, nature preserves, and the Washington & Old Dominion Railroad Regional Park, recognized as a National Recreation Trail. He was an architect of one of my favorite annual events that I look forward to attending all year, the exceedingly popular Bull Run Country Jamboree, attended by thousands. This event brings the Nation's top country artists to northern Virginia. Dave was extremely valuable in the designing and operating of the Brambleton Golf Course, the park authority's newest course in Brambleton Regional Park in Loundon County. Dave exemplifies the very best in public service. Through difficult fiscal times, he has proved innovative in delivering quality services to the public, always with a smile, and never complaining. Dave leaves a legacy for Northern Virginia Parks and Recreation to be enjoyed by future generations. Dave and his wife, Tonya, have two sons, Jeffery and Michael, of whom they are very proud. Jeffery is an attorney, and Michael is currently in London handling financial matters for Marriott Corp. Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues will join me in applauding Mr. David Brown for his extraordinary efforts to provide the citizens of northern Virginia recreational parks and events at which to enjoy the great outdoors. Although his presence will be sorely missed, we wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1995 which authorizes construction of the Smithsonian Institute's Air and Space Museum Extension at Washington Dulles International Airport. Since 1983 the Smithsonian has been looking to build an Air and Space extension large enough to properly display many aviation artifacts that there is no room for at the museum on the Mall. Few people realize that only 20 percent of the museum's collection is on display at the Air and Space Museum. Right now, the Space Shuttle Enterprise, a B-17 Flying Fortress, and an SR-71 Blackbird among others, are collecting dust in hangers at Dulles Airport, because there is no room at the Air and Space Museum. Only the nose section of the Enola Gay could be displayed at the Smithsonian's commemoration of the dropping of the atomic bomb, because the museum does not have room to display the entire refurbished aircraft. There are a number of historically important aircraft, such as a Lockeed Constellation, sitting outside exposed to the weather, because there is no space to store or display them. This new extension will accommodate these historic air and spacecraft. S. 1995 authorizes the board of regents of the Smithsonian Institution to construct a museum extension at Dulles Airport. This legislation makes it clear that no Federal funds will be appropriated to pay for any expense associated with construction of this facility. The Air and Space Museum has already begun the process of raising private funds for construction, and I understand that new Air and Space Museum Director Donald Engen has set raising funds to build the extension as a top priority. The Commonwealth of Virginia also stands firmly behind its commitment to bringing this national educational facility to reality with a $3 million interest free loan, a $6 million design and construction grant, and authority for up to $100 million in bonds. It has been 13 years since the Air and Space Museum Extension was proposed, in that time the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum has become the most visited museum in the world. This bill is noncontroversial. It requires no expenditure of Federal funds, in fact, the bill explicitly states that no Federal funds will be used. It passed the Senate by voice vote. Lets pass this bill and get on with expanding this enormously popular museum that celebrates America's love of aviation. In closing, I want to thank Chairman Gilchrest for his tremendous efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor so quickly.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the 104th Congress, I have been working with the entire Virginia delegation to move this important piece of legislation through Congress. With the assistance of my fellow Virginian, Congressman Jim Moran, and other cosponsors, H.R. 2062, the George Washington Commemorative Coin Act of 1996, has gained broad bipartisan support in the House. It is especially fitting that the House pass this legislation honoring George Washington on this date, for it was on September 17, 1796, 200 year ago today, that he authored his farewell address upon his retirement from government, warning our Nation of the dangers of factions or partisanship and national deficits. H.R. 2062 authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue 100,000 $5 gold coins in commemoration of the bicentennial of George Washington's death in 1799. The theme of the coin, and it is going to be issued in 1999, the theme of the coin will commemorate an important national historical figure on an anniversary of great national significance. The proceeds of the coin will benefit historic Mount Vernon which welcomes over 1 million visitors annually from every State in the Union. Although George Washington's image continues to be one of the most familiar in our Nation, Americans are gradually losing touch with the accomplishments, the character and the leadership of this singularly American hero. Washington's service to the Nation goes far beyond his remarkable leadership during the Revolutionary War and his precedent-setting first term as the President of the United States. Washington was also considered the first farmer of America, a conservationist and environmentalist far ahead of his time. He helped to found the Nation's Capital. He supported education with both political influence and personal donations, and he sent an important message to the entire world when he freed his slaves in his will. Washington was not just a great man, he was a good man who always strived to do what was best for his Nation. The commemorative coin will renew in Washington's vast achievements while supporting broad-based educational programs designed to reach millions of Americans. Historic Mount Vernon is ideally suited to organize and implement an ongoing educational program in 1999. To date, more than 65 million visitors have toured Washington's home. Millions more have been educated through classroom kits, television and radio programs, publications, and special field trips. In 1999 Mount Vernon is planning scholarly conferences, a major traveling exhibit, several new publications and a host of other programs which will touch the hearts and minds of all Americans. As we approach the new millennium it is imperative that we, as Americans, not lose sight of the monumental contributions made by George Washington to our Nation. In an eulogy delivered several days after his death, Henry Light- Horse Harry Lee said that George Washington was a citizen first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen. By moving this commemorative coin forward, we will help to ensure that future generations of Americans truly understand this statement. I would also like to extend my sincere appreciation to the Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee, and to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and his subcommittee, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Flake] for their efforts with the commemorative coin program and for supporting the George Washington Commemorative Coin Act of 1996. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record Washington's Farewell Address. To the people of the United States. Friends and Fellow Citizens: The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those, out of whom a choice is to be made. I beg you, at the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken, without strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest; no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both. The acceptance of, and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice called me, have been a uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to abandon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire. The impressions with which I first undertook the arduous trust, were explained on the proper occasion. In the discharge of this trust, I will only say that I have, with good intentions, contributed towards the organization and administration of the government, the best exertions of which a very fallible judgment was capable. Not unconscious in the outset, of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience, in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself; and, every day, the increasing weight of years admonishes me more and more, that the shade of retirement is as necessary to me as it will be welcome. Satisfied that if any circumstances have given peculiar value to my services they were temporary, I have the consolation to believe that, while choice and prudence invite me to quit the political scene, patriotism does not forbid it. In looking forward to the moment which is to terminate the career of my political life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country, for the many honors it has conferred upon me; still more for the steadfast confidence with which it has supported me; and for the opportunities I have thence enjoyed of manifesting my inviolable attachment, by services faithful and persevering, though in usefulness unequal to my zeal. If benefits have resulted to our country from these services, let it always be remembered to your praise, and as an instructive example in our annals, that under circumstances in which the passions, agitated in every direction, were liable to mislead amidst appearances sometimes dubious, vicissitudes of fortune often discouraging--in situations in which not unfrequently, want of success has countenanced the spirit of criticism,--the constancy of your support was the essential prop of the efforts, and a guarantee of the plans, by which they were effected. Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence--that your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual--that the free constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained--that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue--that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these states, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation, and so prudent a use of this blessing, as will acquire to them the glory of recommending it to the applause, the affection and adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it. Here, perhaps, I ought to stop. But a solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger, natural to that solicitude, urge me, on an occasion like the present, to offer to your solemn contemplation, and to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which are the result of much reflection, of no inconsiderable observation, and which appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people. These will be offered to you with the more freedom, as you can only see in them the disinterested warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel. Nor can I forget, as an encouragement to it, your indulgent reception of my sentiments on a former and not dissimilar occasion. Interwoven as is the love of liberty with every ligament of your hearts, no recommendation of mine is necessary to fortify or confirm the attachment. The unity of government which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is justly so; for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence; the support of your tranquility at home: your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize. But, as it is easy to foresee that, from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth; as this is the point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed; it is of infinite movement, that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the palladium of your political safety and prosperity; watching for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can, in any event, be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens by birth, or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have, in a common cause, fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess, are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings and successes. But these considerations, however powerfully they address themselves to your sensibility, are greatly outweighed by those which apply more immediately to your interest. Here, every portion of our country finds the most commanding motives for carefully guarding and preserving the union of the whole. The North, in an unrestrained intercourse with the South, protected by the equal laws of a common government, finds in the productions of the latter, great additional resources of maritime and commercial enterprise, and precious materials of manufacturing industry. The South, in the same intercourse, benefiting by the same agency of the North, sees its agriculture grow and its commerce expand. Turning partly into its own channels the seamen of the North, it finds its particular navigation invigorated; and while it contributes, in different ways, to nourish and increase the general mass of the national navigation, it looks forward to the protection of a maritime strength, to which itself is unequally adapted. The East, in a like intercourse with the West, already finds, and in the progressive improvement of interior communications by land and water, will more and more find a valuable vent for the commodities which it brings from abroad, or manufactures at home. The West derives from the East supplies requisite to its growth and comfort--and what is perhaps of still greater consequence, it must of necessity owe the secure enjoyment of indispensable outlets for its own productions, to the weight, influence, and the future maritime strength of the Atlantic side of the Union, directed by an indissoluble community of interest as one nation. Any other tenure by which the West can hold this essential advantage, whether derived from its own separate strength; or from an apostate and unnatural connection with any foreign power, must be intrinsically precarious. While then every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts, greater strength, greater resource proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union, an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same government; which their own rivalship alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues, would stimulate and embitter. Hence likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is, that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. These considerations speak a persuasive language to every reflecting and virtuous mind, and exhibit the continuance of the union as a primary object of patriotic desire. Is there a doubt whether a common government can embrace so large a sphere? Let experience solve it. To listen to mere speculation in such a case were criminal. We are authorized to hope that a proper organization of the whole, with the auxiliary agency of governments for the respective subdivisions, will afford a happy issue to the experiment. It is well worth a fair and full experiment. With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who, in any quarter, may endeavor to weaken its hands. In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union, it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should have been furnished for characterizing parties by geographical discriminations--Northern and Southern--Atlantic and Western; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief that there is a real difference of local interests and views. One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts, is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts. You cannot shield yourself too much against the jealousies and heart burnings which spring from these misrepresentations: they tend to render alien to each other those who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection. The inhabitants of our western country have lately had a useful lesson on this head: they have seen, in the negotiation by the executive, and in the unanimous ratification by the senate of the treaty with Spain, and in the universal satisfaction at the event throughout the United States, a decisive proof how unfounded were the suspicions propagated among them of a policy in the general government and in the Atlantic states, unfriendly to their interests in regard to the Mississippi. They have been witnesses to the formation of two treaties, that with Great Britain and that with Spain, which secure to them everything they could desire, in respect to our foreign relations, towards confirming their prosperity. Will it not be their wisdom to rely for the preservation of these advantages on the union by which they were procured? will they not henceforth be deaf to those advisers, if such they are, who would sever them from their brethren and connect them with aliens? To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances, in all times, have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government, better calculated than your former, for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the constitution which at any time exists, until changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power, and the right of the people to establish government, presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberations and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force, to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils, and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men, will be enable to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reigns of government; destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion. Towards the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular opposition to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretext. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations which will impair the energy of the system; and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions: that experience is the surest standard by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country: that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion: and remember, especially, that for the efficient management of your common interests in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of fraction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property. I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular references to the founding them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purpose of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty. Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it in the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils, and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another. There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchial cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent it bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming, it should consume. It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominate in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions of the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern: some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for through this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil, any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield. Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? Promote, then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it should be enlightened. As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering, also, that timely disbursements, to prepare for danger, frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it; avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions, in time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear. The execution of these maxims belongs to your representatives, but it is necessary that public opinion should cooperate. To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind, that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment inseparable from the selection of the proper object (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time debate. Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt but, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it; can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! Is it rendered impossible by its vices? In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachment for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity, or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another, disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation's subservient to projects of hostility, instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty of nations, has been the victim. So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest, in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter, without adequate inducements or justifications. It leads also to concessions, to the favorite nation, or privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions, by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealously, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted or deluded citizens who devote themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding with the appearances of virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils! Such an attachment of a small or weak, towards a great and powerful nation, dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter. Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealously, to be useful, must be impartial, else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike for another, cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence, she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation, when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary, and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies. Harmony, and a liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that is must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect, or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard. In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations, but if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated. How far, in the discharge of my official duties, I have been guided by the principles which have been delineated, the public records and other evidences of my conduct must witness to you and to the world. To myself, the assurance of my own conscience is, that I have, at least, believed myself to be guided by them. In relation to the still subsisting war in Europe, my proclamation of the 22d of April, 1793, is the index to my plan. Sanctioned by your approving voice, and by that of your representatives in both houses of congress, the spirit of that measure has continually governed me, uninfuenced by any attempts to deter or divert me from it. After deliberate examination, with the aid of the best lights I could obtain, I was well satisfied that our country, under all the circumstances of the case, had a right to take, and was bound, in duty and interest, to take a neutral position. Having taken it, I determined, as far as should depend upon me, to maintain it with moderation, perseverance and firmness. The considerations which respect the right to hold this conduct, it is not necessary on this occasion to detail. I will only observe that, according to my understanding of the matter, that right, so far from being denied by any of the belligerent powers, has been virtually admitted by all. The duty of holding a neutral conduct may be inferred, without any thing more, from the obligation which justice and humanity impose on every nation, in cases in which it is free to act, to maintain inviolate the relations of peace and amity towards other nations. The inducements of interest for observing that conduct will best be referred to your own reflections and experience. With me, a predominant motive has been to endeavor to gain time to our country to settle and mature its yet recent institutions, and to progress, without interruption, to that degree of strength, and consistency which is necessary to give it, humanly speaking, the command of its own fortunes. Though in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend. I shall also carry with me the hope that my country will never cease to view them with indulgence; and that, after forty-five years of my life dedicated to its service, with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest. Relying on its kindness in this as in other things, and actuated by that fervent love towards it, which is so natural to a man who views in it the native soil of himself and his progenitors for several generations; I anticipate with pleasing expectation that in which I promise myself to realize, without alloy, the sweet enjoyment of partaking, in the midst of my fellow citizens, the benign influence of good laws under a free government--the ever favorite object of my heart, and the happy reward, as I trust, of our mutual cares, labors and dangers. Geo. Washington. United States, 17th September, 1796.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I believe that my colleagues would benefit from hearing the words of Kim Sang Hyun, Member of the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea, and I ask unanimous consent to have Kim Sang Hyun's speech at National Press Club on September 5, 1996, be entered into the Record. Beyond Authoritarian Legacies: New Political Leadership For Korea (By Kim Sang Hyunq, Member of the National Assembly, The Republic of Korea) Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to begin by telling you what a long way it took me to be here this morning to speak to you at this prestigious press club. It took ten years. It was back in 1986 when I was invited to have the honor of speaking before this forum. Korea was then under the military dictatorship of Chun Doo-hwan, and I was prohibited from leaving the country, as were many other democracy fighters, including my colleagues who have joined me here today. I would like to introduce them to you all in the audience: (would you all come forward here, please.) From my left, Congressman Park Chung-Hoon. He was an able leader of student movement, and he was put into jail for four times for his courageous struggle for democratization. Congressman Chang Young-Dal, who spent 8 years in prison for the crime of fighting for democracy against military rule. The last but not the least in importance, Congressman Kim Chang Be, who was the leader of the citizens of Kwangju who bravely fought the troops of General Chun and General Roh during the massacre of 1980, and later was sentenced to death. As for myself, I spent 4 years and 3 months in prison; I was put under house arrest on 73 occasions; I was physically tortured on three occasions; and I was banned from politics for 17 years. Throughout these hard years of my political and personal ordeal, under prosecution, repression and humiliation, I never lost my spirit or my sense of duty and honor to struggle for the cause of democracy for Korea and for the cause of an ultimate unification of our nation. It was not until 1992 that I was set free politically to make my way back to the national legislature. Well, I am sorry we may sound like a bunch of ex-convicts. And I don't even remember what my charges were for which I was sent to jail. (Wait for a laughter.) (To the three members, ``Thank you for coming out.'') Before we go into hard subjects, I want to introduce my wife. The life of the wife of an opposition politician in Korea was very difficult in those dark days. She persevered many difficult years because of me. Without her love and support, I would not have made it this far. The only good I have done for her is that I have chosen to stay married to her, now in our 38th year. But I had no other place to go anyway. Ladies and gentlemen, I know this National Press Club, while dedicating itself to protection and promotion of the freedom of speech, has played an important role for human rights and democracy around the world. It is indeed my privilege to speak here on the topic of the need for new leadership for true democracy in Korea, and on the issue of national unification. President Kim Young-sam's government was launched in 1993. However, the genesis of his government was a politically immoral merger of three parties under Roh Tae-woo in 1990. This brought an end to my political alliance with Kim Young- sam. Nevertheless, after he became President, I sincerely wished him to succeed in carrying out political reforms and completing the process of democratization for which we had fought together. After more than three and a half years of his presidency, it is clear that he has failed to meet the expectation of the people for democratic reforms and a rebuilding of democratic institutions. In the view of many, including myself, Kim Young-sam has failed because of his role in the three-party merger and the complacency of supporters of authoritarian regimes who have resisted reform. At the threshold of the 21st century, Korea calls for new political leadership to carry out genuine democratic reforms. Next year, 1997, we will have a presidential election, which I view as an opportunity to seek the kind of new leadership that can take the nation into the next millennium of civilization. If we fail to capture that opportunity, we would be pushed to the sidelines only to watch a continuation of the old practices of political division and internal bickering, instead of opening a new era of democracy and unification. In every respect, the next year's presidential election is crucially important. It is crucially important because it offers an opportunity to realize a truly democratic transfer of power from the government party to the opposition party of a legitimate national and democratic tradition. It will be an opportunity for us to move forward to resolve the undesirable conflicts of regionalism and to narrow the unhealthy gaps between all socio-economic classes. We can then move forward to work for a settlement of peace on the Korean peninsula as a necessary step toward unification. Ladies and gentlemen, I am preparing to run for the nomination of the presidential candidate of my party, the National Congress for New Politics. New politics today calls for new leadership. The era of coups, disrupting constitutional order or an era of authoritarian rule, suppressing democratic development, has ended. We need a new leadership not to justify the means to an end, but to establish a tradition of respecting the process of democracy. We need a new leadership to bring about democracy within an organization as a model and to establish the rule of law as the basic instrument of governance. We need a new leadership that would not be content or remain complacent with past contributions to democratization or with the status quo of the division of the nation. A new leadership that can meet the challenge of an independent and peaceful unification. In the coming era of national unification, we need a national leader who can earn respect and trust from the 70 million Koreans of the North and the South. By new leadership, I mean a political leadership of vision for a new world order, a statesmanship that can lead the nation harmoniously within and ``the politics of coprosperity'' without into the 21st century and beyond. Korea needs a new political leader who sees politics not as a ``zero-sum game'' but as a process of building a consensus and maintaining a balance through discussion and negotiation. If the 20th century was an age of conflict and confrontation, the 21st century should become a century of reconciliation and cooperation. If the Korean peninsula of the 20th century was the arena of competition in the balance of power between the East and the West, the 21st century Korea should be able to play the role of a bridge to cooperation and prosperity in the Asia Pacific region. A new era of a new century needs a new, creative political leadership, and I seriously intend to provide that kind of leadership which our people deserve. To win the next year's presidential election and to realize a ``horizontal transfer of power'' for the first time in our history, we the main opposition party must develop the right strategy. I see three sides of the strategy: First, a presidential candidate must be elected democratically by his or her party members in a national convention. To this end, I have insisted that my party's candidate be selected through a free and open competition at the next convention, not by acclamation for a particular individual. The democratic process of selecting our party candidate should result in a welcome festivity for all members of our party and the people of Korea. I firmly believe that free competition for the party's presidential candidate will reform the undemocratic practices of both government and opposition parties, which are currently controlled and led by equally authoritarian party heads. I believe free competition will provide a turning point for a mature democracy. Second, we must bring an end to the chronic politics of regional hegemony, that has been a fact of life for decades. South Korea needs a successful presidential candidate who opposes against ``rule by regional division,'' and who can bring about regional harmony between the east and the west of its land. Third, we must unite all opposition forces into a grand coalition. The absence of solidarity within the opposition camp has been one of the primary causes for the opposition's failure in taking over the reigns of government. Not to make the same mistake, an opposition presidential candidate should be someone who is considered objectively best qualified in terms of political career and statesmanship. Only such candidate can bring opposition parties together and move forward to win the presidency. When I am elected as the candidate of my party next year, I promise that with a vision of high politics, I will unite my party with the Democratic Party, which is an important stream of our opposition, and with other democratic forces. Now I want to share with you some of my perspectives on the issue of North-South relations and unification. In this post-Cold War era, Korea remains the only divided nation in the world, and there is no reconciliation between the north and the south; therefore, no genuine peace on the peninsula. In my view, we should change our thinking into a new approach to the frustrating task of unification. For a new turning point, I have long thought of an approach to a peaceful unification on the basis of what I would call ``the security and well-being of all Koreans'' and with cooperation and support of the surrounding countries. In the past, the issue of unification was exploited as a means of protecting the security of regimes by both leaders of the south and the north. Unification policy should be carried out to help build an all Korean national community towards security, peace and prosperity for all Koreans. The principle of ``security and well-being for all Koreans'' should replace the conflict of political interest. The principle of ``an all Korean national community'' should replace ``the confrontation of political systems.'' Only then we can move forward to peaceful coexistence and common prosperity. A unified Korea will have an expanded national economy to participate actively in world trade, playing a pivotal role in promotion of regional security and economic cooperation in Northeast Asia. Having proven itself as a winner of a half-century long economic and political competition with North Korea, the confident South Korea should not be too hard on the North. In this context, a soft-landing makes a lot of sense. We should avoid implosion or explosion. We should take the initiative in inducing North Korea to reform and opening. In order to secure a durable peace structure, I propose a two-track, parallel approach to negotiation with North Korea for a simultaneous successful conclusion of negotiations between the North and the South and between North Korea and the United States. A final peace agreement from such parallel negotiations should provide a nuclear transparency by North Korea. As an interim move, and with the 4-party proposal pending, I propose that the U.S. president meet with the leaders of South Korea and North Korea in a third country outside the Korean peninsula to discuss and ultimately to sign a peace agreement. With a peace mechanism for the peninsula, we can move forward to a ``2+4 peace agreement'' with the support of the United States, China, Japan and Russia, which will become the basis for a multi-lateral security cooperative system in the region. Let me now focus on inter-Korean relations. To move closer to unification, agreements reached between the North and the South must be honored. We agreed on the July 4, 1972 joint statement on the principles of autonomy, peace and national unity, and signed the December 1991 Basic Agreement for reconciliation, non-aggression, exchanges and cooperation. In the spirit of these agreements, we both North and South Korea should amend or abolish those laws and policies that impede progress towards the process of unification. Specifically, South Korea should replace ``the national security law'' with a ``law for maintaining the democratic order.'' For the same token, North Korea must revise its criminal laws the constitution of the North Korean Workers Party. At the same time, practical measures of confidence building must be put into action so that both sides can move towards a mutual reduction of military arms. If we start these measures, and if we can build on them for a further step towards unification, a peaceful unification will become a matter of time, not direction. Our approach to unification should neither be the German style of absorption nor the Vietnamese style of a military takeover by force. Ours should be a creative third style that we have not yet seen in the history of the world. To this end, I announce my intention to meet with North Korea's virtual leader Kim Jong Il at Panmunjom or at a place to be agreed on after I become my party's presidential candidate. I am confident that we can reach a constructive agreement on an incremental but substantive modality of negotiations and progress towards ``security and prosperity for all Koreans.'' Because of geopolitics, Korea in the 20th century became a battlefield of power struggle and ideological conflict, but in the 21st century a unified Korea, because of the same geopolitical reason, is expected to play the role of a balancer in power relationship and an important contributor to regional cooperation and world peace. Next I want to discuss the environmental issues. I have always had a special interest in environment. It seems to me many governments still do not deal with environmental protection as an urgent priority issue. I am particularly concerned about the deteriorating state of environment in Northeast Asia. Unless we do something more about it, it will only become worse. This remarkable economic growth of South Korea, the failure of North Korea's socialist economic system, the rapid industrialization and a huge amount of energy consumption by China all are the culprits contributing to the pollution of environment in East Asia. To discuss these common problems, I am planning to hold a conference to which North Korea, China, Japan, Mongolia, Taiwan, and Russia will also be invited. In this conjunction, I also propose that an Asian environmental summit be held to find better ways to promote cooperation on environmental issues. Finally, I would like to discuss my views on how we can develop a healthier relationship between the United States and Korea. There is no doubt that many Koreans remain appreciative of many constructive roles that the United States has played in the security and economic growth of their country in modern history. The people of Korea, along with those of the international community, believe that the United States, the only remaining superpower in this post- Cold War era, should play a leading role in the establishment of a new world order based upon a principle of mutual reciprocity. At the same time, we want to see U.S. policy for Korea become more supportive of Korean unification. It should not in anyway contribute to the perpetuation of the divided Korea. For the bilateral economic relations, I support Korea's market opening, but I oppose unfair pressure from the United States on the process of market opening. Before I conclude, I want to say again, ``an era of confrontation and conflict is gone.'' In the new era of political negotiation and democratic compromise, the old political strategy of ``all or nothing'' will not work. I would not be shy to say that I am the one who can lead Korea towards a better nation in the next century, with a kind of new leadership of vision, open-mindedness, balance and creativity. I want to create a new political culture of dialogue, through which the nation can build a non-partisan consensus on important national issues. I will pursue a democratic compromise rather than trying to impose a unilateral view of one party or one group on the people. I also want to mention that Korea's political achievement owes a lot to many supporters from several countries, and particularly from America. I want to lead Korea, and under my leadership, Korea will pay back its debts to many friends of democracy and human rights. Thank you very much.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise and pay tribute to Mr. Kenneth R. Plum who has served the Fairfax County Public School system for the past 28 years as the director of adult an community education. August 1, 1996 marks the retirement of this exceptional member of our local community, who has dedicated years of services to Northern Virginia. As the adult and community education director from 1967-1996, Mr. Plum increased participation in the program from a modest few thousand to over 80,000 participants. He made numerous contributions to adult and community education including the establishment of an apprenticeship program, adult career training and certification, enrichment classes for adults, special program for displaced homemakers and teen mothers, a wide range of English as a second language classes for adults, three high school completion programs, an expansive volunteer tutoring program, GED classes in the adult detention center, alternative schools for juvenile court youth, a comprehensive parenting education center, and the Learning in Retirement Institute for senior adults. His work earned him the 1985 Secretary of Education Award for Excellence in Education, an honor given to the ten best education programs in the nation. Then in 1986, Mr. Plum earned the Virginia Tech Excellence in Education Award. In addition, Mr. Plum has served the Fairfax County community as the 36th District Delegate to the Virginia General Assembly, a position he held from 1978-80, and from 1982 to the present. In this role, he received many other awards for his community contributions. He was named Legislator of the Year by the Chesapeake Bay Founders for 2 years in a row, 1994 Legislator Advocate of the Year by Virginia Interfaith for Public Policy, and 1995-96 Public Citizen of the Year by the National Association of Social Workers. Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleagues will join me in applauding Mr. Kenneth Plum for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen and improve the education of our citizens. We wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. I thank my friend for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] for getting this bill in shape to bring it to the floor. This gives equal and expanded access for Federal jobs to veterans. It provides veterans who have been honorably discharged after 3 years equal access to compete for vacant positions. Such has not been the case in the past. I think President Clinton put it well in his Memorial Day address this year at Arlington National Cemetery when he said: ``let us also remember to honor those who served in times of peace, who preserve the peace, protect our interests and project our values. Though they are the best-trained, best-equipped military in the world, they, too face their share of dangers.'' This legislation in section 2 will provide for those who are honorably discharged after 3 years of service that they cannot be prevented from competing for Government jobs because they do not have status or are nonemployees of the hiring agency. This also removes artificial barriers that bar preference eligibles from competing for Federal jobs. It extends veterans preference to nonpolitical jobs at the White House and in the legislative and judicial branches. It is important that we here set the example in the legislative branch and at the White House as well for the same kind of rules that we are applying throughout the Federal bureaucracy. It requires OPM to create and maintain a comprehensive list of all vacant position announcements inside and outside the employing agency. There are also some special protections for veterans built into this when agencies are conducting reductions in force. This prevents agencies from stripping veterans of their preference during a RIF. It prohibits agencies from placing preference eligibles in single-position competitive levels. It provides enhanced assignment rights for preference eligibles, and it requires the Federal Aviation Administration to apply veterans preference in a reduction in force. Finally, for the first time this establishes an effective user- friendly redress system for veterans who believe their rights have been violated. There is one thing we heard in the testimony, that the current system is not working, it is not operating. I think the veterans groups have been working for years to get Congress to establish this system. This year under the leadership of the gentleman from Florida, Chairman Mica, we have brought it to the floor. I rise in support.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to indicate my strong opposition to the severe cuts this legislation imposes on the Department of Energy and its employees. Congress must continue to ensure, within the Department of Energy appropriations bill for fiscal year 1997, that DOE has the ability to perform its important mission of meeting our present and future energy needs. The bill under consideration by the House today funds many critical programs, yet, I believe it greatly restricts the Department of Energy's ability to perform its mission by reducing departmental administration by approximately 30 percent. DOE's departmental administration salary and expense budget is reduced under this bill by 20 percent--a reduction of more than $50 million in fiscal year 1997. Instead of allowing DOE to reallocate their reduced resources as they deem appropriate, it forces DOE to reduce positions by capping FTE totals at 1,029--a reduction of nearly 500 FTE's, or one-third of the departmental administration staff. Further the bill sets specific FTE targets for individual offices with this account. Last Year, in the fiscal year 1996 appropriations bill, Congress asked DOE headquarters personnel and certain programs to make significant cuts. The departmental administration account was reduced by 15 percent, which translates to a reduction of nearly 400 FTE's. DOE managers worked hard to administer this staff reduction without resorting to a reduction-in-force. In order to save jobs, performance awards were eliminated, overtime was reduced by over half, and furloughs were used to address funding shortfalls. Despite these substantial reductions in operating costs at DOE headquarters, a \2/3\ reduction since 1993, this bill sets the general management and program support function of DOE at 47 percent less than last year and 20 percent less than the administration's request. I believe these reductions are too severe and will not allow DOE to continue to perform its mission. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware this has been a difficult year for Federal employees. They have endured downsizing, RIFs, shutdowns, general uncertainty, and reduced benefits. Federal employees are among the most resilient people I know, but if we as a Government hope to continue to attract the best and the brightest into Government service, we cannot continue the type of policy set by this legislation. This bill goes too far. I do not disagree that we all need to cutback as we work to balance the Federal budget. However, I am strongly opposed to imposing such severe cuts and limiting DOE's ability to manage these cuts by mandating FTE ceilings. The negative ramifications of this unprecedented cut will severely affect the many important projects funded in this year's energy and water appropriations bill. The bill targets cuts to the environmental management program, nonproliferation and energy efficiency and renewable energy. In addition, the 90 percent cut in DOE's office of policy will leave only 20 employees to perform critical technical and economic analysis and hamper their ability to efficiently respond to Congress, State and local governments, and private citizens. Mr. Speaker, I regret the inclusion of these deep and draconian cuts to the DOE budget, and the specific FTE targets mandated on the departmental headquarters. It has damaged this important legislation, and I cannot support its passage.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act; legislation introduced by my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Wolf]. I have cosponsored and support this bill because gambling is not the type of business my district needs or wants in order to build a strong economy and a stable tax base. Virginia has been extremely successful in attracting high tech and Fortune 500 companies that provide quality, high paying jobs. Furthermore, preliminary studies of areas that have introduced gambling show that while the number of jobs increase at first, over time the economy of the area suffers, resulting in the loss of high quality employers. We don't need this in my district and I suspect that many Members of this body have similar feelings. Already, my State is seeing the proliferation of gambling activities. One off-track horse betting parlor is already in operation in Virginia, and its owners are anxious to open a second. The bipartisan, unbiased nine-member commission this legislation will create will provide Congress and the President with the information necessary to make decisions regarding national policy on gambling. This study will grant the Federal Government invaluable information concerning gambling. Twenty years have passed since Congress visited this issue and the Commission on the Review of the National Policy toward Gambling issued its report. Since then, 46 States have legalized gambling in some fashion. In 1994, Americans wagered $482 billion on all forms of gambling according to U.S. News and World Report; 85 percent of that figure took place in casinos in 27 States, most of which have opened during the past 5 years. Because of the fact that this industry is growing at such an incredible rate, and because there is a lack of current knowledge on the effects of this particular industry on our society Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important and crucial legislation.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, now the USIA and the International Broadcasting Bureau are in the process of determining exactly how to carry out that vague mandate. They have been directed by the White House to move not just the headquarters but the entire broadcasting operation, nearly 200 people, and to move them as soon as possible. I never, never heard of a situation where the law specifies headquarters but affects the entire organization. This concerns me, as someone whose constituents are being face with an unwanted move.

Mr. DAVIS. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is most reassuring. I thank the chairman as well. amendment offered by mr. ensign

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, the gentleman from Virginia and I, would like to engage our colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the subcommittee in a brief colloquy regarding the District of Columbia's Department of Corrections facility in Lorton. VA. Without reviewing the entire troubled history of the correctional complex at Lorton, I would like to share with my colleagues some very compelling facts. First, as the gentleman from Kentucky is aware, the D.C. government has allowed the prison population there to double over the last 12 years, and at the same time the appropriation level today is the same as it was 12 years ago, double the population, same appropriation, and during that time we have had intervening court decisions requiring more upkeep, inflation and the like. We have had the head of the D.C. Department of Corrections, Margaret Moore, before our Subcommittee on the District of Columbia coming forward and just saying they need help. The city right now is swimming in a sea of red ink and they cannot handle this complex by themselves. They have asked us for help. The Mayor's plan calls for the downsizing and closing of most of this facility over the last 5 years. What we would do, Mr. Chairman, is appreciate your support for including a statement of managers language in the conference report that would direct the Attorney General of the United States to undertake a joint review with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshals Service and the District of Columbia for immediate steps necessary to first address the security problems at the Lorton corrections complex as identified in current and ongoing studies by the National Institute of Corrections, and frankly I would also think we should ask of the Bureau of Prisons to work with the Department of Corrections in the District to work out a strategy to close this complex and perhaps rebuild it, hopefully somewhere else, over a given time period, the next 5 to 7 years. That is what I would like to see from my perspective. I know Mr. Wolf and Mr. Moran have some equally compelling feelings and arguments on this.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to note, no other city in the United States is responsible for housing the felony prisoners, no other city in the United States. We have put this burden on the District of Columbia, and they have, I think to their credit, come forward and said they do not have the financial wherewithal to handle it under their current financial circumstances. That is why we need to engage the Bureau of Prisons, working with the city, with the National Institute of Corrections, with the Congress, to find a way that we can handle this situation in a more equitable manner than it is being handled today, along the lines that I have outlined.

Mr. DAVIS. I think once again to resolve this problem in a way favorable to the inmates, to the surrounding communities and everybody else, it takes a joint effort. So far what is missing from this debate is a Federal presence thought the Bureau of Prisons. The city has gone overboard in trying to look at privatization alternatives and the like and the Mayor's visionary plan, in fact, calls for the downsizing, if not the elimination, of the Lortion complex. But we are going to need some help. What we are asking the chairman of the committee to do in this particular case is to direct the Bureau of Prisons to become engaged in this process so that we can come up with a proposal. Last year's District of Columbia appropriations bill had some language where we have asked the city to come up with a 5-year plan to close it. Now we need to see what BOP can take and if it is going to take money, we need to know what it is, but we need their involvement. It is unrealistic to ask the city government to do this by themselves. It is the only city in the country that does it.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. I want to compliment him and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon], for their yoeman's work on behalf of the District of Columbia in trying to work through what has been a very, very difficult financial crisis. As we look at the situation today and compare it to even a year ago, we have really made progress. That is sometimes lost sight of in light of the headlines that come out every day with the continuing problems that the city has. But if we go back a year, we have reduced the number of employees in the city by several thousand over what it was a year ago, and that is total reduction. That is not just moving them off budget into enterprise funds and the like. We find that there is a certain level of stability now to city spending, and we are trying to bring some accountability to the managers in the city in terms of what they spend with the advent of the Control Board and the CFO, both of which I think are doing yoeman's work, as well. We have brought honest answers to the process, something we have not seen for many years here on Capitol Hill in terms of having some level of confidence in the financial numbers that are offered to the Congress by the District of Columbia. I think this has been borne out by the fact that the city is now able to go out to the private financial markets, at least on short-term borrowing. I think we still have a ways to go over the long term, but we have made this in a year trying to work together on a bipartisan basis. We have had our disagreements along the way, but I think the bill this year represents a very good effort toward bringing some structure and financial stability to the city and I rise in support of it. As the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh] says, we cannot spend our way to prosperity. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon] has said, we cannot cut ourselves out of the financial situation. I think the current issue that remains before this body as it works its way through conference is, the larger the debt, of course, the more that will have to be financed in the off years. I think that has been the intention of the committee, to try to bring down that annual deficit so it would not have to be financed and paid for in later years when the city will be scarce on money. I also want to just share my concern that we do this in an appropriate fashion so that needed services are not cut. As we work our way through the process, I know we have the assurances of both the chairman and ranking members that this will be done in a constructive manner to continue to work with the Control Board, continuing to work with the chief financial officer of the city to make sure this is done appropriately. Having said that, this bill adds some money in some critical places. Public safety money is fully funded. We are including $2.8 million for public charter schools which were part of the public school reform legislation that passed the Congress last year. We are restoring salary and overtime pay rollbacks for the police and fire departments, something that is long overdue. We are spending more on the health of the indigent by increasing the subsidy to District General Hospital. This helps lower the burden across the region, not just in the District of Columbia in terms of the health care costs. Congress has stepped up in the budget this year, I think to try to make sure that we are caring for that in an appropriate manner. This is important to the region, both Maryland and Virginia, and District residents. We are providing for the repayment to the water and sewer fund of $91 million borrowed by the general fund to pay for their past operating expenditures. These were in the past paid for in a very general sense by the ratepayers, many of them in the suburbs. It would be paid for, instead of being invested in Blue Plains, were spent for some of the city operating budget deficit. So that is in this as well. We have reached a regional agreement on the authorizing side to make sure this has happened, and that has already passed this body. So we made progress in this region as well. There is one piece of legislation in this that I have, after extensive discussions with the chairman and ranking member who also support it, and that is extending the powers given to the chief financial officer. That was put in originally last year to hire and fire the executive branch of the accounting, budget and financial management personnel during the control period. We recognize that personnel changes are going to have to be made, and we know where the buck is stopping. We want to give the chief financial officer and the Control Board the appropriate level of responsibility in doing that. With that responsibility comes the authority in some of these cases to make these changes. In all, I just want to compliment the chairman and ranking member. I think we have all learned a lot over the last year and a half trying to work together toward a very, very difficult problem for this city, this region, and this country. We are making headway. I am hopeful that this bill will be passed through the House and go on to the Senate.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to associate myself with the words previously of the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mr. Morella], my friend, the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and my colleague from the District of Columbia in talking about some of the cuts that are going to be felt by the IRS central office this year, the cuts in the TSM information systems. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] from the Committee on Ways and Means has written the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations writing about the inadvisability of these cuts. As someone who has served for many years in local government, we found out many ways the best way to get revenue is the taxpayers who owe the money is to insure that they pay it. This Congress, the previous Congress, embarked on a very ambitious way to go about collecting this, and it was reversed last year, and now we are cutting back even further the IRS central headquarters in the way we are going to go about collecting these taxes that are due. The best thing we should do before we start raising taxes from other people and looking around for other cuts is to make sure the people who owe the revenue pay it, and that is all this system does. Now, it has had some problems from time to time, but I think the chairman's words in this case are very, very well chosen. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer] encourages the Committee on Appropriations to restore funding of the important TSM information systems and the nonsystems collection, so on that part of this bill I hope we can amend it.

Mr. DAVIS

Mr. DAVIS. I thank the chairman. I would tell the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, I have received assurances from the administrator of the Federal Highway Administration that he intends to undertake, on behalf of the District of Columbia, a comprehensive transportation needs assessment for the District. Such a study is desperately needed by the District, and it would benefit the entire Washington area, because of the interconnection of all of our transportation systems. This study will be paid for with Federal funds. The administration is willing to conduct this study for the District because of the serious impact on traffic of the closure of Pennsylvania Avenue. I seek assurance from the chairman of the committee that he will work with the Federal Highway Administration to ensure that this study is conducted, that Congress and the District of Columbia government are consulted on the parameters of the study, that we are able to review the results before they are final, that it will be as comprehensive as necessary, and that it will be finished within a year.

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Chairman, I was in local government for 15 years. This is not true cost-benefit at all; this is a presumption on one side of the ledger sheet and creates a presumption that somehow the public sector delivers this better. It is an unfunded mandate; it is an economic study for every Federal highway program over $50,000. This amendment will delay projects, and when you have short construction seasons in some cases, it is going to kick it over, sometimes over a year's delay getting that project costed and that ends up delaying costs and I doubt that even goes into the cost-benefit analysis. This makes it very difficult to contract out and utilize the private sector resources available. The cost and the delays in undergoing these studies are deterrent to bidding these programs out and using private sector forces. This does not save money, it is anticompetitive, it ends up costing money with the delays, and it diverts dollars from pavement and bridges and it puts them into the bureaucracy and bureaucratic studies. I think despite its good intentions, this does not cut the mustard, it does not do the job. I urge its defeat.

Mr. DAVIS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.