Peter Deutsch

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. I was under the impression that we are going from side to side, and the last amendment was offered by the other side of the aisle.

Mr. DEUTSCH. And that is regardless of going back and forth, from side to side?

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I, too, join my two previous colleagues on the floor this morning, really out of absolute frustration. I came to the House 6 years ago and was involved in trying to help resolve this claim by Hill International with the Saudi Government. And here, for me personally, 6 years later, we are still at that point. This is the only one of 19 claims filed against the Saudi Government by American companies in the 1980s that still remains unpaid. Over the last 5 years, literally dozens of Members of Congress have vocalized their support for resolution of this final claim but have received nothing but empty promises from Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar. A former member of this chamber, Bill Emerson, in 1995, met with Ambassador Bandar and was asked to broker a compromise agreement to the claim. Despite Representative Emerson's diligent efforts to implement this compromise before his passing, Ambassador Bandar has refused to honor this gentleman's agreement. Over the last year, Prince Bandar has repeatedly committed to meet with the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Jo Ann Emerson) in an effort to conclude this matter, but has been unwilling to set a date. How long must this American company continue to wait? We need to get this settlement resolved.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, today President Clinton visited my home state of Florida to promote the Administration's education initiatives as education policy moves into the 21st Century. While we have made significant progress in recent years, there is a lot of work yet to be done. I rise today to wholeheartedly support the strengthening of public education through these initiatives. In order to meet the high education standards that we are setting for our children today, we need to provide public schools with the tools for preparing our children for the challenges of the next millennium. Class sizes must be reduced, new teachers must be hired, and new schools must be built. Schools must also be made safer and, therefore, more conducive to learning. I believe that the expansion of charter school programs is a positive trend which will benefit children throughout the United States. Lastly, federal tax credits will be a crucial to support the renovation and modernization of our schools, many of which have become plagued by structural and age-related problems. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Administration's program for public education. In so doing, Congress will fulfill its commitment to America's future.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was absent from the chamber today for rollcall votes 417, 418 and 419. Had I been present, I would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted ``aye'' on each of these votes.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong opposition to the Hefley amendment. I am pleased to see so many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle firmly committed to nondiscrimination in the workplace. However, it is absolutely appalling that the House would even consider this outrageous amendment. President Clinton's executive order reaffirms every American's right to non-discrimination in the workplace. Yet the Hefley amendment would reverse this policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Non-discrimination is a fundamental American right, whether it be on the basis of sex, religion, or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, this amendment is yet another example of a concerted assault on human rights pushed by extremists who wish to divide Americans. It strikes a blow to the core of democracy and should be rejected by all Americans who value the principle of freedom in the workplace. Mr. Chairman, we must stand up in defense of all Americans and reject this amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss NOAA's South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. Because of NOAA's scientific management capabilities, the agency plays a critical role in this massive restoration effort. Ten Members of the Florida delegation wrote to the committee on May 11 supporting NOAA's programs. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address two points. First, it is my understanding that the House will provide $2.6 million for this initiative and $1.3 million to the National Marine Fisheries Service to continue its restoration efforts. Second, I would ask the chairman if he would consider in conference the request of the National Ocean Service for a coral reef monitoring program.

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

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Hefley amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the City of Pembroke Pines for responding to our community's concerns regarding the education of our youth. In an effort to ease some of the overcrowding and to better prepare students for the challenges they will face in the new millennium, the City of Pembroke Pines has taken the bold initiative of creating the nation's first elementary charter school owned and operated by a municipality. On August 29, 1998, Mayor Alex Fekete, Vice Mayor Frank Ortis, City Manager Charles Dodge, and Commissioners William Armstrong and Susan Katz will proudly participate in the ribbon cutting ceremony for this innovative educational facility which represents the first fruition of their vision for greater educational opportunity in South Florida. As members of the school's advisory board, along with the school principal, parents, and business representatives, they will oversee the day-to-day operation of the school in a partnership that will, as Mayor Fekete so nicely states, ``bring education back closer to the people.'' The school will focus on the core disciplines and modern educational technology. Perhaps more importantly, it will emphasize character development as well as parental and community involvement. To ensure a nurturing ambiance conducive to intellectual, emotional, and social development, class size will be limited to a maximum of 25 students, and a fully accredited teacher as well as a teacher's aide will be assigned to each class. The school will deliver high quality education while being more cost effective than other schools managed by the district. The per student station cost for the Pembroke Pines Charter School comes to $8,600 in contrast to the $13,000 per station average for the state schools. I commend the efforts of these elected officials, Mayor Alex Fekete, Vice Mayor Frank Ortis, City Manager Charles Dodge, and Commissioners William Armstrong and Susan Katz, who dared to take a step in a new direction. The rest of our country will be closely watching the progress of this new educational alternative and may soon follow the innovative lead of these municipal officials. I share in their excitement because this Charter School provides another creative option for public education. Our future resides in our children, and our schools must commit themselves to excellence as they strive to better prepare them for the next century.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this House is the institution in the world that epitomizes freedom in the world. Our country, the oldest democracy in the history of the world, when we say that it just kind of rolls off our tongues, but I think every once in a while we need to stop and think about what that means. The price of freedom has not been easy, as all of us know. It has been costly in many ways, in lives and money over hundreds of years at this point in time. This House and this country has had a commitment to that. We have used a variety of methods to achieve our goals. Who would have thought in this Chamber, in this country, really in this world that the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union does not exist. And how did that happen? History books will be written about how it happened, why it happened. But I think clearly an instrumental part of that was Radio Free Europe. The facts are it was jammed. It was jammed on a continuous basis. It was jammed more effectively, less effectively during different points in time. The facts are that we are trying to bring freedom throughout the world today in the darkest corners of this planet, where freedom has what appears to be no hope, whether it is in North Korea or in China. We are committed as an institution, I think universally, every one of us, I really believe, as well as every American, towards those goals. Yet in those countries I just mentioned, as we try to broadcast in to them, the penetration, because of effective jamming, is very, very small. Less than 1 percent of people in those countries are able to hear what we broadcast. At no point in the history of the United States of America have we given up on our actions towards freedom. This amendment is an attempt to do exactly that. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment because this would be a dark chapter in the history of this House, a turning back of really over 200 years of American freedom. My colleagues, several colleagues have argued of the fact that a very small percentage of Cubans are able to see TV Marti, I can even accept that, of 1.5 percent. But let us talk about what that means. That means 40,000 people, 40,000 people do have access. And this is not, it is funny, in terms of what the reality is of Cuba. I happen to represent the district in this country closest to Cuba. I represent south Florida and the Florida Keys, including Key West. When I am in Key West, I am 90 miles from Havana. I am actually 110 miles from Miami. I actually live about 60 miles north of Miami. My district goes even further north, to give my colleagues a sense of the geography of south Florida. I live in a community, I have friends and I have actually been to Cuba on several occasions when we have had emigration go through at Guantanamo station. I have had the opportunity to talk to people who literally walk through mine fields, literally walk through mine fields to get to freedom. Some of the people that walked through did not make it. It is not a movie. It is a reality of what the country is today. We hear from movie stars who go there, the Jack Nicholsons of the world, who idolize or make statements about Fidel Castro. I would point my colleagues to the statement of one of our colleagues, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), who is the only Holocaust survivor in this Chamber, who visited Cuba and talked to us and said that Cuba today, in terms of the people, is worse than pre-Nazi Germany. That is from his words and from his eyes. It is a country of political prisoners. It is not the idyllic island in the Caribbean of serenity and golf courses. It is a place of torture. It is a demon in our midst, a demon 90 miles from our shore. To send the message that we do not care, that we are willing to put up with it, that we, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, are going to back down on our commitment to freedom would be absolutely tragic. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4250 is an ineffective attempt to solve the real problems and concerns of the American people. The legislation fails to achieve real managed care reform by allowing insurers to selectively choose specific geographic areas to limit enrollment. This approach will inevitably segment the market, removing the healthy from the general insurance pool and leaving the remainder with increasingly unaffordable premiums. H.R. 4250 also fails to provide patients with information on benefits, cost-sharing, access to services, and grievance and appeals. It fails to provide an internal quality assurance program and fails to allow for an effective mechanism for accountability. In short, H.R. 4250 fails the American people. The Republican leadership bill is simply a cosmetic approach toward enacting real patient protections. We must enact strong, common sense measures which include critical protections for all privately insured Americans. We must strengthen federal enforcement to ensure compliance, and increase access to affordable, high quality care. Again, H.R. 4250 fails the American people on each of these counts. Mr. Speaker, only through bi-partisan consensus can we achieve meaningful reform. As Congress continues to work toward this goal, I look forward to supporting truly bi-partisan proposals that addresses patient concerns honestly and expands health care options for all Americans.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the proposed bill by the majority, which does not address any of the major needs the people of America are asking for in this proposal.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus in on two issues that my colleagues raised. The first is that frivolous lawsuits have a cost. They have a cost for all Americans. They have a cost in access to capital, they have a cost in lack of job creation. That is what this issue is really about. We have seen it, we have seen an actual cost. The strike lawsuits that still exist in this country that found a loophole that this legislation is trying to correct have a terrible effect on the country, and the only way to prevent it is through this legislation. The second thing I want to respond to is really some of the comments about the number of lawsuits, that it is a problem that does not exist. Let me be very clear about this, how you can use numbers and sort of play around with numbers. In 1992, there were only four State cases that were brought on this issue. In 1993 there was one. In 1994 there was one. After we passed the legislation, there were 59 in 1995. In 1996, there were 40. So, yes, there was a decrease between 1995 and 1996, but the only reason we saw a 6,000 percent increase over 1995 levels and 4,000 percent increase over 1995 levels was because of the loophole that this legislation needs to be able to solve. Mr. Speaker, I urge its support.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I think that it is clear the position of the Congress in terms of Taiwan. The Taiwan Relations Act is the law of the land. I would differ with some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as to exactly what the President's statements meant. I think there is some ambiguity there, but I do not think this Congress should be ambiguous at all in our position in support of the continuation of what that law says. It is absolutely clear, the unanimous support that came out of the United States Senate. Hopefully we will see very large support on this side as well. In the 6 years I have been in Congress, probably the most dramatic time that occurred was before the elections in Taiwan, when China made threatening comments and, to this country's credit, and to this Congress' credit and to the President's credit, a United States aircraft carrier was put in between those two countries. Really it was a reaffirmation of the Taiwan Relations Act. By calling black ``white'' does not make it white. We are clear in terms of history the reality of what Taiwan is, and to say that it is not a separate entity and is part of China automatically does not make it part of China. I think what is clear and what our position is is that the people of Taiwan are the people to decide what their future will be. If they choose at some point in time to enter into a direct relationship with the people of China, then that will be their choice. If they choose to continue their present status or if they choose some type of independent status, that is their choice to continue. But I think this Congress, in terms of our role, in terms of supporting really democracies around the world, which is no clearer goal in terms of our foreign policy, when we cut through everything else in terms of what our goals as a country, as a society should be, those are goals we share. I urge the support of all of my colleagues for the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 301, a resolution affirming the United States' commitment to Taiwan. I want to commend the Majority Whip, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay for introducing this timely resolution, and I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of this very important legislation. It is absolutely critical that the House of Representatives make a strong statement in support of Taiwan--especially in light of President Clinton's regrettable comments during his recent visit to the People's Republic of China. Despite any denials, it is clearly plain for all to see that the President was making a concession to the Chinese on the future of Taiwan. Though the policy shift might be regarded by some as slight, the Administration has clearly moved in the direction of accepting Beijing's position on the status of Taiwan. This was virtuously a ``sell-out'' of one of the world's most vibrant democracies and sends a dangerous signal to other burgeoning democracies that might look to the U.S. for moral support. The President should again review the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the law of the land. It makes no mention of peaceful ``reunification.'' It calls only for the future of Taiwan to be determined by peaceful means. The Presidents--Nixon, Carter and Reagan--have issued communiques spelling out U.S. policy towards China. None ever mentioned the new ``Three No's.'' The so-called ``Three No's''--No independence for Taiwan; no two China's or one China, one Taiwan; and no U.S. support for Taiwan to join international organizations where statehood is a requirement for membership--are Beijing's policies--not ours. At least they weren't until the President spelled them out in Shanghai. No U.S. president has ever made such a public statement with regard to Taiwan--especially not while standing on the Chinese mainland. President Clinton's words will have a great impact on the future of Taiwan. They may well embolden Beijing to continue to exercise another ``No'' that the President should have--but did not mention--no use of force. The President's failure to mention this most important ``No'' only increases the likelihood that we will have to address this issue sometime in the future. Regrettably, the President seems to have forgotten the storm clouds of conflict which covered the Taiwan Strait in the spring of 1996 when the Chinese launched missiles across the Strait into international air and sea lanes in an effort to influence the first democratic elections in Chinese history. Also apparently forgotten was the deployment of two U.S. carrier battle groups and 15,000 American sailors and marines to the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait in response. It was dismaying and disheartening to see that this Administration has opted to side with authoritarianism and oppression over democracy and freedom. I would remind the Administration that the United States has never ``accepted'' Beijing's claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. It has only ``acknowledged'' the PRC's position. Until now. Regardless of how the White House spins the President's statement, the Administration has now in effect recognized Beijing's version of a One China policy. The Chinese will not permit the President's statement to be forgotten. The future of Taiwan must be settled peacefully and not by one side dictating terms to the other. Regrettably, the President's statement has seriously undermined the possibility for a peaceful resolution of Taiwan's future by severely weakening Taiwan's bargaining position and enhancing the threat of the use of force by the PRC. At a minimum, the statement has limited Taiwan's options for participating in international fora to the detriment of Taiwan and the world community. Taiwan's future is a decision for the 21 million people of Taiwan to decide. I regret the President's comments and I am concerned for the consequences they may bring. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this important resolution. It deserves bi-partisan support. Let us tell the Administration and the Chinese that we stand resolute on Taiwan.

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may reclaim 2 minutes of the time on this side of the aisle.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to support the Bass-DeFazio amendment to H.R. 4101, a bipartisan amendment to eliminate wasteful spending and to protect wildlife and the environment. This amendment makes a surgical cut from the operations of the Wildlife Services, known to many of us for years as the Animal Damage Control Program. Mr. Chairman, this is a program that the public holds in poor regard, because it reflects a callous attitude toward wildlife and the environment and amounts to corporate welfare in the West. For decades, Wildlife Services and Animal Damage Control have taken a jaundiced view toward wildlife problems, relying on quick-fix lethal control strategies rather than lasting solutions. They have measured their success in terms of the number of animals killed rather than the amount of livestock damage mitigated. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, the Los Angeles Times reported on September 9, 1997 ``Each cycle of control only seems to beget more coyotes. They have been shot at, trapped, snared, clubbed, strangled by the millions. The Federal Government alone dispatched 82,261 coyotes last year, more than 638,000 since 1980. Yet, in the 100 years since livestock owners began the coyote war in the West, the resourceful predator has far surpassed the wolf, the grizzly, and the cougar, tripling its numbers and its range.'' We are not winning the war against the coyote. We are wasting dollars in a futile exercise, a lethal control treadmill that leads us nowhere. Indeed, ranchers need to protect their livestock, their investment. During the last two decades, there have been a variety of practical and effective nonlethal husbandry techniques developed and put into practical use: the use of guard animals, such as dogs, donkeys or llamas; the use of electronic sound and light devices; predator exclusion fencing; shed lambing; and night penning. By deploying these techniques, ranchers can minimize the need for lethal responses to predators. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. What we are advocating in supporting the Bass-DeFazio amendment is practical and workable. In fact, there is an excellent working model in the State of Kansas which has virtually no Animal Damage Control money or staff. Instead the State Extension Service has worked with ranchers and other resource users and taught them how to deter coyote problems and how to selectively eliminate problem animals. Kansas has spent less than $75,000 of Federal dollars in 27 years, while all other States in the West spent 8 to 50 times more. Take the case of Oklahoma which spent $1.3 million a year and maintained 28 damage control staff. In spite of the increase in spending labor, the reported wildlife problems are 20 times greater than in Kansas. Mr. Chairman, there is a better way. The DeFazio-Bass amendment leads us in the right direction by reducing the full of dollars invested in failed and fruitless lethal predator control strategies. I urge my colleagues to join with taxpayer defense groups and environmental and humane groups in supporting this sensible amendment to bring sanity to this program.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I join all of my colleagues in congratulating and really saying thanks to the chairman and the ranking member who have done more for this country, really, than few other Members. To the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), personally, if I have had literally one key mentor in Congress, it has been him. I would join many of my colleagues today to say that as good as this bill is, our hope from a Florida perspective is that the legislation could have gone a little bit further towards the President's request in terms of Everglades restoration projects. I am planning on introducing for the Record an Army Corps of Engineers analysis which talks about the specifics of programs, if this is the ultimate budget, that will not be funded. Congress has made an incredible commitment in the 6 years I have been here towards this. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal 1998 year 1999 Senate House project Budget markup markup allocations request ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C&SF........................................................... $21,833 $40,800 $25,000 $20,900 Kissimmee...................................................... 2,817 27,300 10,000 3,500 Critical projects.............................................. 4,009 20,000 10,000 3,000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from the Chamber for rollcall vote Nos. 211, 212, 213, and 214. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 211, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 212, ``aye'' on rollcall vote 213, and ``aye'' on rollcall vote 214.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a much beloved Key West resident, Ms. Anne McKee. For the past twenty-six years, Ms. McKee has dedicated her life to serving her community, and it is therefore, no surprise to hear that she has been named the 1998 Florence Spottswood Humanitarian of the Year by the Monroe County chapter of the American Red Cross. This is not the first time that Ms. McKee has been recognized. In 1993, she was named the Woman of the Year in Arts. To honor her achievements the mayor of Key West designated November 10, 1993 as Anne McKee Day. During her tenure as chairwoman of the Monroe County Arts Council, she successfully integrated the council into the South Florida Consortium and, in 1991, she founded the Anne McKee Artists Fund which has awarded more than 50 grants to local artists. In the spirit of Ms. Florence Spottswood, the founder of the Florida Keys chapter of the American Red Cross, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Anne McKee for her tireless contributions to our island city.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and congratulate the boys' baseball team of Key West High School. The city of Key West prides itself as the home of the Ernest Hemingway Festival, Duval Street, and magnificent beaches. This year, the Conchs, the Key West High School boys' baseball team, has provided the city with another reason to burst with pride--a first place trophy in a national tournament. Recently, the Conchs won the Pepsi All-Sport National High School Baseball Tournament with an 11-7 victory in Boca Raton over Monsignor Pace High School. This was the conclusive win which had been preceded by three other victories in five days and which gave the Conchs the much sought after title of national champions. Although, this is not the first time that the Key West Conchs have participated in a national tournament, it is the first time they have been crowned as victors. Two years ago, the boys lost at the Dole Classic in California and last year at the USA Classic in Tennessee. This year, however, proved to be different. This season the Conchs made history for Key West High School by attaining the first place trophy in a national high school baseball tournament. The championship roster includes: Michael Anderson, Dane Artman, Devin Butler, John Paul Castro, Lazaro Chavez, Marcus Davila, Peter Dunick, Khalil Greene, Ben Harrison, Daniel Hersey, Tommy Lambeth, Luis Leal, Aaron Marn, Juan Menendez, Sean Morales, Brian O'Connell, Stephen Parker, Troy Phillipps, Tony Ramos, Eduardo Rodriquez, Billy Spottswood, Christian Twyman. Overseeing this group were Head Coach Brooks Carey, Pitching Assistant Coach Randy Sterling, First Base Assistant Coach Chris Valdez, Third Base Assistant Coach Ralph Sanchez, Athletic Director Robert Price and Principal Alma Olson. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to represent the students of Key West High School who continue to strive to achieve excellence. On behalf of the citizens of the Twentieth District of Florida, we congratulate the Conchs on an outstanding season.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Brownie Troop No. 434 from Poinciana Elementary School in Key West, Florida. The troop received the community award in the 1998 Make a Difference Day Awards on April 19th from USA Weekend, a nationally distributed publication. Make a Difference Day, an annual event held on the fourth Saturday of every October, was started in 1992 by USA Weekend and The points of Light Foundation. The Poinciana Troop first participated in their event in 1996 by holding a school-wide food drive which succeeded in collecting 692 cans. The troop's original goal was to collect 1,000 canned goods and recruit 13 businesses to volunteer as collection sites. They surpassed their goal last October 25th by collecting 2,213 items of food for St. Mary's Soup Kitchen and enlisting the participation of sixty-five businesses. The Poinciana Elementary School Brownie Troop No. 434 is composed of 13 young girls, ages 6 to 8 who are: Katherine Albury, Allison Baker, Yanessa Barroso, Diana Baucom, Britney Bethel, Alexandria Caballero, Claire Dolan-Heitlinger, Espi O'Dell, Brittany Rogowski, Melissa Roos, Amanda Talbott, Andrea Wells,and Sheri Yoest. The troop is led by Troop Leader Dawn Albury. As their congressman, I am proud to represent such socially-conscious young girls. I am sure the citizens of Key West join me in wishing them continued success in 1998.

Mr. DEUTSCH

Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I think this is a personal record. I do not think I have ever spoken on a bill on the floor of this House three times in one afternoon, but I am going to do that because some of the debate, some of the comments by other Members have done it at least three times as well. Just going through what the bill does and the present reality in the market I think is critical for everyone to have a very keen understanding before they vote. The legislation absolutely provides that people who have entered into a contract in 2000 would have an ability, a one-time ability to renegotiate that contract. Let us talk about why people entered into those contracts. They entered into those contracts because they had no choice. Today if you want to call from Washington, D.C. to Africa, there is only one way to do it, and that is through COMSAT. I do not know what definition of monopoly my colleagues are using, but that is a definition of monopoly. We keep hearing the fact, we have two sides of this debate, some saying there is a monopoly, some saying there is not a monopoly. Let me again talk in specifics. There are locations where there is underground cable. For instance, if you want to call from here to England, you can actually go through an underground cable. So in that market there is competition. But for a significant part of this market there is no competition at all but a government-granted monopoly that we as the United States Congress granted. Let me talk about abrogating contracts. It is a very serious thing that we ought to think about. In the State of Florida that I represent, there are only two times in the Florida judicial system that there is a 12-person jury, when the death penalty is a possibility or when you are going to be taking someone's property. If someone has a potential penalty in Florida of life imprisonment, it is a six-person jury. But in Florida if we are going to take one foot of your property, it is a 12-person jury. So let me tell my colleagues something. I come from a State where we take property rights very, very, very seriously. This is not an issue about property rights and taking. It is an issue of how are we going to implement a new competitive paradigm in telecommunications. And again the facts are that we have done this before. And for the third time, I am going to mention what we have done before; that when AT&T was broken up, the exact same procedure was used. Contracts that were in place were allowed to be renegotiated because of why and how those contracts were implemented. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the amendment and passage of the bill.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Mr. DEUTSCH. I said Africa.