Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by all the media hype and the reaction of certain nations around the world, including our own country, concerning India's most recent announcement of detonating three nuclear bombs. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may recall, India exploded its first nuclear device in 1974. Since then over the years India has pleaded with the five nuclear nations, namely China, France, then the Soviet Union, now Russia, Great Britain, and the United States and with the nations of the world that if the world is serious about the implementation of the 1970 Nonproliferation Treaty and the terms of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, it is imperative that the five nuclear nations must, over a period of time, dismantle their nuclear arsenals if these two treaties would ever have any real meaning at all. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to my colleagues and to the administration, let us not be too quick to condemn the most populous democratic nation in the world, India, with a population of approximately 980 million people, for exploding these three nuclear devices, by the way, in their own backyard. Mr. Speaker, for some 24 years India and its leaders have pleaded with the five nuclear nations and the nations of the world to stop this nuclear madness. Mr. Speaker, I submit it is quite hypocritical for the five nuclear nations to tell the world to sign on to the Nonproliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty against testing, but these same nuclear nations can keep their nuclear bombs to maintain their nuclear options, and I suppose to use these nuclear weapons of mass destruction against their enemies? Mr. Speaker, in order to maintain our own nuclear bombs ready for use, our Nation is expending about $35 billion a year to sustain our nuclear options. I raise the question, Mr. Speaker, if the American taxpayers know that our nuclear program alone costs approximately $35 billion a year, do we need to have these weapons? Is the cost worth the effort? Mr. Speaker, the issue of nuclear nonproliferation now has come to the forefront. The issue is not that India has exploded these nuclear bombs. The issue is whether the five nuclear nations are willing and committed to the proposition that the manufacturing and production of nuclear bombs is not in their interest and certainly not for the world as well. Mr. Speaker, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently issued a statement and a tabulation or record of nuclear tests or nuclear bombs that were exploded in the past, and that these nuclear explosives were conducted by the five nuclear nations. For example, China, since 1964, when it started its nuclear testing program, has exploded over 45 nuclear bombs on this planet. France started its nuclear testing program in Algeria, and after Algeria gained its independence against French colonial rule, the French decided, they needed to go somewhere else. Guess where they went? In the middle of the South Pacific Ocean. Did they ask the French Polynesians whether they wanted nuclear bombs there? No. President DeGaulle decided to go there unilaterally and test over 210 nuclear bombs, which were exploded in the atmosphere, on the surface, and under the ocean surface. Let us look at the record of the Soviet Union or now Russia, which started its nuclear testing program since 1949. It exploded 715 nuclear bombs; 715 nuclear bombs. The British exploded nuclear bombs in a number of 45. And now our own Nation, we exploded 66 nuclear bombs in the Marshall Islands immediately following World War II. It was in 1954 that we exploded the most powerful hydrogen bomb ever known to mankind; known as the Bravo shot, that hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times more powerful than the bombs we exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now India has exploded only four. Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues and to the American people, India's explosion of these nuclear bombs is because its own national security is at risk. China having a nuclear arsenal; if you were among the 980 million Indians living in a country like India, I would feel very uncomfortable if my neighbor has nuclear bombs and I do not have any to defend myself. But that is not the issue. The issue here is whether the five nuclear nations are willing to dismantle their own nuclear arsenals and let us get rid of this nuclear madness. [From Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 11, 1998] India Tests Three Nuclear Devices (By Joseph Cirincione and Toby Dalton) India first demonstrated its nuclear capability when it conducted a ``peaceful nuclear experiment'' in May 1974. Twenty-four years later, India has conducted its second series of tests today. Included in this series, according to Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee, were a ``fission device, a low-yield device, and a thermo-nuclear device.'' This breaks an international moratorium on nuclear tests; China conducted its last test in 1996. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, banning all tests everywhere, has been signed by 149 nations and ratified by 13 of the required 44 nations.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, again I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for his sponsorship of this legislation. I also want to commend the gentleman from California for his pronunciation of my district. It is not ``Somalia,'' it is not ``Sam-o-a,'' it is ``Sa- moa.'' I really appreciate that. Again, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for her management of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Idaho (Mrs. Chenoweth) for her management of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill which is sponsored by my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). The Forest Service has requested the contracting authority set forth in this legislation in order to more efficiently manage a restoration project on 8,000 acres of land in the Granite Creek watershed of the Stanislaus National Forest in California. The details of the restoration work to be conducted pursuant to the contract authorized by this bill will be determined after a public process in compliance with NEPA. It is our understanding that the Forest Service is contemplating restoration activities such as thinning, controlled burning and road decommissioning in order to improve forest conditions and water quality in the Granite watershed. The legislation also provides that funds from the State of California, including CALFED funds, may also be used by the Forest Service to support these restoration activities in a watershed which is part of the Bay-Delta system. Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that this bill provides for consolidated contract authority which is limited to the specific test projects in California, but we on the minority side of the aisle are not prepared to conclude that such authority is necessary or desirable on a nationwide basis. It remains to be seen whether a single contract will result in more efficient and effective restoration work, and we would anticipate continued oversight concerning implementation of this, should it be enacted into law. The Forest Service has testified before the Committee on Resources in support of consolidated contracting authority for the Granite Creek project. They are satisfied with the bill's text as reported by the committee. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to make a technical correction to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The bill clarifies the right of non-citizen nationals of the United States to make contributions in connection with federal elections. Mr. Speaker, I represent the territory of American Samoa, the only U.S. soil in the Southern hemisphere. Persons born in American Samoa of non-citizen U.S. parents are given the status of U.S. national. These individuals are nationals of the United States, but not U.S. citizens. They owe their allegiance to the United States, serve in the U.S. military, carry U.S. passports, and have the same access to the United States as do U.S. citizens. They are not foreign nationals or aliens. Approximately 90% of the residents of American Samoa are non-citizen U.S. nationals. This status can be acquired only by birth in American Samoa or by birth in a foreign country from parents, one or both of whom are U.S. nationals. Federal law currently specifies that U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens may make contributions to candidates for federal office. If federal law were interpreted to prohibit non-citizen U.S. nationals from contributing to federal elections, the vast majority of the residents of my Congressional district would be prohibited from contributing to candidates running for the office of delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives from American Samoa. Additionally, the non-citizen U.S. nationals residing in the states of the United States, estimated to be between 35,000 and 100,000, would also be prohibited from contributing. I do not believe this was the intent of Congress when it passed the Federal Election Campaign Act. At that time, there were many fewer U.S. nationals in the United States, and the position of delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives from American Samoa did not exist. Several years ago, out of concern that then current law could be interpreted to prohibit non-citizen nationals from making political contributions, I requested and received an opinion from the Federal Elections Commission indicating that political contributions could be accepted from non-citizen nationals. This administrative clarification of an ambiguous law has been the basis upon which I have relied in accepting funds in my Congressional district. Federal court opinions in recent years have led to increased flexibility in the use of some campaign funds, and publicized violations of federal election law in the 1996 presidential campaign have prompted efforts in Congress to change the current system. H.R. 34, a bill to prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United States from making contributions or expenditures to candidates for federal office passed the House by a vote of 369-43, with one member voting present, on March 30, 1998. If H.R. 34 were to become law, the delegate from American Samoa would be prohibited from receiving political contributions from the vast majority of the residents of his or her Congressional district. This is a consequence which I consider unfavorable and which would move the campaign finance system further from the voters in American Samoa. Additionally, I believe that if H.R. 34 were to become law, it would favor the incumbent delegate from American Samoa and work to the detriment of any challengers. As it now appears that campaign finance legislation will be considered by the House this spring, I wish to bring the issue of non- citizen U.S. nationals to the attention of my colleagues and offer a legislative remedy. The number of U.S. nationals in the United States and its territories is comparatively small, but this is no reason to ignore this technical problem which could have a significant impact on future elections for the delegate from American Samoa, and which could also, should H.R. 34 or similar language be enacted into law, ensnare candidates for other federal office who unknowingly accept contributions from U.S. nationals. I urge my colleagues to support this technical change to the Federal Election Campaign Act.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, India conducted three underground nuclear tests in its Pokhran Range with a combined force of up to 20 kilotons. Although the Indian Government claims the underground explosions did not result in radioactive fallout, the fallout from the international community has been incendiary, marked by protests and condemnation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that India's return to nuclear weapons testing is highly regrettable, as it threatens stability not only in south Asia, but the whole world, and this latest action by India clearly undercuts nuclear nonproliferation efforts around the world. While these developments with India are unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, many would find India's actions to be both understandable as well as predictable. In refusing to join in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, India has long argued that the treaties are discriminatory and clearly one-sided because they maintain and perpetuate a world of nuclear haves and have-nots, a world where five nuclear nations clearly have distinctive advantages over all other countries. To remedy this inequality, India has rightfully called for global nuclear disarmament and verifiable arrangements for the elimination of nuclear weapons arsenals by the superpowers. Since its 1974 test, as a sign of good faith, India has forgone nuclear weapons testing. For almost 2\1/2\ decades, India has demonstrated nuclear restraint, while five nuclear nations, the United States, Russia, France, Great Britain and China, have conducted scores of tests in the face of worldwide disapproval. Now, Mr. Speaker, citing legitimate security concerns with nuclear- armed China and Pakistan's close alliance with Beijing, it is not surprising that India has chosen to exercise the nuclear option. Because of this, there is fear now that Pakistan may follow suit and test a nuclear device of its own. Mr. Speaker, the only way to stop this spiraling proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world is for the nuclear nations to take responsibility and set an example. How can the United States and the other four members of the nuclear club continue to argue and to urge other countries to forgo nuclear weapons while reserving the right to keep our own nuclear weapons for ready use? If this is not the height of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is. To put it another way, Mr. Speaker, this is like having the five nuclear nations tell India to tie its legs and hands by not becoming a member of the nuclear club, and any time China feels like threatening India with its nuclear arsenal, it is perfectly all right because it is within the spirit of the Nonproliferation Treaty. With the Cold War over, it is madness, Mr. Speaker, that the United States and Russia alone still have over 5,000 nuclear missiles poised to fire within seconds at each other or any other country that may pose a threat and, still, over 15,000 more warheads on operational alert. In total, over 36,000 nuclear bombs threaten the existence of this planet. Mr. Speaker, it is time that the nuclear powers negotiate a nuclear weapons convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time frame incorporating proper verification and enforcement provisions. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the former commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Command, General Lee Butler, and a former Supreme Commander of all NATO forces, General Andrew Goodpaster, representing a group of 60 retired generals and admirals, have concluded the only way to end a nuclear threat is to eliminate nuclear weapons worldwide. As General Butler has stated, and I quote, Proliferation cannot be contained in a world where a handful of self-appointed nations both arrogate to themselves the privilege of owning nuclear weapons, and extol the ultimate security assurances they assert such weapons convey. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the United States to show real leadership as the only true superpower in the world. We have no match for our military capabilities, both in terms of conventional or nuclear weapons resistance. From a position of strength, it is incumbent that we have the courage envisioned to initiate negotiations for the elimination of all nuclear weapons by the nuclear powers to free the world of this threat. Mr. Speaker, if we fail to do so, it is clear that the example of India's testing yesterday will herald the beginning of a new chapter of nuclear proliferation that will inevitably result in a nuclear tragedy of unimaginable suffering. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record three articles relating to the topic I have been speaking on this evening. [From the New York Times, May 12, 1998] India Sets 3 Nuclear Blasts, Defying a Worldwide Ban; Tests Bring a Sharp Outcry Countries with a declared nuclear weapons capacity: United States, Russia, France, Britain, and China. Countries known to have nuclear weapons capacity: India, Pakistan, and Israel. Countries seeking nuclear weapons capacity--Iran: The State Department believes that Iran is actively developing nuclear weapons, in part with its civilian nuclear energy program. Iraq: The State Department believes that Iraq aspires to have nuclear weapons but has stopped development because of the United Nations inspections. North Korea: The Clinton Administration believes that North Korea was actively developing nuclear weapons until 1994, when an agreement was reached to freeze the country's known nuclear weapons development activity.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I certainly would like to add my commendation to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), our ranking Democratic member, and to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), as the chairman of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific for his authorship on this piece of legislation, and also the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking member of our Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House Resolution 350, a measure congratulating the people of Sri Lanka on the occasion of their 50th anniversary of the independence of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka from Great Britain. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this measure. And again, I commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), chairman of the House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, for introducing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year on February 4, Sri Lanka celebrated its 50th anniversary of independence from British colonial rule, which ended on February 4, 1948. I join my colleagues in commemorating the golden jubilee independence celebration of Sri Lanka and offer my sincere congratulations to her excellency, President Chandrika Kumaratunga, and the good people of Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka, unlike much of Asia, has had a long tradition of a functioning democratic system of government. Since 1931, and even before the grant of its independence, voting rights were exercised by men as well as women. During the five decades since independence, Sri Lanka has held regular national elections as well as provincial and local government elections. The last parliamentary election was held in August of 1994, with a Presidential election taking place in November 1994. With a voter turnout of over 70 percent, President Kumaratunga was overwhelmingly elected into office. The most recent election in Sri Lanka was in the conflict-ridden Jaffna Peninsula, where in January the people of Jaffna elected local administrators. Mr. Speaker, the United States is Sri Lanka's largest trading partner, and over 90 American companies have investments there, including Motorola, IMC Agrico, Coca-Cola, and American Express and others. In 1977, Sri Lanka was the first country in South Asia to adopt economic liberalization policies, which shifted the economy away from state controls and subsidies and paved the way for the private sector to become the engine of growth. Sri Lanka's shift to a market-oriented system has become very successful, with the country recording some 6 percent economic growth in 1997. A major factor aiding Sri Lanka's economic growth has been the highly-educated work force. The government provides free education from elementary school through university levels, and the result has been a national literacy rate of 90 percent. The government also extends free health care services, and Sri Lankans enjoy low infant mortality rates and an average life expectancy of 70 years. Relations between Sri Lanka and the United States date back to 1850, when an American, John Black, was officially appointed to head up a commercial agency between the governments. With a move to the capital, Colombo, the agency office became a U.S. consulate, and upon independence in 1948, it was elevated to a United States Embassy. Mr. Speaker, this year Sri Lanka and the United States also celebrate the golden jubilee of establishing diplomatic relations. In honor and in recognition of this occasion, Ambassador Bill Richardson, the United States Representative to the United Nations, and Ambassador Karl Inderfurth, Assistant Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs, recently traveled to Sri Lanka for meetings with President Kumaratunga and other high-ranking dignitaries of the Sri Lankan Government. Mr. Speaker, despite its prosperity and commitment to democratic principles, Sri Lanka, as we all know, has been years threatened by separatist movements. In its search for peace, the Government of Sri Lanka has proposed extensive devolution of power through constitutional reforms to resolve the present ethnic problem in the country through a negotiated settlement. This is a process supported by our government, and we should all take steps necessary to encourage the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam to lay down their arms, stop their terrorism, and enter into peaceful negotiations. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to adopt the measure before us that congratulates the people of Sri Lanka on their 50th anniversary. We should all recognize the many accomplishments of our partners in Sri Lanka and the deep and enduring friendship that will always bind the good people of Sri Lanka and the people of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Joint Resolution 102, the legislation which expresses the sense of the Congress on the 50th anniversary of Israel's founding and reaffirmation of the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the United States and the modern State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be a cosponsor of this legislation, and I thank our distinguished colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for introducing this worthy measure. I also commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the ranking member, for his support and for bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, on May 14, 1948, the modern State of Israel was founded when Israel declared independence and was extended diplomatic recognition by the United States. Today, our legislation honors the 50th anniversary of the reestablishment of the sovereign and independent modern State of Israel and commends the leaders and people of Israel for their remarkable achievements in building a thriving democracy in the Middle East while being threatened constantly with terrorism and war. Mr. Speaker, the legislation further reaffirms the strong ties of friendship and cooperation that have traditionally bound the people of Israel with the insurance over the past century and extends from Congress our warmest congratulations and best wishes to the State of Israel and her people for peace and prosperity in the future. Mr. Speaker, the existence of the modern State of Israel is the culmination of a 3,000-year journey from the kingdom of Israel established in old Jerusalem. Today, Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East, and the people of our two nations share a special relationship based upon democratic values, common strategic interests, and bonds of cooperation and mutual respect. Mr. Speaker, it was my privilege recently to travel with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and other Members of this body to visit Israel and to especially pay homage to the great site of the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin; and I recalled how this great modern-day warrior, Mr. Rabin, who seriously and who earnestly sought a solution to the crisis between the Israelis and the Palestinians, a man who truly was a peacemaker, a man who wanted so much to have a lasting peace with his blood cousins, the Palestinians, a man who recognized that Arabs and Israelis are, in fact, first cousins under Father Abraham. And I sincerely hope that the current leadership, Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and President Arafat of Palestine, will eventually find the solution for peace to the never-ending problems between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the late Prime Minister Rabin's greatness, in my humble opinion, did not originate in the field of battle, but in his sincere desires to establish peace between Israel and among its Arab neighbors. Mr. Speaker, Americans with Jewish descent should have every reason to be proud and to witness the existence on the 50th anniversary of the modern State of Israel. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly want to commend the gentleman from Ohio for his comments. I, for one, cannot think of a more able and consistent advocate here on the floor of the House than the gentleman from Ohio for supporting and always pressing for the fact that we should buy American, and the fact that American workers and those who are managing corporate communities should be working together so that the Americans should buy American products. And I cannot thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) enough for advocating this issue again. And I do thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for complementing the provisions of this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first commend my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, for his leadership and for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor for consideration by this body. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3164. The need for accurate nautical charts to promote safe navigation was recognized by Thomas Jefferson, who as President in 1807, established a coast survey to produce charts and collect other data needed by mariners. Maritime transportation and the technology used in collecting and disseminating nautical data have changed dramatically since then, but the need for accurate and timely data for safe navigation has not. Mr. Chairman, in recent years our Federal program to produce nautical charts carried out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has fallen on hard times. In constant dollars, funding for these activities has fallen 50 percent over the last 25 years. NOAA currently has only three ships in service collecting charting data, down from 11 vessels in 1971. Yet there is a backlog of some 39,000 square miles of heavily traveled marine areas with inadequate or obsolete surveys. Many of these areas were last surveyed with weighted lead lines, a technology that Mr. Jefferson would have been familiar with. With today's tight budgets and rapidly changing technology, Mr. Chairman, there is a recognition that NOAA's nautical charting program needs to be modernized. H.R. 3164 provides a blueprint by which NOAA can continue to provide data vital to the maritime community while allowing the maximum opportunity for the private sector to participate in that process. The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) has very effectively detailed the specifics of what H.R. 3164 will provide. Mr. Chairman, suffice it to say, H.R. 3164 establishes clear and appropriate roles for the government and the private sector in the collection, processing and dissemination of nautical data. Importantly, the bill provides NOAA with the flexibility to require the services of contractors based on qualification and not on cost. This change in law is especially important in the collection of hydrographic data where lives and property could be lost if mistakes are made. Mr. Chairman, in short this is win-win legislation. The private sector benefits from an increased share of NOAA's charting work being outsourced; the government benefits from its being able to avail itself of the latest technology through contractors without being burdened by substantial acquisition costs for capital assets. The public benefits from having more accurate, up-to-date nautical charts produced at lower cost. In summary, Mr. Chairman, the bill authorizes a total of $581 million for 5 years for hydrographic and geodetic programs for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The bill also clarifies NOAA's hydrographic responsibilities. It requires NOAA to the greatest extent possible to contract with private sector companies to conduct nautical surveys and prepare nautical charts. It authorizes NOAA to maintain sufficient vessels, equipment and expertise to certify the accuracy of U.S. nautical charts and other hydrographic products. The bill also establishes a quality assurance program under which NOAA may certify that non-Federal hydrographic products meet Federal standards and provides for the modernization of tide and current measurement systems in major ports. The measure is intended to enact into law the division of survey and other responsibilities agreed to in 1997 between NOAA and the private sector, and to increase funding for these activities so that the existing backlog of nautical surveys may be more quickly addressed. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my good friend. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution. The Constitution does not need to be fixed. If it is not broken, it does not need fixing. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 111, a constitutional amendment that would require a two- thirds majority vote in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate to pass any bill increasing federal taxes, except in time of war or military conflict. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill for many reasons, but the fundamental reason is the change in our tradition of majority rule which has governed our country, with limited exceptions, for the past two centuries. Over the years I have seen our system of checks and balances work to the benefit of the American people time and time again. When Congress gets out of sync with the American people, the people elect new Senators and Members of Congress. When the views of the public change more than those of the Members of Congress, we see more significant changes in the membership of the two Houses of Congress. These larger changes take place because individual voters take their right to vote seriously, and vote for individuals who represent their interests. This system has worked well for over 200 years. Today, H.J. Res. 111 proposes to alter this system and give to one-third of the Members of either House of Congress the power to prevent Congress from increasing revenue collected by the government. Why is this being proposed? Supporters of this resolution say it is too easy to raise taxes. I find that difficult to accept. While I cannot vote on the floor of this House, I generally find consideration of legislation which will raise taxes difficult enough just to support, let alone vote for. Our voting records are all reviewed carefully by our opponents at election time, and votes which are perceived to be unpopular back home are brought to the public's attention over and over again through political advertising. Votes to increase taxes are difficult votes, but there are times when it is in the national interest to do so. Traditionally, it has been the majority of the Members of Congress, together with the President, who determine what is in the national interest. H.J. Res. 111 would permit one-third of either House of Congress to make that decision for what could be the vast majority of Congress. For example, thirty-four Senators could subvert the wishes of 435 Members of the House and 66 Senators. This is an important point because the Constitution gives the power to originate tax measures to this body, the U.S. House of Representatives. Under the terms of H.J. Res. 111, the will of a vast majority of this body could be thwarted by 34 Senators. Mr. Speaker, this is not democracy and should not be supported. There are many examples of the problems the proposed constitutional amendment would create, and I want to take a moment to briefly mention a couple. For example, would a provision that reduces revenues for five years but would raise them every year after that be prohibited? Are we to be stuck with current tax rates on the rich? Are those to be the maximum tax rates forever? Currently, the poor pay no federal income taxes. Are we to be stuck with the tax rate of zero percent for them forever? Under the terms of H.J. Res. 111, I submit we would be, because it will be very difficult to get two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and the President of the United States to sign a bill which would change those rates. There is also the issue of tax loopholes. It is hard enough under current law to end these provisions which inure to the benefit of special interest groups. Let us not make it any harder. Mr. Speaker, we are all up for re-election every two years. That alone is a strong enough disincentive to raise taxes only when it is in our national interest to do so. The voters are the check in our current system and the current system is working well. Under the current system, majority rules. Under H.J. Res. 111, the minority rules. Let's not change the Constitution to give this significant power to a minority of Congress.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation which is being introduced today by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton with the four Congressional delegates as cosponsors. The legislation would amend the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act to extend the program by an additional year for the purpose of including the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Mr. Speaker, earlier in this Congress when we passed the Commemorative Coin Program Act, the insular areas were omitted from the legislation. Current law authorizes the minting of twenty-five cent coins to commemorate each of the 50 states through state-specific designs on one side of the coins. It is a ten-year program, with five states being honored each year. This bill amends current law by adding an eleventh year to the program. During this year, the District of Columbia and the four insular areas, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, would also be recognized through the minting of twenty-five cent coins. Commemorative designs on one side of the coins would be submitted by the chief executive officer of these areas. This legislation is very timely for my Congressional district, Mr. Speaker. American Samoa will celebrate the centennial of its union with the United States in the year 2000. American Samoa has a long, proud history of supporting the United States--ever since the traditional leaders of the main island of Tutuila ceded their island to the United States on April 17, 1900. Tutuila's beautiful harbor is the deepest in the South Pacific, and the port village of Pago Pago was used as a coaling station for U.S. naval ships in the early part of the century and as a support base for U.S. soldiers during World War II. To this day, American Samoa serves as a refueling point for U.S. naval ships and military aircraft. At the present time, American Samoans have a per capita enlistment rate in the U.S. military which is as high as any state or U.S. territory. Our sons and daughters have served in record numbers in every U.S. military engagement from World War II to Desert Storm. We have stood by the United States in good times and bad, and we will continue to do so. Congress has recognized American Samoa's proud heritage on numerous occasions, and many of my constituents have asked that the United States Government provide special recognition of the 100th year of our union. I believe it would be most fitting to acknowledge the centennial anniversary of our relationship with the United States with the issuance of a commemorative coin, and I am optimistic that this bill will become public law later this year.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I fully appreciate the gentleman's position on this issue, but it is my understanding that it is the intention of the administration to do an upgrading and make sure that these Huey helicopters will be in performance. Now, we do have problems with the Hueys. There is no question about that. But we also have problems with the Blackhawk helicopters. We do not even have properly trained Colombian officers even to operate and to maintain the Blackhawk helicopters, even if we should give them three of them. While I can appreciate the concerns of the gentleman from New York here, our concern is that they already know how to operate these Hueys. We do have maintenance problems with them, but it is our hope that the administration will fulfill their commitment to make sure that we not only provide proper maintenance, because in fact these Huey helicopters can be operated and piloted by Colombian officers, that is the concern that we have.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, again reclaiming my time, I would say with utmost respect to the gentleman from New York, our chairman and my good friend, I think the problem that we have here is that we need to have the administration come forward and explain to the Congress what their firm commitment is about not only providing proper maintenance for these 26 Hueys, but to make sure that they operate well. Now the fact that we do have problems with the Blackhawks, I think we also need a firm commitment from the administration that they will not only give the three helicopters, the Blackhawks, but make sure that the Colombian officers of that country are able to operate them. I think this is one of the problems that we are faced with here. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), our distinguished democratic leader on the committee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to speak on this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad occasion for taking up this piece of legislation. I wish it could have been done on a bipartisan basis; but, unfortunately, this is not the case. Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the status of legal permanent resident aliens who pay Federal income taxes on their income, wherever earned around the world. Legal permanent residents have always been given the privilege of contributing to campaign elections, but why are my Republican friends now putting on such a prohibition? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the vast majority of the permanent resident aliens are Hispanic Americans and Asian Pacific Americans. I would like to look into this to examine what exactly is the basis for this. Legal permanent residents are also required to register for the military draft, and nearly 20,000 serve voluntarily in America's Armed Forces. The record reveals that none have fought harder to protect America's freedoms. In fact, one out of every five Congressional Medal of Honor recipients has been a legal resident permanent alien or a naturalized American citizen. The Supreme Court has already recognized that the first amendment of our Constitution protects the rights of legal immigrants as well as citizens. Mr. Speaker, I cannot even introduce an amendment concerning the rights and privileges of a U.S. national. It is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. It is a sad day.