Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2186 directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish a National Historic Trails Interpretive Center in Casper, Wyoming, and to carry out this legislation the bill authorizes an appropriation of $5 million, and I want to certainly commend my good friend, the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), who is the chief sponsor of this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the center would encompass 4 designated historic trails, national historic trails, the Oregon Trail, the California trail, the Mormon Pioneer Trail and the Pony Express Trail, that pass through the Casper area. The center would include displays and provide visitor education on the historical impacts of the trails. Exhibits would depict the pioneers' travels, and I have been told that that would also include a focus on Native Americans. The Bureau of Land Management is currently a partner with the State of Wyoming, the City of Casper and the National Historic Trails Center Foundation on this project. The partners are operating under a 1992 memorandum of understanding and a 1997 cooperative agreement. The Bureau of Land Management has also committed $450,000 for the engineering and design of the center, and the Wyoming legislature has appropriated $700,000, and the local county has provided $1.5 million for the center through local sales taxes. The City of Casper has donated $700,000 to the foundation and has pledged to provide the land on which the center will be built. The foundation has raised $3 million towards the $4.5 million commitment to the project. In addition, efforts are underway to establish an endowment of at least $1 million to help with the maintenance and operation costs of the center. Mr. Speaker, as this statement shows, there has already been a significant amount of work done to establish a National Historic Trails Center in Casper, Wyoming, and I add my support to these efforts in the bill. I believe H.R. 2186 is a noncontroversial measure, it does have the support of the administration, and I ask my colleagues to support this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I thank the gentlewoman for her tremendous patience, and I want to commend the gentleman from California for his remarks. I think that perhaps we should provide a special area in this historic center we are going to build in Casper, Wyoming, and put all the memorabilia about campaign finance reform in it. Maybe that might be of help. I want to truly thank the gentlewoman for our dialogue this afternoon and in passage of this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my personal welcome to the distinguished members of the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada. They are members of the Canadian Parliament Committee on International Relations and Trade. They have expressed an interest to discuss with our colleagues the important issues of nuclear nonproliferation and its impact, not only to our Nation, to the region, and to the world for that matter. Mr. Speaker, with approximately a $34 billion budget for the production and safeguard for our own nuclear arsenal, Mr. Speaker, we do not even know what to do with the billions of dollars expended on what to do with nuclear waste. Why is Nevada made the only State to carry such a tremendous burden? We have developed the technology on perfecting the nuclear trigger, Mr. Speaker, but we do not even know how to control nuclear waste. What a travesty, Mr. Speaker. We need to look a little closer into this important issue.

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. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations, for raising the important matter of the United States' support for Colombia in the war against narcotics production in that country. Mr. Speaker, however, I, along with the ranking Democratic leader of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), must reluctantly oppose the measure, House Resolution 398 before us, because there are, I believe, better alternatives to aid the Colombian government in their drug-fighting efforts than by sending three Blackhawk utility helicopters. Mr. Speaker, the United States is facing a narcotics epidemic of troubling dimension, especially with heroin addiction. Recent government estimates project that we add over 141,000 new users of heroin a year. With the use of heroin by America's teenagers at historic levels, I find it particularly tragic that many of these new addicts are only children, some as young as 12 years of age now. According to the Drug Enforcement Agency, the vast majority of heroin in the U.S. comes from Colombia, which produces over 80 percent of the world's supply of cocaine as well. Mr. Speaker, the most effective way I believe to stop this flow of narcotics is to destroy the growing fields of opium poppy and coca plants at its sources in Colombia's Andes Mountains using helicopters. To that effect, I applaud the courageous efforts of the Colombian national police and its Director General, Jose Serrano, in waging the ground war of crop eradication against narcoterrorists. The war has taken a high toll, with over 4,000 Colombian police officers having sacrificed their lives. Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree that the United States needs to support the Colombian national police in their drug fighting efforts, which rely heavily on helicopters for field operations. However, I believe it is clearly more cost-effective to upgrade the present fleet of 36 Huey helicopters used by the Colombian national police rather than to provide three new Blackhawk helicopters. The Blackhawks provided in the past to the Colombian Army have proven to be a financial strain for their government to maintain and even to operate. Furthermore, the Colombian national police does not have pilots and mechanics trained to operate these Blackhawks. Another important consideration, Mr. Speaker, is that the funds to purchase these Blackhawks, approximately $36 million, may well jeopardize our important counternarcotics programs in the countries of Peru and perhaps even Bolivia. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to oppose House Resolution 398. There are, I believe, better ways to provide assistance to the Republic of Colombia, and I sincerely hope that our colleagues will support us in this effort. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman for bringing this Special Order in recognition of our former Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, Mr. Howard. I do remember the gentleman working as a former staffer for the late Congressman Phil Burton. I had the privilege of meeting Mr. Howard, and if there is anything that I would identify and remember best about this great gentleman, not only as a Congressman, but as the Chairman of the Committee on Public Works, was the fact that he cares for the working man. And if there is anything that I could remember well in my association with the late Congressman, Phil Burton, was Jim Howard's concern about the needs of the working people here in America.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 2870, the Tropical Forest Protection Act, a bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and which is now before the Senate for consideration. I regret not being on the floor of the House when this bill was under consideration, due to a conflict of my schedule, but it is for this reason that I take this opportunity to share my views with my colleagues on this matter. I do commend the authors of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Lee Hamilton), for their vision and leadership in crafting this measure, which facilitates debt reduction in Third World countries to support efforts for conservation of the fragile tropical forests. I also commend the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ben Gilman) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bruce Vento) for their important contributions that have made improvements in this bill. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 2870 basically allow less developed nations that owe loans to the United States to restructure their debt repayments, funneling savings into a tropical rain forest protection fund which will provide for the conservation and maintenance of native forest resources in each participating country. To qualify, countries with substantial tropical forests must demonstrate that they support human rights and democratic forms of government, and that they are opposed to narcotics trafficking and international terrorism. Mr. Speaker, according to the World Wildlife Fund, up to 42 million acres of tropical forests are being devastated each year throughout the world. Indeed, approximately one-half of the world's tropical forests no longer exist. In the Asia-Pacific region alone, it is estimated that 88 percent of original forest lands have been destroyed. Mr. Speaker, I would especially commend the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Bruce Vento) for his amendments to the bill, which recognize the importance of tropical forest plants for medical treatment of human illnesses, and that native peoples who live in or near rain forests should be consulted, given their tremendous knowledge of plants that have medicinal value. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that during the House floor deliberations the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) also cited the outstanding work of Dr. Paul Alan Cox, one of the finest ethnobotanists in the world today, and who is especially noted for his studies and research work in the South Pacific. I have known Dr. Cox for several years from his work in the Samoan Islands and throughout Polynesia. I am extremely gratified that Dr. Cox was honored by Time Magazine as one of the world's top medical scientists in 1997. Dr. Cox first came to Samoa in the early 1970s as a young Mormon missionary. He became enchanted with Samoa and immersed himself in the Samoan culture, learning to read and write fluently in the Samoan language. After his departure from the islands to obtain his doctorate degree from Harvard University, he later joined the faculty at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He is also the newly appointed director of the National Tropical Forestry Botanical Garden located on the island of Kauai, in the State of Hawaii. Over the years, traveling back and forth between Samoa and the United States to conduct research, Dr. Cox has discovered 74 medicinal plants with the assistance of native Samoan healers. Extracts from the leaves, bark, and roots of the rain forest plants have proven effective in treating illnesses from high fever to appendicitis to asthma. In particular, one new plant-derived drug isolated by Dr. Cox, Prostratin, holds the promise of a cure for AIDS. Mr. Speaker, most of the Earth's 265,000 flowering plants are located in tropical regions, and less than 1 percent of these plants have been tested for effectiveness against disease. Continuing his work with native healers, Dr. Cox hopes to find the answer to cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and other incurable diseases in the rain forests of Samoa and the world. However, the decimation of tropical forests literally threatens to prevent the discovery of hundreds of new medical drugs. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to commend Dr. Cox for his life's work devoted to research and protection of the tropical rain forests of Samoa and other regions of the world. By following the footsteps of native healers, Dr. Cox best exemplifies the need for our so-called modern technological world not to disregard the tremendous amount of knowledge that can be obtained from indigenous peoples and their understanding of certain plants that have medicinal and healing value. What Dr. Cox is saying to us is that there is much that our modern world can learn from native cultures. Mr. Speaker, again, I support the provisions of H.R. 2870, and I commend my colleagues for their endorsement and passage of this legislation. Also, I would note that Dr. Cox is greatly appreciated and respected by the Samoan people. He has even been bestowed with the Samoan title of Nafanua by the elders of the village of Falealupo because of his contributions, including the establishment of a 30,000-acre rain forest preserve, and a construction of a primary school for the village children. Mr. Speaker, again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation when it comes back from the Senate. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of H.R. 2870, the Tropical Forest Protection Act, a bill recently passed by the House of Representatives and which is now before the Senate for consideration. I regret not being on the House floor when this bill was under consideration, due to a conflict with my schedule, but it is for this reason that I take this opportunity to share my views with my colleagues on this matter. I commend the authors of this legislation--the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Rob Portman, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. John Kasich, and the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Lee Hamilton--for their vision and leadership in crafting this measure which facilitates debt reduction in third world countries to support efforts for conservation of their fragile tropical forests. I also commend the House International Relations Committee Chairman Ben Gilman and the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Bruce Vento, for their important contributions that have improved the bill. Mr. Speaker, the provisions of H.R. 2870 basically allow less- developed nations that owe loans to the United States to restructure their debt repayment, funneling savings into a tropical rain forest protection fund, which will provide for the conservation and maintenance of native forest resources in each participating country. To qualify, countries with substantial tropical rain forests must demonstrate that they support human rights and democratic government, and that they are opposed to narcotics trafficking and international terrorism. Mr. Speaker, according to the world wildlife fund, up to 42 million acres of tropical forests are being devastated each year throughout the world. Indeed, approximately one-half of the world's tropical forests no longer exist; and in the Asia-Pacific region alone it is estimated that 88% of original forest lands have been destroyed. Mr. Speaker, these careless activities have a dramatic negative impact on the environment that is global in nature. The destruction of tropical forest lands on this scale destroys the Earth's ability to recycle carbon dioxide, significantly contributing to greenhouse gases and climate warming. Perhaps more importantly, we sacrifice and lose the rich and unique biodiversity of these tropical forest ecosystems, which, incidentally, contain over half of the world's plant and animal species; Mr. Speaker, I would especially commend the gentleman from Minnesota, Congressman Bruce Vento, for his amendments to the bill which recognizes the importance of tropical forest plants for medical treatment of human illnesses, and that native peoples who live in or near rain forests should be consulted, given their tremendous knowledge of plants that have medicinal value. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that during House floor deliberations, Congressman Vento cited the outstanding work of Dr. Paul Alan Cox, one of the finest Ethnobotanists in the world today, and who is especially noted for his studies and research work in the South Pacific. I have known Dr. Cox for several years from his work in the Samoan Islands and throughout Polynesia, and I am extremely gratified that Dr. Cox was honored by Time magazine as one of the world's top 10 medical scientists in 1997. Dr. Cox first came to Samoa in the early 1970s as a young Mormon missionary. He became enchanted with Samoa and immersed himself in the Samoan culture, learning to read and write fluently in the Samoan language. After his departure from the islands to obtain his doctorate degree from Harvard University, Dr. Cox later joined the faculty at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. Dr. Cox is also the newly- appointed director of the National Tropical Forestry Botanical Garden, which is located on the island of Kauai, in the State of Hawaii. In 1984, Dr. Cox, with his family, returned to Samoa to pursue his post-graduate studies of plants found in rain forests. The death of his mother from cancer motivated Dr. Cox to search for new avenues outside of traditional medicine for treating incurable diseases. Residing in the isolated village of Falealupo on the island of Savai'i, Dr. Cox initiated research on how native Samoan healers utilized certain plants from the rain forest for medicinal purposes. Over the years, traveling back and forth between Samoa and the U.S. to conduct research, Dr. Cox has discovered 74 medicinal plants with the assistance of native Samoan healers. Extracts from the leaves, bark and roots of the rain forest plants have proven effective in treating illnesses from high fever to appendicitis to asthma. In particular, one new plant--derived drug isolated by Dr. Cox, Prostratin, holds the promise of a cure for AIDS. Mr. Speaker, most of the Earth's 265,000 flowering plants are located in tropical regions, and less than one percent of these plants have been tested for effectiveness against disease. In continuing his work with native healers, Dr. Cox hopes to find the answer to cancer, alzheimer's and other incurable diseases in the rain forests of Samoa and the world. However, the decimation of tropical forests literally threatens to prevent the discovery of hundreds of new medical drugs. For his efforts to stop the destructive logging of the rain forests of the island of Savai'i, Dr. Paul Cox is greatly respected by the Samoan people. He has even been bestowed the Samoan Matai title of ``Nafanua'' by the village elders of Falealupo on the island of Savai'i, as a token of appreciation for all that he has done for the villagers, including the establishment of a 30,000 acre rain forest preserve and construction of a primary school for the village children. Mr. Speaker, again I want to commend Dr. Paul Cox for his life's work devoted to research and protection of the tropical rain forests of Samoa and other regions of the world. By following the footsteps of native healers, Dr. Cox perhaps best exemplifies the need for our so- called modern technological world not to disregard the tremendous amount of knowledge that can be obtained from indigenous peoples and their understanding of certain plants that have medicinal and healing value; What Dr. Cox is saying to us is that there is much that our modern world can learn from native cultures. Mr. Speaker, again I support the provisions of H.R. 2870, and I commend my colleagues for their endorsement and passage of this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would make effective the country of origin rules in effect on June 30, 1996 for apparel items produced in American Samoa. This legislation is limited in scope, and it will have a limited impact on U.S. trade. It is, however, critical to the economic development of American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, the American Samoa Government has been pursuing outside investment opportunities for many years. A few years ago, a garment manufacturing company began production in American Samoa--the first significant new outside industry to invest in the territory since the nineteen-sixties. The new industry provides jobs for our people, tax revenues for the local government and secondary revenue for a variety of private sector businesses. The industry is small by U.S. standards (it employs fewer than 500 local people at this time), but it represents diversification for our economy, and its presence lessens our dependence on the federal government. The plant is running smoothly and is meeting scheduled production levels. Because this is a new industry for American Samoa, it requires a significant amount of planning and training of the local workforce. While our people need time to develop the sewing skills needed to be competitive on a world-wide basis, we are very good at cutting-- regularly meeting or exceeding the quantitative standards. To take advantage of our cutting skills, the existing garment manufacturing company is proposing a three-phase expansion. The expansion plans call for the construction of an enlarged cutting facility where fabric of U.S. origin will be cut, a dye plant in which ``grey goods'' or pre-dyed fabric of U.S. origin will be dyed and a knitting facility where yarn of U.S. origin will be knit into fabric. This will be good for the U.S. textile industry--in American Samoa and on the mainland. We estimate that an additional $5-7 million dollars can be generated for the mainland U.S. textile industry if the expansion goes forward as planned. Mr. Speaker, the numbers involved are very small in U.S. mainland terms, but they are of great significance on an island whose population totals 60,000 people. It now appears that the 1996 change in U.S. Customs regulations has placed in jeopardy our infant garment industry and its future growth. As of July 1, 1996, garments produced almost entirely in American Samoa lost their previous customs treatment even when only a relatively small portion of the production process is performed in a foreign country. The garment company doing business in American Samoa would like to import U.S. yarn to American Samoa, knit or weave it in American Samoa, dye it in American Samoa, sew as much as the factory in American Samoa can handle, ship the excess out to another country for sewing, bring it back to American Samoa for final assembly and packaging, and have the finished goods enter the United States as products of the United States. This was possible under the old regulations, but under the 1996 regulations, this can no longer be done. It does not make good business sense for this company to expand as it is proposing in American Samoa unless this expansion is economically feasible. The legislation I am introducing today, if enacted into law, would grandfather the nascent American Samoa garment industry under the old rules, enabling the industry to operate successfully in American Samoa and allowing the existing company to build a larger production facility and finance an orderly expansion. I believe that this legislation is reasonable and fair and in the best interest of the U.S. textile industry as a whole and the U.S. territories in particular. My legislation is limited in scope and will merely preserve the old country of origin rules for garment producers in American Samoa. My legislation will help other manufacturing companies who may contemplate locating in American Samoa. This industry is already providing more than 400 new local jobs in America Samoa, and will provide hundreds more if the expansion plans can be implemented. The infant industry and its future growth are at stake. This is an important test case which will prove whether or not new export industries can be successful in American Samoa. The implications of the success (or failure) of the expansion project are critical for the economic future of the territory. Mr. Speaker, the experience of the people of American Samoa is a good example of the difficulties the U.S. territories face in attracting businesses to invest in our economies. American Samoa's economy has been hampered by our isolation from world markets and world shipping lanes. We have relied on incentives such as the Possessions Tax Credit and the advantages offered under General Note 3(a) of the Harmonized Trade Agreement to help attract the outside investment our economy needs to grow, but those incentives are disappearing. Over time, the advantages of doing business in the U.S. territories are being outweighed by the emergence of low-cost alternatives engendered by NAFTA and GATT/WTO policies. Countries with lower wage scales, such as Mexico and others in Central America and the Far East, are luring business away from the United States. Under my analysis, sewing in higher-wage countries will continue to be reduced to the extent that soon there may not be a domestic U.S. sewing industry. I believe that this legislation will better position the United States to keep as much of the industry in U.S. hands as possible, and I look forward to seeing this bill enacted into law.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Young- Miller substitute for H.R. 856, the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act. The political status of Puerto Rico has been a topic of discussion of the Committee on Resources, and its predecessor Committees, for decades. My interest in Puerto Rico began in the 1970's when I was a member of the staff of Congressman Phil Burton of California. I learned then of the political divisions within Puerto Rico, and those political divisions are still in existence. From my perspective, all three political parties in Puerto Rico make persuasive arguments in support of their respective positions, and I believe all three are viable political options. Additionally, I believe a political status of free association is a possibility for Puerto Rico to consider at some point in the future, but given the present political makeup of the commonwealth, I do not believe it should be included on the ballot at this time. Before I make my specific comments on H.R. 856, I want to note for the record that I think it is critically important that throughout this process, as an institution, Congress must present itself as fair and as evenhanded as possible. When I speak of self-determination for Puerto Rico, in my mind, that means the people of Puerto Rico choose their own course, and in making that choice all options should be available for the people of Puerto Rico to consider. Even though Congress has plenary authority over Puerto Rico, I believe it would be a serious mistake for the Congress to impose its will upon the people of Puerto Rico without fair and equitable consultation with the Puerto Rican leaders and the people. I place such high concern on this issue because it is my sense that if Congress is not scrupulously evenhanded in this regard, three things can happen. First, the U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico lose their trust in the process and in Congress as an institution. Second, if events do not go as smoothly as Congress might hope, it will be the Congress that will be blamed for the problems, and rightfully so. Third, we all know political status is an emotional issue in Puerto Rico. The Commonwealth has a long history of fair and impartial elections with voting percentages which are the envy of every state of the United States. If the political status selection process were perceived as unfair, I fear the consequences of even the perception of partiality, and again, I believe Congress would have to take its share of the blame and responsibility. Mr. Chairman, as I see it, the underlying problem, if it is a problem at all, is that over 90% of the people of Puerto Rico are almost evenly split on which political course they should follow. As a result of this, no one group can obtain a majority of votes. Until that changes, any affirmative action Congress takes will not be in accordance with the wishes of the majority in Puerto Rico. Given those facts, I believe it is neither wise, nor good policy, to tilt the scales, just to acquire a majority. I do have a few concerns with this legislation I want to note. I have said repeatedly that I do not like the idea of one political group defining another political group's definition of itself. To a certain extent, we have that problem in this bill--the bill contains a definition of Commonwealth status, but it was not drafted and is not supported by the political party which supports that status. It is difficult to ask a political organization to vote for or support a status its members do not support, and that is a serious concern I have with this bill. The situation is complicated by the apparent reluctance of the Popular Democratic Party to provide a definition of ``Commonwealth'' which could be included in the bill. Because of the opposition of the one of the major political parties to a key definition in the bill, it was not an easy decision for me to support this bill. I support the definitions contained in the Young- Miller substitute, but want to note that I do not consider the definition of Commonwealth as describing a static relationship as some have stated. Rather, I believe it describes the current dynamic relationship between the people of Puerto Rico and the people of the United States, which can and should be changed over time. Secondly, while some may not consider Puerto Rico's current relationship with the United States to be a permanent one, it does not make sense to force a change on the people of Puerto Rico which they do not want. It would be a serious mistake to encourage the people into a ``permanent'' political status that will not best serve their long-term interests. Third, Mr. Speaker, is the issue of the use of the English and Spanish languages in Puerto Rico. Coming from an insular area in which Samoan and English are spoken I see nothing to gain and much to lose by forcing the citizens of Puerto Rico to give up part of their Spanish heritage by prohibiting them from speaking to each other in Spanish. On the other hand, we will not be well served as a nation if the vast majority of the citizens of one of our states do not speak English, and speak it well. The example of Quebec, Canada has been often discussed these last few weeks, but that is not the only example. I would also point to the problems in the Balkans and in many countries in sub- Saharan Africa. This is a very difficult issue which I believe is appropriately addressed in the Burton-Miller-Young amendment, and I support that amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank the gentleman from New York and the sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Utah, my good friend (Mr. Cannon). I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3120, a bill to designate the United States Post Office in Provo, Utah, as the Howard C. Nielson Post Office. By the time I made it to the House as an elected Member, Congressman Nielson had already established himself as an active member of this body. His rise to the position as the representative from Utah of the Third Congressional District did not come as a surprise to those who knew him. Prior to coming to Congress, Howard Nielson was elected as Majority Leader of the Utah House, and 2 years later elected to the position of Speaker of the State House of Representatives, and it was from that position that he was elected to the Congress. As a ranking member of the Government Activities and Transportation Committee, Congressman Nielson played an important role in the National Debate on Transportation, which was going on during that time. And as important to me, Mr. Speaker, his interest in improving the health of our country's American Indians. I want to commend him for his efforts. To his credit, Mr. Speaker, he continues to serve the public, currently as a member of the Utah State legislature, and I can think of no more fitting tribute to him than to name the United States Post Office in Provo, Utah, after him. I commend, again, my good friend from Utah (Mr. Cannon) for proposing this bill and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 2621, the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Authorities Act. Mr. Speaker, I am generally supportive of the concept of giving the Executive broad authority in negotiating treaties and other international agreements. Unfortunately, from my perspective, the granting of this authority by Congress to the Executive has not served the Nation well recently, and I am now reluctant to grant that same authority again. Those who feel otherwise will say that Congress still retains its complete authority to approve trade agreements because Congress has the final say in passage. Unfortunately, this argument has not proved to be true in recent years. The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is the prime example of this. I am absolutely certain that if Congress had the option to amend the NAFTA agreement when it was presented to it, the agreement would not have been adopted in its current form. Many of the proponents of the legislation we are considering today say that NAFTA has been an unqualified success. To them I say success is not determined by the profit margins of a few successful companies and an increase in the number of low-wage jobs in the United States. I suggest that our trade agreements should do more than line the pockets of the rich, for that does not serve our country well. If we are going to enter into new trade agreements, they should help our Nation as a whole--if not, it is not in our national interest to do so. Conceptually, Mr. Speaker, I support free trade. No one argues economies are improved or consumers benefit from supporting less efficient producers of any given product. If all countries were equal, free trade would and should be the norm. But, unfortunately, not all nations have equal economies. In general, the more-developed counties are able to pay higher wages, provide more benefits to their workers, prohibit child labor, and place greater restraints on business activities which pollute the environment at a higher rate. As a result of our economic development and the changes in business activity which we in the United States and the other developed countries value, in purely economic terms, the less-developed countries are able to produce many goods at a lower cost than we can produce them in the United States. With NAFTA in place, businesses have taken advantage of the disparity between the United States and Mexico, and have moved their manufacturing operations from the United States to Mexico. To keep the costs down of products going to be sold in the United States, these businesses construct new plants along, but on the Mexican side of, our southern border. The net result of this has been the loss of good, well-paying jobs held by Americans. In return, consumers in the United States can purchase products at a lower price. Economists say this is good: everyone in the United States, except those few who lost their jobs--and their families and the other businesses which supported the now-closed industry--are better off, they say. In a limited economic sense, those people who purchase that product at a lower cost are better off. Except, even those still employed are now paying higher taxes to cover the increased cost of unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other programs available to assist those in need. In addition to those costs, we have increased pollution in our atmosphere, more chemicals dumped into our earth, and more people working in sub-standard conditions for below poverty-level wages. In the case of Mexico, we also have increased motor traffic from vehicles which do not meet our safety or air pollution standards, and more recently, an increased amount of illegal drugs entering our country with the increased commerce. The end result of this shift in location is instead of obtaining a product made by someone in the United States making a fair wage and with reasonable medical benefits, that U.S. employee has lost his or her job and we are offered a product made by a foreigner who is paid a sub-standard wage and who is provided no medical benefits. As an extra benefit, we residents of earth are subjected to increased pollutants added to the planet. Before NAFTA was adopted, we were told that a secondary benefit of the agreement would be an easing of the immigration problem along our southern border. Have you noticed how no one makes that argument anymore? That's because there has not been an easing of the immigration problem. The theory was that the people entering the United States through Mexico came to the United States solely to seek employment, and that if they could get that employment in Mexico, they would not need to cross our border. Well, what happened? The theory did not prove true. Why not? I submit that the unemployment problem in Mexico is of such a magnitude that the number of jobs added as a result of NAFTA didn't put a dent in the number of people who want to come to the United States. The result has been we lost all those jobs and we still have an immigration problem. Mr. Speaker, I do not make these statements to be critical of Mexico. Over the decades, in many ways Mexico has been a better neighbor to the United States than the United States has been to Mexico. The root of our immigration problem stems from the different speeds at which our economies have developed. The time will come in the not to distant future, when the Mexican national economy will be as strong and vibrant as ours, and we will be in balance. At that point, free trade will be mutually beneficial for both nations, as it currently is for the United States and Canada. Mr. Speaker, I also want to take a few moments to talk about my congressional district, American Samoa, and what is happening to us, and the other U.S. territories, in the name of free trade. I represent the people of the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. We are removed from all major surface and air transportation routes and our annual per capita income is $3,000. In American Samoa, the largest industry is the processing of canned tuna, most of which is sold in the United States. This has been a staple of the American Samoan economy for the past 30 years. In recent years, however, I have witnessed the repeal of the possessions tax credit--IRC Sec. 936--the implementation of NAFTA, the implementation of tariff reductions under GATT, and the weakening of the dolphin safe label. Each of these actions will make American Samoa less competitive than foreign nations, and there has been nothing on the other side of the ledger to assist American Samoa or the other U.S. territories. Mr. Speaker, we talk about first- and second-class citizens residing in the 50 States. I am increasingly concerned that we will soon have third-class citizens residing in our territories. There are nearly 4 million of us, and it is past the time for this growing problem to be addressed. This is a major concern to me, and if the past is any indication of what we can expect from future trade agreements, H.R. 2621 will hurt, not help the United States as a whole, and American Samoa in particular. Mr. Speaker, unlike you, I do not have the privilege of voting on this legislation, even though if it is enacted into law it will more than likely have a direct impact on my congressional district. I wish I had this privilege, for I would certainly vote no, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 714, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1997. I very much appreciate the efforts of Chairman Bob Stump and Senior Democrat Lane Evans for their assistance in moving this bill forward this year. Subcommittee Chairman Jack Quinn and Senior Democrat Bob Filner also deserve special recognition for their assistance and support. Senator Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Congressman Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii also deserves special recognition for introducing this legislation and the companion bill in the House, H.R. 2317. Even though we are continuing to reduce the size of our military forces, we have a sizable number of veterans who served this Nation both in times of war and peace. Many of these veterans now suffer from physical injuries or mental illness directly attributable to their military service. Today's legislation will provide further assistance to these individuals who sacrificed so that we may all enjoy our liberties. Mr. Speaker, of particular importance to the veterans in my congressional district is section 201 of this legislation, which extends and improves the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program. It was only 5 years ago with the implementation of the Native American Veterans Housing Pilot Program that there has been a mechanism for the U.S. veterans residing in American Samoa to obtain home loans through the Department of Veterans Affairs. It took about 2 years for the Department and the American Samoa government to work out an agreement implementing the law. To the credit of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 48 American Samoan veterans were able to obtain loans under the pilot program and they are now either living in those homes or the homes are under construction. The Department has not had to repossess any of these loans because of a lender default. The pilot program has been equally successful for native Hawaiians living on Hawaiian homelands. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the authorization for the pilot program expired on September 30, 1997, and since that time, veterans in Samoa are again left with no VA home loan program in operation. The prompt action by the Senate and today by the House will renew this necessary authorization for the VA to begin again making home loans in American Samoa. While the bill has met with considerable success in Samoa, many of our American Indians living on reservations in the continental United States still are not eligible for loans under this program. I am pleased that we are able to achieve agreement on the outreach provisions, which should be of some assistance.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie], who is necessarily absent this afternoon, for his comanagement of this piece of legislation, and I want to commend him for his service and contributions to making this bill possible to be brought before the floor for consideration. At this time I have no additional speakers, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch].

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1856. The bill was unanimously reported from the Committee on Resources, and the amendments before the House improves its benefits to wildlife even more. The bill's chief sponsor, the gentleman from New Jersey, and also chairman of the subcommittee, has done a yeoman service for wildlife in this country by introducing this legislation by expeditiously bringing it before the House. The amendment does three things. It promotes volunteer programs in wildlife refugees, it protects wildlife habitat by reauthorizing the highly successful North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and it improves the management of nongame species of wildlife by reauthorizing a program of Federal matching grants for such activities. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about protecting wildlife habitat and enhancing the management of both game and nongame wildlife. We have long since reached a point where government cannot provide all the know-how and resources adequately to protect our wildlife. By establishing a pilot program to encourage partnerships between wildlife refuges and private organizations, we create a win-win situation for wildlife. Local citizens get an opportunity to gain firsthand experience with wildlife while enjoying the simple pleasure of volunteer service. For their part wildlife refuges get expertise from the local community as well as goods and services which would not otherwise be available to them. Mr. Speaker, in the 7 years of its existence, the North American Wetlands Act has resulted in the protection of more than 10 million acres of wetlands in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Two hundred and eight million dollars in government funds for this voluntary, nonregulatory program has been matched by more than $420 million in non-Federal funds, conserving valuable habitat for migratory birds and many nonmigratory species as well. Lastly, the amendment reauthorizes the Partnerships for Wildlife Act which provides matching grants for nongame wildlife conservation and appreciation. A permanent source of funding like we have for sport fish and game conservation is sorely needed for nongame species. The States currently estimate their unmet needs for nongame management and conservation at over $300 million annually. I hope that we have the opportunity to give permanent funding for nongame species serious consideration next session. In the meantime, we will continue doing what we can for nongame species under the Partnerships for Wildlife program. This legislation is sound, to benefit wildlife throughout through nonregulatory programs that leverage scarce Federal resources, and, Mr. Speaker, I also would like to commend the gentleman from Hawaii, the ranking member of this subcommittee, for his contribution to this piece of legislation. I urge my colleagues for their adoption and support of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

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 rise in support of this legislation. This is one of the four Colorado-related bills on today's calendar which started in the House and have returned with the Senate numbers. In this case the House passed H.R. 591 on July 8, 1997, and we have before us the same bill in the form of Senate bill 587. Senate bill 587 directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer about 560 acres of land located in Hinsdale County in Colorado and currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The exchange is contingent upon Department of Conservation easement being placed on 400 of these acres. In exchange, the Bureau of Land Management will receive high-priority lands of equal value within the Handies Peak Wilderness study area, the Red Cloud Peak Wilderness study area, or the Alpine Loop Backcountry Bi-way. According to the Bureau of Land Management, these areas have important wilderness, wildlife, and recreational values. The exchange is subject to appraisals and other requirements under Federal law and must meet the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. This bill is supported by the administration, and I am not aware of any opposition. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee] for his sponsorship of this piece of legislation. I would also like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young, for his support, and certainly other Members from that side of the aisle for their support, especially our good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that I have the highest respect for the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] expressing his point of opinion on this piece of legislation. I would like to share some bits of information with my colleagues about this bill, and why it is important that we should pass this legislation. In the first place, this tribe, along with three other tribes in Michigan, were unilaterally terminated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. It was not by an act of Congress. But it was in 1994 that three tribes in Michigan were federally recognized by this body, by the Congress of the United States: the Little River Band, the Pokagon, and the Grand Traverse tribes. So what we are doing, we are just simply correcting a deficiency that existed even for these two tribes. We were simply saying that the Congress has absolute authority to do this. I want to share some information with my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut. The Federal administrative procedure, in recognition given to the tribes, is not working and has never worked. We have tribes, Mr. Speaker, on the rolls that it has taken over 100 years, and they are still not recognized by the Federal Government. It is a sad situation for our Government to recognize the fact that the Federal administrative procedures now, as applied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, simply is not working. I want to say to my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, this is just simply correcting an error that was committed by a bureaucracy. It was not done by the Congress. The Congress has the absolute authority to give proper recognition, Federal recognition, for any tribe that wants to be recognized federally. The problem we have also with the recognition process, some tribes have accumulated in excess of $500,000 to $1 million just to pay attorneys to try to apply for recognition. If a tribe has only 500 members, where are they going to get half a million dollars to seek recognition from this bureaucracy? Impossible. So what we are simply doing here is correcting an error that was committed by a bureaucracy. I sincerely hope my colleagues will support this bill. We should grant Federal recognition to these two tribes.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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