Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. President Jacques Chirac of France has announced France will explode eight nuclear bombs in the South Pacific beginning this September. Mr. Speaker, this is just what we need after 170 countries signed up to uphold the integrity of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. France currently has the world's third largest stockpile of nuclear bombs and the fourth largest navy in the world, and after conducting almost 200 nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, and in the ocean, and under a South Pacific island atoll over the past 20 years--it is hard to believe that France's military establishment is still not sure if that nuclear trigger is working or not. Mr. Speaker, give me a break. Why should we tell countries like India, Pakistan, Japan, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran not to get into the development of nuclear bombs when a major Western power like France does this without due consideration to the environment or the lives and welfare of the peoples of the South Pacific? What madness. The height of hypocrisy. Mr. Speaker, I ask the good citizens and people of France--if you want nuclear tests to continue, do it in France, and don't bring this ugly monstor to the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record. [From the Washington Post, June 14, 1995] France Says It Will Stage Nuclear Tests (By William Drozdiak) Paris, June 13.--President Jacques Chirac announced tonight that France will resume nuclear weapons testing in September and conduct eight tests in the South Pacific before next May so that it can sign a comprehensive test ban treaty by the end of next year. Chirac told reporters on the eve of his first presidential trip abroad that his decision was crucial to ensure the reliability and security of the country's nuclear weaponry until France--which has the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal--develops laboratory simulation methods that would obviate future test blasts. ``I made this decision because I considered it necessary in the higher interest of our nation to authorize the end of this series of tests. This decision is, of course, irrevocable,'' he said. U.S. government officials said they were disappointed by Chirac's decision and worried that it could erode confidence in the promise by all nuclear powers to work toward an early test ban. That pledge was an important factor in persuading more than 170 countries to embrace a permanent extension of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at a review conference two months ago. President Clinton said in 1993, during a worldwide nuclear moratorium, that the United States planned no further nuclear tests, but he indicated he might reconsider if other nuclear powers resumed such blasts. A senior U.S. official said today, however, that France's announcement ``won't affect our own policy [and] will not lead us to resume nuclear testing.'' Only China has continued nuclear weapons testing in the past two years, drawing widespread international protests. U.S. officials said the French decision and its impact will be discussed when Chirac arrives in Washington Wednesday to meet with President Clinton before leaders of the Group of Seven industrialized democracies gather for a summit later this week in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Chirac said a panel of military experts he consulted in making his decision had unanimously recommended that France complete a series of underground tests that was interrupted in April 1992 so that its independent nuclear deterrent force of nearly 500 strategic warheads will remain effective into the 21st century. When President Francois Mitterrand halted nuclear testing in 1992, he said that France must set an example for the rest of the world in renouncing all such tests in the hope that other nuclear powers would sign a comprehensive test ban. Mitterrand predicted that any of his possible successors as president would be inhibited from overturning his ban on nuclear tests by threat of angry protests at home and abroad. But Chirac tried tonight to shift the blame to Mitterrand, saying his decision to abort the testing program was premature because simulation techniques had not been perfected. Seeking to thwart a potential outcry, Chirac said he had notified France's main allies, as well as Mitterrand, opposition leaders and the Australian and New Zealand governments. He insisted that the tests were harmless to the environment, and he invited ecologists to visit Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia to monitor the explosions. [Nevertheless, Australia and New Zealand angrily announced they would freeze defense ties with France over its decision, and Australian union leaders and politicians called for a boycott of French goods, the Reuter news agency reported. ``Australia deplores France's decision to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific,'' Prime Minister Paul Keating said. ``What we are seeing is the arrogant action of a European colonial power. . . . They have yet to understand that as members of the Pacific community we expect something different,'' New Zealand Prime Minister Jim Bolger told parliament. [Japan also protested, Reuter reported. ``The French decision seriously betrays the trust of non-nuclear states,'' Japanese Foreign Minister Yohei Kono told French Foreign Minister Herve de Charette in a telephone conversation.] For months, Chirac has been under intense pressure from France's military establishment, largely dominated by his Gaullist party supporters, to ensure the country's future nuclear capability. French defense experts said the military leadership had urged up to a dozen tests to verify the effectiveness of warhead stocks; to establish the effectiveness of a new warhead for the country's M-5 submarine-launched missile; to enhance computer-simulation plans; and to experiment with miniature warheads. The experts said such tests would be necessary not only to check the status of the hardware but also to prepare for any change in strategy in the post-Cold War era. This could include a shift from the old threat of inflicting intolerable damage on a enemy through massive retaliation to a new French strategy of focusing on tactical battlefield weapons that could be used against specific targets.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with my colleague the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood], to introduce a bill to include the U.S. territories of American Samoa and Guam into the Expedited Funds Availability Act. Mr. Speaker, for as long as I have been doing my banking in American Samoa, getting access to funds represented by checks drawn on banks outside of American Samoa has taken literally weeks. Banking customers throughout the United States had similar problems, and in response Congress passed the Expedited Funds Availability Act in 1987. The 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands were included in the act, but the territories of Guam and American Samoa were not. While Guam and American Samoa are still the most distant territories, billions of dollars now move daily around the world at close to the speed of light. Mr. Speaker, thousands of years ago the Samoans and the Micronesians carried their currency across vast expanses of open ocean in heroic voyages in wind-driven canoes made of hollowed logs. I have sailed part of the Pacific Ocean in a double-hull Polynesian voyaging canoe called the Hokuleian from Tahiti to Hawaii for 28 days, and I think I could have carried my currency in stones from one port to another faster than funds are now being made available by the Banks in American Samoa and Guam. This is the 95th year of this country, and I hope the banks in the Pacific will enter this century before the rest of us move on to the next one. I ask that a copy of the bill be printed in today's Congressional Record, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California to explain this piece of legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, S. 441 extends the authorization of certain programs under the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act for 2 years. This act was written to counter a rising number of prosecutions of Federal, State, and tribal employees for child abuse on reservations and the high rate of incidents of family violence affecting American Indian families. It provides for on reservation treatment for abused children. Suffering abuse is traumatic enough for small children to endure, but to then be taken for treatment far from those who love and support the child only deepens the wounds already inflicted. This act also provides tribes with needed assistance in reporting child abuse, and resources for family violence prevention programs on reservations. Mr. Speaker, the work of this important act has only just begun. I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to join me. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, the purpose of S. 349 is to extend the authorization of the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program through fiscal year 1997. The Navajo-Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act was enacted in 1974 to resolve land disputes between the tribes dating back over a century. The act required the partition of the disputed lands and relocation of members of each tribe from the lands partitioned to the other tribe. The House has had hours of debate on the land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi tribes and I will not debate the merits or problems here today. This bill does nothing to change the Settlement Act or the lands addressed by it. It simply allows for an extension of time for additional families to relocate. As is often the case, I think it is safe to say that neither tribe is thrilled with this bill, but both accept it as necessary to the process which I hope will come to an end soon. The Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Gallegly] to enable him to explain this piece of legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise to offer my strong support of the amendment offered by my colleague and good friend the gentlewoman from Georgia, [Ms. McKinney]. Mr. Chairman, I recall one of the fundamental concerns raised by one of our great Presidents in our time--the late President Dwight Eisenhower. Before leaving the White House and in one of his speeches-- President Eisenhower warned our nation of the everincreasing power and influence of the industrial military interests in our country. Now don't get me wrong--I want our military industry complex to produce weapons and military equipment that meet our national security interest too--but the question is how much and to whom should we sell these weapons? Mr. Chairman, everyone here in this Chamber knows that our Nation is the [[Page H5526]] largest producer and exporter of military equipment and weapons of war. It is time that our national leaders need to be more sensitive about exporting and selling of weapons of war to kill and maim other human beings. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman for introducing this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following article: [From the Washington Post, May 24, 1995] Arms Sales `Conduct Code' Opposed--State Department Says Proposal Could Impinge on Policy and Friendly Nations (By R. Jeffrey Smith) The Clinton administration declared yesterday that it opposes a ``code of conduct'' drafted by some members of Congress to block U.S. arms sales to countries that commit human rights abuses or are not democratic. At a Senate hearing, Undersecretary of State Lynn E. Davis criticized the proposed code on grounds that its rigid criteria for arms sales would impinge on the administration's authority to decide foreign policy and could force a cutoff of military aid to friendly nations in regions important to U.S. interests. The code, which is scheduled to come up for a vote on the House floor today, was crafted by Sen. Mark O. Hatfield (R- Ore.) and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) to stanch estimated annual sales or gifts of billions of dollars worth of U.S. arms to countries that the sponsors claim are not upholding important U.S. values. At the hearing, Hatfield particularly criticized recent U.S. arms sales to Malaysia, Indonesia and Turkey, which he said had each engaged in recent human rights abuses. The proposed code states that U.S. military assistance and arms transfers should be provided only to nations with governments chosen by free elections that protect basic freedoms and are not engaged in ``gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.'' It also bars aid to nations engaged in illegal acts of armed aggression and to nations that do not register their arms transactions with the United Nations. The president could waive these restrictions for any country, but only with congressional approval. The code has collected 102 sponsors in the House, but last week it missed gaining the International Relations Committee's endorsement by a one-vote margin. Hatfield has vowed to try to attach it to a foreign aid or defense appropriations bill this year. Davis told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that while the administration supports the ``principles'' expressed by the code, it ``simply cannot agree to this weighting of criteria'' for deciding on individual arms sales. Instead, she said, the administration prefers its own policy of selling arms based on ``national security,'' as spelled out in flexible language approved by President Clinton in February. Under this policy, Davis said, no single criterion such as respect for human rights ``takes precedence over another.'' Arms transfers can be made to nondemocratic nations if they promote regional stability or help prop up failing U.S. defense companies that produce key military technologies. Although McKinney has charged that 90 percent of the $12.9 billion in U.S. arms sales approved last year went to countries that Washington classifies as nondemocratic, Davis said the ``vast majority [went to] . . . allies, major coalition partners, and European neutrals.'' Davis confirmed that the administration is considering offering F-16 jet fighters to Indonesia, despite recent evidence of fresh abuses by Indonesian military forces in East Timor. Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights John Shattuck, who appeared with Davis, said ``we are paying close attention to Indonesia's human rights situation and will take this into consideration'' in deciding on such sales. With regard to Turkey, he said ``we are, as you know, gravely concerned about the use of [U.S.-made] military material, particularly cluster bombs'' during Turkey's military assaults on Kurds in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq. But Shattuck did not say whether the use of these arms would affect future sales to Turkey, which he described as ``a crucial NATO ally.'' Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration who is now at the Brookings Institution, testified later that Turkey's use of F-16s, Black Hawk helicopters and M-60 tanks against the Kurds indicated that many U.S. arms transferred overseas ``are used not against the foreign enemies of the U.S., but against the indigenous populations.''

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the House International Affairs Committee, Mr. Gilman, but I must reluctantly oppose H.R. 1561, and I urge my colleagues to vote against its passage. Although there are a few worthy initiatives in the legislation, on the whole, H.R. 1561 drastically undermines the ability of our President to engage effectively on issues and activities that impact on the world community as well as the security and economic interests of our Nation. I submit, Mr. Chairman, the United States cannot and should not isolate herself from the rest of the world. Whether we like it or not, our Nation is an integral member of the world community, and we must face up to our responsibilities as a leader in international affairs. I find it ironic that in the era of EEC, ASEAN, GATT, NAFTA, and APEC--when it is becoming increasingly clear that the economic future and prosperity of our Nation is vitally dependent on America's ability to engage overseas and to promote peace--this bill would cripple our President's ability to conduct foreign diplomacy by cutting off the arms and legs of America's foreign policy apparatus while deeply reducing already meager resources. H.R. 1561 recklessly mandates abolishment of the USIA, ACDA, and AID, merging them into the State Department and creating a super bureaucracy. No detailed bottom up study of this planned reorganization has occurred, however, and reflects that little though has been given to the actual costs or benefits of such a move. I have been shown nothing that ensures that this reorganization proposal will result in an improvement in the conduct of America's foreign policy throughout the world. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that the reorganization plan presents the danger that the unique missions and valued expertise of the USIA, ACDA, and AID will be subordinated and lost in a massive State Department bureaucracy. Reorganizing the Department of State for the sake of reorganizing is a waste of time and taxpayers dollars, and diverts attention and resources from the real foreign policy issues facing our Nation today. I am also opposed to the foreign assistance cuts in excess of a billion dollars called for in H.R. 1561. Over the last decade, foreign aid funds have taken disproportionate cuts, being almost halved in inflation-adjusted dollars. As we all know, polls have documented that most Americans feel we should be allocating at least 5 percent of the Federal budget to foreign aid. Yet our present funding of foreign assistance barely exceeds 1 percent of our national budget. The further cuts called for in H.R. 1561 will reduce already strained resources and handicap our ability to protect and promote U.S. economic and security interests overseas. Our small investment in foreign assistance is the first line of defense for America. By addressing problems overseas--through development or humanitarian assistance--we circumvent major crises and security threats from arising while nurturing the growth of democracies and new markets. Mr. Chairman, this is a time when the United States, in her own interests, must continue to engage and reach out to the international community. H.R. 1561 represents, however, a withdrawal from world leadership and a dangerous return to isolationism. I would urge my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve as much time as I may consume and ask unanimous consent to include extraneous materials. I rise today to talk about welfare reform and in particular a JTPA program that is earmarked for elimination in the Republicans' rescission bill H.R. 1158. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a program that provides assistance to the Samoan-American community in three States--the Samoan Service Providers Association [SSPA] in the State of Hawaii, National Office of Samoan Affairs [NOSA] in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange County, and San Diego--the State of California, and the American-Samoan Comprehensive Employment Program [ASCEP] in the State of Washington, a tristate program that assists training and retraining of Pacific Islanders for employment and community development. the Jobs Training Partnership Act [JTPA], and it states: It is the purpose of this Act to establish programs to prepare youth and adults facing serious barriers to employment for participation in the labor force by providing job training and other services that will result in increased employment and earnings, increased educational and occupational skills, and decreased welfare dependency, thereby improving the quality of the work force and enhancing the productivity and competitiveness of the Nation. Mr. Speaker, this is what the JTPA program is supposed to do, prepare disadvantaged youth and adults by training them and in some cases retraining for entrance into the work force. It is the government's responsibility, to associate programs and community needs. The future of our great country depends on providing our people with the education and skills, in channeling our greatest asset--people, to maintain our work force, our economy and our communities. This great country is a melting pot of cultures and ethnic races each contributing something special to our country, our communities and our workplace to benefit generations to come. Why do we have a program that targets a special population? Because the previous system did not cater for them. Because the previous system did not provide for diversity, sensitivity and competence. It was made possible by federal government oversight to ensure that the needs of this small population was met. Mr. Speaker, I agree that we must look at reforming much of our welfare system and to look to make it equitable and fair, in terms of how it is funded and the distribution of those funds for the betterment of society and local communities. I agree it is time to hold onto what is right and what works, and to cut off or sift through that which impedes the course of action of turning our people into productive and responsible citizens. Mr. Speaker, the course of action that H.R. 1158 proposes is not only ridiculous, but it is dangerous. This Republican led Congress has raced ahead to complete their Contract with America at the expense of many hard-earned programs. Already we are experiencing the results of rushed legislation, staffers too tired to check the bills, Republican legislators who now realize that this rescission bill includes programs they had not intended to be affected--now they want to raise amendments and reinstate that funding. There is reason for long serious deliberation--to avoid any loopholes and ensure that the legislation is in agreement to the intent. I honestly do not believe that there has been much thought especially to the consequences, the long-term effects, that many of the proposed rescissions will force upon current and future recipients of welfare. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned over the ramifications that H.R. 1158 will have on the local Samoan communities in Hawaii, California, and Washington. A JTPA program that serves and has the support of the community--and all of a sudden we want to cut it off completely. Let us proceed with caution--the people of America sent out a clear message when we debated health care reform in the 103d Congress. Let us not rush into this until we have reviewed these important issues. Mr. Speaker, when the JTPA program for the Samoan-Americans was established, the intent was to provide an agency that was competent, sensitive and attentive to the needs of the people from the Pacific. Based on the 1984-85 Department of Labor study ``Unemployment, Poverty and Training Needs of American-Samoans,'' office personnel in existing services and programs knew little about the unique aspects of the Samoan culture and tradition. Our people found that employment training agencies were not user friendly and that the environment was insensitive and not what they were expecting in terms of receiving help. There was a little attempt by employment programs to overcome this industry-wide shortage of Samoan-American staff who could liaison with participants and organizers. Programs did not contain a bilingual element--in most cases Samoan-Americans required language training and therefore were at an immediate disadvantage if a program lacked this bilingual component. They found that the cultural differences and indifferences for the training needs were not met by JTPA personnel. As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, Senator Inouye, helped pass legislation that provided for a special job training and employment program for Native Samoan-Americans residing in the United States. This is the only JTPA program that provides assistance to Samoan-Americans. I would like to take this opportunity to refresh my colleagues on the history surrounding this program and to bring them up to date on the success of the JTPA Native Samoan-American program. In 1988, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii introduced an amendment to include Samoan-Americans in the JTPA Native American Programs under title IV(A) of the JTPA Act. However, by the time this amendment passed Congress, the program was funded as a discretionary program under title IV(D) of the JTPA Act as a pilot and demonstration project. In 1991, Senators Paul Simon, Ted Kennedy and Strom Thurmond included a provision in S. 2055 Job Training and Basic Skills Act, to amend the JTPA Act to include Native Samoan-Americans and those residing in the United States in the Native American Program. Unfortunately, when the bill went to conference on July 29 to 31, 1991, the Samoa-American provision was defeated. The conferees had contended that it was within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Interior and not the Committee on Education and Labor in order to amend the definition of Native Americans. Today, the program is still scored under title IV(D), as a discretionary item and the State Department of Labor of Hawaii continues to administer the program. Why would we seek to include Native Samoan-Americans in the JTPA Native Americans Programs? Because the JTPA-NAP program was established by Congress to address the serious unemployment and economic disadvantages which exist among members of these communities, namely Native American Indians, Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. And I feel that the Samoans who have migrated from American Samoa to Hawaii and the United States proper do qualify. As Members of Congress will testify, of all the minority groups in the United States, Native Americans, Native Hawaiians and Native Samoan-Americans suffer the most economically, primarily due to educational, cultural, and language barriers. I submit to my colleagues in the House that 25 percent or more of the Samoan-Americans population here is the United States live in poverty. An official 1980 census cited 42,000 Samoans in the United States proper. At that stage nearly half of that Samoan population was residing in California and more than one-third was in Hawaii. Although severely under-counted, the 1990 U.S. Census cites 63,000 Samoans now living in the United States, an increase of 50.1 percent over the 1980 statistics, 50 percent live in California, 23 percent in Hawaii and 6.5 percent in Washington. Overall 87.6 percent live in the West region of the United States. I might also note, Mr. Speaker, that despite a 95-year relationship between American Samoa and the United States, the first official census taken by the U.S. Census Bureau of the territory was in 1990--only 5 years ago. Statistics from the Hawaiian operation continue to show that male Samoans have an unemployment rate of over 9 percent while the unemployment female rate remains at 12 percent, both above the national norm. More than any other ethnic group, Samoans have substantially higher school dropout rate with higher incident rates of gang violence. In excess of 30 percent of the Samoan population in Hawaii reside in public housing projects, and Samoan youths and adults rate the lowest in terms in educational competencies and vocational/occupational skills. Since its inception in 1988, the JTPA Samoan Employment and Training Program has begun to address employment and training needs of our people. Hawaii last year enrolled 360 participants and terminated 174. Of the 174 terminated, 98 percent were placed in unsubsidized work averaging $10.65/ California enrolled 578 participants against a planned enrollment of 625 and terminated 477; 240 participants out of the 477 were placed in unsubsidized jobs, that equates to a 50 percent success rate. The success of this program is evident from the mass mailing my office received recently because of the rescissions bill: Ms. Paulette Solt, Supervisor Senior Probation Officer of the Juvenile Probation Department for the City and County of San Francisco said the program provides, ``counseling, remedial education assistance, job education and readiness, and youth employment that is culturally and linguistically relevant.'' Donna Briggs of the Department of Social Services, also for the City and County of San Francisco said, ``Problems I've experienced during the four years that I worked with Samoan families, were monumental largely due to the fact that I am not Samoan and knew nothing about who they are as a people.'' The Mayor's Office of Community Development for the City and County of San Francisco said, ``The employment and training program they are currently providing is very successful at placing Samoan American youths and adults into jobs relating to the training they received as part of their community development.'' The City and County of Los Angeles has the largest Samoan population in the continental U.S. and Shirley Crowe-Massey, Principal of the Long Beach Unified School District said, ``Many Samoan youths are at risk due to cultural and language barriers. The office of Samoan Affairs addresses the needs of and provides for Samoan students and their families; it is an organization that is uniquely equipped to do so.'' Robert Agres, Jr., Deputy Director of the City and County of Honolulu Department of Human Resources said, ``While Samoans in Hawaii have made much progress over the years in moving towards increased economic independence, they continue to be the most economically and socially disadvantaged ethnic group in the State. Programs, like that of the [American Samoan JTPA program], are an investment of federal dollars . . . they help Samoans to move away from the dependence on public support . . . to become contributors to the economic life of our community.'' Mr. Speaker, of concern to many of the letter writers, from school teachers, to church groups, to probation services, to travel agencies, to past and present participants, was--who would become the intermediary agency should the Native Samoan Americans JTPA Program be cut? Mr. Speaker, Before this American Native Samoan JTPA Program was here, there were no training programs that address the concerns of American Samoans, and there were no agencies familiar in the makeup of Samoan Americans in their surrounding communities--and this may be very true for many of the minority communities out there today. There was no one who could identify with the cultural aspect and the embodiment of being Samoan. But, we now have the Samoan American JTPA Program producing promising results, considering the difficulties in obtaining data and preparing appropriate training for these people. The Hawaii program statistics indicate that the cost per participant was $1,806 last year. California's cost per participant was $1,907 with an average cost per participant was $1,643 over that last 3 years. Mr. Speaker. I submit it would cost the Federal Government a lot more if these people were on welfare. In terms of investment this program sounds like a good return--it is a cost-effective initiative as well as a high yield in turning out productive and responsible citizens of our community. Mr. Speaker, many of the graduates of the JTPA Program are now earning decent wages and holding meaningful jobs; several have gone on to pursue degrees in higher education and some have even started their own businesses. It is evident that the program removes members of our community from the welfare roles, and more importantly, it will keep them from getting back to the welfare rolls. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of retaining the JTPA Program because it provides meaningful training for meaningful employment opportunities for our citizens. It is a proactive training program for youth and adults and especially their families improving their access to employment, improving their skills and enhancing the competitiveness of our labor force. It takes the sting out of turbulent years when families are in this transition phase of training and settling into new neighborhoods. It is a program that supports community development and cohesive and it is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that such programs remain part of our community and not be subject to the slash and cut program as outlined in the contract on America. Mr. Speaker, I can only imagine what effect block granting will have on minority communities. If we choose to send block grants to the State level you can bet your bottom dollar that the black community will suffer, the Hispanic community will suffer, the legal immigrant communities will suffer, minority communities will suffer. It is at the local level of our communities where our concerns are felt and it is here where they should be addressed. Mr. Speaker, the GAO report ``Block Grants--Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned'' reinforces many of my concerns with block granting. I would like to see the local community service providers, the people who give their time and skills, the people who get their hands dirty, to continue to administer these programs without strings attached--to the State level. I am not convinced that States have the vested interest in serving a population that is politically and economically insignificant or if it can operate with the same efficiency and effectiveness. Let us not gag programs that we know make a difference in motivation, in personal self esteem, in positive reinforcement and outlook on life. Let us preserve this program that has continually proven to be successful while moving ahead to improve and provide a valued community service. Mr. Speaker, how can we be sure that block granting to State governments will channel funds to the most needy in our communities? How can we be sure that these State governments are going to spend the money for the express purpose that Congress intended these funds to be spent? What certainty is there that we will help the minority communities who suffer the most, who put up with the discriminations because of their race, the way they dress, their language, where they work, and their gender? Mr. Speaker, do not place the JTPA Program in a block grant if you intend to have it administered at the State level and on that basis Samoan-Americans would have ``zilch'' representation. Looking at OMB's Directive 15 Census category of Asians or Pacific Islanders [API] American-Samoans were 0.86 of 1 percent out of a group that total about 8 million people. With no disrespect intended, the political arena favors the Asian-American population and in terms of allocating resources it would appear that Samoan-Americans would not receive the attention deserving of such a special population. It is interesting to note that the stereotyping of Asian and Pacific Island Americans in the contemporary United States has led policymakers and corporate leaders to view this API category as ``the model'' for other minority groups. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, for some 500,000 Pacific Island Americans, the American experience has been one of a vicious cycle of broken homes and families, tremendous tensions among young people currently involved in gangs and drug trafficking, limited educational opportunities, and simply out of frustration and tensions, these citizens of our community inevitably become victims of the ``dark side'' of life, and simply adding greater costs to both local, State, and our national government. Mr. Speaker, my office has received hundreds of letters of support from all segments of the community, government agencies, local referral groups, institutions, church groups--each endorsing the special expertise that this program provides. They know of the impact that this program achieves because they deal with them on a day-to-day basis. We cannot ignore what they have to say: Don't close the door. Don't close the door. Mr. Speaker, the success of this program can largely be attributed to the caliber of senior personnel and the personal interests they hold for our American Samoan people: Mrs. Pat Luce-Aoelua of the National Office of Samoan Affairs [NOSA] has been in the business of caring, education, and counseling our people for over 20 years. She has carried out many research projects from cultural awareness to mental health training and has been on agencies in California. Bill Emmsley of the Samoan Service Providers Association [SSPA] has also been very instrumental in reaching out to our community in Hawaii. His involvement also stems back to over 20 years and has a strong commitment to employment training. Many of SSPA's participants have gone onto community colleges and even to university. SSPA recently graduated 17 participants from one of its entrepreneur training programs. In Seattle the operation is cared for by Logologo Sa'au, Jr. Although smaller in size, the operation in Seattle is just as important. Remember this is a tri-State program, the only program reaching out to many of your constituents who are American Samoans. In closing Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a few lines from a letter that speaks out in strong support of the Samoan-American JTPA program. From the mayor's Office of Community Development, City and County of San Francisco: . . . attests to the fact that the [Samoan-American JTPA program] has an excellent operation as we have witness[ed] for the past 3 years. The employment and training program they are currently providing is very successful at placing Samoan-American Youths and Adults into jobs relating to the training they received as part of their community development. This is a program that we can all be proud of as they continue to provide outstanding counseling, education and training to this economically disadvantaged population. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record statements on this subject from program directors Pat Luce-Aoelua for California, and Bill Emmsley for Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you for your patience and attention. Statement by National Office of Samoan Affairs, Inc., California Addressing H.R. 1158 and 1159 Job Training Partnership Act On March 16, 1995, the House of Representatives adopted two rescission bills (HR 1158 and HR 1159) relating to the Job Training Partnership Act. Certain provisions of the HR 1158 eliminated funds specifically earmarked by Congress for the American Samoan Job Training and Employment Program. As the Executive Director of the National Office of Samoan Affairs which administers the American Samoan JTPA Program in the State of California, I am aware of the disappointments and dissatisfactions expressed by members of Congress with the level of accomplishments and the number of successes attained by the JTPA system as a whole. I can also understand and appreciate the fervor of Congressional effort to reform the system through either rescinding or reducing funds for the JTPA Program. However, I find it extremely perplexing to accept the House Committee's decision to rescind the funds for the American Samoan JTPA Program since Congress, by its own initiative and foresight, had adopted legislation, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, authorizing special funding for the American Samoan JTPA Program in 1988. This enactment was based on the findings of the ``Unemployment, Poverty and Training Needs of American Samoans'' study by the U.S. Department of Labor as mandated by Congress in 1984. This study was conducted by Northwest Laboratory. The findings of the Department of Labor study indicate that American Samoans are not making dramatic inroads into local labor markets, and predict that, based on demographic factors such as American Samoans residing in the United States live in urban, economically depressed areas; they are dispersed throughout the states and therefore are not visible in substantial numbers such as other large minority groups to be addressed by the Service Delivery Areas within the JTPA structure. The American Samoans continue to ``fall through the cracks.'' The problems currently exhibited by American Samoan will continue into the future unless culturally relevant programs are structured. Various studies have shown that American Samoan adults encounter difficulties in finding and maintaining jobs because they lack training, job information, and knowledge on how to access resources, providing training and employment information. But American Samoans in general do not utilize educational training and employment services commensurate with their numbers of needs, according to the DOL-commissioned study. As it is implemented, the Job Training Partnership Act exists to provide employment and training services to individuals and groups with socioeconomic characteristics, such as American Samoans. Unfortunately, available evidence indicates that the present and future needs of American Samoans residing in the United States cannot be effectively met by existing JTPA traditional services. The Department of Labor found that personnel in existing services and programs know little about the unique aspects of Samoan culture and tradition. Research also indicates that there have been few outreach efforts and only isolated attempts to hire American Samoan program staff or to increase American Samoan participation in programs. Due to these failures, local American Samoan communities lack knowledge about the range of existing services and consequently, participation is low. On the other hand, those programs do not offer ESL training targeted for American Samoan-speaking adults and youths. Since many American Samoans require language training, in addition to technical training, they cannot easily participate in other programs lacking an English-Samoan bilingual component. The data indicate, American Samoan communities in the United States have high proportions of hard-to-train, hard-to-place persons. Because of the JTPA funding evaluation criteria, this makes American Samoans high-risk participants in programs sponsored by the general community. These same criteria makes American Samoan community sponsored program high-risk compared to programs which serve other minorities. It is for these reasons, then in 1988 and more so now, with one of the youngest population in the U.S., median age 21, that the existing American Samoan JTPA Program is so important to American Samoans in the United States. The large family sizes and low income place many American Samoan families below the established poverty levels. According to the 1980 Census Bureau, the percentage of American Samoans living in poverty in the United States was 27.5%, compared to 9.6% for the total U.S. population. After 10 years, the incidence of extreme poverty for American Samoans is still about the same, 140 percent higher than for the country as a whole. According to the 1990 U.S. Census, 25% of American Samoans lived in poverty in the United States compared to 10% for the total U.S. population. One out of every four American Samoan families live in poverty. The rate of poverty for the individual for American Samoans is 26% as compared to 13% for the total U.S. population. 9.9 percent of all American Samoans in the labor force are unemployed, a rate of 150 percent of the overall U.S. unemployment rate of 6.3 percent. The action by the House Committee in this matter was not only ill-advised, insensible and reckless, but also insensitive to the continuing needs of the American Samoan population, a high risk population. With the tremendous pressure in Washington to reduce spending, it appears that programs with very little political pressure/influence are mindlessly being eliminated regardless of their benefits to the various communities across the country. The perception of the American Samoan Program by the House Subcommittee as a political ``luxury'' that Congress can no longer afford is irresponsible. To this economically disadvantaged American Samoan population, the Program is the lifeblood of their livelihood. To its many participants, the Program has made the difference for their success in not only finding but keeping a job. To the very few, it's the opportunity to improve the quality of their lives and that of their families. All of them consider the Program as a serious and meaningful commitment by the Congress to reach out and help a struggling, underemployed and underserved, at-risk- population of indigenous people to the United States. Assuredly, the Program has gone far more than it is simply an aid for this group who ostensibly ``fall through the crack'' of governmental, mainstream programs. It has become a symbol of governmental foresight and responsiveness to the concerns and needs of this indigenous population of Native Americans. I have received numerous letters and telephone calls from the participants of the Samoan Program, past and present, and from the Samoan traditional leaders. They expressed their concerns and disappointments with regard to the present situation. It is not an exaggeration to say, Mr. Chairman, that my people also expressed high regards for the Program and held steadfastly to the notion that the American Samoan JTPA Program represented a serious commitment by the Federal Government to provide economically and educationally disadvantaged American Samoans with skills and support services necessary to succeed in the labor market. Although we understand and appreciate the need for the Federal Government to reform the JTPA system through consolidation or elimination of unnecessary or ineffective programs, we know, for good reasons, that the American Samoan Program is not one of them. I am proud to say that in California, the American Samoan Program has been a big success. For a brief example, our program has enrolled 3,472 adult and youth participants and placed a total of 1,247 in employment since the program's inception in 1988. These figures are higher than the national level. Unsubsidized placement for the past 3 years was met at 109%, 129% and 102%. Our data also shows that during the last 3 program years, it costs the Program an average of $2,258 for an adult participant to go through the program and find a job, while it costs $1,643 for a youth participant. Both cost factors are far below the national level. The existing program's outcome fully demonstrates the cost effectiveness as well as the successes that would not have come about had it not been for the American Samoan JTPA Program. reinstatement of the American Samoan JTPA in its present form. The proposed statement is consistent with the historical precedents of the U.S. Government designed to protect the people of American Samoa. American Samoans are legally recognized as nationals of the United States, and authority over American Samoa is vested in the President. The natives of American Samoa are Native Americans and are entitled to ask Congress for special consideration based on what Congress said that it has ``a special responsibility for the Samoan people that grows out of the treaties of friendship and commerce negotiated in the last century and the trust relationship created when the islands were ceded to the United States in early 1900s (H.R. 97-889, 1982:109-110). With more American Samoans living in the United States than in American Samoa, with the largest concentration living in the State of California, the Government of the United States, through this program, will begin to meet its responsibility to this Native American population in the U.S. On behalf of the American Samoan Community in California, we thank you. Soifua ma is Manuia (Long Life and Good Health to You) Pat H. Luce, Executive Director.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Contract With America has targeted at least four major college student aid programs either for serious reduction or elimination altogether. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the lives and future of some 6.5 million college and university students throughout America, especially those from middle- and low-income families that may never have an opportunity to pursue higher education if these cuts are made. Mr. Speaker, I am a byproduct of the National Student Defense Loan Program and I would have never completed by studies at the university level if it had not been for this program. I think the students of America should have the same opportunity. I plead with my colleagues across the aisle, let us keep college, help college students to obtain training and education in universities. It is our future and our Nation's greatest wealth and resource. Mr. Speaker, let us not rob the millions of college students throughout America of their opportunity for a better education. The Congress owes it to these young people.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my colleagues in the Congress to extend a warm and heartfelt welcome to the Honorable Jim Bolger, the Prime Minister of New Zealand and members of his delegation. This is indeed an historic occasion, as it has been over a decade since New Zealand's Prime Minister has been invited to Washington to meet with our President. And I want to commend President Clinton, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, Secretary of Defense William Perry, and Assistant Secretary Winston Lord for bringing about this normalization of our relations with the leaders and good people of New Zealand. I also want to welcome our Nation's Ambassador to New Zealand, the Honorable Josiah Beeman, who is also in Washington. As some of our colleagues may know, in 1987, the United States Government restricted political, military, and security contacts with the nation of New Zealand in response to her adoption of antinuclear legislation that was perceived to be inconsistent with United States military interests in the South Pacific. Although I can understand why our defense ties and Anzus obligations to New Zealand were terminated, I have never supported an across-the- board snubbing that our country forced New Zealand to endure for years. While we restricted high-level contacts with New Zealand, I find it ironic that our Government had no problem in meeting with leaders from totalitarian states and Communist regimes. New Zealand is a longstanding and respected democracy that shares our values, and has historically been a close friend of the United States for most of this century. The people of New Zealand and America are much alike and have much in common--including a shared language, a common heritage of multiculturalism, and a firm commitment to the principles of free market economies. Our two nations, as allies, have fought at each others' side against aggression in virtually every major conflict in recent times. From World War I and World War II, to the Korean, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf wars, New Zealand has joined with America to combat those forces that have threatened democracy and undermined international security and peace. As a member of the U.N. Security Council, New Zealand has actively supported the United States in multilateral collective security efforts. This has included joint operations with America in U.N. peacekeeping missions to Cambodia, Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti, as well as contributions to U.N. peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia, Angola, and Mozambique. In the Asia-Pacific, both New Zealand and the United States support the Asean Regional Forum, which provides the best promise for engaging the major Pacific powers in a new multilateral security architecture for the region. In furtherance of nonproliferation controls, New Zealand early on supported United States negotiations resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, and has strongly worked with the United States for indefinite extension of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Moreover, New Zealand has played an active and positive role in supporting United States efforts in international economic fora, such as the Uruguay round of GATT, APEC, the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council, and the Pacific Basin Economic Committee. Given the nature of this long and extraordinarily deep relationship between our democracies, I strongly applauded the Clinton administration's policy change last year to resume senior-level diplomatic contacts with New Zealand for discussion of political, strategic, and broad security matters. The removal of New Zealand's diplomatic handcuffs has been long overdue. Although several Members in both Houses of Congress lobbied the administration for years to lift the unfair restrictions, certainly Prime Minister Bolger deserves a good part of the credit. During the Seattle APEC summit, promise to review the relationship between our nations. No doubt their personal exchange expedited the review process, resulting in removal of constraints between our governments and resumption of high level dialog. The Honorable Jim Bolger has been Prime Minister of New Zealand since 1990. Although the breakthrough in bilateral relations with the United States has been a significant accomplishment during his tenure, certainly Prime Minister Bolger must also be commended for the dramatic and dynamic revitalization of New Zealand's economy. Under Prime Minister Bolger's leadership, New Zealand has undergone comprehensive economic reforms, changing from one of the most insulated and restrictive economies in the OECD to one of the most open and competitive. Today, New Zealand stands as a model for the rest of the world as to the benefits of free market reforms. The country's annual GDP exceeds 6 percent, inflation has been curbed at 2 percent, unemployment is rapidly declining along with foreign debt, while government budget surpluses are increasing. To accomplish this feat, New Zealand has undertaken several initiatives, such as liberalizing trade by slashing tariffs and removing imports quotas, encouraging financial liberalization by eliminating controls on prices, interest rates, and wages, while introducing a floating exchange rate, broadening the tax base, by implementing a value-added tax, while cutting corporate and personal tax rates, reducing government budgets by privatizing public enterprises and removing subsidies, and substantial deregulation across most sectors of the economy, with a monetary policy targeting price stability as the major objective. These free market reforms have culminated in the World Competitiveness Report in 1994 ranking New Zealand first for long-term competitiveness among the advanced economic nations of the OECD. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of this historic trip to Washington, it is my distinct privilege and pleasure to congratulate Prime Minister Bolger and the good people of New Zealand for their unwavering commitment to democracy and outstanding economic accomplishments of its government. On this great occasion, Mr. Speaker, I submit to my distinguished colleagues in this Chamber, to join me by welcoming Prime Minister Bolger and members of his delegation to our Nation's Capital. As my Polynesian cousins, the Maoris of New Zealand would say, ``Kia ora.'' Tinei mauriora! Tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa. Te whare e tu nei, temarae e takoto nei, tena korua. Nga hau e wha, nga iwi e tau nei, tena koutou katoa. The breath of life! Greetings, greetings, greetings! To the House, to the land, greetings to you both. People of the four winds, people gathered here, greetings to all of you.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mink amendment. Block grant, Mr. Chairman, is a copout.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mink substitute, and in opposition to H.R. 3. Mr. Chairman, I submit to my distinguished colleagues that the lives and well-being of some 21.6 million of our Nation's children are at risk if we allow the Republican welfare reform bill to become law. We are all in agreement that our welfare programs need reform. And in fact, Democrats intended to reform these programs this year; however, as the people of this country are seeing, our minority status is now working to the detriment of our Nation's children. Some of my friends across the aisle have repeatedly said the best way to administer our welfare programs is to give block grants to the States. Without question, some States have been successful at getting people off the welfare rolls and getting them into productive jobs, but so have the Federal programs. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that not all States operate with the same efficiency, and I can just imagine that with 50 different bureaucracies, with 50 different sets of laws and regulations, with 50 different State court rulings, with 50 different budgetary priorities-- well, let me just say that I suspect the result will be utter chaos and confusion. We are going to have people moving from one State to another just to obtain better benefits. But of course the States that provide the better benefit packages will be overwhelmed and will have to lower the quality of their packages to that of their neighbors so they do not continue to be overwhelmed. And if I am correct, Mr. Speaker, when you block grant a Federal program to a State, the States have considerably more latitude with the funds, and they do not necessarily have to spend the funds as Congress would like or have intended. Unlike H.R. 4, which does nothing more than cut the funds expected to be needed to support our nation's children, Congresswoman Mink's substitute is an honest plan which seeks to move welfare families off welfare by training them and putting them to work. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that all 50 States will likely fail to meet the job requirements contained in H.R. 4. Shouldn't that send a message to our friends across the aisle? Shouldn't that alert those with the ability to change this bill to do so now? Are they simply going to say it's not true, or it doesn't matter, we can fix it in conference? Mr. Chairman, I would find that position rather embarrassing to be associated with, and I want to use this opportunity to state unequivocally my strongest opposition to H.R. 4, and my strongest support for the Mink substitute.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the American Samoa Economic Development Act of 1995. For too many years American Samoa has been receiving assistance from the Federal Government on an annual basis. When 20 percent of a government's funding is dependent on annual appropriations of discretionary funds, it is difficult to make long-term plans. The bill I have worked on with Congressman Elton Gallegly, chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, provides a secure source of funding for the territory of American Samoa. Coupled with other efforts, I believe we can develop American Samoa's infrastructure and reduce our Nation's annual deficit at the same time. I want to thank Chairman Gallegly for his support and assistance in preparing this legislation. Our bipartisan effort on this bill continues a long history of bipartisan legislation in the subcommittees which have had jurisdiction over the insular areas. As the new ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee, I intend to make every effort to continue this tradition. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a copy of the bill for printing in the Congressional Record.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I submit to my distinguished colleagues in this chamber that the lives and well-being of some 21.6 million of our nation's children are at risk if we are to allow the proposed welfare reform bill to pass. I do not believe there has ever been any disagreement on both sides of the aisle of the need to reform our welfare programs. But to do so with such haste as if there is no tomorrow, or that because the Contract With America must be signed, sealed and nailed to the cross within the 100-day period--literally begs the question of why all the rush? Thank God for the U.S. Senate. Some of my friends across the aisle have repeatedly said the best way to administer these welfare programs is to let the States do it. And without question some States have been very successful at getting people off the welfare rolls, and give them productive jobs and add more meaning to their lives. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that not all States operate with the same efficiency, and I can just imagine that with 50 different bureaucracies, with 50 different sets of laws and regulations, with 50 different state court rulings, with 50 different budgetary priorities-- will result in what I suspect will be utter chaos and confusion--and if I'm correct Mr. Speaker, when you block-grant a federal program to a state, that state does not necessarily have to spend the funds for what Congress had intended--and if that is the case, Mr. Speaker, my heart goes out to those 21.6 million children that are not going to receive the full benefits of such federal programs. Let us reform our welfare system, Mr. Speaker, but let us do it like we are flying like eagles, and not run around doing so like a bunch of turkeys. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record newspaper editorials on this subject, as follows: What Special Interest? (By Bob Herbert) March 22, 1995, NY Times.--On Sunday more than 1,000 people, many of them children, rallied outside the Capitol in Washington to protest cuts in the school lunch program, which is just one of many excessive and cruel budget proposals the Republican majority in Congress is trying to hammer into law. The theme of the rally was ``Pick on Someone Your Own Size,'' which was another way of saying that the G.O.P. bully boys might consider spreading the budget-cutting pain around, rather than continuing their obscene offensive against the young, the poor, the crippled, the weak and the helpless. The Republican reaction to the rally was interesting. Amazing even. Spokesmen for the party denounced the protest organizers as exploiters of children and defenders of special interests. Exploiters of children! What an accusation from a party that is trying to throw poor children off the welfare rolls; a party that would eliminate Federal nutritional standards for school meals; a party that would cut benefits for handicapped children; a party that would reduce protection for abused and neglected children, even though reported cases of abuse and neglect tripled between 1980 and 1992. Please, a reality check. And ``defenders of special interests''? A Republican in the era of Newt can say that with a straight face? On Monday, Richard L. Berke wrote in The Times: ``Indeed, many Republicans are seeking to punish groups that did not support them in the past to insure that they are never again abandoned. While Democrats have never been timid about hitting up lobbyists, Republicans are going even further, to the point of dictating whom business groups should hire.'' The cold truth is that the Republicans currently in Congress are raising the phenomenon of special interests to dangerous new heights. The lead paragraph on a Washington Post article on March 12 said: ``The day before the Republicans formally took control of Congress, Rep. Tom DeLay strolled to a meeting in the rear conference room of his spacious new leadership suite on the first floor of the Capitol. The dapper Texas Congressman, soon to be sworn in as House majority whip, saw before him a group of lobbyists representing some of the biggest companies in America, assembled on mismatched chairs amid packing boxes, a huge, unplugged copying machine and constantly ringing telephones.'' The eager lobbyists had wasted no time in taking up Mr. DeLay's offer to collaborate in the drafting of legislation that would scrap Federal safety and environmental rules that big business felt were too tough. When the bill and the debate moved to the House floor, the Post story said, ``lobbyists hovered nearby, tapping out talking points on a laptop computer for delivery to Republican floor leaders.'' The mind boggles at the very idea of a Gingrich Republican criticizing anyone as a captive of special interests. Republicans in the era of Newt aggressively hunt down special interests and demand to be taken captive. If, of course, those interests have lots of money. And when it comes time to make sacrifices to bring the Federal deficit under control, those interests are spared. No pain inflicted there. The Republican zeal for budget cuts comes to an abrupt halt in the face of the real special interests. The so-called Contract With America is actually a contract with big business. Keep in mind the lobbyists writing legislation in Tom DeLay's office. They weren't representatives of the American people, poor or middle class. They represented the real beneficiaries of the contract. According to the National Center for Children in Poverty, 24 percent of all American children under the age of 6 are poor. Under the twisted values of the new Republican majority, these children become like wounded swimmers in shark-infested waters. Their very vulnerability is a signal that they should be attacked. James Weill, general counsel of the Children's Defense League, said, ``They are taking that part of the American population that is in the deepest trouble to begin with, the group with the highest poverty, the greatest vulnerability, and because they are so politically powerless they are attacking them the most. That, to me, is the worst aspect of what they are doing.''

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today is for what is called the Personal Responsibility Act. This proposed bill will alter drastically the welfare system in our Nation. One of the problems of this bill is that it does not even mention the 1.2 million Native Americans or the 553 federally recognized American Indian tribes. To remedy the situation, Members from both sides of aisle worked together to come up with an amendment to allow Indian tribes access to the block grant provisions of this bill. Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did not accept this and it will never be heard on its merits on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that Indian tribes are not subunits of State governments. Their relationship is on a government-to-government basis with the Federal Government. Currently tribes are eligible for direct funding under numerous Federal laws to the same extent as the 50 States. What a travesty, Mr. Speaker, that this is happening.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege in recent years to listen and to observe some of the most lively and historical debates in this Chamber on issues that affect the lives and well-being of all the citizens of our great Nation. Certainly the 104th Congress is no exception, and we are again at the crossroads to deliberate fully--and hopefully--the merits of the important issues that are now before us. Mr. Speaker one of these issues is whether our national government should just eliminate the several social and nutritional programs currently in place, and just ``block grant'' the funding to States and let the State governors conduct the redistribution of the resources since they supposedly know better where the needs are. I want to share with my colleagues an article that appeared in yesterday's Washington Post, written by Dr. Louis Sullivan, former U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services during the administration of President George Bush. Dr. Sullivan's statements are quite profound--in my humble opinion--as he clearly reminded all of us here in this Chamber to examine the merits of these programs, and let's not rush into a feeding frenzy by just cutting and slashing these programs without meaningful review and examination. In the WIC Program, for example, Dr. Sullivan states: . . . This prescriptive program has enjoyed bipartisan support since it was established by such leaders as Senator Bob Dole and the late Senator Hubert Humphrey. By providing necessary nutrition to pregnant women, lactating mothers and one-third of all children born in the United States, WIC-- quite simply--works . . .. In the case of WIC, nutrition requirements guide the program toward better health, and Medicaid savings, while avoiding the potential confusion associated with creating a complex web of 50 different State rules . . .. Mr. Speaker, someone once said that haste makes waste. As we deliberate on the fate of these social and nutritional programs that affect the lives of millions of families, women and children throughout America--let's tread carefully and let's not appeal to political expediency and convenience as the basis of how we make decisions in this important institution of our national government. [From the Washington Post, Feb. 28, 1995] One for Our Children (By Louis W. Sullivan) As the nation engages in debate over the future role and direction of the federal government's activities in a host of programs, there is much that can be learned about federal- state cooperation and cost effectiveness in the example of one program that delivers tremendous benefits to some of the most vulnerable in our society. The WIC Program--the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children--has a 20-year track record demonstrating how federal programs implemented by states can achieve important national goals, while saving taxpayers billions of dollars in preventable health care costs. In the drive to streamline and improve government programs, the need for WIC and WIC's success should not be obscured. This prescriptive program has enjoyed bipartisan support since it was established by such leaders as Sen. Bob Dole and the late Senator Hubert Humphrey. By providing necessary nutrition to pregnant women, lactating mothers and one-third of all children born in the United States, WIC--quite simply--works. The program serves nearly 7 million mothers and children each month at a cost of less than $1.50 a day for each participating child. For that small amount, this program results in significant Medicaid savings that far outweigh the program's costs--by a ratio of 3-to-1, according to several studies. That is clearly an overwhelming return on a small national investment. WIC's well-documented success is founded in its rock-solid nutrition standards. The foods offered must achieve requirements for iron, calcium, Vitamin A, Vitamin C and protein. Goals for these nutrients were selected based on firmly documented scientific evidence that increasing the intake of these nutrients at key junctures in fetal development and in infants' lives would improve health, reduce low birthweight and lower infant mortality. There is no question that the societal costs of undernourished children are stunning. During my tenure as secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I recall visiting neonatal intensive care facilities at hospitals in Fort Lauderdale and in Detroit. In both facilities, I was saddened to observe low birthweight infants who had been hospitalized for the first six months of their lives. Hospital bills for these tender babies had already exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've always believed that the frequency of these perilous beginnings of life could be reduced by proper nutrition at critical stages in an infant's development. Those compelling experiences aided me in formulating one of our major undertakings at HHS--development of the Healthy people 2000 initiative. By establishing health promotion and disease-prevention goals for the nation, we sought to achieve realistic concrete results by the year 2000. These included goals of reducing infant mortality, reducing the incidence of low birthweight and increasing early prenatal care. Our efforts were motivated by persuasive research documenting savings of $14,000 to $30,000 for every infant born without low birthweight. The results of WIC's short-term nutrition intervention are compelling evidence that this type of preventive care works. A USDA study of WIC children found a 33 percent reduction in infant mortality and as much as a 23 percent reduction in premature births. A 1992 GAO study found a reduction of as much as 20 percent in low birthweights among WIC participants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documented a dramatic reduction in childhood anemia among WIC participants. What's more, the GAO study found that WIC's role in connecting participants to health care providers produced an improvement in immunization rates among WIC participants. Perhaps the wisest provision of WIC is that it is administered by caring people at 9,000 clinics who teach young mothers how to eat properly and how to feed their children properly. With convenient, nutritious food, WIC serves as an in-home laboratory for proper eating. For many mothers, WIC is often their first course in nutrition. Among my concerns as we reform our welfare system is that we may inadvertently strip programs of the national standards and guidelines that make them work. In the case program toward better health, and Medicaid savings, while avoiding the potential confusion associated with creating a complex web of 50 different state rules. Our children's health is not defined by state boundaries. Our nutritional standards should not be either. As we come to grip with the changes voters demanded three months ago, we must find ways to more effectively achieve national policy goals with fewer dollars. WIC has been a real success story, and it should be used as a model and not lost, in the block grant debate.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, American Samoa is the only jurisdiction of the United States that is not served by the SSI program, nor its predecessor program, the Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled [AABD]. SSI and AABD are basically the same in design. The only significant difference between the two programs is funding. With SSI, benefits and the cost of administering the program are fully financed by the Federal Treasury. As for AABD, the Federal Government pays 75 percent of benefits up to a specified limit and the States absorb the remaining 25 percent. Administrative cost is shared by both the Federal Government and the States at 50 percent each. Under current law, in order to receive SSI benefits, a low-income elderly, blind or disabled individual must reside in one of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. For qualified individuals who reside in Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, similar benefits are available to them through the AABD program. Unfortunately, the elderly, blind and disabled individuals in American Samoa who have low or no income are not covered by either program. Mr. Speaker, this is yet another example of a vital program extended to all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, oversight when Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were included in the AABD program in 1950, and Guam after 1952. According to a recent survey in American Samoa, there are now approximately 3,500 elderly, blind and disabled individuals with low or no income. These individuals currently receive some assistance through a nutrition assistance program, but funding for this program is determined on a year-to-year basis. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the elderly population in American Samoa are caught between two systems. When Social Security went into effect in Samoa, this group of people were too old to contribute long enough to qualify for minimum benefits. On the other hand, the territorial retirement system did not begin until 1971. By that time, many of these people had already left the work force or had so little time remaining that they were also excluded from benefits under this system. In each Congress since 1990, I have introduced legislation to include Samoa's elderly, blind and disabled population in the SSI program to address their critical financial needs. In 1990, it was estimated that approximately 1,600 such individuals resided in the Territory. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that if SSI was in place in American Samoa in 1993, Federal outlays would be about $3 million higher than under current law. Mr. Speaker, I know we are going through a difficult time in budgeting our revenue. I also know all Americans will have to sacrifice to bring our budget into balance. As we go through this process, I simply want to ask my colleagues that we not ask the most vulnerable among us, namely the blind, disabled and poor elderly, to make a disproportionate share of that sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I submit the bill to be printed in the Record as follows:

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide permanent funding for a nutrition program in American Samoa. The American Samoa Nutrition Assistance Program currently in existence is funded on an annual basis out of discretionary funds from the Department of Agriculture. The national Food Stamp Program is not available in American Samoa, and the program in Samoa serves as a modified Food Stamp Program in that only the blind, severely disabled, and poor elderly are eligible for benefits. Benefits are also limited in that they vary between $50 and $125 per month, depending on the income of and the assets owned by the recipient. Unfortunately, the method of annual appropriations used for American Samoa's Nutrition Assistance Program is unsatisfactory in that the level of funding, or perhaps more appropriately the existence of any funding, is subject to annual appropriations. I can see no reason why funding for the Food Stamp programs for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and for all but one of the U.S. Territories should come from one source, and the funding for American Samoa's program should come from a different source. Mr. Speaker, I believe American Samoa's nutrition assistance program is a model to be followed by other U.S. jurisdictions in that no benefits are available for the able-bodied. As I stated earlier, the only recipients are the poor blind, severely disabled, and the elderly. The cost of the program for fiscal year 1995 is $5.5 million, a cost which could easily be absorbed within the multi-billion dollar contingency fund of the national program, and I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing this variance in national policy and support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I submit the bill to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Joint Resolution 50, to designate the visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park in California as the ``Robert J. Lagomarsino Visitors Center.'' Mr. Speaker, I have known former Congressman Robert Lagomarsino for nearly 20 years and have tremendous respect for the gentleman. I first met him when I was on the staff of the late Congressman Phil Burton of California in the 1970's. Congressman Burton and Congressman Lagomarsino taught me from the start how important and valuable a bipartisan approach to our resolving the Nation's problems here in Washington. These two gentleman have done much in Congress to help the U.S. territories. Together they helped bring in U.S. insular areas from neocolonialism to greater measurement of self-governance. Most of these territorial governments have made impressive progress toward financial self-sufficiency. Another important principle the late Congressman Burton taught me was that the most important thing a Member of Congress has in this House is his word. When you make a commitment, you'd better keep it, or you won't be given the same amount of trust again. Congressman Lagomarsino was a true practitioner of this guiding principle and I knew I could always count on his support once he made a commitment. Mr. Speaker, about 1 year after I was first elected to this House, a hurricane with 160-mile-per-hour winds struck my congressional district causing extensive damage. The only transportation between the outer islands and the main island of my district consisted of single-engine, passenger airplanes. These planes were unable to transport construction materials which were needed in the outer islands to rebuild after the hurricane. Senator Daniel Inouye from the State of Hawaii was kind enough to provide $750,000 in that year's defense appropriation bill to refurbish a vessel obtained from another Federal agency. When the bill returned to the House, the money for this vessel was under partisan attack and I wasn't sure whether the funding would survive. The President did not support the bill. The Secretary of the Interior did not support, and even our own governor did not support the measure. As part of his duties on the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Congressman Lagomarsino had been to American Samoa and knew, first- hand, how important surface transportation was to these outer islands. Much to my surprise, Congressman Lagomarsino came to the floor, broke the partisan attack, and spoke in support of funding for the vessel. I still believe that without his support, and the assistance of former Congressman John Rhodes of Arizona, my district would have lost that important funding. I have never forgotten the crucial support Congressman Lagomarsino provided that day, and I never will. Mr. Speaker, another issue I worked on with Congressman Lagomarsino concerned stoppage of the rapacious practice of drift net fishing in the South Pacific. I spent my first 4 years in this House serving on the Foreign Affairs Committee with Bob Lagomarsino, and his statesmanlike service on that committee deserves special commendation. Drift nets are commonly referred to as the walls of death. They are must that--invisible fishing nets up to 30-miles long, stretching the distance from Washington to Baltimore, that indiscriminately kill everything in the sea that is unfortunate enough to swim into its path. Some fishing companies prefer to use this method of fishing because it is very efficient. and all fish, dolphins, porpoises, and even whales which cannot pass through the small mesh. For air-breathing mammals, such as dolphins and whales, it is slow death by drowning. To make this form of fishing even worse, many of the fish, and all of the mammals, were not considered desirable by the owners of the nets and their carcasses were simply cast overboard as trash. The worst part, Mr. Speaker, is when these drift nets are lost on the open seas by fishermen, not an uncommon occurrence, continue to drift the ocean for months, killing untold amounts of sealife. Despite pressure from certain segments of the international community and the domestic fishing industry, Congressman Lagomarsino supported my legislation to ban this practice from the South Pacific, and led the bipartisan charge from his side of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We were successful in that endeavor and I cannot thank Bob Lagomarsino enough for is leadership. Mr. Speaker, although I am not from California, I know Congressman Lagomarsino has played a key role in protecting the environmental interests of that great State, the United States of America, and the global community. Congressman Lagomarsino's efforts have directly contributed to the creation of the Channel Islands National Park, and I can think of nothing more fitting than naming the visitor's center at this national park in honor of this great American. Mr. Speaker, in all candor and with sincerity, and on behalf of the people of American Samoa, I want to thank Chairman Don Young, Chairman Jim Hansen, our ranking Democratic members George Miller and Bill Richardson for their support of this legislation, and especially the chief sponsor of the bill, the distinguished chairman of the House Subcommittee on Native Americans and Insular Affairs, Congressman Elton Gallegly of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with my good friends, Mr. Bill Richardson, Mr. Pat Williams, Mr. George Miller, and Mr. Peter DeFazio, in introducing the Indian Federal Recognition Administrative Procedures Act of 1995 which will create an efficient and fair procedure for extending federal recognition to certain Indian tribes. Similar legislation was passed by the House of Representatives last Congress but, unfortunately, failed to pass in the Senate by the end of the session. Mr. Speaker. There remains a great need for redesign of the current process for federally recognizing Indian tribes. For instance, it was not until 1979, 157 years after the establishment of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that a comprehensive list of Indian tribes was published. It fact, the concept of Federal recognition did not even become a significant legal issue until the 1970s, following two federal appellate court decisions and recommendations of the American Indian Policy Commission. The current recognition process is very cumbersome, lengthy and, in many cases, ill-suited to factual and fair determinations. Unfortunately, federal regulations are by no means clear regarding the criteria that a tribe seeking federal recognition must satisfy, nor what evidence the BIA must verify. In addition, the current process has led to a backlog of petitions. Since 1978, the BIA has received over 116 new petitions. The BIA has resolved only 25 cases since 1978, nine in favor of recognition, and 13 against recognition. While in the past two months, the BIA has acted on two petitions, in both cases announcing proposed findings of denial, the process remains unwieldy. Mr. Speaker, in addition, the costs to tribal petitioners of participating in the federal recognition process are prohibitively expensive, averaging between $300,000 and $500,000. In addition, the BIA's own system appears to suffer internal conflicts because the same agency individuals who conduct the research into a tribe's history also make the final recognition decision. Mr. Speaker, this legislation responds to these problems by creating an independent Commission on Indian Recognition, comprised of three individuals. The Commission would receive petitions for recognition. The legislation prescribes procedures for considering petitions, and affords petitioners the right to adjudicative hearings and appeals, and access to federal courts. For instance, the bill would allow petitioning groups to conduct discovery and cross-examine witnesses and evidence in a Commission hearing. More importantly, the bill sets forth more objective, consistent, and streamlined standards for acknowledging groups as federally recognized Indian tribes. By so doing, the legislation greatly enhances the ability of the federal government to more accurately, efficiently, and fairly determine whether or not to extend federal recognition to tribal petitioners. Mr. Speaker, today I attended a White House meeting with a number of The tribal leaders were very adamant about their unsatisfaction with the current recognition process and urged both the Administration and Congress to make wholesale changes in the law. I would like to emphasize that the legislation that I am introducing today is only the starting point for further discussion and debate. I remain open to, and look forward to, the advice and input of my other colleagues, as well as agency and tribal recommendations. I firmly believe that together we can arrive at a fair and workable solution to the problems associated with the federal recognition process. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I include a copy of the bill, as follows:

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my serious concerns about the health and safety of American workers. Mr. Speaker, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 sets forth safety and health standards for businesses which affect interstate commerce. The law was an attempt to correct several inadequacies in the workplace, including an attempt to level the economic playing field between businesses who provided safer and healthier working environments and those companies which did not. This was a bipartisan law, passed by a Democratically-controlled Congress and signed by a Republican President, Richard M. Nixon. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, together with its regulations, is today applicable to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. American Samoa is one of those territories. Mr. Speaker, last year the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, began what ended up being a 5-month investigation of one of the two largest private employers in American Samoa, Star-Kist Samoa, Inc. Star-Kist Samoa is a subsidiary of Star- Kist Foods, which is a subsidiary of the $11 billion conglomerate, the H.J. Heinz Food Co. This investigation concluded last month with the signing of a settlement agreement of approximately 100 citations which were issued for violations of Federal law and regulations. The violations included 42 willful, 35 serious, 12 repeat, and 4 failure to abate violations. The violations were for: Failure to provide adequate machine guards for dangerous points of operation resulting in 11 amputations--5 total finger amputations, 1 total leg amputation, and 5 amputations of at least 1 finger joint; Failure to provide 1,900 employees the use of puncture resistent gloves to protect their hand from sharp fish bones, knives, and wire racks, resulting in numerous injuries requiring sutures; Failure to provide basic employee hearing conservation measures, though Star-Kist Samoa was aware that 19 employees had developed significant shifts in their hearing; Failure to inform employees of the results of noise surveys; Failure to perform baseline audiograms for over 600 employees; Failure to conduct annual audiograms for over 1,500 employees; Failure to evaluate audiograms that had been conducted; Failure to develop and require the application of lockout-tagout producers for employees engaged in such tasks as cleaning and unjamming machinery; Failure to enforce the use of confined space permits; Failure to keep adequate records of worker injuries and illnesses; and Failure to comply with OSHA regulations on respirators, chemical exposures, eye washes, and bloodborne diseases, resulting in 100 employees being admitted to the LBJ Tropical Medical Center for treatment after being exposed to lethal gas. Based on these violations, Star-Kist Co. agreed to pay $1.8 million in penalties. This is a substantial penalty and was based on the severity of the violations, the period of time over which the violations occurred, prior knowledge by company officials of the violations, and the number of employees subjected to the unsafe or unhealthy conditions. Based on the formula OSHA uses to determine appropriate penalties, OSHA officials determined that a penalty in the range of $4 to $5 million was supportable. It was determined, however, that based on Star-Kist's willingness to correct the violations, a somewhat lower penalty was acceptable. Mr. Speaker, the unsafe and unhealthy conditions found at the Star- Kist plant in American Samoa would not have been tolerated in any of the 50 States of the United States. That 42 of the violations were willful, in other words they were violations of Federal laws which Star-Kist management was aware of but purposely chose not to correct, is an indication to me that the management of Star-Kist Foods and H.J. Heinz here in the United States wanted to get away with as much as they could, regardless of the risk to the Samoan employees. I have heard attacks made recently to the effect that a government which governs best is a government which governs least. In an effort to reduce the number of Federal regulations and make the climate in America more conducive to business, some are talking of doing away with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be a grave mistake, and I use the example of what has happened to the Star-Kist employees in Samoa as an example of what would happen to employees in the United States if we do not maintain regulations to protect the safety and health of our workers, and provide sufficient funding to enforce these regulations. I have not heard one complaint, not even from Star-Kist, that OSHA acted improperly or impartially during the course of this investigation. OSHA did an excellent job in enforcing Federal law and regulations during this inspection, and I wish to publicly commend them for their outstanding performance. Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say on this matter, and I will take the opportunity to do so later in the week.