Elton Gallegly

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, for more than 30 years the United States has imposed a unilateral economic embargo on the people of Cuba. The hope of course was that such international pressure and isolation would bring the dictator, Fidel Castro, to his knees. Unfortunately, after all this time, Castro still rules the island. What is more unfortunate, however, is that the people of Cuba, most no longer fervent followers of the revolution, are living in a state of political and financial depression. Nobody denies that Castro is an old tyrant whose time to give up the lost hope of the revolution has come. Cuba is the last country in the hemisphere without democracy, free elections and an open economy. But, the legislation we are considering here today, will not result in any changes in this current situation. It will not bring down Castro any faster than the existing embargo has failed to remove him. In fact, H.R. 927 will result in the perverse effect of further isolating this nation. The attempt in this bill to internationalize the economic embargo by threatening economic sanctions against any other nation which trades with or invests in Cuba is unworkable and will embroil us in heated debates with our allies and friends in this hemisphere and beyond. This is not to say that we should give up our attempts to rid the island of Castro. But the almost paranoid behavior of many in this Nation with respect to Castro is no longer justified. Cuba is no military threat to the United States. Cuba is no longer a viable model for socialism. It is no longer a model for anything or anybody. So why the fixation. As the recent report of the Inter-American Dialog Task Force on Cuba stated, ``the prospects for change in Cuba are today greater than at any time since 1959. Yet, current United States policy neither encourages change in Cuba nor advances United States national interests.'' Not long ago, during the House debate on whether we should renew most-favored-nation trade status with China, Members from both sides of the aisle argued passionately that while China's failure to live up to normal standards of international behavior was reprehensible, it was more important to engage the Chinese through political dialog and economic interaction. Without this face-to-face interaction, China's behavior could not be modified or changed. Similarly, many Members of this Congress supported the President's decision to extend diplomatic recognition of Vietnam because they felt an open dialog would help us resolve once and for all the issue of our POW/MIA's. Finally, this Nation has constantly engaged the North Koreans in frank and open discussion of their nuclear weapons programs and we have even agreed to sell them nuclear power generating equipment. My point here is that this Nation has chosen to confront in full diplomatic dialog some of the most ruthless communist, civil rights abusing dictatorships in the world in the hope that this dialog would somehow influence their behavior both domestically and in the international arena. So, what is wrong with our policy approach to Cuba. Is Cuba any more of a threat to us than China or North Korea? Hardly. Is Castro somehow more of a dictator than the leadership in Beijing or Hanoi? No. So, why shouldn't the United States policy toward Cuba be changed to reflect the same approach that we take toward every other communist dictator in the world. H.R. 927 creates a false sense of hope. It will not topple Castro but it will tighten the noose around the already miserable life most ordinary Cubans live under.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, what seemed to start out as a very promising year for important banking reform legislation seems to have once again come to a disappointing halt because of the ongoing dispute between banks and insurance agents. Pending before the Rules Committee are two banking bills which would offer the Congress a historical opportunity to modernize our financial services system and make significant reductions in paperwork and compliance burdens for our banks. It is clear that despite their current strength in the U.S. market, our banking system continues to face the threat of lost market share, especially in the international arena due to out-of-date, restrictive laws and unnecessarily burdensome regulations. Modernizing our banking system will help it keep pace with the rapidly changing, technology driven market and will offer new benefits to the banking consumer. regulatory relief H.R. 1858, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Relief Act, contains over 80 provisions of regulatory relief for the banking industry. Regulating the commercial banking industry is complex and extremely broad in scope. However, while many of the current regulations seem to be appropriate on their face, they are often duplicative, sometimes contradictory, and impose unnecessary costs on our banking system. These costs are often paid by the consumer in the form of high fees and lower interest on accounts. As a cosponsor of the original bill, H.R. 1362, I believe the changes made by the Banking Committee to areas such as RESPA, small bank exams, environmental liability, and CRA are sensible and will help make our lending institutions more efficient. glass-steagall reform Created more than 50 years ago, the Glass-Steagall Act was enacted to separate, in part, the commercial and investment banking functions of our financial institutions. In today's technologically advanced and integrated financial markets, this act has outlived its usefulness and now serves as a barrier to healthy competition and efficient market operation. H.R. 1062, the Glass-Steagall reform bill will create a more flexible financial services structure by stripping away old prohibitions which are no longer practical and will permit banks and securities firms to affiliate with each other. Glass-Steagall reform will create economic opportunity and growth by giving banks improved access to capital and financing and through the imposition of workable firewalls, without risk to the consumer or to federally insured deposits. Mr. Speaker, both bills are extremely important to the future of our banking and financial services industry as well as to consumers. I urge the Rules Committee to allow both regulatory burden relief legislation and Glass-Steagall reform to come to the floor separately and clean of any provisions that threaten their passage. However, the House should be allowed an unrestricted opportunity to engage in an insurance debate which would take place in the context of expanding business-related activities for the banks.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, as events in Bosnia, the South China Sea, and the Persian Gulf have demonstrated time and again, it is absolutely critical that the United States maintain a strong Navy, Merchant Marine, and shipbuilding and repair industrial base. Since the end of World War II, which we recently commemorated, our Merchant Marine has fallen from over 3,000 vessels to today's 350 vessels flying the Stars and Stripes. It has been over 60 years since the Merchant Marine Act was signed into law and 25 years since the Congress last approved a maritime promotion program. Similarly, American shipyards, which, in 1944 produced surface combatants at a rate of 1 every 2\1/2\ weeks, are now down to 6 primary construction yards bidding on less than 10 new vessels each year. These statistics are unacceptable and must be reversed. This Nation needs a new maritime program which will help preserve our shipbuilding industrial base while providing the U.S.-flag commercial shipping capability necessary to maintain our military and economic security. These sentiments were forcefully stated recently by Senator Trent Lott who Chairs the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine. Senator Lott stated that, Without a U.S. merchant fleet and a powerful U.S. shipbuilding industry, the U.S. would have to depend on foreign interests for sealift and logistics support. In his testimony before Senator Lott's subcommittee, Gen. Robert Rutherford, Commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, stated that: We have not forgotten the importance of the U.S. maritime industry to our overall sealift capabilities. Just as we did in the Gulf War, Somalia, and most recently back to the Gulf, we rely extensively on our commercial partners to support our worldwide commitments. Today, the Congress has an opportunity to reverse the recent trends in our commercial shipping experiences. H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995, and the Senate counterpart, S. 1139 would initiate a 10-year program to create a Maritime Security Fleet which would boost national security, stimulate the economy and domestic shipbuildings and promote a stronger, more efficient U.S. flag commercial fleet. In a letter to the Commerce Committee, our colleagues Herb Bateman, Randy Cunningham, Curt Weldon and others stressed that the: Enactment of H.R. 1350 will preserve and create American maritime jobs, generate much-needed revenues for federal and state taxing authorities, improve our balance of trade and ensure that our country will not become totally dependent on foreign nations and foreign crews to transport the supplies and equipment needed by American servicemen oversees. With respect to domestic shipbuilding, a recent study released by the Maritime Administration indicated that jobs in commercial shipbuilding had declined some seven percent in 1994 and only one ocean-going commercial ship is currently on order. While Navy shipbuilding has been the salvation of our shipbuilding industrial base over the past 7 years, the number of new orders is on the decline and must be stabilized at an adequate number. The Congress must continue to provide funding for the nuclear attack submarine fleet, the AEGIS surface combatant fleet and the amphibious and auxiliary ships necessary to support our Marine and Army forces. Finally, the Congress can ensure the preservation of the U.S.-flag commercial fleet by resisting the proposal to repeal the Jones Act. Since 1789, the United States has maintained a preference for carrying domestic commerce on U.S.-built, U.S.-flag vessels. In 1920, the Congress enacted the Jones Act mandating that cargoes carried between U.S. ports would be transported on U.S.-flag, U.S.-crewed vessels. These laws were seen as a way to promote the U.S. maritime industry as well as to ensure safe transportation and national defense considerations. There are those who want to repeal the Jones Act claim the law is protectionist in nature. And, they may be correct. But, some form of Federal investment to promote a U.S. flag commercial fleet can be justified. Unlike the ocean-going fleet, the Jones Act operators do not receive any subsidy from the Federal Government either for operations or for construction. If preferential cargo treatment is the price we must pay to ensure that foreign flags-of-convenience carriers, who are not subject to U.S. safety laws and who cannot be counted on for our national defense do not enter our domestic commerce, then the investment may well be worth it. We simply cannot allow foreign vessels to gain total control over our domestic waterborne trade. In addition, as Al Herberger, head of the Maritime Administration testified: When a U.S. shipper chooses to move cargo on a U.S.-flag vessel as opposed to a foreign-flag vessel, most revenue that is paid for freight remains in the U.S. economy. On the other hand, freight paid to foreign flag operators, increases our trade deficit because that revenue goes to foreign nationals. Again, as Senator Lott stated at his subcommittee's hearing: I want to maintain and promote a U.S.-flag fleet, built in U.S. shipyards and manned by U.S. crews . . . when I go home, I want to see the greatest amount possible of Mississippi agricultural products . . . moving on U.S. built and flagged ships. The Jones Act, since its inception, has provided an important service to the U.S. economy and the maritime industrial base. Previous attempts have been made to repeal this law. However, the majority in the Congress has always resisted these ill-conceived attempts to destroy the U.S.-flag commercial fleet. In fact, on July 24 the House reaffirmed its commitment to the principals of cargo preference embodied in the Jones Act when it voted 324 to 77 to permit the export of Alaskan North Slope oil exclusively on U.S.-flag tankers. Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of our history, this Nation has recognized that as a maritime Nation dependent on secure transport of ocean-borne commerce and military strength, we must remain committed to a strong maritime industry, led by a viable U.S.-flag merchant fleet. This simple fact has not changed in over 220 years and must not change now. The Congress must continue to support a strong Navy, a viable merchant marine, and an efficient shipbuilding industrial base.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, we rise today to honor a city we both represent that is celebrating its 30th anniversary of incorporation later this month. On September 21, 1965, a group of people living in what is now Carpinteria, CA, voted 895 to 635 to become the fifth incorporated city in Santa Barbara County and the 306th city in the State. Since that time, the city has grown in population from 6,500 to more than 14,500, while retaining the small-town character and friendliness that prompted many residents to settle there in the first place. In the city's first 30 years, its residents have maintained a viable and vital city government, provided a high level of police protection, effectively applied planning and land use standards, constructed public facilities that benefit both residents and visitors, revitalized the downtown area, provided recreation and social services and--along with the rest of southern California--dealt with more than their share of natural disasters. Over the years, the residents of Carpinteria have also enjoyed their fair share of milestones: from the opening of the first--rented--city hall with two full-time employees on November 1, 1965, to the establishment of the city police department 2 years later to the city's purchasing and moving into its own city hall in 1975. Mr. Speaker, the proud residents of Carpinteria have planned an extensive, 4-day celebration of all that they have achieved over the past 30 years to coincide with this happy anniversary. We are grateful to be able to introduce these remarks on the city's behalf and to remind our colleagues that there is a very special place in southern California home to some very special people and that place is called Carpinteria.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right, I will not object, but I did want to take the opportunity to address the distinguished chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. As the chairman knows, the Committee on Resources has approved H.R. 1332, which would eliminate the Office of Territorial and International Affairs [OTIA] and terminate its programs. This action will save taxpayers $16 million in fiscal year 1996 and $117 million over the next 7 years. This authorization bill, which I introduced, received widespread bipartisan support and is currently awaiting floor consideration. Mr. Speaker, when the floor considered H.R. 1977, the Interior appropriations bill, I offered an amendment to delete the funding for the OTIA and its programs in accordance with our committee's work. The chairman graciously accepted my amendment. Unfortunately, the other body has gone in just the opposite direction in their appropriations bill by preserving in some ways and enhancing this unnecessary office in other ways. It is my hope that the Chair and other House conferees will stick firm to the House position in trying to eliminate this piece of bureaucracy. At the very least I would ask that, since both authorization committees have such opposite views of the future need of the OTIA, that the chairman not accept any legislative language from the Senate involving the OTIA or its programs and that they subject any appropriation for the OTIA, its programs or former territories, to an authorization. Mr. Speaker, this issue should be resolved by the authorization committees, and I would appreciate the chairman's consideration. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from West Virginia, which would eliminate $30 million earmarked for reimbursing States for incarcerating violent criminal aliens. Earlier this year the House passed H.R. 667, the Violent Criminals Incarceration Act of 1995. In that legislation was a provision sponsored by this Member which would authorize $650 million per year to reimburse States for the burden of incarcerating illegal aliens that commit felonies. In the bill before us today, there is only $500 million set aside for that purpose and this amendment would reduce this amount by another $30 million. Mr. Chairman, the States can no longer afford to pick up the tab for the failure of the Federal Government to enforce its borders and enforce its immigration laws. For some perspective, the cost of this failure to California alone is over $500 million a year. But this is not only a California problem. There are over 4 million illegal aliens in our country and they are found in every State. Clearly, the States that are negatively impacted by this failure of Federal policy can no longer pay the bill for the fact that the Federal Government has shirked its responsibility to enforce its border and the law. I would just like to make one statement in relation to the gentleman from West Virginia: California gets less money per capita than any other State in the Nation as it relates to reimbursement for the incarcerating of illegal aliens under this legislation.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as a cosponsor, and in strong support of H.R. 2058, the China Policy Act introduced by our colleague from Nebraska and the chairman of the East Asian Subcommittee, Mr. Bereuter. With the end of the cold war in Europe and the transformation of Russia into a democratic government with an open market economy we must now turn our attention to China with the intent of achieving the same results. The emergence of China as a great political and economic force and a nuclear super-power poses an enormous challenge to this nation both strategically and economically. The need for the United States to develop an open, aggressive, cohesive, and consistent policy toward Beijing is of paramount importance. This is not to say we should close our eyes or turn a deaf ear to the unacceptable behavior of the regime in Beijing. Clearly, their poor human rights record, their recent military actions with respect to the Spratly Islands, their sale of M-9 missiles to Pakistan and perhaps Iran, their unwillingness to renounce the use of force against the Republic of Taiwan, and the recent jailing of American citizen, Harry Wu, defies every international norm and standard governing missile proliferation, the use of military force, and human rights. However, denying most-favored-nation status at this time is not the way to actively engage the Chinese and to encourage reform, openness and respect for international standards of behavior. The expression of our concern is what H.R. 2058 attempts to do. It says that we in this Congress do not accept China's current behavior and that we call on the President to intensify diplomatic efforts to encourage China to moderate its intolerable internal human rights policies and to respect external international norms. I believe open dialog and continued diplomatic and economic contact is the best way to provide the United States the opportunity to promote internal economic reform, political liberalization, and respect for human rights in China. Without this constructive engagement, China is less likely to move toward the role of the responsible world power we would like China to become. I urge the Members to vote for H.R. 2058 and against the resolution of MFN disapproval.

Mr. GALLEGLY

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. As I said to the gentleman, they do have representation [[Page H 6970]] here in this body in the form of Delegates and representation in the committee. I do not see that as a problem. The Secretary of the Interior himself says the time has come to turn out the lights, and I am using his quote.

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman would yield further, we are in a new era, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates]. We no longer are operating the way we have for the last many years. These Territories have elected Governors and legislators. They have the ability, and the time has come, as the Secretary has said, to allow them their own ability to self-govern. With the exception of the Northern Marianas, there is a Delegate to the House of Representatives, as is the case with the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega]. Every one of the Territories, with the exception of the Northern Marianas, has a Delegate in this body, and the Northern Marianas has a democratically elected governor.

Mr. GALLEGLY. No, it does not, I say to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates].

Mr. GALLEGLY. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the only thing I would like to say is that we no longer have trust territories. What we do have are elected Governors, democratically elected Governors of these territories. We are absolutely convinced that the territories really should have the right, and we have the confidence that they have the ability to self-govern.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Guam [Mr. Underwood] is correct. As the chairman of the subcommittee, I stand in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. It is fair.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to try to respond. We still have 25 people in the inspector general's office that are prepared to administer those funds. We no longer need the OTIA to continue to provide that service.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs. [[Page H 6969]] I am also offering this amendment with the support of the ranking member, the delegate from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega. My amendment, quite simply, would cut $16.8 million for funding of the obsolete Office of Territorial and International Affairs and its associated programs. The termination of this one Office will result in a 7-year savings of $120 million. In the previous Congress, a number of my colleagues joined me in cosponsoring legislation to abolish the office which formerly administered islands with appointed Governors and High Commissioners. This should have taken effect last October when the United Nations terminated the U.S. administered trusteeship. Earlier this year, Secretary Babbitt formally signaled that it was time to turn the lights out at the OTIA. As a result of this the Native American and Insular Affairs Subcommittee conducted an extensive review and held hearings to reexamine existing policies affecting these island areas and also concluded that now was the time to terminate this Office. Subsequently, the subcommittee as well as the full Resources Committee passed H.R. 1332 with overwhelming bipartisan support. We expect to bring this legislation to the House floor very soon. Finally, during our hearings, Gov. Roy L. Schneider of the Virgin Islands testified that ``abolishing the Office will save the Federal Government money and will not harm the territories.'' The bottom line here, my colleagues, is that we have an opportunity to end a program which was begun when Alaska and Hawaii were territories and save the taxpayer $17 million. I want to express my appreciation to the chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend Mr. Regula, for his willingness to work with me on this effort. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and to join in a substantive action to streamline the Federal Government, advance self- governance, and save taxpayer funds. I urge passage of the amendment.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Only for the purpose of auditing the funds.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs to express my support for the pending efforts to amend H.R. 1977 to restore funding for either the Office of Indian Education or the education programs supported by that office. The Office of Indian Education provides financial assistance to elementary and secondary schools, tribal schools, and related Indian education programs. These programs are important elements in the overall effort to provide quality education for our native American children. While I support efforts to balance the budget, cut bureaucrats and shrink the Government, H.R. 1977 goes well beyond reason. This bill not only cuts funding, it totally eliminates the office which administers the funds. To completely abolish these programs is not prudent and asks too much of our Indian children in too short a period of time. I know several amendments will be offered to reverse the committee's recommendations and I hope the Members of the House will give those amendments every consideration.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute two people who have combined a lifelong dedication to each other with a lifelong dedication to each other with a lifelong dedication to helping others-- particularly young people. Alfred and Cecilia Hadley celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary today, and their personal joy is accompanied by the fact that they have given so many of us so much to celebrate. I can honestly say that I have never met two people as dedicated to serving and guiding others as Al and Cecilia, and no two people have had as great a personal effect on me. Like many young boys, I became involved in Scouting early in my life and Al Hadley was my Scoutmaster. I frankly cannot imagine a more involved, dedicated and selfless leader. Al more than earned the nickname, ``Skipper''--he had an extremely positive influence on all of us. And Al was not the only member of the Hadley household to live by the code of volunteerism, and service to others. Cecilia was a church organist and piano teacher for 30 years, although few of her many students ever paid for more than their music. She knitted uncounted numbers of sweaters and blankets for the organization, ``Birthright,'' and served as a hospital auxiliary volunteer for many years--making patients' hospital stays a little bit brighter through her ready care and ready smile. An accomplished cook, she has most recently donated her time and talents as an English coach in a local elementary school. The Hadleys also found time to raise their own family, of course, and have two loving sons--Peter and David--five grandchildren and one great-granddaughter. Mr. Speaker, it is rare that one comes across one person as dedicated to serving others as Al and Cecilia. If is rarer still that one encounters two such people, particularly two celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary. I would like to wish this special couple all the best on their special day and to thank them from the bottom of my heart for the tremendous impact they have had on my life and the lives of so many other youngsters. They are truly a symbol of all that is right with America, of the ideals and commitment to service that makes this nation great.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 441) to reauthorize appropriations for certain programs under the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the immediate consideration of S. 441, legislation which would reauthorize, for the upcoming 2 fiscal years, funding for the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act. That 1990 act, Public Law 101-630, currently provides prevention and mental health treatment for child abuse and family violence victims on Indian reservations. S. 441 would reauthorize $10 million each year to be provided in the form of Indian Health Service grants to tribes for treatment programs for Indians who have been victims of child sexual abuse. This legislation would also reauthorize $30 million each year to be provided to tribes to be used for the development of Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Programs. In addition, S. 441 would reauthorize $3 million each year to fund Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers within each Bureau of Indian Affairs area office. Mr. Speaker, Public Law 101-630 has spent 5 years awaiting implementation primarily because the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service have failed to promulgate regulations needed under the act. However, it is my understanding that these long-awaited regulations have finally been completed and are now awaiting final approval. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of S. 441, without amendment, so that this legislation can be forwarded to the White House as soon as possible and, thus, so that the Appropriations Committees can move forward in considering funding pursuant to a program which is authorized for each of the 2 upcoming fiscal years.

Mr. GALLEGLY

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the immediate consideration of S. 349, legislation which would reauthorize, for the upcoming 2 fiscal years, funding for that portion of the 1974 Navajo- Hopi Land Dispute Settlement Act, Public Law 93-531, which has come to be known as the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program. This housing program provides payments to relocated Navajo and Hopi families who have been forced from lands partitioned pursuant to the provisions of Public Law 93-531. As of the beginning of this year, Mr. Speaker, 2,518 families had been relocated. Another 746 eligible families are awaiting their benefits. Additional families may be determined to be eligible for relocation assistance in the months and years ahead. [[Page H5737]] S. 349 is needed so that this relocation program may be brought to a conclusion and this chapter in the long dispute between Hopi and the Navajo tribes can be resolved. This legislation would authorize to be appropriated not more than $30 million each year for the upcoming 2 fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this important legislation.

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Resources be discharged from further consideration of the Senate bill (S. 349) to reauthorize appropriations for the Navajo-Hopi Relocation Housing Program, and ask for its immediate consideration.