Amo Houghton

Mr. HOUGHTON

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

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief, and they specifically hone in on an extraordinary citizen of this country, Warren Christopher. Warren Christopher has held one of the most important jobs that any administration can offer, the Secretary of State. There are two words which symbolize this great man: One is integrity; the other is judgment. Mr. Speaker, Warren Christopher has done us proud.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with a group of colleagues, to introduce a concurrent resolution which does primarily two things: First, it congratulates the Republic of Nicaragua on holding democratic elections to elect an entirely new government, and second, it celebrates the peaceful swearing-in of a new President in Nicaragua. Along with me as original cosponsors of this resolution are Ben Gilman, who is chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Elton Gallegly and Gary Ackerman, the incoming chairman and ranking member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, and Cass Ballenger, my colleague on the International Relations Committee. I thank them for their support and assistance in putting this bill together. My interest in Nicaragua started in 1988, when I first traveled there with a delegation of educators from my district to promote the values of education, and set up a private scholarship program for Nicaraguan students to study in the United States. While there, I met an extraordinary woman named Violeta Barrios de Chamorro, the wife of Pedro Joaquin Chamorro, who was then editor of La Prensa. Two years later, I revisited Nicaragua with Elliott Richardson as part of the United Nations' Electoral Observation team to witness Violeta Chamorro's victory in Nicaragua's first democratic elections. I returned again in 1993 with Priscilla and two of my grandchildren to see for ourselves the tremendous changes that Nicaragua had undergone under her steady and courageous leadership. In September of 1995, we hosted a luncheon for President Chamorro here in the Capitol where, joined by Senators Claiborne Pell and Tom Harkin, and Congressmen Torres and Bill Richardson, we continued our discussion of the far-reaching changes that Nicaragua had undergone in the past 5 years. On October 20, 1996, democratic elections were held across Nicaragua to elect an entirely new government. Over 80 percent of the country's 2.4 million eligible voters cast their ballots for the President and Vice President, National Assembly and Central American Parliament Deputies, and mayors. These elections were not perfect--there were complications and irregularities in the process--yet a large group of international and domestic observers declared that the elections were ultimately free and fair, and a legitimate expression of the will of the people of Nicaragua. The candidate of the Liberal Alliance Party, Arnoldo Aleman, who was previously mayor of Managua, was elected President by a margin of 49 to 38 percent over Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista Front [FSLN]. Aleman's alliance did not win an outright majority in the National Assembly, which leaves the Sandinistas with sufficient representation to be the country's leading opposition party. On January 10, 1997, representatives from the United States and around the world witnessed the peaceful transition of the power of the presidency from Violeta Chamorro to Arnoldo Aleman. President Aleman immediately promised to continue the economic and social reforms started by the Chamorro administration, and most importantly, to work together with the other political parties to build a lasting peace and democracy in Nicaragua. Mr. Speaker, the new Nicaragua is a country to be proud of. It is a success story. From a society bitterly divided by years of conflict comes a stable government with all of the new freedom that evolves along with democratization. Are there still problems in Nicaragua? Absolutely. The road to a lasting peace and democracy is a long one. There is no final destination. This bill recognizes that Nicaragua has come a long way since the turmoil of the 1980's. It also reaffirms the United States' commitment to promoting democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere. Mr. Speaker, I hope you and all of my colleagues will join me today in congratulating the people of Nicaragua on the success of their elections.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am joined today by my colleague, Mrs. Kennelly, in introducing legislation, the Children's Financial Security Act of 1996, which would establish tax-advantaged savings accounts for children. The approach is similar to the current one for individual retirement accounts, except that the accounts would be funded by the Government with $1,000 annual refundable credits for children from the year of birth through age 5--a total of $6,000. The credits would be invested in mutual funds that are government approved, but managed by the private sector. The credit would be phased-out at the higher income levels, e.g. between $100,000 and $150,000 for a married couple filing a joint return. The proposal also provides for make-up nondeductible contributions by parents for children under 19 at the date of enactment. Why is the bill being introduced at this time? Hopefully, this can be a first step in starting a dialogue for the 105th Congress to address the needs of our children for education and retirement--and, at some future point, making this proposal part of any privatization of our Social Security system. We are concerned, like many others, that we must come up with long-term solutions to our government health and retirement systems. Although this proposal would constitute an entitlement program, still it is not openended, as the credit and cost of the government is a maximum of $6,000 per child, plus deferral of tax on the earnings buildup. Distributions from such an account would be taxable. Also, the availability of the credit is phased out to individuals at the higher- income levels. Most importantly, it could be one leg of a four-legged retirement stool, with the others being Social Security (adjusted for privatization), private savings and other retirement plans. We need to do something to solve the long-term problems of our Social Security system. And of course, the crown jewel of this proposal is the effect of compounding earnings and contributions over the lifetime of an individual. The figures are impressive. For example, with an investment return of 10 percent, the $6,000 could grow to $2,350,000 by age 65. At 8 percent, the fund would total $740,000. The secret is to invest early. The funds would be used for retirement purposes--to supplement other retirement funds, as well as Social Security benefits. However, funds could be withdrawn for education expenses and the purchase of a first- time home. The current and prior withdrawals could not exceed 50 percent of the earnings and contributions at the end of the prior year. Other nonexcepted withdrawals would be subject to significant penalties. The primary purpose is to encourage savings for retirement and to discourage withdrawals. In summary, the proposal would (a) help to increase our national savings rate, (b) instill in individuals the advantages of saving for retirement at an early age, and (c) begin to address the very real problem of providing alternative options to company pension plans and Social Security benefits. We welcome our colleagues support of this proposal and look forward to their involvement in debating these issues in the 105th Congress.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, we are winding down the 104th Congress. Whether it is tonight or tomorrow or the night after tomorrow, we will be finished. But a very distinguished person will be leaving this Chamber. I just wanted to say a word about him, a man called William Clinger from Warren, PA. He is the type of person that represents the finest this Chamber has to offer. He is a thoughtful man; not a thoughtful man, but a thoughtful man, a man with a precise concept of the significant, somebody who is always there, always decent. You know we have got a lot of discordant sounds around here. People are unhappy with the lack of comity. It is not just words we say about bringing people together, it is example, and if there is one thing that will be left in our memory, my memory certainly, it is the example of William Clinger in terms of representing the decency and the concept and the verve of this place the way it should be played under any circumstance.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, with your concurrence, I would like to follow up and really say how much I admire the gentleman from Ohio. He and I worked closely together. These are not just words, he really believes this, and I think we all do, too. Mrs. Clayton is sitting here as part of our group and has been an enormous contributor. Mr. Speaker, we really are in trouble here. This is not just a debating society. We are reflecting the feelings of the people in this country, and when you are in trouble, you talk. People say we can talk on the House floor. Why go away? Why have a bipartisan retreat? Well, you really cannot do that. What we are trying to do is bring not only individuals together, but their families and children together. So this is the totality of what we are striving for. To follow up on what you have said, Mr. Sawyer, this is nothing new. I have gone to the Congressional Research Service and tried to get a little research in terms of some of the things George Washington said and his emphasis on comity or what Thomas Jefferson said. I have something that is interesting here. This is written by a Member of Congress and appeared in the Congressional Record, and, if I can just quote it, it says, ``It is my firm belief that the majority of members on both sides of the aisle would like to reduce the level of tension in partisan clashes and get on with the business of the country, and, therefore, we ought to cool off.'' This was written in 1984. It always crops up this way. Periodically, we have got to lance the boil and get at it. I applaud what you are doing and your leadership here.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Periodically, we sort of get off base here. Seriously, this is an opportunity to do something for the country, not just for this Chamber.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently delayed while attending an International Relations Committee hearing with Secretary Christopher, and missed voting on rollcalls No. 381 and No. 382. Had I been there, I would have voted ``yea'' on 381 and ``yea'' on 382.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, as I was listening to Mr. LaFalce and others, it really is too bad that you cannot hear what other people really feel about you while you are alive. I do not know whether Ham is listening or whether he can listen, or that is possible in the overall scheme of things, but it is a wonderful tribute to hear people from different walks of life, different associations say what they have about him. I just would like to say a few things. There is an old Arab proverb that says, A word when spoken must pass three gates. The first gate is, ``Is it true?'' The second gate is, ``Is it necessary?'' The third gate is, ``is it kind?'' Many of us here would not get out of the first gate, but Ham always would. He passed all those gates in whatever he did. He hit the issues hard, and yet there was an old expression from Proverbs, a soft answer turns away wrath. We need more of it here. He exemplified that. I go back a long way with Ham. It started in 1946, when we both got out of the service in World War II, went to college and then periodically kept our friendship going during the years. I was always in awe of Ham's heritage. It did not seem to be anybody that had a greater heritage than Ham, but Mary Ann Fish, his lovely wife, told me a story the other day of Ham going into the Rotunda and pointing to one of the murals and pointing out that Nicholas Fish was standing beside George Washington as he received the surrender from Cornwallis. And this man was very polite and he said, thank you very much, Mr. Fish. He said, on the other hand, there was a mural of Dutch settlers coming across and landing in New Amsterdam, and my ancestor was the minister at that time; of course, a full 100 years before Nicholas Fish ever appeared in Yorktown. And he was always being poked with fun for things like this, but had a delightful, easy, wonderful sense of humor. We develop many friendships down here. Some are political. Some are personal. Some are diplomatic. Some are business. Yet at the same time, as you work through this place, you understand those people who have that special quality that you know they will not betray you if you are vulnerable. Ham was one of those people. There are questions which we always ask ourselves: What do I believe; what do I stand for; what do I really want. Ham never used that. He always changed the ``I'' to a ``we.'' What do we believe; what do we stand for; what do we really want. If anybody epitomized service over self-service, it was Hamilton Fish and we are going to miss him.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I have only asked for 30 seconds because I think this is a very straightforward message. We can wring our hands, analyze, reanalyze, and re-reanalyze why Romania should not get annual MFN status. But the facts are that this is a 23-million person nation. They are the only member of the World Trade Organization who is not afforded this status. They are supportive of the United States. They have gone through a wrenching 50 years. They are struggling to become a responsible nation. We should encourage this. I urge Members to support H.R. 3161.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I rise to oppose the Kolbe amendment. I do so reluctantly because I have respect for the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Kolbe] and for the position which he is taking. However, we can argue the legalities endlessly here in terms of whether we are violating any procedural process with GATT or the World Trade Organization. I am not going to get into that because there are interpretations on both sides of this thing which I could agree with if I listen to very, very erudite lawyers. However, what I am saying is this: Over a period of years I have seen egregious examples of dumping coming in very small packages. It would seem to me this particular case with the National Science Foundation that it is a perfectly normal and legal and obvious approach to have the Department of commerce review this to see whether there is any dumping. Once you get an acknowledgment of the fact that NEC or any other computer is approved by an extraordinary group like the National Science Foundation, then you have something far more than the purchase of that one unit. I think is a perfectly normal process, I agree with it, and I reluctantly oppose the Kolbe amendment.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3161, a bill to grant permanent most favored nation [MFN] status to Romania. I have to believe that Romania certainly meets the test for permanent MFN status. The administration has certified Romania on several occasions as meeting the freedom of emigration requirements under the Jackson-Vanik law. From what I understand, Romania has also fully implemented its obligations under its bilateral commercial agreements and is a founding member of the World Trade Organization [WTO]. In fact, Romania is the only United States trading partner that is a member of the WTO but still receiving conditional MFN status from the United States. By not granting permanent MFN to Romania, we really injure Romania and ourselves. Failure to act on this measure would deny United States firms their full rights under existing multilateral trade agreements, and would pose a continuing obstacle to the further development of Romania's economy and democratic institutions. This measure has been endorsed by a bipartisan group of House Members and has been vigorously supported by the administration. In response to a request for public comments by the House Ways and Means Committee, over 38 firms, associations, ethnic groups, and individuals--including several former United States Ambassadors to Romania--recommended swift passage of H.R. 3161. Moreover, in the past few days, both Houses of the Romanian Parliament passed resolutions endorsing the establishment of permanent MFN status between our two countries. A statement on the resolution that was passed by the Chamber of Deputies follows: Statement of the Chamber of Deputies (By Adrian Nastase, President) The members of the Chamber of Deputies have been pleased to note that bills to authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory (Most Favored Nation) treatment to the products originating in Romania were introduced in the United States Congress on March 26, 1996 (S. 1644 and H.R. 3161). They appreciate that this initiative is of utmost importance for the development of the Romanian-American relationship and support the reform process and transition to market economy. Taking into account the significance of this major action for the bilateral Romanian-American relationship, the members of the Chamber of Deputies of Romania reaffirm that, after the December 1989 Revolution, the majority of the main political parties, whether represented or not in the Parliament, have unequivocally favored a speedy integration of Romania into the Euro-Atlantic economic, political and security structures, particularly NATO and the EU. With a view to reaching this objective, the leadership of the main Romanian parties agreed and reiterated, on various occasions, the basic orientation and the main directions of the Romanian foreign policy, to be promoted, in a consistent manner, by the Government. The development of a privileged partnership and alliance with the United States of America remains one of the essential directions of the foreign policy of Romania which enjoy the consensus of the majority of the Romanian political parties. The consensus of the main parties represented in the Romanian Chamber of Deputies with respect to this priority of the entire foreign policy of Romania was eloquently expressed in the statements made by the leaders of the aforementioned parties in 1993, when Romania was conditionally granted the Most Favored Nations status by the United States. The evolution recorded in the commercial Romanian-American exchanges in the two years and a half elapsed since the re- extension of the MFN status have fully confirmed the soundness of this measure. In 1994 and 1995 Romania's exports to the United States reached an annual level close to $200 m., nearly 2.8 times higher than the level recorded in 1993, while the amount of the imports of American commodities increased from $373 m. to $465 m. in 1994. In 1995, the amount of imports from the United States was $392 m. The re-extension of the Most Favored Nations status has stimulated the American investment in Romania, reaching at present $144.5 m., as compared to only $72 m. in 1993. Granting permanent MFN status will provide significant incentive for US companies to increase their investment in Romania and make the United States the largest trading partner of Romania. The members of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies appreciate the fact that the United States ranks among the most important investors in Romania, along with Germany, South Korea and Italy. The significant increase in the Romanian-American commercial exchanges and in the American investment will support the advancement of the economic activities in Romania, will encourage the transition to market economy and the speeding up of the process of privatisation of the state enterprises, contributes to the emergence of new mutually beneficial business. At present, the firm resolve to develop close cooperation, partnership and alliance with the United States and, in connection to this, the belief that Romania is entitled to benefit of MFN permanent status are fully shared by the leading political parties and the Romanian people. Under these circumstances, the view that granting MFN permanent status would influence the national election in Romania is not in accordance with our perception on this issue. The members of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies have reaffirmed the political will of the parties represented in the Parliament to further develop the democracy and market economy and to ensure that this year elections are free and fair. They urge the members of the United States Congress to continue and to conclude the procedures aiming at granting the Most Favored Nation status to Romania, as soon as possible. The permanent extension of MFN is in Romania's national interest and it is granted to Romania and not to any political party. The Romanian Chamber of Deputies considers that granting permanent Most Favored Nation status now would better serve the interests of the Romanian society, the political stability in the country as well as the strengthening of the bilateral relationship with the United States. The members of the Romanian Chamber of Deputies take their opportunity to convey to the U.S. Congressmen the best wishes for success in their endeavors. This Statement has been approved by the Chamber of Deputies at its session of May 23, 1996. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will support the effort to grant permanent MFN status to Romania.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I am here to support not only the minimum wage bill, but also the work opportunity tax credit. I would first like to say a word about the gentleman from Buffalo, NY, Mr. Jack Quinn, because he has been a leading light and real pusher of this thing from way back, and I also would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Phil English, for what he has done and the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pat Roberts, for his work on the work opportunity tax credit, and also my friend the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel, over here. This is a plain sense bill. It is part of the tax package. I would like to focus just the few seconds I have on the work opportunity tax credit. This is something, really, which makes sense, not only for the people who are to be hired, but also for the businesses. For the businesses, what it does is help those businesses that are going to be having an increase in the minimum wage to absorb the cost. As a matter of fact, if you hire an individual, the arithmetic works out that you, in terms of the total 2-year period which you will be hiring this individual and having him work in your establishment, that the cost will be less than the minimum wage is now because of the incentive which the Government gives. So it is a real incentive for businesses. On the other hand, of course, what it does is take those needy people, who are working off welfare or getting off of food stamps or getting off a whole variety of things, to come into the work force. Now, this is not a perfect bill, and with any bill like this, it will be changed and adopted over the years. But it makes a great deal of sense. So, Mr. Speaker, with the minimum wage, combined with the work opportunity tax credit, I think we have a winnable combination. I thank you very much for letting me express myself.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for this opportunity to talk on behalf of Sierra Leone. A lot of us have been concerned about Africa, a lot of us have looked for leadership there, and we really have found it in the magnificent result of the elections in Sierra Leone to which the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] has referred. I would like to particularly thank, if I could, Bob Van Wicklin, in my office, who has been there, who has helped create the staff work, and has pointed up some of the necessities of our working strongly with that country. Also I would like to thank, if I could, the 86 cosponsors, particularly the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Chabot], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Ackerman], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Payne], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Hastings], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], the gentleman from the Virgin Islands, [Mr. Frazer], and so many others, and also, although I cannot mention the names, several Members of the Senate, ranking about 53 in number. This bill is not complicated. It is noncontroversial and it is bipartisan. It simply congratulates the people of the West Africa Nation of Sierra Leone, who held their first democratic election this last year, for the first time until over 30 years, an extraordinary turnaround. People used to refer to Sierra Leone as really the pit of Africa. Many never thought there would be any opportunity for it to emerge from the darkness. Now it has. The new President, President Kabbah, has recently negotiated, for those who are not knowledgeable here, a ceasefire to the civil war in that country with the Revolutionary United Front. Our hope is that not only Sierra Leone will be successful, but also it will be the magnet which attracts democracy to other countries, like Niger, Liberia, Guinea, and Nigeria, countries that are having a great deal of trouble here. Let me if could just for a moment mention a few things. There really is hope in Africa. For the first time in sub-Sahara Africa in years and years and years the income per person has gone up 1 percent over last year. That does not sound very much, 1 percent, but it is really significant, because it is the first time that the income has increased in years. Usually you are taking a look at a negative figure. In democracies, that has increased greater than in nondemocracies. In certain nondemocracies, particularly the ones that are total out-and- out dictatorships, that has gone down. So there is a correlation here. There is a drive towards political freedom, which is more than just the politics of it. It has to do with the well-being of individuals. There have been 30 elections over the last year, over the past 5 years in Africa, and many times this has resulted in greater maturity, openness and integration, not just to themselves and not to just the African market, but the world markets. The flow of capital for the poor countries is four times what it used to be. As a matter of fact, it is about $187 billion per year over the last five years. As it stands now, in terms of the poorer countries of this world, one-third of the world's foreign investment is going into those countries. It is a very helpful sign. So if Africa and the boom it is experiencing is going to represent some of the finest things we are looking for, we have got to support countries like Sierra Leone. That is what this particular resolution does, and I hope there will be full support of it.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I hope I am not going to bend too many rules by referring to this distinguished gentleman over here, and Sam, I am not going to say anything unusual. You have heard it, but I want to reiterate it because it means something to me. After 50 years of public service you are stepping down, and that is pretty unusual. You are a real hero in anyone's mind, and I suppose no one can replace any one of us as individuals but you are somebody very special. Let me go back to this World War II experience which many people have referred to. I was in World War II, but I am not a hero like Sam is. The concept of dropping 15 miles behind the enemy lines in Utah Beach, 2:30 in the morning on January 6, to wipe out the enemy, to make it safer for those boys to come in on the beach, is really an act of heroism. And that is not all. Sam went then on to Holland and, as many of you know, remember the story ``A Bridge Too Far'' and the Rhine campaign, and then there was the Battle of Bastogne and the Battle of the Bulge, and then, ultimately, the final attach on Berlin. You were there. As somebody who was associated with you, but in a different part of the war, I will always be grateful for that, Sam. So, what do you say about somebody who leads a group, there are less than 25 in this House Chamber now that served in World War II, and will be going on to other things and will not be here to give his wisdom? It is going to be a different place. I mean, every one thing leads to another thing. In talking to Sam's son, Cliff, a terrific young guy, he was saying, ``One of the things that differentiates my father from many other people is that that experience in World War II carried on to everything he did in life.'' There were two particular areas when he came to Congress. One was the field of education, and you have heard a lot about Head Start. People could say, well, anybody could have started Head Start. They could not have. They did not. This is the man who did it. But you did not do it in a vacuum. You did it because of your feeling that if people can be educated and not beaten by the time they go to first grade, they could learn, they could understand the world in which they lived. That was the whole genesis of the great service that Sam performed in the Education and Labor Committee. Sam, I know I am talking about things that you know far better than I, but again they mean a great deal to me. Then when you got on the Committee on Ways and Means, I understand it was not an easy task. I understand it came down to a couple of votes right here on the House floor, getting on Ways and Means. And then what you did as far as trade is concerned, I used to be in the glass business, and I remember coming down here as part of a group called the Labor-Industry Coalition for International Trade, and Senator Heinz and Senator Baucus and Senator Roth and Sam Gibbons were part. And I had a sense, and I was not looking at it from a political standpoint but I had a sense, here was a man who understood the essence of tried. Obviously that has been manifested with your support of GATT and NAFTA and things like that. But again it was to try to relate the peoples of the world, whether it is through education or whether it is through the economy, so that they will understand each other, and there will not be a problem in terms of generating the real gulf of lack of understanding which obviously results in wars. Now, you say you judge a man by his friends. I say you judge a man by his family. I know John Mica has mentioned this, and you cannot take a look at Sam and his lovely wife Martha and Cliff and the other children--Martha and Cliff are the other members of the family that I know--without realizing that here is somebody who is not just a perception, he is a real, real person representing all those values which you and I think are important. Now, there are going to be many people who are going to be going after your seat in Congress and there are going to be many people, Sam, who are going after your seat on the Committee on Ways and Means, and that is right and natural. But you know something, Sam's job, Sam's job is not up for grabs, and it never will be, because Sam's job is where Sam is.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I've come to the floor today with some of my colleagues to introduce a concurrent resolution congratulating the people of the Republic of Sierra Leone who just held their first democratic, multiparty elections in nearly 30 years. On February 26, 1996, the West African nation of Sierra Leone held their first round of elections amid much uncertainty. There had just been a military coup less than a month before the election and a civil war that had displaced almost half the population raged in the countryside. Sponsored by the African-American Institute [AAI], a delegation visited Sierra Leone as part of a U.N. team of international observers. In that delegation were several congressional staffers who deal with African issues in the Congress, including Joyce Brayboy Dalton with Representative Mel Watt, Tim Trenkle, Senator Nancy Kassebaum, Michael Pelletier, legislative fellow in the office of Senator Jim Jeffords, and my legislative assistant Bob Van Wicklin. Despite some inadequacies, the group deemed the election to be free and fair. AAI issued the following statement after the election: Statement of the International Observer Delegation of the African- American Institute Freetown, February 29, 1996.--The African-American Institute (AAI), has spent the last three weeks preparing for and conducting an observation of the presidential and parliamentary elections of Sierra Leone. The AAI delegation feels that the elections of February 26-27, 1996 were transparent, open, and substantially fair. Despite certain irregularities and disruptions due to breaches of security, the delegation is convinced these elections reflect the freely expressed choices of the people of Sierra Leone. Working in affiliation with the United Nations Joint International Observer Group and funded by the United States Agency for International Development, the 17-member AAI delegation was deployed throughout Freetown and its environs, Lungi, Bo, Kenema, Makeni and Kono. The AAI team observed two crucial phases of the elections which were held on February 26-27, 1996. During the first phase, the delegation met throughout the country with government officials, the staff of the Interim National Electoral Commission, leaders of political parties and major civic organizations, representatives of the media, government officials, and other sections of civil, society including organized labor. The delegation also carefully studied the electoral laws, examined the relevance of several training materials, scrutinized the voter registration process and samples of voter registers, observed training of electoral staff and domestic monitors, and attended civic education programs in many parts of the country. During the second phase, the delegation observed the electoral campaigning, the voting which began on February 26 and was extended through February 27, and the counting process on February 27-28, 1996. In the areas of their deployment, AAI observers visited over 250 polling places nationwide. AAI found that the elections were held under a cloud of uncertainly and substantial logistical difficulty caused by a lack of adequate infrastructure, minimal election experience and training, and the displacement of sectors of the population due to hostile military actions on or just prior to the date of the elections. This situation often led to the late opening and numerical overtaxing of many polling stations and, in some areas, disruption of the vote and count. Still, in the majority of the areas observed by AAI delegates, the vote went forward in a procedurally correct manner, with materials provided and correctly utilized. Polling station officials, political party representatives and domestic observers, in most cases, were adequately prepared and conducted their duties in an exemplary manner. In the, areas of the country observed by AAI delegates, the difficulties cited above were overcome by the fierce determination of an overwhelming majority of the population to hold the elections on schedule, even in the face of serious attempts to obstruct and disrupt the process. Despite these administrative inadequacies and certain instances of violence and intimidation in Freetown, as well as deadly conflicts between citizens and those seeking to disrupt the election in Bo and Kenema, the electoral process was largely peaceful and free of threats and confrontations. Voting took place in are orderly fashion in most poling stations. There was little evidence of fraud or irregularity. The AAI delegation wishes to salute the people of Sierra Leone for their strong commitment to democratic practices and their determination to hold elections on schedule. This unflinching commitment to democratic values and procedures, as well as the courage that the citizens demonstrated in the face of great danger, augurs well for the future of democracy in this country. The AAI delegation also wishes to congratulate the Chairman of the Interim National Electoral Commission, Dr. James Jonah, and his colleagues for their impartiality and inspiring and tenacious leadership under difficult conditions. Finally, the AAI delegation thanks the people of Sierra Leone for their hospitality and warm welcome. On March 29, 1996, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah of the Sierra Leone People's Party was sworn in as the President of the Republic of Sierra Leone. This peaceful transition of power from a military regime to a freely elected civilian government is a tremendous step onto the road to democracy, and I think will have a very positive effect on some of Sierra Leone's authoritarian neighbors. In fact, just last week, when United States citizens located in the neighboring country of Liberia were threatened by the ongoing violence in that country, the Government of Sierra Leone allowed the United States to use their airport to help with the evacuation of Americans and other internationals from the Liberian capital city of Monrovia. For this, we are very grateful, and thank the new Government of Sierra Leone for their cooperation and assistance. Also deserving special recognition are all of the United States citizens living in Sierra Leone, especially the people who work at the United States Embassy in Freetown led by Ambassador John Hirsch, a very dynamic individual who has given so much of himself to help the people of Sierra Leone. It seems that we hear so much bad news from Africa--it's good to be able to emphasize the good news when it comes along. With that in mind, I hope that all of my colleagues in the House and Senate will join us in congratulating the people of the Republic of Sierra Leone by helping to pass this resolution.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk on the portability issue. I think it is an important one. I know that a lot of people have talked on it. It will not be the last discussion about this. However, I think it is important. I know a little bit about it, and it is really at the heart of this whole bill. Mr. Speaker, basically what it does is to free up somebody to work wherever he or she wants. That is not a bad concept. You work for company A and you want to move to company B, but company B does not have any health insurance program. You get a job at company C, but at a far less salary. You would rather take the job at company B. You cannot do it. You cannot help your family. Under this condition, you must be given an opportunity to have an insurance policy yourself or through the company, irrespective of where you are working or irrespective of the preexisting conditions. It makes a lot of sense, Mr. Speaker. I fully endorse this.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, this clearly has not been a happy day here. We have talked about issues that divide rather than bring us together. But I would like to talk about something that does bring us together. It is something that happened several weeks ago when a group from the district that I represent, in upstate New York, in Jamestown, NY, came down and entertained and gave joy and perspective to a whole group of us, those of us who were particularly interested in the Appalachian Regional Commission and the things that it did. Frankly, I would like to talk about this in a way that is sort of unusual. I would like to talk about names, and if you would bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the names involved, this the All-American Junior Guilders, great young group of people, happy, positive, the people who are going to be leading our country in the years ahead. They are associated with the Lucille Ball Threater. Lucille Ball incidentally, was born in upstate New York. And the driver and the life giver of this group is a lady called Helen Merrill. She has been involved with the theater for over 30 years and has been the spark of this thing, and you just feel better just seeing her and being around her. They performed at lots of pretty significant places: the White House, Oprey Land, Disney World, Kennedy Center. These kids range in age from about 7 to 16. It is an all-volunteer organization. It really makes you proud to sort of be with them. What I would like to do, if you would bear with me, is let me mention some of the names and it is going to be a long list, but I think it is important that each person as an individual is recognized here. First of all, there is a lady called Mrs. Lucille Miller, who is the musical director. She has been a great help for Helen Merrill. Then there is Mary Jane Gerstel, choreographer; Jim Jones, technical director; Bob Servis, on drums; and Tiffany Wakeley, student assistant to the director. All people who keep this organization alive as kids go from grade to grade to grade. What I would like to do is to mention the names of these children. They are all from upstate New York. I am very proud of the fact that they are, because I was born and brought up there and they are terrific people. Let me just mention them: Leah Gerstel, Chad Wakeley, Tiffany Gale Wakeley, Nichole Adams, Alycia Anderson, Ashley Arnone, Trisha Configlio, Jamielee Bonfiglio- Davis, Beth Ann Calzone, Laura Calzone, Erik Carlson-Coulter, Shane Comber, Lindsay Ann Coons, Jillian D'Angelo, Rachel D'Angelo, Carmaine Davis, Steve Davis, Kara DeAngelo, Mary Evelyn Demarco, Alexis Denn, Chelsea Denn, Melissa Rachelle Ferraro, Andrew Freeman, Kevin Fuller, Rachael Gerstel, Nicole Gullo, Alan Paul Gustafson, Jr., Scott Hannon, Shawn Hannon, Jessica Herron, Emily Huffman, Holly Louise Jones, Cory King, Chrystal Kota, Katie McMaster, Jennifer Lynn Murray, Ashley Muscarella, Jamin Scott Peace, Lynnsey Penna, Rachael Penna, Aubrey Perlee, Francis Peterson, Brenda Proestler, Anthony Sali, Lindsey Michelle Saullo, Crystal Swan, and Jessica Wheeler. There is so much that we talk about in terms of the unhappiness of this world. These people give us happy memories. They are the light of our future, and I am very proud to mention their names and to be associated with them.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am really at a loss of words because so much of what I wanted to say has already been stated. Maybe I can approach this from somebody who has been in business for a long time and understands what this Congress is trying to do is to extract the Government from onerous administrative tasks, which is hardly in keeping with what we are trying to do to relieve people and businesses to be able to create more jobs. I have been around business a long time, and I know what data collection is; it is important. But when we take a look at this particular issue, clearly the data collected is highly expensive. The GAO has estimated that to create a data bank like this, it would be over $100 million. That is certainly not the intent of Congress, it is not something which is good for business, it is not something which is really good for the employees, and when we take a look at a variety of different businesses that have been contacted, they all agree that this is not necessary, that the administrative burden is onerous, it opens the door to tax retirees on values received, and so why report this? As a matter of fact, I think we all agree with this. As a matter of fact, I do not think that there is any argument when we are talking about this issue, H.R. 2685. It is a good issue; we all agree it is a bipartisan approach. Where we get off the tracks is when we start getting political and we start messing around in this whole field of health reform. We all are citizens of this country, we all want to do the right thing. It is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. It is something which we all ought to be concerned about. But today the narrow issue really is this data bank. I agree with the proposition, I think it makes a great deal of sense, it will reduce enormous administrative overburden, and it will save the Federal Government and the taxpayers of this country over $100 million. Therefore, I support with the greatest strength I can H.R. 2685. We are not talking about health insurance reform, we are not talking about nexuses, we are not talking about inoculations, we are not talking about strategic plans. We are talking about this particular data bank issue, and I think it is a good one, and I support the resolution.

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

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman, does he support or does he not support H.R. 2685?

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk against this amendment. I have been in the foundation field all my life. I frankly feel this is a smokescreen to curtail their activities. There is not a single shred of evidence from the GAO, the Inspector General, any of the accounting offices, or the IRS to say that any Federal money has been used for lobbying, period.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, Robert E. Doyle recently passed away at his home in Schenectady, NY. Robert was known as the ``Commish''. He served longer than any other State Liquor Authority Commissioner in the United States. He was considered by his colleagues as the dean of liquor administration. Robert was born in Thendara, NY. This is in Herkimer County. He was a 1952 graduate of Siena College, and he served during World War II in the Pacific campaign as a Pfc. in the U.S. Marine Corps. Robert began his tenure with the State Liquor Authority in 1959 as a deputy commissioner. His advice and counsel were sought by public administrators, elected officials, industry executives, and community leaders. He was a warm and caring man willing to help virtually anyone with a problem. He retired from his post as commissioner in 1995. Mr. Doyle's wife Geraldine Fitzgerald Doyle passed away in 1990. He had five children and eleven grandchildren. He also had a brother, the Very Reverend Mathias Doyle, and three sisters Mary Lou Provost, Gayle Michon, and Joanne Dee. Robert Doyle had made numerous contributions to his Nation, his State, and his Family. He was truly a good man. Many including the family, the State of New York, and others mourn his loss. The ``Commish'' passed away on February 14, in the year of our Lord 1996.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Mr. Matsui, as well as a number of other colleagues, in introducing the Nonprofit Organizations Tax-Exempt Bond Reform Act of 1996. This is an important piece of bipartisan legislation that would help solve a problem that has been growing since the law was changed in 1986. Basically, the problem is one where a number of section 501(c)(3) organizations are now at the $150 million limit on outstanding bonds. The limit was established by the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The proposed legislation would remove this cap and allow bonds issued by 501(c)(3) organizations to be treated similarly to those issued to finance direct State or local government activities--as they were permitted to do before the 1986 change. Similar corrective legislation has been considered and/or passed by prior Congresses, although not to the point of being enacted into law. The concept of an exempt person, that existed under the Code bond provisions before 1986, would be reenacted. An exempt person would be defined as first, a State or local governmental unit or second, a section 501(c)(3) organization, when carrying out its exempt activities under section 501(a). Thus, bonds for section 501(c)(3) organizations would no longer be classified as private activity bonds. Financing for unrelated business activities of such organizations would continue to be treated as a private business use for which tax-exempt financing is not authorized. As exempt persons, section 501(c)(3) organizations would be subject to the same limits as State and local governments on using their bond proceeds to finance private business activities or to make private loans. Additional restrictions on the bonds issued by such organizations would be repealed. The bill would make no amendments, other than technical conforming amendments, to the present-law arbitrage restrictions, the alternative minimum tax-exempt bond preference, or the provisions generally disallowing interest paid by banks and other financial institutions on amounts used to acquire or carry tax-exempt bonds. The principal beneficiaries of the bill would be private, nonprofit colleges and universities. These institutions provide substantially identical educational services to those provided by governmental higher education institutions. In order to have a consistent tax policy of providing like treatment for similarly situated persons, the tax-exempt bond rules should provide comparable access to tax-exempt financing for these entities. The main provision in the proposed legislation is to remove the $150 million per-institution limit on outstanding nonhospital qualified 501(c)(3) tax-exempt bonds. This provision was intended as a limit on tax arbitraging of college and university endowments. Other present-law tax-exempt bond restrictions for example, the arbitrage rebate requirement and public approval, bond maturity, hedge bond, and advance refunding restrictions, adequately address this concern. In addition, the concern that private colleges and universities engage in tax arbitraging of their endowments reflects a misunderstanding of the restrictions governing endowments. Most State laws prohibit depletion of endowment corpus. Further, approximately 65 percent of endowment funds nationally is subject to donor-imposed restrictions on the uses for which even the income may be used. Finally, the other beneficiary would be nonprofit health care providers who are also subject to the $150 million cap. A growing number of health care providers are delivering medical services in a cost-effective manner outside of the hospital setting. Yet, providers like community health clinics, skilled nursing facilities, and ambulatory care facilities are limited by the $150 million cap per institution in outstanding tax-exempt bonds. Also, as alternative health care facilities and hospitals form integrated health care delivery systems, the cap hinders the consolidation of these entities. The cap actually acts as a barrier to these mergers, because after a merger there would be a single $150 million limit. The proposed legislation generally would apply to bonds issued after the date of enactment. We welcome the support of our colleagues in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. HOUGHTON

Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Speaker, my interest in the Republic of Turkey has increased since my visit there in August, so I would like to bring some attention to the debate in the European Parliament about the approval of a customs union with Turkey. This decision will have a major impact on western strategic and economic interests. The key question is whether or not the European Parliament will accept or reject this promising nation of over 60 million people, thus making the future of the EU's southern flank uncertain. As you know, the Republic of Turkey, established in 1923, is a western-style, secular democracy. It has distanced itself from the religious extremism of the Ottoman Empire, and emerged as a strong pillar of hope for secularism in the Moslem world. Over the past 72 years, Turkey has developed into a mature democracy with steadfast institutions and an independent judiciary. The Turkish Government and population are committed to furthering and enhancing Turkey's democracy. This is demonstrated by recent reforms passed by the Turkish Parliament. These ongoing reforms coupled with increasing economic potential, enable the country to play a larger, more significant role in Europe's economic and political growth. Today, Turkey is a model for the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union--namely Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan. I think you'd agree that it is in our interest that these countries, which have rich, natural resources and educated population, choose to follow Turkey's example rather than those of its other neighbors. In addition, Turkey's code of laws has been aligned with those of other European countries, as the parliament has passed significant pieces of legislation including laws on copyrights, decentralization, and human rights. Some of our European colleagues suggest that such initiatives are insufficient, and that the customs union decision should be delayed until the Turkish Parliament satisfies their concerns. I would like to ask our European colleagues to keep in mind the difficulties of a democratic system--the mechanics of the democratic process which require extensive debate and parliamentary approval in order to bring about legislative changes. If Turkey were a dictatorial regime, the government would dictate changes which would be readily approved. Although reform in a democratic system is tough, there have been dramatic changes to Turkey's laws. On the human rights front are amendments to article 8 of the antiterrorism law. These changes promote the freedom of expression, and have permitted the release of prisoners detained under this article. In fact, a week after these changes, the courts released 82 people--an impressive response by any standard. Last July, Turkey's Parliament passed 16 amendments to the constitution, expanding and strengthening its democracy. Turkey is clearly situated in a volatile area, as they share borders with Iraq, Iran, Syria and former Soviet States. Those that support the advancement of democracy and human rights should ask themselves how these principles would better be served--by bringing Turkey into the European fold, anchoring it to the West, or leaving Turkey to languish outside of Europe. Mr. Speaker, I think that many of my colleagues would agree that a ``yes'' vote on EU customs union for Turkey is the right move--right for Europe, right for Turkey, right for democracy and human rights. I hope you'll join me in urging the European Parliament to vote in favor of the customs union with Turkey on December 14.