William Jefferson

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. I support the provision relating to the Andean Preference Act, of course the provisions to enhance worker rights, human rights, for democracy-building, for antinarcotics provisions, and to promote U.S. exports for both Latin America and the Caribbean. But I rise today to speak on behalf of the AGOA II provisions in the bill before us. Increased international trade and investment is a key component leading to economic development and growth in sub-Saharan Africa, and economic growth is an integral element of any sub-Saharan strategy to overcome the many and severe social, health, political, environmental and other challenges. Last year the African Growth and Opportunity Act became law, as the Trade and Development Act of 2000, and marked the historic policy which defined the trade and investment policy in this neglected region of the world. Indeed, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, is just over a year old and already has had remarkable results. U.S. trade with sub-Saharan Africa increased 50 percent in the year 2000. Examples of results from the AGOA include a Government of Kenya estimate of the creation of 50,000 direct and 150,000 indirect jobs resulting from new investments; new investments in Lesotho of $120 million, four times the official development assistance for that country; investment plants for a new tuna processing facility in Ghana; and significant increases in apparel exports from countries such as Lesotho, Kenya, Madagascar and South Africa. Clearly, AGOA has demonstrated initial success in promoting greater commercial activity between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa, has spurred and bolstered economic reform in several African countries, and has facilitated closer relations between the United States and sub- Saharan Africa. Imports from Africa are growing more quickly this year than imports from Asia, Europe or Latin America, with apparel making up most of the import growth, translating to thousands of new jobs. I and others have traveled many times to Africa in the last year to gain a firsthand view of how the bill is operating in practice. In all, we were able to gather important information which was used to design the AGOA II legislation. While the provisions of the bill do not include all of the items that we would want in the AGOA II bill, I am pleased that the Congress and our chairman and our ranking member and others have continued to focus on the commitment to Africa and these countries. Specifically, the AGOA II provisions amend the AGOA to clarify that preferential treatment is provided to knit-to-shape or ``wholly assembled'' apparel articles assembled in beneficiary countries; amend the AGOA to provide preferential treatment for apparel articles that are cut both in the U.S. and beneficiary countries; doubles the apparel cap for apparel made in Africa from regional fabric made with regional yarn from 3 to 7 percent over 8 years; and allow Namibia and Botswana to benefit from the ``lesser developed beneficiary sub-Saharan African country'' provisions of the act. It also gives guidance to our administration as to how to interpret the act's provisions and provides technical assistance for capacity- building. I know that there are, though, domestic concerns regarding the narrow expansion of the apparel benefits in the bill. It is important to note that while imports of apparel from sub- Saharan Africa increased in 2000, they still represent less than 1.5 percent of U.S. woven apparel imports and less than 1.2 percent of U.S. knit apparel imports. The AGOA program can hardly be considered a threat to domestic producers. Drug trafficking, the AIDS pandemic, arms proliferation, terrorism, these are the real threats. Economic growth and development and job creation are powerful weapons to counter these concerns that affect the global community of which the U.S. has a leadership role. I know that many of my colleagues have raised concerns with the House considering the bill at this time, but now is the time. These provisions are essential for African nations at this time, as African economies will likely be the hardest hit by the global economic slowdown. The U.S. has committed itself to promoting prosperity, stability, and democracy in sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, and the Andean region. We cannot let our friends down in this time of great need. I urge my colleagues' support for this bill as we strengthen our efforts to improve the operation of AGOA and improve sub-Saharan Africa utilization of the AGOA program.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1800s, Percy Bysshe Shelley penned these words in exhorting a wounded people of his day: ``Rise like lions after slumber in invanquishable number. Shake your chains to earth like dew which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many, they are few.'' Mr. Speaker, when I reflect on the events of September 11, 2001, these words of this 19th century poet come to mind. Many Americans have lamented that the horrific terrorist acts of yesterday have changed America forever. I beg to differ. America has not changed. We have merely rediscovered and rekindled a latent attribute that defines us as no other people on Earth: our invanquishable spirit. The chains that we are shaking to Earth like the morning dew after slumber are the chains of complacency regarding our vulnerability toward terrorism. With this realization, there can be no doubt that we will defeat the evil that shook, but that did not shatter, our national spirit. Mr. Speaker, my heart grieves for the victims of yesterday's terrorist acts, for their families and loved ones. But, Mr. Speaker, amidst this palpable grief, I am comforted, as these families should be, by the fact that they now have an extended family of some 250 million people, 250 million men, women and children, united and strong as lions rising after a slumber. Finally, I am also heartened by the response from the world community, from virtually every nation and every people, a response of unity with our Nation. This response further illustrates the truth of Shelley's observations as expressed through his poetry. We, the people of the world, they are saying, cherish the freedom and democracy for which America stands. We are the many, they are saying with us, the terrorists are the few. So not only will America rise from this unspeakable tragedy like lions, we can be assured that so much of the rest of the world is ready to rise in its exalted purpose with us. Mr. Speaker, together, we will indeed be invanquishable. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to discuss the digital divide that is plaguing our country and to garner support for legislation my colleagues and I have introduced to help alleviate this crisis, H.R. 2281, The Digital Divide Elimination Act of 2001. Computers are becoming the crucial link to education, information, and to commerce. For all Americans, personal and economic success will depend on having the ability to understand and use these powerful information tools. However, according to the Department of Commerce, less than 10 percent of households with income below $20,000 own computers or have used the Internet, an absolutely alarming statistic. Unless this changes, these poor families in both urban and rural areas will be left behind. Educators and industry leaders alike realize a serious problem associated with the digital divide and are taking steps to bring computer technology to schools and libraries across America. We, as public officials, applaud these efforts. However, these efforts are not enough. If we are going to truly give every American access to technology and improve the way our children learn, the Federal Government must join in to bolster these efforts and, more importantly, to help extend technology and technology access to every home in America. Only then will these children and their families gain an appreciation for technology and the Internet in the home, unfettered by the constraints of an institutional setting. The legislation my colleagues and I have reintroduced this year provides additional tax incentives to induce private companies to donate computer technology and to induce poor families to purchase computers. First, the legislation increases the special deduction for computer donations from three-fourths of the computer's sales price to the higher of the full sales price or its manufacturing cost. For example, if the manufacturing cost of a computer is $500 and the sales price is $1,000, the charitable deduction is increased from $750 to $1,000. The special deductions for computers has already induced computer manufacturers to donate thousands of computers to schools across America. Now, as a result of this provision, computer manufacturers will have an even greater incentive to donate unsold computers because they can deduct the full value of the computer. In addition, non-manufacturers will also have a greater incentive to donate computer equipment even where the depreciated cost of the computer exceeds its market price. Under current law, it is more economical for many non-manufacturers to throw away used computers than to donate them to charity because they can take a higher tax deduction for disposing of the computer than for donating it. That is clearly bad tax policy. Thankfully, this provision will change that result. Second, the legislation will extend the special computer deduction through 2004 and expand it to include donations, not only to libraries and training centers, but also to nonprofits that provide computer technology to poor families. Nonprofits such as Computers for Youth in New York City have placed computers into the homes of hundreds of low- income families. We need to encourage similar efforts by nonprofits across the country. Only then can we make our mutual goal of bringing technology into every home in America a reality. Finally, the legislation will provide a refundable credit equal to 50 percent of the cost for computer purchases by families receiving the earned income tax credit up to $500. While the cost of computers and Internet access are dropping, the cost of computers still remains a barrier for many low-income working families. Returning half of the cost of the computers to these families will go a long way towards helping working families help themselves and provide a brighter future for their children. In fact, the $500 refundable tax credit makes computers more affordable than ever for the working poor. Here is an example. In the June 17 edition of The Washington Post, which I have an example of here, Circuit City advertized a Pentium II computer for $1,099. The price is slashed by the manufacturer and retail rebates to $499. With this $500 tax credit, the actual cost of that computer would be reduced to nothing, a free computer to a poor family. Computer companies and retailers will get business from a segment of the population that did not have affordable access before, and the working poor will receive affordable access. It is a win-win situation. Mr. Speaker, bringing technology to all our children is key to our Nation's future and prosperity. I implore my colleagues to recognize the long-term negative impact that could result from not eliminating the digital divide and urge their support of this legislation. Together, we can ensure a much brighter tomorrow for our children and give them the tools necessary to compete and lead the next generation to an even brighter future.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor from H.R. 933.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you today, as I did on D- Day last year, to introduce a resolution that is long overdue. On behalf of the entire Louisiana delegation, I would like to honor the forgotten heroes of World War II--the late Andrew Jackson Higgins, who designed the Higgins landing craft and his 20,000 employees who built the 20,000 boats that won the war. Once again, I ask Congress to recognize these heroes--who contributed so greatly to the war effort, but never left the Louisiana shores. Mr. Speaker, I stand here to reintroduce a resolution to award the late Andrew Jackson Higgins and the 20,000 plus men and women of Higgins Industries that supported the war efforts abroad with a Congressional Gold Medal. This medal will serve as long-overdue recognition for their patriotic contributions to our country, to the world--to peace and to freedom. Briefly, let me explain again why then late Andrew Higgins and the employees of Higgins Industries deserve this most prestigious honor. Andrew Jackson Higgins designed the landing craft, now dubbed ``the Higgins boats,'' used to land troops across open beaches during all amphibious assaults in World War II. The most famous, of course, was the D-Day invasion of Normandy; but other landings, like Leyte Gulf, Guadalcanal and Sicily were equally important. The 20,000 Higgins boats were built at eight plants in New Orleans, the city that I represent and that is home to the National D-Day Museum. These plants produced most of the vessels and equipment that were essential to the war efforts. Higgins employed more than 20,000 workers around the clock for over four years. They built over 20,000 landing craft and trained over 30,000 military personnel on the operation of the boats. At their peak, Higgins Industries produced about 700 boats per month. Beyond his dedication during the war, Higgins possessed qualities that were far beyond his years. Even before America entered the war, Higgins anticipated the possible need for his boats, and he purchased the entire 1940 Philippine Mahogany crop. Higgins displayed a social conscience that was unimaginably progressive in the 1940s. He employed men and women, blacks and whites with an ``equal pay for equal work'' policy decades before integration and gender equality in the workforce. Mr. Speaker, Andrew Jackson Higgins was a man of great insight and ingenuity. His accomplishments were recognized by President Eisenhower on more than one occasion. On Thanksgiving, 1944, Eisenhower boasted, ``Let us thank God for Higgins Industries' management and labor which has given us the landing boats with which to conduct our campaign.'' Again, in 1964, Eisenhower praised Andrew Higgins by saying, ``He is the man that won the war. If Higgins had not produced and developed those landing craft, we never could have gone in over an open beach. We would have had to change the entire strategy of the war.'' The time has come for the Nation to honor the contributions of the people of Higgins Industries: men and women, blacks and whites, working side by side, equal pay for equal work, to build the boats that won World War II. Mr. Higgins went above and beyond the call of duty for his country and worked in a way that was far beyond his years. His progressive and aggressive policies before and during the war should serve as a member to all of us who serve our country, and should thus be duly recognized. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate, the recognition of the late Andrew Jackson Higgins and the employees of Higgins' Industries is long overdue. I believe these forgotten heroes should now be honored and always remembered. A Congressional Gold Medal will honor them, just as their work helped to keep us free.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by just acknowledging the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman's place in history. Sometimes we are here working with you every day, and we do not appreciate how much you mean to all of us and to our country. Mr. Speaker, I suppose today that there are a couple of people in this country who are living now who played a more significant role perhaps than the gentleman did in the civil rights movement, but only maybe one or two, maybe not that many. It is just that small a group that made this huge difference for all of us, and it is important to acknowledge that and to thank the gentleman and to tell all the Members who serve with us every day that we serve with a very special Member, with a very special man who, not only in this country but around the world, who is known for what he has done to make human rights real for people and to inspire others around the world to fight for human rights. I thank the gentleman for being our colleague and our friend and for permitting us to be with the gentleman on this pilgrimage. Let me say, when the gentleman was starting out, I was a little younger than the gentleman. I was probably about 11 years old back then, living in a place called Lake Providence, Louisiana, in the northeastern part of the State in the Mississippi Delta, though. I know that the gentleman knows how tough it was back then. The things the gentleman recounts in his book, Walking With the Wind, are things that I went through as a young boy as well. I remember when my mother and others in our family were trying hard to get the right to vote and to pass a literacy test. When my mother finally got this done in 1926, she was only one of five people in our parish to have the right to vote. I remember her trying to teach other people in our little living room there how to recite the preamble to the Constitution, how to recite the Presidents in order from 1 to 20 or so, and how to compute their ages, the year, the month and the day. They struggled with these things, as would have the whites in that area back then, but they did not have to take it. They had just as little schooling as the black folks had, but did not have to take the test. I remember when in 1966 the Federal registrars came to town after the passage of the Voting Rights Act. In 1966, there was a line formed around the little courthouse a lot like you might have seen in the pictures in South Africa, a long line of folks in our little town. And the stories told by my mother who was up there watching this line and had a fellow named Vaughn, Henry Vaughn, I remember his name, who came to that line and said to my mother and her friends and to Reverend Scott, who was then our local civil rights leader, Reverend Scott, why are all your folks lined up like this? There is not a one of them who is fit to hold an office. Who you all going to put in? Reverend Scott said, I do not know who we are going to put in, but there are some folks we want to take out. There is a power in the vote that went to those folks that never had it before. Mr. Vaughn approached them because they would have the power to vote. It is a power that none of us ought to take for granted, that none of us ought to diminish in the way we treat it, that all of us ought to embrace at this point in our lives and remember those shoulders on which we stood back in those days. There were lessons to be learned as we went through this pilgrimage with the gentleman. We were reminded of all the times that I went through in my life with my mother and her friends and my family and all those families like her. Because, as the gentleman points out in his book, it was not just the big people at the top. It was the foot soldiers of the movement that made the movement, people like my mother and others and the ladies we met and the gentleman we met down there with the gentleman in Alabama. It was those folks who made the difference. There is a book, I say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), that says But For Birmingham, and if the gentleman had not taken the ride in 1961 and come through Birmingham and had it happen there, if the gentleman had not started that movement back then with others, the gentleman's colleagues, young people, it shows what young people can do with their lives if they commit themselves.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly now to try and end this, but there is so much to say. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) at the very end, we came back here from the gentleman's trip to hear remarks that Senator Byrd had made and indiscreet remarks that he had made on a television program, and all of us were in an uproar about it, but I saw it in a different paradigm, because of my trip with the gentleman, honest to goodness. I thought about what the gentleman said when the gentleman talked about nonviolence being more than a tactic but a way of life, and the fact that the part of the movement was not just to win the struggle but to redeem those who were on the other side of it, those who were the enemies of the right to vote, the enemies of freedom. I felt that I should approach that in a different spirit, and it was all because of the gentleman's teaching in that short time that we had there about the love and the community, about the value of nonviolence and about how we ought to internalize how we dealt with other people. I called to talk to him about what he had said in a way very different from the way I would have had I not gone with the gentleman. There is some strength, tremendous strength, in the nonviolence movement that comes, as the gentleman said, from the inside out. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for teaching me that, and I thank the gentleman for serving with me as a colleague. I thank the gentleman for allowing me to come on the trip. It is a life-changing experience, and I thank the gentleman for it.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I just saw a member of our Chamber of Commerce from back home who urged me to vote for this bill, and I told him it was incredulous to me how a man could fiscally ask that sort of question of me, because I reported to him that if he had had a great year at his business and could look down the road and see 4 or 5 other great years but had a big debt at the bank, what would he do about it? Would he send a dividend down to his shareholders or would he pay off his debt in advance? He had to admit he would pay his debt off because to do anything else would be irresponsible. This debate is uninformed by the claim that this is the people's money. Of course it is, as are all the taxes which are paid by the people. Does that mean we send all the taxes back to the people because it is their money? Of course, it does not. It means that the folks have entrusted us to make some fiscally responsible decisions about the expenditure of that money for their government. The money is here to support the government, support things that people cannot do by themselves that we do collectively. That is the whole idea behind it. We are making fiscally imprudent choices, unwise choices for the people now, and we are violating the trust of the public in sending back their money to them when we need to have our money spent on priorities that will meet the needs of the people back home.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge support of the Jackson-Vanik waiver by voting no on H.J. Res. 99, to encourage progress by Vietnam on a host of issues important to the United States. It is undeniable that we have had a very troubled history with Vietnam, and we still have difficult issues. The scars of the past, as we have seen evidenced today, and this discussion run very deep; and we could never forget those who sacrificed their lives in the service of that country there. But isolating Vietnam will not heal these scars. Perhaps no one can speak more authoritatively on that issue than one of our former colleagues, Pete Peterson, who is here with us today. Pete Peterson was shot down flying his 67th mission during the Vietnam War and spent 6\1/2\ years as a prisoner of war. After serving 6 years with us in the U.S. House as a member of my class in 1991, Pete Peterson returned to Vietnam, this time as the first ambassador since the Communist takeover. It is Ambassador Peterson's remarkable optimism about the changes going on in Vietnam, I believe, that sheds the greatest light on what our policy toward Vietnam should be. So while serious issues remain in our relationship with Vietnam, the dialogue with the Vietnamese on a full range of issues is the foundation on which those issues can be resolved. For this reason, support for the Jackson-Vanik waiver for Vietnam and a no vote on this resolution is in our best interests, I believe. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to keep in mind what this legislation is all about. It is not to cure all these difficulties that exist between the United States and Vietnam, nor between the debate over democracy versus communism. It is strictly about providing greater access for immigration and our review of whether or not that is taking place in that country in sufficient capacity to permit us to continue with the waiver. Since the 1980s, over 500,000 Vietnamese people have emigrated as refugees of that country to the United States. Ambassador Peterson reports that while there are bribes and corruption, these are isolated incidents and this is not a form of government policy in Vietnam. And so Vietnam is meeting the requirement for us to continue the waiver, and that is all that is important here. While incident to this there will be permission of OPEC and Ex-Im Bank to engage and support U.S. business there, that is not the overriding purpose of what we are doing here. And so Vietnam has met its obligation. It is time for our country to step up and meet its obligation as well and to permit the Jackson-Vanik waiver to continue and to permit people to continue to enjoy free immigration to this country.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have finally turned to a discussion of our Nation's most pressing priority, the need to ensure affordable access for seniors to prescription drugs. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the debate is all that we really have. The sharp rise in prescription drug prices has placed an intolerable burden on our Nation's seniors. This burden is aggravated by the fact that there is no Medicare prescription drug benefit. Three-fourths of Medicare beneficiaries lack decent, dependable coverage of prescription drugs. Our Nation's seniors are not fooled by this legislation that is on the floor today, Mr. Speaker, and neither are we. A clear majority of senior and consumer groups have labeled this legislation a ``sham,'' providing no real hope of a solution. We need a bill that will afford a solid guarantee of a drug benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, not a bill that relies on the profit- driven whims of the private insurance industry. If Medicare is indeed an entitlement program for seniors, should we not pass a drug benefit bill that clearly lets seniors know what drug benefit they are going to get and they are entitled to? Mr. Speaker, the program we have in front of us makes no sense. I hoped for a real choice today. It is a shame we do not have it. Our Nation's seniors deserve better.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question, because it undermines our efforts to bridge the digital divide. I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for coming up with an ingenious and innovative approach to providing a response to this very important and very serious problem. It is good to eliminate the excise tax and reduce telephone bills across the country, but what if one does not have a telephone in the first place, as we found on so many of our Indian reservations around the country where 50 percent of the people did not have telephones at all and, where in so many of our low-income communities, rural and urban, that same problem persists where telephone lines are not available to even begin to think about Internet access. More and more, America is transforming into a technology-driven nation, with every institution being impacted by the Internet and e- mail. In this new tech-driven economy, computers are becoming the crucial link to education, to defense, to information, and training, and to commerce. For all Americans, personal and economic success will depend upon having the ability to understand and use these powerful information tools. However, according to the Commerce Department report, Defining the Digital Divide, a large segment of the population have no access to technology at all. Unless this changes, these poor families in both urban and rural areas will be left behind. Millions of Americans will not have the tools necessary to compete in the new economy and will become the first second-class citizens of the information age. But let us not kid ourselves. The digital divide is not just a problem for the residents of these distressed and rural areas and these urban communities. It is a problem for the entire national economy as a whole. If we do not extend technology access to all Americans, our skilled labor force will continue to be depleted, millions of tech jobs will continue to go unfilled, and private industries and the military will continue to have problems recruiting and retaining highly skilled individuals. H1B visas are not the answer. Hiring foreign workers will not solve our growing, long-term needs for highly skilled workers. Surrendering our Nation's pre-eminence is also not an option. The answer is to eliminate this digital divide and ensure that all Americans are given access to technology and training. The private and public sector both understand the importance of bridging the digital divide in America and are taking steps to bring technology to schools and libraries across America. I applaud them for their efforts. However, these efforts are not enough. To truly bridge the digital divide and improve the way our children learn, the Federal Government must step in and help provide funds to bolster these efforts and extend technology access to every home in America. Only then can we assure that all of our children will have the tools necessary to compete in this tech-driven economy. I and many of my colleagues have numerous bipartisan legislative proposals to address the digital divide and extend technology for access to schools, libraries, computer centers and homes of all Americans. Many of these proposals would require Federal funding. Mr. Speaker, a defeat of the previous question will allow my colleagues and I to vote on the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) to set aside the phasing out of the telephone excise tax in a separate digital divide fund, a fund that can be used to finance the massive effort needed to extend technology. We cannot and should not let the opportunity to set aside these revenues pass us by. I urge defeat of the previous question.

Mr. JEFFERSON

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a very disappointing development. The economy of the City of New Orleans and the entire region is built upon tourism and conventions. The city and the region have invested in this mightily over the years, and it has made New Orleans the second most important destination city in this country. It is vital to our economy that the airport continue forward with its plans to build and construct this runway. Otherwise, the city will not be in a competitive position. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), my colleague from the area, who is recently now sharing a part of the City of New Orleans representation with me, has taken the place of Bob Livingston who I shared this with for many years. Bob Livingston, every year, in and out, worked with me on all of these issues, in the quiet of our offices and in a very congenial way, and we supported jointly the airport's expansion and all the rest all these years. Why suddenly is it some sort of issue that needs to be dealt with because we are concerned about management of the airport, when these issues have not come up? This is not the place and this is not the time. This forum is inappropriate for us to deal with local issues of how local people get together about regional governance. I should say to you there is reasonable governance at the airport now already. There are members on the airport board who represent the City of Kenner, which is part of the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who represents Saint Charles Parish, and part of the district of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), already there. What configuration does the gentleman want? Does the gentleman want to dictate exactly the terms of the regional governance, or can the local people get together and work on these matters? What is important here is that we not interfere with the plan that is going on, which in the next 5 years is going to mean if we do not do this in the next 5 years, we are going to lose competitive position. So there are no management studies that say we need to do something here drastic in this Congress, or otherwise we will run the risk of ruining Federal money and not doing the right thing by the people of our country. There are no divides back home about this. Our local Chamber of Commerce supports the runway projects, our local tourism commission supports the runway project. I do not know of anyone who doesn't support it except the folks over here say, and really run by my colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), who says we need to have a regional governance structure in place acceptable to him before we move this forward. I think it is just wrong. I do not think we ought to place in jeopardy jobs in New Orleans, the economy of our city, because someone here wants to see a certain governance structure in New Orleans. The local people can work these problems out, as they have over all the years. New Orleans built its airport in Jefferson Parish when there were not any people there. That is why it was built there. Over time that area has grown up, there are residences there and there are businesses, all of which now must be taken into account. But it is a painful process that is best sorted out in a local forum, in a local environment. That is the only way this can be done. This is the equivalent of a shotgun wedding. I think somehow or the other somebody believes you can have regional cooperation by forcing people together. That is an absurdity. It is an oxymoron. It makes no sense. People have to get together and work on matters cooperatively. We cannot force it in this Congress. So I would ask this House not to agree with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter), because this airport is in my district, it belongs to my city. It must expand in other areas, but it is just wrong to slow this progress down, and I say it would ruin our airport's prospects and ruin our economy, have us lose jobs. It is simply to please the idea that we ought to have a different regional governing structure, which I submit to you this Congress ought not be involved in. So I would ask Members not to approve this amendment today, because it is just wrong for our city, it is wrong policy for the Congress, it is wrong-headed action altogether.

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

Mr. JEFFERSON. Is it not true that the airport authority has no appropriation authority and that it cannot go into St. Charles Parish and appropriate the property of St. Charles Parish? Is that not true?

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

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman paints a pernicious picture of actions that have taken place in the heat of the night without the gentleman knowing about it. As a matter of fact, the runway project, as the gentleman knows, has been in progress here for many, many years. This is not something new that happened this year.

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

Mr. JEFFERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious here that this whole effort is being made to bludgeon the City of New Orleans' leadership into some sort of a forced meeting because the proponents are unhappy with the progress of these meetings. These are painful discussions that must take place on regional governance. These are not things that can happen overnight and it cannot be forced to happen; nor can the city force any runway into St. Charles Parish. So if money is appropriated here for a study to take place and for engineering to go forward, in the end there is going to have to be some meetings and agreements between the New Orleans people and St. Charles people. There is no need for this. This is simply overstepping, overreaching, as far as I am concerned. Now if we want to talk about Members doing things in the middle of the night without my knowing about it, there were amendments offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) that I was not apprised of, and the airport is in my district. I did not know they were even offering them. This is a shameful fight that we ought not be involved in. We ought to be saying to each other, how can we go to the Federal authority and get as much money as we can to help to make New Orleans as competitive as it can be and make our airport as vital as it can be so we can stay in the hunt for convention and tourism business? And then go home and let the local people, with our help and guidance and support if we can give to them, to work out the hard details of how they govern the whole matter and how they work out the issues. If there are management issues, and I just heard this today, I have not heard this from anybody else who has any authority, who have done any management studies to find things that are sharply wrong with the airport, that we need to worry about holding up Federal money because of management issues. This is all made up. That does not exist. There are no management issues, I want to make it clear, because it besmirches the whole reputation of the board at the airport and of those who are involved in management. There is no mismanagement at the New Orleans airport. There are some folks who would like to see things go a different way, of course, as there always are, but there is no evidence of mismanagement. I think to bring it on to this House floor is absolutely dead wrong. So I would urge this House, in the strongest terms possible, to give us a chance back home to work our own matters out and let our city have the leadership it deserves on this issue, and to not hold up a vital project for the City of New Orleans airport. That cannot be justified on the basis of we need governance, a better governance structure or any other such thing as that because New Orleans cannot impose its will on the local and surrounding area. It cannot at all do that without the cooperation of those areas, and we cannot impose regional cooperation in the region unless the region itself gets together to work with it. So I would urge my colleagues to rethink their position on this, to let us continue as a delegation to work together on these important matters and not to create walls here that are going to prevent our cooperation in the future on matters very important to all of us. This is important to my region. It is vitally important to us and I would urge this body not to let the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) step in now in a matter which is unnecessary to protect the integrity of their districts or their peoples or any such thing as that. They have admitted it does not do that. They have admitted that New Orleans cannot reach over and take any property from Jefferson Parish. They even admit it does not do anything, according to them. They say, well, it does not do much. If it does not do much, it is not much worth our time to do anything here. So what I would urge is just to leave this matter alone, and I really wish my colleague would withdraw this whole effort and let us move on to something where we can find a way to help move our city forward, our airport, our region forward, together, as we have in the past. I have always worked with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and I have always worked with the predecessor of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter). I am hopeful I will be able to work with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) as well, but we cannot work together if we do not honor each other's commitments on these areas. I just think it is dead wrong what is happening here today, and I hope this House will reject it.

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