Chris John

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for those very candid and concise remarks about the future of Social Security and the position that the Blue Dogs will take. I yield to my final speaker tonight, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California. I would like to close by also thanking and asking the indulgence of the House for the past hour to give the chance for the Blue Dogs and some of the other types of groups that are coming up to talk about the fiscal position of this country and to also reiterate how important it is in this Congress to face some of those tough choices. I believe, as you have heard over the last hour, that there is nothing more important that we can leave the next generations of Americans than paying off the debt that we have strapped them with in today's economy, and we do that starting today. I thank the Houses' time and patience, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the late Sheriff Daly Joseph Doucet, affectionately known to those in Louisiana as the ``Cat,'' who was recently inducted into the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame. First elected Sheriff of St. Landry Parish in 1936, Cat Doucet quickly earned admiration and respect as the top law enforcement officer in the area. He would go on to serve 20 years in this office-- the longest in the rich history of this parish. On January 30, 1999, he was recognized for this service with his induction into the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame. A letter from the selection committee would go on to explain this high honor to Mr. Doucet's family in the following manner: ``The statewide selection committee bases its selection on the impact that an individual has had on the politics of Louisiana; a distinction for which your Father certainly qualifies for.'' Mr. Speaker, in a state where colorful and savvy politicians are probably the highest density per square mile than any where in the land, Cat Doucet will indeed be remembered as a legend. He will long be remembered for his gifted political skills and remarkable zest for campaigning. One story that I would like to briefly share with you I believe illustrates this legendary talent. Upon one of his re-election bids, Sheriff Doucet came up with the clever idea to place a P.A. speaker on a crop duster and paid a pilot to fly the crop duster around the various farms of St. Landry Parish the weekend before the election. The pilot, yelling ``Vote for Cat Doucet for Sheriff,'' hit almost every farmer that clear day. The following weekend a massive turnout was reported for the election and a young reporter was anxious to know why so many citizens turned out to support the legendary Sheriff. The reporter quickly grabbed a farmer exiting the voting booth and asked him point blank, ``Sir, could you explain what appears to be a massive turn out for Sheriff Doucet?'' The farmer replied to the reporter: ``Well sir, all I can tell you is this. I was working in the sugar cane fields last weekend and all of a sudden I saw the clouds open up and voice from the sky say `vote for Cat Doucet for Sheriff' and I said to myself, anybody that can get God to come down and campaign for you, has got to be good!'' While Cat went on to win this race, he would sometimes lose others. However, his gracious demeanor did not leave him even on these rare occasions. Upon losing one of these elections in 1940, Cat was quoted in the newspapers as stating: ``Before the election I was a friend of the newly elected sheriff and I am sure he knows that I'll always be his friend. I hold no malice towards anyone.'' I share these stories with my colleagues today as they help to describe this extraordinary figure who meant so much to so many in our state. Most important, Mr. Speaker, his love for public service so often manifested itself through his common acts of human kindness. Whether it was buying needed medicines for the impoverished, chauffeuring the critically ill to charity hospitals, or paying the funeral expenses for the poor, he stood ready to help his fellow man in times of crisis. His recent induction into the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame along with four other deserving public servants: Former Lt. Gov. James Fitzmorris, the late Commissioner of Elections Douglas Fowler Sr., the political pollster Ed Renwick, and Iris Kelso, veteran reporter for the Times- Picayune, stands as a true testament to his dedicated career he loved so dearly. It is a fitting tribute that his inscription eternally reads ``for outstanding accomplishments and service to the citizens of the state of Louisiana.'' Mr. Speaker, with his death in 1975, Cat Doucet's storied past lives on far beyond the famous bayous of our state. His acts of goodness and great sacrifices have inspired many in St. Landry Parish to serve in the public body. His legacy will now forever survive in their hearts and in the hearts of those who knew him best.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the American men and women who are putting their lives on the line in the Persian Gulf to protect our nation and the world from the threat being posed by Saddam Hussein's arsenal of terror. Sadly, Saddam has again called into question the commitment of the United States and our allies to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by blocking the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) from inspecting suspected sites and restricting its ability to review evidence. Nobody in this chamber wishes harm on the people of Iraq, but the repeated refusal of Saddam to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease-fire poses a clear and present danger to the national security interests of our nation. I stand by the decision of the President and his national security advisors to launch a military strike against Iraq and condemn Saddam for forcing this upon his people. There can be no doubt that decisive military action is justified and that Saddam bears full responsibility for these actions. As the leader of the world community, the United States must remain vigilant in our efforts to expose and destroy Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. The UNSCOM inspectors are a critical tool in accomplishing this objective. With the UNSCOM report issued only days ago and Islamic observance of Ramadan beginning this weekend, the timing of U.S. air strikes were critical to the success of this mission. We can only hope that U.S. and British military forces in the Persian Gulf can accomplish what repeated efforts at diplomacy could not. I want to express my gratitude to our soldiers, sailors and pilots who are carrying out this vital effort and tell their families that our thoughts and prayers will be with them during this holiday season. I offer my unequivocal support for their just cause and pray for their quick and safe return.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I beg of my colleagues to end this sad chapter in America. We have damaged the fiber of our representative democracy. We are tearing down the greatest country in the world by the deliberations here and over the past few months. I plead of you to stop. To stop. Please put an end to this madness. You have lost two of your own. We have lost the bipartisan spirit. But the real losers are the American people. Vote your conscience and your beliefs. I will. But let us move on.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I entered the House of Representatives two years ago, and the first act I took was the oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The matter now before us constitutes the most significant test of that oath. At all times I have done my best to evaluate if the allegations against the President threatened our constitutional process. I have said repeatedly in my remarks, publicly, that I believe the President's actions were reprehensible and morally repugnant. However, after much thought and deliberation over the past few months, I have concluded that the constitutional threshold of treason, bribery and high crimes and misdemeanors that our framers enumerated has not been reached in the situation to justify the removing of and the impeachment of President Clinton. I purposely refrained from this judgment because of this. I was one of only 31 Democrats who voted to go on with the inquiry. Let me be clear, the President should be held accountable for his reckless actions. However, impeachment is not the punishment. Let us move on to the business of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, the President's actions were reprehensible, morally repugnant and have brought shame upon the highest office in our Nation. I feel everyone in this Chamber shares this same sentiment. However, what we now disagree upon involves the most significant test to our oath of office--whereupon we have all sworn to uphold our sacred Constitution. Mr. Speaker, our Nation and our Constitution face its most solemn hour since the House of Representatives last triggered an impeachment against the President of the United States some 130 years ago. While the times have certainly changed, the magnitude of a vote to remove the highest officer in our Nation has not. We have learned from our past that impeachment cannot be guided by passion nor partisanship but by the facts, our laws, and our deep faith in the Constitution. For impeachment centers not on our political differences but instead must be determined by the constitutional standard of whether the President committed ``treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' Mindful of this, I have spent the better part of this year seeking to further understand what the Framers had in mind when they conceived this clause. As a result, I am convinced more than ever, Mr. Speaker, that the Framers' impeachment clause empowers Congress with the ability to protect our citizens against an executive branch that grossly abuses its power by turning the arm of government against its citizens. In 1974, the Judiciary Committee recognized this fundamental ``abuse of power'' when they issued impeachable offenses against Richard Nixon that involved his use of the Internal Revenue Service, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation against the citizenry. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson itself proved to be an ``abuse of Congress' power'' as Mr. Johnson was attacked more for his political convictions than his decision to oust a Cabinet member. Unfortunately, we now stand ready to drag our tired country through a protracted trial in the Senate for something which does not reach the threshold of an impeachable offense. The President's conduct in concealing a personal sexual relationship certainly do not threaten our constitutional process nor pose a direct threat to our citizenry. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that a vote to lower the bar on what is an impeachable offense would do more in fact to undermine our democracy than advance it. Let me be clear that I believe the President should be held accountable for his reckless acts, however impeachment is not the appropriate punishment in this instance. Consequently, I am greatly dismayed that the full House will not be given the same opportunity presented to the Judiciary Committee to consider alternative forms of punishment such as a censure motion and monetary fine. At a minimum, the Congress needs to make it clear to the American people that telling the truth does matter, that the President's deeds will not go unpunished, and that he remains subject to prosecution in a court of law when he leaves office. I know, Mr. Speaker, that I will ultimately have to answer to my constituents after my vote on this matter. However, I will do so with a clear conscience knowing that I did what I thought was right, just, and in the best interest of our country.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 602 and H.R. 2204, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1998. In general, the purpose of H.R. 2204 is to authorize approximately $4.1 billion in expenditures for the United States Coast Guard for fiscal year 1999. The U.S. Coast Guard is on the front lines every day, saving lives and preventing drugs from entering the country. They are the lead agency in the cleanup of oil spills and they help protect our nation's fisheries within our 200 mile exclusive economic zone. The funding authorized in this bill will enable them to continue to accomplish their important mission. Mr. Speaker, I would like to devote the remainder of my time discussing the merits of Title VI of this bill. I rise strongly in support of Title VI because it is essentially H.R. 4235, the legislation that I introduced in July of this year. H.R. 4235 is entitled the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. My bill, and Title VI of H.R. 2204, authorizes appropriations through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to conduct research, monitoring, education, and management activities for the prevention, reduction and control of Harmful Algal Blooms, hypoxia, pfiesteria and other aquatic toxins. Mr. Speaker, as you are well aware, the problems associated with Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) have been well documented. Recent occurrences of HABs include red tides in the Gulf of Mexico and the Southeast; brown tides in New York, New Jersey and Texas; ciguatera fish poisoning in Hawaii, Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands; and shell fish poisonings in the Gulf of Maine, the Pacific Northwest, and the Gulf of Alaska. In addition, the recent outbreak of pfiesteria piscicida in the Chesapeake Bay estuary is an example of how a naturally occurring species can explosively reproduce in our nation's coastal waters. Furthermore, according to NOAA, 53 percent of U.S. estuaries experience hypoxia--including a 7,000 square mile area in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana and Texas which creates a massive ``dead zone'' where little or no marine life exists. Representing the western half of Louisiana's coastline, I am particularly sensitive to these problems as they affect not only the public health, but also my state's valuable fisheries resources. As I just relayed, however, these are not problems isolated to Louisiana or the Gulf of Mexico. Rather, it is a national problem that deserves a national approach. Up to this point, research on the HAB problem has focused primarily on basic science, detection, and monitoring. One vital research need is a reliable technique for the rapid detection and identification of algal species and stages. Monitoring of water quality in order to forecast the onset or subsidence of algal blooms is another key research issue. Such monitoring also is important for understanding interactions between algal species and the environment and the relationship of algal species with other marine organisms. The range of economic impacts from HAB outbreaks and the extent of those costs have spiraled. Economic losses have been documented from limited or restricted shellfish harvests, losses from reduced tourism and marine recreation due to aesthetically unpleasant areas, and panicked consumers who avoid purchasing seafood products. In addition, there are indirect costs associated with HABs, such as the medical costs of treating exposed people and diminished development of or investment in coastal resources. The technical, legal, and managerial tools to address HABs may collectively exist within a variety of federal and state agencies. Currently, however, a structured and effective means to bring this expertise together to address HABs does not exist. The missions and goals of many agencies overlap in the coastal zone where HAB phenomena are pronounced. Although no single agency has the lead role for the federal government, NOAA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are coordinating the efforts of several agencies and departments. At present, the goal of these efforts is to more effectively direct resources toward minimizing future HAB outbreaks and supporting research and monitoring efforts. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 4235 to address this problem. H.R. 4235 was structured to ensure that much needed federal resources are effectively used to address our nation's coastal communities environmental and public health concerns. Though the authorized funding level in Title VI is less than I proposed in H.R. 4235, I am pleased to see that the integrity of the structure of my bill was not breached. Finally, I would like to briefly thank my staff, David Kay, for all his hard work and all the Members who were supportive of my proposal. I am confident that the broad-based support that we garnered in the form of cosponsors to H.R. 4235 was instrumental in the bill's eventual inclusion as Title VI of H.R. 2204. Mr. Speaker, I urge that the House support H.R. 2204. I urge the Senate to quickly act to pass it as well and I urge our President to sign this bill into law.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of a landmark piece of legislation that has been crafted by a bipartisan group of members wishing to see a more equitable and prudent use of revenues generated from federal outer continental shelf activities. The bill, entitled ``The Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1998,'' (CARA) is the product of several months of discussions between Members of Congress, the States and the conservation community regarding a dependable source of funding for our nation's environmental needs. The proposal we introduce today reflects the wisdom of these discussions and is intended to serve as a starting point to launch a public debate on the merits of the idea underlying this legislation: that a portion of revenues derived from one of our nation's non-renewable resources should be reinvested back into our nation through conservation and recreation programs that will yield benefits today and in the future. Generally speaking, the bill would dedicate sixty percent of the bonuses, rents and royalties from federal offshore oil and gas leases for conservation of wildlife and their habitats, for parks and recreation in urban and rural areas, and for impact aid for coastal states to mitigate the environmental and public service impacts of offshore oil and gas development. These monies would be classified as mandatory spending, thus ensuring a constant and dependable source of revenue for the conservation and community investments made possible by the legislation. While no budget offsets are contained in this bill, my colleagues and I are committed to working with members of the Budget and Appropriations Committees during the next several months to find acceptable offsets for what we believe to be a sound public policy initiative. The benefits that would result from adoption of CARA are rivaled only by the dire need for such legislation. In Louisiana, we are experiencing a dramatic loss of over 35 miles per year of our coastline due to erosion and wetlands degradation. Meanwhile, as we watch our coastline erode, billions of dollars are extracted in federal mineral resources off our shores. Currently, fifty percent of the revenues derived from federal oil and gas activities onshore are shared with the host state. However, revenues paid from federal OCS production (beyond 8(g) activities) are not shared with adjacent states. The ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1998'' will remedy this inequity by sharing an equitable portion of royalties derived from federal OCS production with all coastal states to meet the environmental challenges facing their coastlines. To my constituents in Southwestern Louisiana, this proposal is all about fairness. Since the 1950's, Louisiana has served as the hub of the offshore oil and gas industry. To put this in perspective, in FY97, $3.2 billion of the roughly $4 billion of OCS revenues received by the federal government was generated off the coast of my home state. However, the development of these resources is unavoidably accompanied by environmental and public service impacts in the states that host the development of the OCS. By creating a coastal impact assistance fund, as envisioned in CARA, we can ensure that coastal estuaries and marshes nationwide remain ecologically and economically productive for many years to come. This is accomplished without creating an incentive for new oil and gas development and will have no impact on current OCS leasing moratoria or the President's Executive Order concerning outer continental shelf leasing. Mr. Speaker, this bill benefits more than just our coastal states by guaranteeing a stable funding source for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at it's authorized level of $900 million. This dedicated funding would provide for both state and federal programs included in LWCF, and include important revenues for recreation projects through the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR). The benefits of these programs are enjoyed in all fifty states currently, but budgetary constraints have left them seriously under funded in recent years as appropriators have tried to balance our federal budget. Our proposal breathes new life into these programs by ensuring that a constant source of funds will be available to our towns and states to meet their conservation and recreation needs. Finally, to assist states in meeting the increased demand for funding programs used for non-game species of wildlife, our bill would reinvest ten percent of the revenues gained from OCS development into a new wildlife and education program. The funds would be distributed through the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Fund, also known as Pittman- Robertson, which has been a model framework for wildlife conservation and recreation projects since its inception in 1939. However, unlike similar proposals that have been suggested to meet non-game wildlife needs, our proposal does not include a new excise tax on sporting goods to fund the program. Mr. Speaker, the ``Conservation and Reinvestment Act of 1998'' creates a responsible framework for meeting current and future conservation needs that will yield environmental, recreational and economic benefits for all Americans. I realize that we have very little time remaining in this Congress, but I urge all of my colleagues to take a close look at this proposal and work with the cosponsors of this bill to improve upon it so that we can reintroduce, consider, and enact legislation during the 106th Congress.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to join a number of my colleagues in introducing legislation that will right a wrong suffered by the State of Louisiana over a decade ago. I believe that all of my colleagues know that most of the Federal Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas development occurs off the coast of Louisiana and, indeed, off the coast of my Congressional district. Large portions of the Gulf of Mexico are among the very few areas of the OCS where offshore drilling is not prohibited by the Administration's recently announced leasing moratorium. To put the contributions of the State of Louisiana in perspective, in FY97 $3.2 billion of the slightly over $4 billion of OCS revenue received by the Federal government was generated off the coast of Louisiana. Louisiana has been making this type of contribution to the Federal government's effort to develop its oil and gas resources every year beginning in the early 1950's. Throughout the entire history of Federal oil and gas development off the coast of Louisiana, the state and the Department of the Interior have cooperated on the development of oil and gas resources that might underlie both the state and Federal offshore waters. Obviously, the interest of our state and our delegation is that the revenues generated by the development of oil and gas resources owned by the people of Louisiana be returned to the treasury of the state of Louisiana. Where oil and gas resources occur in underground formations that underlie both state and Federal waters, the state and the Federal government have developed these areas through cooperative agreements that ensure that neither sovereign develops the resources of the other. Unfortunately, this spirit of cooperation broke down in the mid- 1980's in the development of a natural gas field along the seaward boundary of Louisiana called the West Delta Field. For the first and only time in the history of Federal OCS development off the coast of Louisiana, the Department of the Interior refused to cooperate with Louisiana in protecting Louisiana's resources from being developed by Federal lessees. As a result, Federal lessees drained over $18 million of Louisiana's natural gas, the revenues from which went to the Federal treasury rather than the State of Louisiana's treasury. In 1989, an Independent Fact Finder appointed by the Secretary of the Interior at the direction of Congress confirmed these facts. Since 6004(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 authorized an appropriation to repay the State of Louisiana and its lessees for the $18 million of gas developed improperly by the Federal lessees, plus interest. Today, the total authorized payment to the State and its lessees, with interest, is approximately $32 million. The State of Louisiana and its lessees have never received this money. Therefore, this legislation authorizes an alternative means of compensating the State and its lessees. Under this legislation, the state lessee in the West Delta Field would be authorized to withhold its Federal royalty payments on other OCS production in the Gulf of Mexico, using these funds to pay the State of Louisiana and itself until the authorization in Section 6004(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is satisfied. At that point, the lessee would resume its royalty payments to the Department of the Interior. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to close this unhappy chapter in the relationship between the State and the Federal government on Federal OCS oil and gas development. Louisiana has been a good host to the Federal government with respect to OCS development. Louisiana expects the Federal government to honor the authorization enacted in 1990. I encourage my colleagues to support this long-overdue legislation and ensure its enactment this year.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues today in honoring the selfless acts of Detective Gibson and Private First Class Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police. As we know, the U.S. Capitol is the people's house and the dedicated men and women of the United States Capitol Police guard this institution to protect the Members of Congress, their staff and millions of people who come to bear witness to the working of our democratic process. The Capitol is a living testament to the rights of our citizens and those that are sworn to guard it truly defend the rights of mankind. On July 24, 1998, Officers Gibson and Chestnut made the ultimate sacrifice for these unalienable rights in courageously protecting the lives of tourists, staff and Members of Congress. We are forever indebted to these brave men. Had it not been for their heroic actions, many more innocent people could have been seriously injured or killed. Mr. Speaker, I stand with my colleagues today to honor these men killed in the line of duty and to pay my condolences to their families. I vow to ensure their legacy of defending the people's house will live on for generations to come; symbolized by our continuing commitment to open the halls of democracy to the public. God Bless Officers Gibson and Chestnut for their memory will forever survive in the freedoms of our nation's Capitol.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 320, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I would like for my colleagues to join me today in recognizing a true American hero from Lafayette, Louisiana. Some 30 years ago, a forgotten story of personal courage and bold convictions unfolded in the village of My Lai in South Vietnam. A 24 year old Army helicopter pilot, Mr. Hugh Thompson, found himself thrown into the midst of a massacre--one which pitted him against his superiors and even his own fellow soldiers. His story has remained a dim light in this dark period of our military history. However, I am honored to share it with this body as it represents a patriotic act of great sacrifice, moral fortitude and uncommon valor. Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 1968, Mr. Thompson, defying his superiors, landed his helicopter in front of helpless My Lai villagers gathered in a hut. He did so not to protect them from the assault of the enemy he was trained to combat in Vietnam but to protect them from the ongoing assault of soldiers wearing the United States' uniform. Shocked at the horror of witnessing innocent children, women and men being fired upon by fellow soldiers, Mr. Thompson moved to action along with his crew mates and radioed two other gun ships to come to the aid of the Vietnamese villagers. The ensuing standoff lasting 15 minutes provided the necessary time for the choppers to airlift a dozen villagers to safety. Had it not been for Mr. Thompson's intervention, many more villagers may have been included in the list of Vietnamese civilians killed that day. I am pleased to announce that this story, Mr. Speaker, will be reaching a final chapter on Friday, March 6, 1998 as he will be receiving public recognition by the United States Army for his efforts some 30 years ago. The prestigious Soldier's Medal will be awarded to him at the Vietnam Veteran Memorial citing his ``heroic performance in saving the lives of Vietnamese civilians during the unlawful massacre of noncombatants by American forces.'' Mr. Speaker, this high honor marks a long over-due recognition for an American who served his country with great distinction and who continues to do so in counseling veterans in Louisiana's 7th District. I wish to extend my heartfelt appreciation for Mr. Thompson's honorable service and all those who acted beyond the call of duty in saving the lives of those My Lai villagers. I am proud that our nation will do the same this Friday.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I would like for my colleagues to join me in congratulating BeauSoleil on capturing a Grammy Award for Best Traditional Folk Recording. BeauSoleil's talented group featuring Michael Doucet, David Doucet, Jimmy Breaux, Al Tharp, Billy Ware, and Tommy Alesi have contributed greatly to the spread of Cajun music not only in my state of Louisiana but throughout the country and indeed the world. Since 1975, BeauSoleil has succeeded in preserving the authentic Cajun music that we are so proud of in Louisiana and in doing so, shared our rich history far beyond our famous bayous with others. I think a Los Angeles Times article put it best by stating that ``even as BeauSoleil stretches the basic Cajun sound and pushes at musical boundaries, it never veers far from the crucial values of family, friendship and community that have kept the Cajun people and culture alive for 400 years.'' It is only fitting that they now are honored by the Grammy's for such a profound work like ``L'Amour ou la Folie (Love or Folly)'' which embodies a diverse cultural blend of Cajun and Creole classics, blues, South Louisiana swamp-pop, New Orleans jazz, and Afro-Caribbean material. This prestigious award along with six prior Grammy nominations recognizes bandleader Michael Doucet's commitment to spreading the ``joie de vivre'' Louisianians find in our music while keeping the traditions of our culture alive for everyone to cherish. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker I am proud to add that BeauSoleil was not the only band to be nominated by the Grammies from my Congressional District. Mr. Jo-El Sonnier and the Hackberry Ramblers were among the elite musicians to receive this special honor as well. Mr. Jo-El Sonnier's ``Cajun Pride'' and the Hackberry Ramblers' ``Deep Water'' were both nominated for the Best Traditional Folk Recording. I am extremely proud of these nominees who have shared long, fruitful careers in the entertainment industry and extend my deepest appreciation for their celebrating the musical treasures indigenous to our state for so many years. In conclusion, let me join with my fellow Louisianians in congratulating these talented musicians on their outstanding achievements as we are fortunate to have such great Ambassadors of our music and culture.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, about a year ago, I stood on this floor for the first time as a Member of Congress and spoke in support of the balanced budget agreement. In my comments, I praised all those who worked diligently to secure our Nation's immediate future by tackling the deficit. However, I also recognized that another, more ominous problem awaited us on the horizon; and that problem could only be addressed once we got a handle on our deficit. That problem, Mr. Speaker, is our national debt. We all know the numbers--the federal debt now stands at over $5.3 trillion, which amounts to roughly $20,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. According to the President's budget, we must allocate roughly 14 percent of our budget this year simply to pay the net interest on the debt. Mr. Speaker, I know all of you share my enthusiasm over the continued expansion of the economy and the economic forecasts predicting a balanced budget as early as fiscal year 1999. In addition, we are all aware of the debate currently being waged with respect to what our priorities should be if we experience a budget surplus; however, now is not the time to abandon our fiscal belt-tightening. Rather, the tools we now have in place to ward against pork-barrel spending need to be preserved and enhanced. An example of this is the President's line item veto authority. As you recall, the impetus behind the line item veto was, in part, to ward against wasteful spending--a concern that I believe is paramount regardless of whether a budget deficit or surplus exists. Mr. Speaker, it is with this particular concern in mind that I come to the floor today. For without legislative action, the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 and the fiscal responsibility if represents will be endangered due to a technicality. Under current law, the President may enroll this authority only in the event of a budget deficit. Regardless of our opinion over how the President recently used this authority, if we support the ideal behind the legislation, we must remain vigilant against wasteful spending and provide this continued authority in the event of a budget surplus. Today, I dropped a bill to remedy this problem and I urge my colleagues' serious consideration and support in moving his fiscally prudent legislation forward. Mr. Speaker, my proposal would preserve the continuation of the line item veto by adding language to the Act clarifying its applicability during a budget surplus and directly the savings to be used to reduce the national debt. This not only provides clear congressional intent, but also strengthens the constitutionality of the Act by limiting the delegation of authority between the Legislative and Executive branches to times of a deficit or a surplus. Again, I believe that this is a great, fiscally responsible issue for all in Congress to champion during the 2d session and I welcome your comments and cosponsorship. Please join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Madam Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 554 on H.R. 1270, I also was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for yielding me the time. Let us be very honest about what we are doing here. This amendment has nothing to do with saving taxpayers' dollars. It has nothing to do with protecting American consumers. In fact this amendment has everything to do with bad public policy. It is about doing through the appropriations process what could not be done in the 1996 farm bill. In the gentleman's own words, the gentleman from Florida said we tried to totally eliminate this program last year and we could not do it. So please, I urge my colleagues, do not go along with this amendment. This is a back-door approach to try to wreck the American farmers and not the big farmers but the small farmers. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Quinn]. The Chair announces that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] has 2 minutes and 10 seconds remaining, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] has 2 minutes remaining, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining. For the purposes of closing the debate, the Chair announces that the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller] will close. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur] will go third to last. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] will finish his time first, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ewing] will go second to last.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. What are we afraid of? Are we afraid of keeping our promises? That is what we are talking about. We are talking about enforcing a balanced budget agreement that only 2 weeks ago everybody was praising. Everybody was talking about how great it is. But it is only worth the paper it is written on without some kind of enforcement. What are the opponents of enforcement scared of? They are scared of keeping our promises? I would hope not. I would hope that the American people will support us in putting enforcement in a budget that could explode if we are off on some of our economic figures.

Mr. JOHN

Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I want to say a few words about why we are here today. Only twice in the last 40 years, just twice, in 1960, the year I was born, and in 1969, have we balanced our budget. I believe that today we stand here on the brink of a new millennium but also the brink of a very historic moment for the United States Congress and the people of America. Forty years ago, which was 1957, was a long time. Through those 40 years, we have accrued over $5 trillion of debt. Therein lies the problem. It is not the balanced budget as much as it is the debt. How do we address the debt? We stop adding to it. That is as simple as I can put it. We spend $241 billion to pay our interest on our debt; 15 percent of our budget, 15 percent of our budget we spend paying interest on the debt because of fiscal irresponsibility in the past. That is more than our whole Medicare budget, more than our whole Medicaid budget, almost as much as our national defense budget. It is a lot of money. But we stand here today, and I want to commend the ranking member, the gentleman from South Carolina. And I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich], chairman of the Committee on the Budget, for working very hard in times that were somewhat and sometimes very difficult. But we, along with a lot of other Members, came up here, elected in November of 1996, with a very clear message. I believe the American people want us to stop fighting and start getting down to business. I think the American people sent us here to work in a bipartisan way to do one thing that I heard over and over and over again: Balance our budget. Do it for our kids. Do it for our grandkids. I believe it is incumbent on this Congress, the 105th, to do that. It is not a perfect resolution to the problem. There are some Republican victories with some tax cuts, a lot of which I embrace. There are some Democratic victories, 5 million more kids with health insurance. It extends the solvency to 2007 of the Medicare trust fund. It corrects some unfair backlashes about the welfare reform program that was passed last year. But it balances the budget in 5 years. I think that is the most significant piece of legislation. I believe that this Congress will not face any more important issue in this Congress. I urge Members to support the bipartisan agreement and support this balanced budget that brings it to balance in the year 2002.