Walter Jones

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Everett amendment. Let there be no mistake, this vote is on the integrity of the BRAC process. A vote for the Everett amendment will only serve to improve the profits of the defense industrial base at the expense of military readiness. As a Commandant of the Marine Corps, General Krulak has said time and again, depots are a critical element in Marine Corps combat readiness. The depots are the Nation's only ready and controlled source providing our war fighters with the highest quality maintenance and repair, on time and at least cost, wherever and whenever needed. Let us not forget that the defense contractors who have come to us asking to get more of the workload now done by the depots are the same defense contractors that say that cost should not be an issue when it comes to providing their product. Why would their way of doing business change now? Can we afford this way of doing business? A vote for the Everett amendment will destroy the BRAC process. It would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars each year, and it will cost the United States their national security. Please vote ``no'' on the Everett amendment.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] for their leadership on H.R. 1119. Mr. Chairman, I have the privilege of representing four military bases in eastern North Carolina. As a member of the Committee on National Security, I feel doubly responsible to make sure that our service men and women are well equipped and trained to fight the right fight. But, Mr. Chairman, I have to question if after 3 years of United States troop involvement in Bosnia, if it is not time to bring our troops home. I do not believe that the fall of the Berlin Wall meant that the United States had to become the world's police force. We have spent, Mr. Chairman, $7.5 billion to put out the fires of Bosnia. Our job is done, yet each time an exit strategy is planned, someone in the administration cries foul. Mr. Chairman, enough is enough. The Constitution states that Congress alone shall raise and maintain the Nation's Armed Forces. Later today we will be debating the Hilleary amendment. By supporting the Hilleary amendment, Congress can finally take action to assure the safe and orderly withdrawal of United States troops from Bosnia. America has met its commitment to Bosnia. It is time to bring our troops home.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to share with my colleagues an important editorial from a newspaper in my district, the Carteret County News-Times. The editorial, titled ``Listen Up, National Park Service,'' I submit for the Record demonstrates the importance of the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act, a bill I have introduced to save a group of wild horses in North Carolina. As the editorial says, the wild horses of Shackleford Banks are believed to be descendents of Spanish mustangs who swam ashore after Spanish galleons wrecked off the coast of North Carolina centuries ago. For years these beautiful horses freely roamed the 3,000 acre barrier islands without trouble until the North Carolina Park Service took control of the area to form the Cape Lookout National Seashore in the 1970's. Today, the horses are threatened by the National Park Service, which seems to be more concerned with managing the vegetation on the island than the horses. They have already euthanized many of these beautiful animals for questionable reasons. We must not allow the National Park Service to continue to destroy these horses. The National Park Service's management plan specifies that a representative herd of horses must be maintained, but I fear that this vague term does not sufficiently protect the horses. What is to keep the Park Service from reducing the horse population to a number that may not survive one of the many storms that passes over North Carolina's coast? When the North Carolina Park Service first took control of the island, the horse population was 104. According to Dr. Dan Rubenstein, chairman of the Department of Ecological and Evolutionary Biology of Princeton University, this number of 104 is appropriate for the overall well-being of the island ecology and, most importantly, for the horses' survival. Dr. Rubenstein has been studying the herd for more than 15 years. He is the expert on these horses for the Park Service. Even a genetic scientist hired by the Park Service believes that the herd should consist of at least 100 horses to remain a viable herd. For this reason, my proposed legislation, the Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act, would require that the number of horses on the islands be maintained at not less than 100 horses, and prohibits the removal of any horses unless their number exceeds 110. It also allows public input in the management of the horses through the nonprofit Foundation for Shackleford Horses, a group that truly cares about the horses and their future. Mr. Speaker, the wild horses of Shackleford Banks were on this island long before people were. Clearly, they are a true historical treasure, one we must protect, just as we protect other national treasures such as the Grand Canyon. The Shackleford Banks Wild Horses Protection Act is in the best interest of the horses and it is in the best interest of the visitors and residents who so enjoy viewing them in their natural setting. As a Carteret County News-Times editorial reports, both Democratic Governor Jim Hunt and Democratic Secretary of North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources Betty McCain support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Let us protect the wild horses of Shackleford Banks for the children and the next generation, and let us save this national treasure. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article I referred to previously. The article referred to is as follows: [From the Carteret County News-Times, June 13, 1997] Listen Up, NPS! Some countians were skeptical when the National Park Service announced plans last year to test wild mustangs on Shackleford Banks for Equine Infectious Anemia, a debilitating disease of horses. They believed the NPS's real agenda was to remove all the noble animals from the island, part of Cape Lookout National Seashore. It appeared to many observers, including this newspaper, that those concerns were overblown, if not bordering on paranoia. After all, it only made good sense to cull sick animals so that the healthy ones might thrive under improved conditions, without fear of contracting EIA from biting insects feeding off the sick horses. NPS said it had to cull the herd not so much because of the disease but because the horses were over- populating and damaging vegetation, destroying the ecology of the island. So the NPS plan went forward, euthanizing 76 of the 184 Shackleford horses who tests positive for the virus that weakens horses' immune systems, sometimes leading to death. That left 108 health horses free to roam the 3,000-acre barrier island much like their descendants, Spanish mustangs who perhaps swam ashore after Spanish galleons wrecked off the coast centuries ago. All seemed well, and fears of some countians dissipated while the NPS spoke neighborly about maintaining the remaining herd at about 100 or so members, chiefly through birth control measures. To be on the safe side, however, Third District Congressman Walter Jones Jr., R-N.C., worked with Carteret County officials and horse lovers whose aim was to participate in managing the herd. It has always been and remains the wishes of countians, with support from the scientific community, to maintain the herd at about 100 horses. Bolstering this are Dr. Dan Rubenstein of Princeton University and Dr. Gus Cothran of the University of Kentucky, Department of Veterinary Science, who believe the horse population should stay at about 100 horses. Congressman Jones introduced legislation, H.R. 875, specifying that the herd be maintained at not less than 100 horses, prohibits removal of any horses unless their numbers exceed 110 and allows citizen input in the management of the horses through the nonprofit Foundation for Shackleford Horses Inc. Maureen Finnerty, NPS associate director for Park Operations and Education, told the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands April 10 that the NPS intends ``to maintain a representative herd of free-roaming horses on Shackleford Banks,'' but if Congressman Jones' legislation passes Congress, NPS will recommend that the president veto the bill. The NPS management plan turns out to be a sleight of hand trick in that it does not define a ``representative herd.'' NPS could claim to be meeting the management plan by allowing 20 or even fewer horses to remain on the banks. It does indeed appear that the NPS is more concerned with managing the vegetation on the island than the horses. This is high-handed arrogance. By law, the NPS owns the horses, but again by law, the NPS is mandated to manage the resources, which includes the island, its vegetation and the horses, all for the public good, not for the good of NPS. Consider that-- Visitors to Carteret County spend an estimated $150 per day generating over $200 million annually in the county's economy. Fifteen county businesses make an annual living taking visitors and residents to Shackleford to view the horses. Both Gov. Jim Hunt and Betty McCain, secretary of the N.C. Department of Cultural Resources, feel it is incumbent to maintain ``this cultural resource'' for the future. They each support Rep. Jones' legislation. The underhanded recalcitrance on the part of the NPS has caused us to rethink our initial belief that the NPS was acting in good faith. It now appears that the initial protesters were correct and that the real NPS goal is to remove the mustangs from Shackleford Banks. What other conclusion can be drawn from the NPS' bull-headedness on this issue? Congressman Jones will present his bill to the House Committee on Resources Wednesday. In an effort to prevent any citizen input in its management of the horses, the NPS is pulling out all the stops. For a while, it seemed the NPS favored this management plan as well. But suddenly, the NPS objected to Congressman Jones' legislation. Calling Congressman Jones' legislation a ``disturbing precedent that will lead to legislation being proposed each time a management decision is questioned,'' If the NPS prevails, it will be a slap in the face to the caring citizens of Carteret County, and possibly a looming death warrant for the wild mustangs who have thrilled generations of countians and tourists who trek to the island to watch these splendid animals in their natural environment. We strongly urge the NPS to back off and show good faith in this matter. To do less would invite unpleasantness, given the strong community feeling for these animals and their importance to the vanishing heritage of down east Carteret County.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue of United States troops in Bosnia, I sincerely believe enough is enough. First President Clinton said that America's commitment in Bosnia would only last one year. Then he announced the extension of our military presence in Bosnia until June 1998. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed to learn that the President has indicated that American troops may be there even longer. Our troops have been in Bosnia long enough. They should not spend another day in Bosnia. I believe that our soldiers should not be placed in harm's way for a mission that is not in America's vital national interest. Our troops have been in Bosnia for 2 years and the American public still questions our role. Mr. Speaker, is this mission truly in our national interest? Have we not achieved our goal? When will we be able to bring our troops home? President Clinton stated this past weekend that progress in Bosnia has been slow. As we all know, the conflict in Bosnia is a regional conflict that resulted from centuries of hate among ethnic groups. It cannot be solved quickly. The fact is America has already fulfilled our commitment made under the Dayton peace accord. At present, America has dedicated more than $6 billion to the Bosnia mission. I want to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. At the present time America has dedicated more than $6 billion to the Bosnia mission. Every dollar we spend on this mission is a dollar we cannot spend on critical military priorities, like research and development, procurement or troop readiness. The military budget is already being drained and costs like this one in Bosnia only makes it harder. I hate to think that we are closing military bases due to the shrinking defense budget and yet we continue to spend billions of dollars on a regional conflict in Bosnia. This is not in the best interests of the American people. The United States can no longer afford to be the world's policeman. Although we are the most powerful Nation in the world, the simple fact is we just cannot have American troops peacekeeping between every warring faction around the world. Although the President is the Commander-in-Chief, Congress has a vital role and a necessary role in determining military policy. President Clinton has misled us long enough about the troops in Bosnia. At this point there is no telling how long he plans to keep our troops in Bosnia. When the lives of American soldiers are at stake, we in Congress have a responsibility to make our voices heard. For too long our troops in Bosnia have been forgotten. I urge my colleagues to join the bipartisan effort to bring our troops home by the end of this year, 1997.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Smith- Oberstar-Hyde-Barcia amendment. I find it ironic that today the U.S. Congress is honoring Mother Teresa for her devotion to protecting the lives of the world's children, born and unborn, and yet the American government is contradicting itself by sending money to pay for abortions in other countries. This is an outrage. Each year Congress authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars for family planning organizations which in turn use the money for population control activities. These groups perform and promote abortion worldwide so in essence this American money ends up paying for abortions. The majority of the American public is opposed to spending their tax dollars on federally funded abortions. Let us not forget that we are elected to serve the people of America. Surveys have shown time after time that the people, no matter how they feel on the abortion issue, are adamantly opposed to their tax dollars paying for abortions. It is not fair and it is wrong that the U.S. Government continues to go against the will of the taxpayer. The fact that American tax money is spent overseas on abortion not only goes against the wishes of the taxpayer, it is anti-family. We are talking about the lives of innocent children. The allocation of this foreign aid money contradicts the ideals that this Congress claims to support. It is wrong for the U.S. Government to set the social agenda for other countries. I urge my colleagues to protect life. Support the Smith amendment.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I come before this body today in honor of Arthritis Awareness Month. This month is set aside to increase the public's knowledge about arthritis, and the many related diseases which affect the joints, bones, muscles, skin, and other connective tissues. Arthritis and its related diseases are among the most common causes of chronic pain, disability, and disfigurement in Americans today. These diseases occur at all ages, impair the quality of life, and many require medical care and attention over long periods of time. Health experts estimate that by the year 2020, when the Baby Boom generation approaches the prime years for the onset of chronic illnesses, 60 million Americans will have arthritis, a 50 percent increase over today's estimate. Currently, the combined cost to society of medical care and lost wages for arthritis and related diseases is estimated to be at least $143 billion a year. Arthritis is the No. 1 cause of disability in America. It can limit everyday activities, such as dressing, climbing stairs, and getting in and out of bed, for approximately 7 million Americans. This figure is expected to increase to 12 million by the year 2020. Though these figures are astounding, they do not truly make an impact until arthritis touches your family. That is what has happened to me. In early 1990, my wife of 31 years, Joe Anne, was experiencing pain in her hands. After repeated visits to our family doctor, we discovered she has arthritis in her hands. My wife is a very active, determined, and energetic woman. For example, when she was pregnant with our daughter Ashley, Joe Anne delivered calves on her father's farm. For years she was a high school teacher in our hometown. Now she devotes her time and energy to the horses she has bred and trained for years. Though she has not allowed her arthritis to stop her activities, she is in constant pain and has difficulty doing some things that many of us take for granted. Joe Anne and I are fortunate enough to reside in the great State of North Carolina. Our State's many opportunities have attracted some of the best and brightest minds in the medical field. In fact, there is a research center in my home State that is one of the leaders in the fight against arthritis. The Thurston Arthritis Research Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has joined the National Institute of Arthritis, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Arthritis Foundation to bring together a superior medical research team. They have dedicated their facilities to achieve their mission: to eradicate arthritis and ease the suffering of arthritis victims. The work these facilities have already done speaks to their skill and determination. Their recent breakthroughs are bringing us closer to preventing--and curing--some of the most crippling and costly diseases that affect our Nation. For example, researchers believe that treatments involving adequate calcium and nutrients, coupled with an exercise program, may provide the most practical approach to the prevention of osteoporosis. There is also an exciting new avenue of research which indicates that lupus may involve abnormalities in the body's ability to eliminate unnecessary, damaged, or potentially harmful cells. This process is known as programmed cell death. A better understanding of programmed cell death may lead to new treatments for arthritis. In addition, the studies currently being conducted which examine the causes of cartilage breakdown, and ways to stimulate growth of cartilage, will lead to new treatments in osteoarthritis. I support the ongoing search for a cure to arthritis. As we work on the fiscal year 1998 budget, I urge my colleagues in the House to consider the thousands of people, present and future, who suffer from arthritis and related disorders. The Thurston Arthritis Research Center and organizations like it are very close to a breakthrough in their research. Please join me in lending these researchers all the support you can. Your health, or the health of someone you love, could depend on it.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, Americans are working harder than ever before to provide for their families and to save for the future. It is not fair that Washington continues to take such a large share of the family's earnings, and at the same time continues to increase the deficit at the same time. The people of the Third District of North Carolina sent me to Washington to look out for their interests. That is why I feel so strongly about the need to balance the budget. The balanced budget plan assumes a gross tax relief of $135 billion over 5 years, which can provide families with a child tax credit and relief from burdensome taxes such as the death tax and capital gains tax. The plan also helps parents who want to send their children to college. It has been 16 years, it has been 16 years since the American people have had tax relief. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Congress to pass a balanced budget for the people of America.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, bad habits are hard to break. In fact, the longer one engages in a bad habit, the harder it is to break. Deficit spending is an excellent example of a bad habit. Deficit spending means spending more money than we have. This is what the Government does year after year. If we add up all of the deficit, we will find out that the national debt now stands over $5 trillion. Washington has not managed to balance the budget since 1969. The tragedy in this is that the politicians who vote to run up deficits year after year are not the ones who suffer the consequences of their spending habits. Who suffers the consequences? You guessed it. Future generations, our children and grandchildren, the children are stuck with the debt. That is not right, that is not fair to children growing up today who deserve the same opportunities that we have. Mr. Speaker, it is time to break the bad habit. It is time that this Congress pass a balanced budget.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, no, I will not yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, for 60 years this country has essentially run its public housing program the same way year after year. For 60 years public housing has gotten worse and worse. People living in public housing should have a right to live in clean and safe conditions, and taxpayers should have a right to know that their money is being well invested. For that to happen, we must make changes. This bill will eliminate the 60-year-old law which has given us rundown and unsafe public housing projects. It will give more local control, and it will require more responsibility from public housing residents. Mr. Chairman, for too long we have concentrated the poorest families in the worst housing. For too long we have punished public housing residents who work. We have had generations of children who have grown up in public housing complexes and never seen a parent or anyone else get up and go to work. They have only lived in projects that are covered with graffiti, overgrown with weeds and littered with empty wine bottles. The only business people they have ever known are drug dealers, prostitutes and food stamp hustlers. Mr. Chairman, that is wrong. With this bill we will begin to change the reality of life for poor children across America. For the first time in many of their lives, they will live in communities with people who work and who take responsibility for their behavior. They will live in public housing complexes that are held accountable. Mr. Chairman, this bill may not be perfect, but it makes the right changes in the right direction, and changing the way we conduct our public housing policy is the first step to getting positive results. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the bill.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue of Bosnia, America has fulfilled her promise. While many Americans, including myself and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, were opposed to deploying United States troops to Bosnia, we found some comfort in knowing that they were to come home at the end of one year. Well, Mr. Speaker, as we know, the President has broken his promise and has extended our military mission in Bosnia until at least June of 1998. Contrary to what some may say, Bosnia is not a vital United States national interest; it is at best a secondary interest. And contrary to the President's own declaration, Bosnia is not at the heart of Europe, it is a geographic fringe of Europe and devoid of any strategic assets. It is, in other words, a regional problem for Europe. So why then are we spending 6.5 billion U.S. dollars, and why are we placing a division-size unit of troops in harm's way if it is Europe's problem to solve? Well, perhaps it is because administration officials have repeatedly warned that, if United States troops withdraw, the Europeans will withdraw and the mission will collapse. Frankly, I am troubled by the implication that we are hostages to the Europeans' unwillingness to solve their own regional problems. The fact of the matter is that the United States troops in Bosnia have been forgotten. The old saying, out of sight, out of mind, applies to our men and women in Bosnia. That is why I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1172, the U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia Protection Act. This bill limits the presence of United States ground troops in Bosnia to the end of 1997 and prevents mission creep. It also requires the administration to report on the steps it is taking to prepare our European allies to take over the mission. Mr. Speaker, it is time for others to shoulder this military burden, as Uncle Sam already has a $6 trillion national debt problem of his own. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to bring our troops home. Please join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 1172, the U.S. Armed Forces in Bosnia Protection Act of 1997.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced the Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997. It is a bill which expands the jurisdiction of my original bill, the War Crimes Act of 1996. Last year I came before this House and told a story of a Navy pilot named Mike Cronin who had spent time as an uninvited guest of the Hanoi Hilton. I spoke of Mr. Cronin's time in Vietnam as an A-6 pilot and of his being shot down and taken prisoner of war and how he spent 6\1/2\ years living in a cage. Mike Cronin's story shocked many of you when I told you that upon his return to America he realized that while he and many others had witnessed horrible crimes of war being committed, no justice could be found within the U.S. court system because Congress had not yet enacted implementing legislation of the Geneva Convention. Well, a good number of you must have listened because I am pleased to say that last year Congress finally enacted implementing legislation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Held by the strong support of the State Department, the Defense Department, the American Red Cross, and many others, the War Crimes Act of 1996 finally signed into law legislation originally proposed back in the 83d Congress. The War Crimes Act of 1996 gave the United States the legal authority to try and prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes against American citizens. Additionally those Americans prosecuted now have available all the procedural protections of the American justice systems, quite a victory for America. The 105th Congress cannot and should not stop there. We must protect all the rights of our men and women defending the interests of our country abroad. It is for that reason that I introduced the Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997. I stand before this body today to encourage my colleagues to support this expanded bill. The War Crimes Act of 1997 expands the definition of my original bill to cover not only the grave breaches of the Geneva Convention but also a more general category of war crimes. The bill also includes important articles of the Hague Convention which has long been recognized as an important source of international humanitarian law with respects to means and method of warfare, and finally it includes the international protocol on land mines thereby insuring that the delivery and indiscriminate use of antipersonnel mines to harm civilians would constitute a criminal offense. While the bill is not retroactive, it can ensure that any future victims of war crimes will be given the full protection of the U.S. courts. My colleagues, it is a bill which would rectify the existing discrepancies between our Nation's intolerance of war crimes and our inability to prosecute war criminals. Please join me as a cosponsor of this important and critical legislation.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to announce the introduction of H.R. 1290, the Wetlands Restoration and Improvement Act. This legislation builds upon the mitigation banking bill I introduced last year and also the Federal guidance which was issued in 1995. My eastern North Carolina district includes a majority of the coast and four major river basins; specifically, 65 percent of the land can be classified as wetlands. The citizens are directly affected by wetlands and the numerous regulations that protect the wetlands. I have been contacted by farmers, business owners and State and local officials, landowners and even the military for advice and guidance in hopes of reaching a balance between protecting these valuable wetlands and improving water quality but also allowing for eco-safe development. Quite frankly, these different opinions have led to years of confrontation instead of reaching common sense solutions. I believe that in order to make progress we need cooperation instead of confrontation. It is time to find a middle ground on which everyone can agree on and everyone can win. This commonsense approach is mitigation banking. Mitigation banking is a concept embraced by regulators, developers and the environmental community. It is a balanced approach to improving the wetland mitigation process. Mitigation banking recognizes the need to protect our wetlands resources while balancing the rights of property owners to have reasonable use of their properties. Wetlands mitigation banking allows private property owners to pay wetlands experts to mitigate the impact their development has on wetlands. Those experts working with regulators do the mitigation in banks of lands which are set aside and restored to wetlands status. Years ago the Federal Government adopted a no-net-loss wetlands policy. Due to the belief at the time that a majority of the Nation's wetlands had been destroyed, a whole system of regulations were designed to stop further destruction of our wetlands, one part being the requirement of a landowner to mitigate his or her wetland damage. Quite frankly, traditional mitigation is not working. It is too expensive, time consuming and ineffective. Approximately 90 percent of onsite mitigation is unsuccessful. Mr. Speaker, unlike other mitigation projects, mitigation banks are complete ecosystems. Regulators usually require that more wetlands be restored in a bank than are destroyed in a project. So instead of only trying to protect remaining wetlands, with mitigation banking we are actually increasing wetland acreage. What is more, because the mitigation banks give economic value to wetlands, potentially billions of private sector dollars could flow into restoring wetlands and sensitive watersheds. However, Federal legislation is needed. Mr. Speaker, mitigation banking has been occurring but is very limited because regulators have no statutory guidance. Also, investors are hesitant to invest the money needed to restore wetlands without legal certainty. The Wetlands Restoration and Improvement Act will give wetlands mitigation banking the statutory authority it needs to flourish, and it will begin restoring the wetlands that many thought were lost forever. Specifically, the legislation requires the banks to meet rigorous financial and legal standards to ensure that the wetlands are restored and preserved over a long time, provides for ample opportunity for meaningful public participation, and, third, the bank itself has a credible long-term operation and maintenance plan. This legislation can and should be a bipartisan effort to ensure that in the next century we will do what we have to do in order to protect valuable wetlands. I hope my colleagues will join me, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this bill.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, the most distinguished jurist in American history, Oliver Wendell Holmes, understood perfectly the dangers of an oppressive tax system. In a famous 1928 case Justice Holmes wrote, and I quote, ``The power to tax is not the power to destroy while this Court sits.'' Mr. Speaker, how many new businesses fail because the tax man seizes too much of what little profit that business makes. How many new businesses would have succeeded if they had not been burdened by tax bills they could not afford? How many businesses decided not to expand because taxes could eat away at the profits? How many businesses decided to locate overseas to escape a tax code that punishes job creation? Justice Holmes understood even back in 1928 that when the tax burden becomes oppressive enterprises are destroyed and jobs are lost. Sixty- nine years later it is time to learn the lesson; it is time to cut taxes on businesses and let job creation flourish.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, on February 13, 1913, a day that will live in infamy, the 16th amendment to the Constitution was ratified. Twelve words, Mr. Speaker, just 12 words was all it took to give the politicians in Washington a permanent hand in the pocket of every working person in America. ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes.'' The rest, Mr. Speaker, is history. Who could have guessed that those 12 words would lead to our present state of affairs where the average family pays more in taxes than it pays for clothing, housing, and food combined. Mr. Speaker, that is not right. This is about fairness. It is not fair that the family living from paycheck to paycheck struggles to make ends meet. It is not fair that taxpayers should have to send over one- third of their income to the politicians in Washington. Mr. Speaker, taxes are too high. It is time to cut taxes for the American people.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today, March 6, 1997, marks the 161st anniversary of the fall of the Alamo in 1836. One of the most treasured memorials of our national heritage is the Alamo; millions of American and Mexican citizens travel each year to see where this epic battle between America and Mexico was fought. History records that approximately 184 Americans and over 600 Mexicans gave their lives in the battle. Each country fought valiantly, driven by a sincere love for their nations. At the Alamo, two known battle flags were flown. History teaches us that one flag was destroyed, and the other, the battle flag of the New Orleans' Greys militia unit, was captured by the Mexican leader Santa Anna. The battle flag was then sent to Mexico City as proof that the Alamo had been receiving help from rebel forces in America, and as proof to Mexico that Santa Anna had captured the Alamo. This flag is known to exist and has been seen within the last decade by legitimate sources. It is reported to be in the same basic condition as when it was originally sent to Mexico so many years ago. This valued and treasured artifact of Mexican and American history needs to be returned to its rightful place, the Alamo, so it can be displayed as a memorial tribute to the men who fought and died for their Nations' beliefs. At present, the Texas State Legislature has been authorized to pursue the loan or trade of three Mexican flags captured at the subsequent battle of San Jacinto in return for the Alamo flag, and also has funding set aside to assist in the restoration and preservation of the flag upon its return. At no previous time in history have our two nations enjoyed a better economic relationship with respect to trade and diplomatic relations. I ask that my colleagues and fellow Americans take this opportunity to reach out to our friends in Mexico, to request that the battle flag be returned to its rightful place at the Alamo.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation to correct the unintended reclassification of pharmaceutical-grade, FDA- approved egg yolk phospholipid by the Harmonized Tariff Classification System [HTS]. HTS is a world-wide standardized classification of items for duty. The implementation of HTS in 1988 was not supposed to change the duty on any item. However, unintentionally, HTS more than tripled the duty on this phospholipid, which is a unique component that must be imported by a North Carolina manufacturer. Pharmacia is a U.S. company located in Clayton, NC. The main product Pharmacia manufactures is Intralipids, a unique intravenous feeding solution. Pharmacia must import a key Intralipid ingredient because it is made only by Pharmacia's parent in Sweden. The duty on Pharmacia's phospholipid was set at 1.5 percent when Pharmacia began operations in North Carolina in the 1970's. Beginning in March 1991, the unintentional HTS reclassification of the phospholipid more than tripled this duty. My legislation would return the rate on the phospholipid to 1.5 percent for the period from March 29, 1991 until January 1, 1995, when the duty for Pharmacia's phospholipid and other pharmaceutical components and products became zero under the GATT Agreement. The unintended duty increase that was paid in the interim, $396,779.16, would be refunded. Mr. Speaker, there has been no disagreement that the duty increase on Pharmacia's phospholipid was unintended. The issue is a matter of equity. Congress should be very concerned whenever a growing company like Pharmacia is unintentionally taxed without equitable redress. I hope that a way can be found very soon to enact the legislation necessary to correct the unintended duty the North Carolina company has paid.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, Red McDaniel, a returned Vietnam POW told Congress: ``We were prepared to be captured; we were prepared to die for our country. But we were never prepared to be abandoned!'' I thank Bob Dornan for his leadership, and for introducing the POW/ MIA Protection Act. I ask that my colleagues support this bill to show those still missing and otherwise unaccounted that we still care,--that we don't consider them ghosts, and that they have not been forgotten by an ungrateful nation!

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman will yield, I really appreciate the opening remarks by the gentleman from Mississippi, my southern friend. But the gentleman from Minnesota talked about the first day and I think that is so important because again it was the beginning of the Contract With America. You mentioned the fact that chairmen were restricted on committees. I believe I am correct, please correct me if I am wrong, that a chairman will serve for 3 terms, meaning 6 years. The Speaker of the House would only serve for 4 terms, 8 years. And that was a drastic change in the operation of the House, because there had been chairmen that served for 15, for 18, for 20 years and Speakers that go back to John McCormack from Massachusetts who I think served for like 20 or 25 years. So that very first day, as you well stated, was the beginning of listening to the American people, that we were going to change the way that the Congress, the House of Representatives, operated. I think that set the tone for a very successful 104th Congress. I just wanted to commend the gentleman on his comments.

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman would yield on that point, would you please remind us of how much during the President's speech at the Democratic National Convention, how much he tried to take credit on the issues that were in the Contract With America that we passed, and now he is trying to take credit for, that we the Republicans passed? Would you please remind me of that figure?

Mr. JONES. If the gentleman from Nevada would yield for a moment.

Mr. JONES. I have great respect for the gentleman from Texas, Bill Archer, who is chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and I compliment you as well as the other committee members. One of the contract items that was absolutely vital to the future of this Nation, and Mr. Archer was out in front on it as well as many other Members, was welfare reform. I saw him on talk show after talk show defending what we were trying to do to help citizens that were on welfare become productive working citizens. I want to ask the gentleman this, and if he will respond, then I will stop. Mr. Ensign, is it not true that welfare has cost the American people, since the mid 1960's, the years of the Great Society, $5.3 trillion? And it is not also true that Bill Clinton, when elected as the President of the United States, for 2 years had a Democratic Senate and Democratic House and never a welfare reform bill introduced until the Republicans became the majority? Is that true or not?

Mr. JONES

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

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, a few years ago I served in the North Carolina General Assembly and as a member of the assembly I had a very deep concern about political ads, and in particular those ads that were intentionally developed to mislead and to distort factual information. My concern was that for a democracy to remain strong, we have to have informed voters and the people have to know the facts, and the facts from the fictions. from the distortions. Mr. Speaker, I have really been upset in the last few months and concerned that the labor unions throughout our country have been running ads about Medicare cuts and in my opinion outright distortions intentionally done to fool and to scare the voters. I think that is a tragedy for any democracy, because the strength of a democracy is informed voters and people that participate in the system. Mr. Speaker, as it has happened over the past few months, many of my freshmen Republican colleagues have been the target of those half- truths and distortions. In the State of North Carolina, my home State, two of my very good friends, Congressman Fred Heineman and Congressman David Funderburk have been targets, just like other members of the freshman class, of these distortions and half-truths. Mr. Speaker, I thought it would be good today if I could read an editorial from my district, I thought, to even make better points than I could make here on the floor today about how these distortions and outright lies have fooled so many of our senior citizens. I do not think there is any group in America that I feel more concerned about that would be misled intentionally than the senior citizens. And when I know that an organization like the labor unions have done this intentionally to scare them from voting for my colleagues it is something that we all should be concerned about, no matter what side of the aisle we may be on. With that, Mr. Speaker, I am going to read for you the editorial that I made reference to. It was Thursday, July 25, 1996. The Goldsboro News-Argus, and the title of the editorial is, ``Don't Be Fooled: Campaign Commercials on GOP Medicare Cuts are a Lie.'' Mr. Speaker, now I will read the editorial: People in public office should be accountable for their conduct. At campaign time, it is appropriate for opponents to focus on incumbents' voting records they feel might be contrary to the public interest. Hence, the AFL-CIO sponsored TV commercials calling attention to the voting records of Republican Congressmen Fred Heineman and David Funderburk on Medicare would seem fair enough. But they aren't fair at all. They are predicated on an outright lie--and the campaign to re-elect Bill Clinton is using the same twist of the facts. The presidential campaign ads claim Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich are trying to end Medicare. The AFL-CIO ads targeting Heineman and Funderburk pointedly accuse the two of voting ``to cut Medicare by $270 billion'' a year. The truth of the matter is that Heineman and Funderburk, like their fellow Republicans, voted to increase Medicare appropriations by 7 percent. How was the AFL-CIO able to twist that into a Medicare cut of $270 billion? It's done the same way the Democratic Party has been trying to scare the daylights out of the elderly and the poor all along. While Republicans in Congress have been working--in response to a mandate from their electorate--to get control of runaway federal spending, Democrats, typically, have been loathe do so. Democrats, and President Clinton, wanted a 10 percent increase in allocations for Medicare--more than double the annual overall rate of inflation. Republicans insisted on limiting the increase to 7 percent--not cutting the appropriation. While it can be argued that medical costs are outstripping the overall inflation rate--as they have done consistently-- one possible way of bringing this in check might be to put some sort of restraints on growth of Medicare costs. I won't be done by having the government continue to fuel runaway escalation of medical costs. All members of Congress should be answerable to the electorate for their voting records. But the people of this country should resent and reject political advertisements based on lies. Let me repeat that again. That ``the people of this country should resent and reject political advertisements based on lies.'' Mr. Speaker, that is my purpose of coming to the floor today. I think the strength of a democracy, again as I said earlier, depends on the information that is provided the voters and I hope that both sides of the fence will try to deal with the facts and not fiction and lies.

Mr. JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding time to me. Before I begin, I want to take a moment to thank Chairman Smith and his subcommittee counsel, George Fishman, for their hard work and efforts to bring this important legislation to the floor today for consideration. Mr. Speaker, now more than ever, we are sending our men and women to serve in hostile lands, and the specter of war crimes, looms over almost every U.S. military action abroad. As a member of the House National Security Committee, we have the responsibility of providing these service men and women with the best training and equipment available. But this Congress should not stop there. We must ensure that we also protect the rights of all Americans who are defending the interests of our country abroad. While it is difficult to believe, in the absence of a military commission or an international criminal tribunal, the United States currently has no means, by which we can try and prosecute perpetrators of war crimes in our courts. The Geneva Convention of 1949 granted the authority to prosecute individuals for committing ``grave breaches'' of the Geneva Convention, however, the authority was not self-enacting. The Geneva Convention directed each of the participating countries to enact implementing legislation. The United States never did. Today, it would be possible, to find a known war criminal vacationing in our country, unconcerned with being punished for his crime. A modern-day Adolf Hitler, could move to the United States without worry, as he could not be found guilty in our courts of committing a war crime. We could extradite him or deport him, but we could not try him in America as a war criminal. It is for these reasons that I have introduced H.R. 3680, the War Crimes Act of 1996. H.R. 3680 will give the United States the legal authority to try and prosecute the perpetrators of war crimes against American citizens. Additionally, those Americans prosecuted will have available all the procedural protections of the American justice system. I drafted this bill late last year, shortly after I met a gentleman by the name of Capt. Mike Cronin who spent time as an uninvited guest of the ``Hanoi Hilton.'' While serving in Vietnam as an A-6 pilot, Mr. Cronin was shot down and taken prisoner of war. For 6 years he lived in a cage. When he returned, he realized that while he and many others had witnessed war crimes being committed, no justice could be found within the U.S. court system because we had not yet enacted implementing legislation of the Geneva Convention. It is for Mike Cronin, and the many others like him who were persecuted, that I have fought to bring this legislation to the floor today. While the bill is not retroactive, it can ensure that any future victims of war crimes will be given the protection of the U.S. courts. This is a strong bipartisan bill, which will rectify the existing discrepancy between our Nation's intolerance for war crimes and our inability to prosecute war criminals. Once again, I would like to thank this body, Chairman Smith, Chairman Hyde, and Ranking Member Conyers for their support. Passage of the War Crimes Act of 1996 is a long overdue step in the right direction.