Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of the National Japanese American Historical Society's Day of Remembrance dinner honoring the Coram Nobis Legal Team. In the 1940s, three Americans of Japanese ancestry challenged the United States Government's order of a racially selective curfew and incarceration of Japanese Americans in internment camps. At that time, these three men were all convicted and their sentences upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Decades later, the Coram Nobis Legal Team challenged these convictions citing previously suppressed evidence. This team of young lawyers, led by Dale Minami, Peggy Nagae, and Rod Kawakami, worked hard on behalf of Fred Korematsu, Minoru Yasui, and Gordon Hirabayashi. All three convictions were vacated some 40 years after World War II thanks to the intellect and legal acumen of this fine judicial team. Their work has become an important part of the history of Japanese Americans in this country. I salute the courage and commitment of the young attorneys that helped to close such a dark chapter in our Nation's history. At the same time, their tireless efforts opened the door to Redress and Reparations for all those Americans of Japanese ancestry falsely interned in the 1940s. Together, these lawyers and their clients became eternal symbols of justice and freedom in the United States of America. They ultimately fulfilled our common destiny as a nation of equal justice under law. They will be honored by the National Japanese American Historical Society based in San Francisco, California, as part of its Day of Remembrance activities. Founded in 1981, this organization is dedicated to the preservation, promotion, and dissemination of educational materials relating to the history and culture of Japanese Americans. I strongly support its important mission. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in not only recognizing the National Japanese American Historical Society and the Day of Remembrance, but also in commending the attorneys who helped to successfully exonerate the wartime internees. Together, they upheld the very highest standards of justice in the American legal system.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Mr. Tom Takehara of Sacramento, California. A memorial service will be held for him in his hometown. I respectfully ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting a truly great citizen, father, and friend. Mr. Takehara founded Takehara Landscape Inc. which grew to become one of the largest businesses of its kind in the Sacramento area. As a landscape contractor, he handled landscape duties at many of Northern California's most prominent public and private buildings. As the past president of the California Landscape Contractors Association and an active Rotary Club member, Mr. Takehara earned a reputation for civic involvement. His membership in Bocho Doshi Kai and Wakayama Kenjin Kai, two Japanese American heritage organizations, is especially noteworthy. Having grown up on a farm in Sacramento County, Mr. Takehara was well-versed in the strong work ethic associated with agriculture in Northern California. He was known for always working hard to build a successful business and to provide for his loving family. During World War II, Mr. Takehara was forcibly interned with thousands of other Japanese Americans. Yet this social and legal injustice never prevented him for excelling in his chosen professional pursuits. As a successful entrepreneur, he started a variety of enterprises before founding his own landscape construction business in Sacramento. Yet commerce wasn't Mr. Takehara's sole focus. Family was also a major force in the life of Tom Takehara. He was married to his wife Toshi for 51 years. They had three children: Brian, Walton, and Denise. He is also survived by seven grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, Tom Takehara led a unique life in Northern California. He will be remembered as a loving family man, successful entrepreneur, and a great citizen of Sacramento. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in remembering him as he is eulogized today.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise in tribute to Mr. Art M. Inouye, Supervising United States Probation Officer in the District Court for the Eastern District of California. Today, as Mr. Inouye marks his retirement with his many friends and co-workers, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting his 25 years of federal service. A graduate of San Francisco State College in 1965, Mr. Inouye worked as director of the San Francisco Boy's Home from 1963 until 1965 and served in the U.S. Army Reserves from 1966 until 1972. In 1974 Mr. Inouye began his career as a federal probation officer. By 1979 he had received his law degree from Lincoln University Law School and been promoted to Supervising U.S. Probation Officer. Mr. Inouye's accomplishments in the Probation Office are numerous. He founded the district's firearms program and safety academy. He was also responsible for guideline sentencing training and implementation, as well as helping to establish a national program on enhanced supervision. One of the cornerstones of Mr. Inouye's career was his significant contributions working with the Federal Judicial Center, which included teaching, facilitating curriculum development, advising, training, and video production. As his career progressed, Mr. Inouye was promoted again in 1992 and became involved in the New Officer Orientation program. He also served as a facilitator of the Federal Judicial Center's System Impact Seminars. In December 1997, Mr. Inouye's many years of exemplary federal service were recognized when he received the Richard F. Doyle Award. This award was established by the Federal Probation and Pretrial Services Officers Association for outstanding work throughout a career. His award nomination at that time stated, ``Art is a national treasure whose hard work, dedication, and unique qualities have touched virtually every employee of Federal Probation and Pretrial Services nationwide. . . .'' Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saying ``thank you'' to Art M. Inouye for 25 years of outstanding service to the U.S. Probation Office. I am honored to wish him every success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise in tribute to Mr. Robert D. Cochran who will retire after more than thirty years of public service as a member of the Southgate Recreation and Park District Board of Directors in Sacramento, California. Mr. Cochran has made an outstanding contribution to the Southgate Recreation and Park District. As a dedicated board member, he has ensured that this special district operates efficiently and has advocated the need for updates to many of its policies and procedures. From 1971 until 1974 Mr. Cochran served on the Board of Directors of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. He has also been active in the Sacramento Council of Recreation and Park Agencies. In 1995 Mr. Cochran was recognized as a Distinguished Board Member by the California Special Districts Association. He was nominated for that honor by the very employees and board members with whom he serves in the Southgate Recreation and Park District. As a senior board member of an organization which oversees 35 parks and millions in assessment dollars, Mr. Cochran's contributions to his community have been invaluable. I salute his tireless commitment to public service. Mr. Cochran's remarkable work has earned him re-election to the Southgate Recreation and Park District Board of Directors every term since 1970. His staying power is a testament to his efficacy as a special district trustee. Mr. Speaker, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in recognizing Robert D. Cochran every success in all of his future endeavors in Banning, California.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise today in tribute to one of Sacramento County's most outstanding public servants, County Assessor Roger Fong. Today, as Mr. Fong celebrates his retirement, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting a great citizen, husband, and father. As a native of Sacramento, Roger attended public schools in the area. After his exemplary service in the United States Navy, he graduated from California State University, Sacramento in 1956 with a degree in Business Administration. Roger began his career in the Assessor's office in 1960. For the next 26 years, he held nearly every promotional position in that office. Then, in 1986 he was elected Assessor, a position to which he was returned in 1990 and 1994 by sizeable margins. During Roger's tenure as Assessor, he has focussed on bringing technological advancements to his office of 156 employees and a budget of over $12 million annually. He and his staff have maintained current ownership data and property value on more than 380,000 parcels in Sacramento County with a combined value in excess of $53 billion. Roger's leadership in the Assessor's office has earned him statewide recognition. In just the past 12 years, his professional tasks have grown immensely as our county's assessment roll has nearly doubled, as has the staff workload. The professional distinctions which Roger has earned are too numerous to list in their entirety. But they include recognition as the Sacramento County Taxpayer League's ``Tax Advocate of the Year''; California State University, Sacramento, ``Alumni Distinguished Service Award'' recipient; and the Sacramento Chinese Community Service Center's ``August Moon'' honoree. Although his professional pursuits have occupied much of his time, Roger has managed to make great contributions locally with his tireless community service endeavors. He has been an active member in the United Way, on the Sacramento Symphony Board, St. Hope Academy Advisory Board, and the Chinese American Council of Sacramento, among other groups. Roger has also maintained professional relationships with a variety of assessors' organizations. Among these are the Bay Area Assessor's Association, of which he was president in 1994. These memberships reflect Roger's qualities as an incredibly dedicated and hardworking individual who has always put the needs of his constituency above all other considerations. Mr. Speaker, the people of Sacramento have been the fortunate beneficiaries of Roger Fong's great professionalism over the past 38 years. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in wishing Roger and his wife Florence every future success in their retirement endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to rise in tribute to Mr. Howard L. Owens of Sacramento, California. Today, Mr. Owens will be presented the ``Lifetime Health Care Advocate Award'' by Health Access of California. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting him for this important accomplishment. In 1984 Mr. Owens retired as Assistant Regional Director of the United Auto Workers after providing 35 years of health care advocacy for the working men and women of that union. Since then, he has given an even greater amount of his time to the vital cause of health care advocacy. Mr. Owens has served as president and legislative chair of the Congress of California Seniors. Under his leadership, this organization has become a strong and constant voice for health care access and quality improvements. Mr. Owens was also one of the chief proponents of Proposition 186, California's universal health care initiative which appeared on the 1992 ballot. Today he is a very prominent advocate for the Patients Bill of Rights in Congress. He is the current president of Health Access California and has served in this capacity for more than five years. Additionally, Mr. Owens is the Regional Director of the National Council of Senior Citizens and the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California. As a tireless advocate for these organizations, he directs their efforts to maintain and enhance Medicare coverage and supports other efforts to ensure that adequate health care is available to all. Mr. Owens' many awards include the prestigious ``Consumer Advocate of the Year'' award which he received from the California Trial Lawyers Association. In his efforts to keep energy affordable and accessible for all of California's citizenry, Mr. Owens has also devoted much time to his service on the boards of both Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas & Electric. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute to Howard Owens. He is a fine advocate for the senior citizens and working families of California. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in congratulating him as he is honored today with the ``Lifetime Health Care Advocate Award'' in Sacramento.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would like to just refer a little bit to what the ranking member of the Committee on Rules talked about. We talked about bipartisanship this morning, and I think the new Speaker really raised his hands, and he obviously reached out. One of the problems, however, is in the rule that the Republicans have just offered; and that is, it would basically allow the Chair of the Budget Committee to be the Committee on Rules and pretty much do anything he wants. He does not have to have any finding of facts. He can basically direct the Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations and also the Committee on Ways and Means on the whole reconciliation process. This is not the way to start off in a bipartisan fashion. Secondly, we have in our bill, the Democrats, what we would hope that the Republicans would put in their bill, a provision that Speaker-elect Livingston 3 weeks ago talked about, he wanted to make it actually H.R. 2; and that would have been to take the Social Security surplus, the Social Security account off budget. As we all know, there is a lot of talk about using spending programs, perhaps the defense increase that the President and Republicans are talking about, tax cuts the Republicans are talking about, to use from the Social Security surplus. What our provision will basically do is preserve that surplus unless and until the Social Security trustees basically say that there is a budget surplus that exceeds the social security surplus. Right now, we are going to have $1.5 trillion worth of surpluses over the next 10 years. Nine percent of that is in the area of Social Security. If in fact we use that for tax cuts or for spending programs, we are going to really default to our senior citizens who will be retiring in large numbers during the baby boom populations in the year 2009 and beyond. We cannot afford to let that happen. This is a simple way basically to make sure that we preserve the Social Security surplus for future generations of Americans and not use it and squander it as we may do in this Congress if we are not careful.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose all four articles of impeachment. The articles allege conduct on the part of the President that is undeniably distasteful and unbecoming of our Executive. The conduct alleged, however, does not rise to the high standards of impeachment spelled out in Art. II, Sec. 4 of the Constitution--``Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' This standard, as evidenced through records from the Framers, history, and precedents, clearly describe only offenses against our Constitutional system of Government. I wish to be clear that for purposes of evaluating the impeachability of the allegations against the President, I have assumed they are accurately characterized by the proponents of today's proceedings. It is important to remember, however, that none of the material and information contained in the referral from the Office of Independent Counsel (OIC)--much of it inadmissible hearsay evidence--has been subject to any sort of cross-examination. the constitutional system of government The United States is divided into three co-equal branches of government. The Framers believed that the liberty of the nation would best be assured by each branch jealously guarding its prerogatives, thus ensuring that no branch would inappropriately extend its power over the nation, or usurp the power of another. Our Government is not a parliamentary system. The President does not serve at the pleasure of the Legislature. The Executive is the only branch representing the popular will of the entire American population, to carry out the laws passed by the Congress. Correspondingly, the Constitution sets a high bar for impeachment and removal of the President. The invalidation of the popular will of the American public as expressed by a Presidential election is not an act the Framers wanted to make easy, or common. It is an act that was contemplated to be undertaken only in the face of the most serious threat to the nation. This is especially true because the Framers understood that the Public would be able to express its displeasure with a President every four years through the election process. With this in mind, the Constitution affords the sole power of impeachment to the House of Representatives. Because the Judiciary was purposefully not given a role in the impeachment proceeding, the Constitutional standard is greater--a tell tale indication that not just any crime committed by the Executive warrants removal from office. This is a solemn responsibility, and one that should not be entered into lightly. In over 200 years of the Republic, the House has only once fully utilized this proceeding. The Constitutional Duty of the House of Representatives The Constitution gives to the House of Representatives the ``sole Power of Impeachment.'' The power of impeachment is not subject to review or guidance by any other branch of government. While the impeachment process has been casually analogized to the grand jury process, with Members of the House simply acting as grand jurors possibly sending an indictment to the Senate for trial, a careful parsing of the analogy, suggests a more involved role for House Members. A grand jury is a mechanism by which the State may commence a criminal proceeding against a criminal defendant. Both the Judiciary and the Executive branch--Prosecutors--play significant roles in order to guarantee fundamental fairness of the proceedings. However, in impeachment proceedings, the Constitution envisions that these vital roles will not be forfeited, but rather that House Members must combine within themselves the role of judge, prosecutor and grand juror. As Prosecutor, Members of the House must determine whether it is appropriate to consider articles of impeachment. As has been often noted, prosecutorial discretion is one of the benchmarks of fairness of our criminal justice system. As grand juror, Members of the House must act with personal and political impartiality towards the Executive in deciding the issue. And as Judge, Members of the House must determine the legal standards of impeachment--in other words, the Framers' intent of ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' In my review of the impeachment record, it is clear that the House has not exercised the mandated prosecutorial discretion in determining whether to proceed with the impeachment of the President nor acted with the impartiality required of grand jurors. Furthermore, I conclude that the House, as Judge, must conclude that the standards of high Crimes and Misdemeanors has not been met. I would like to focus on this core issue of whether the President's conduct is impeachable. The Conduct Alleged Is Not Impeachable The facts alleged on the part of the President by the OIC referral are not impeachable because they do not rise to the high standards of impeachment called for in the Constitution. The President shall be removed from office only upon ``Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'' As the text of the impeachment clause makes clear, the Constitution envisions impeachment for Presidential conduct that threatens the Republic. Impeachment can be further differentiated from a criminal penalty in that impeachment serves to protect the nation, not to punish a wrongdoer. The high Crimes and Misdemeanors should be of the caliber of Treason and Bribery to rise to the impeachment threshold. The Constitution created the impeachment mechanism in order to punish serious, official misconduct. Official misconduct on the part of the Executive that was not serious could be punished by the election process. The President, for private acts of misconduct, would be--like any other American--subject to the normal judicial process. Realizing that removal of a popularly elected Executive would be traumatic for the nation, the Framers set a very high bar. Notably, the Framers considered such a lower standard in drafting the Constitution-- ``maladministration.'' James Madison objected to this impeachment standard because it would imply that the President served at the pleasure of Congress, thus threatening the co-equal status of the Executive vis a vis the Legislature. The core allegations contained in the articles of impeachment are that the President lied in a civil deposition and before a grand jury about a private, sexual affair, and that he obstructed justice and abused Executive power in attempting to conceal and obfuscate the embarrassing facts of this private affair. Further, even accepting the argument of the proponents of the impeachment articles, that the President's misstatements are perjury--a great leap of legal faith--the Constitutional standard for impeachment would still not be met. It is inconceivable that the Framers could have imagined that the conduct alleged in the OIC referral threaten the Republic or our Constitutional system of government. As George Mason wrote in the Federalist Papers, impeachment was designed to remedy ``great and dangerous offenses'' attempting ``to subvert the Constitution.'' The President's sexual affair, and his subsequent attempts to conceal it, were distasteful, and possibly illegal, but it strains credulity to claim they were an attempt ``to subvert the Constitution.'' If they were illegal, they can be punished by the normal criminal or civil judicial process. Conclusion The House today ill serves the Constitution. The Framers set a very high standard for impeachment. They did not intend that the will of the people, as expressed in the election of a President, would be lightly set aside. Nor did they create the mechanism of impeachment to punish wrongdoing by the Executive. Impeachment was created to protect the nation--indeed, the Constitutional system of government--from serious, official misconduct by the President. There can be little doubt that the President's conduct as alleged in the report from the office of the Independent Counsel is reprehensible and embarrassing. History will show, however, it did not rise to the high threshold called for by the Constitution.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate some of the comments made by the gentleman from Illinois as the subcommittee chair of the Subcommittee on International Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means. This is essentially four noncontroversial bills. They all had either hearings, markups in the full committee or subcommittee, and some of the bills actually passed the House of Representatives. The first piece of legislation under the title is the Customs Pre-clearance and User Fee Act, and essentially this allows the Customs Service to use a Customs Service pre-clearance account for the purpose of pre-clearing passengers that arrive from Mexico, the Caribbean or Canada. It also establishes a $1.75 user fee on those passengers that enter into the United States through cruise ships. The second item is the silk scarf marketing bill. The United States and the European Community entered into an agreement that silks from China that are assembled and/or hand crafted in Europe can have the designation of the country of origin from Europe itself. This would be in compliance obviously with the WTO ruling. The third item, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) said, is the Miscellaneous Technical Tariff and Duty Provision Act. This has 170 tariff reductions or eliminations to it. It will allow products such as drugs that treat AIDS and HIV patients, it has anti-cancer drugs that can be allowed into the United States that are not available in this country and other noncontroversial items that have been signed off by both the administration, various industry groups and all of the affected parties. The fourth and last item is having normal trade relations with the country of Mongolia. Up until 1990, Mongolia was a communist country and thereby under the Jackson-Vanik provisions. Since that time they have had five elections, two presidential and three parliamentary, all of them without any problems whatsoever. They were free and fair elections. They have had most-favored-nation status now, normal trade relation status, since 1991. They have complied with the WTO and now are part of the WTO, and, as a result of that, it would only be appropriate to give them permanent normal trade relation status. These four pieces of legislation do have some revenue aspects to them, but, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) said, we do have some non-controversial provisions that would offset it by way of the Tax Code basically in corporate restructuring. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane) mentioned, it creates some ambiguity and some have been taking advantage of these provisions. It is a bipartisan bill, supported on both sides of the aisle, obviously, and supported by the administration. We recommend support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green).

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, just responding to my good friend from California, I have to say, why not allow the administration to take its action. The administration will take action; the gentleman knows it, I know it. But what we want to do is do a little political game here. That is why we are doing that.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that we are bringing this bill to the floor at this particular time. I am going to oppose the rule. I am going to oppose the bill as well. I want to bring a little light on this. First of all, this bill never went through the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means that had jurisdiction over this issue, and it had not come through the Committee on Ways and Means. This bill was introduced on the 9th of this month, and it was brought to the floor so quickly. We wonder why this was all happening, particularly in view of the fact the USTR, the U.S. Government cannot even act at this time. It has not even been 15 months since the WTO had made its ruling. Under the WTO ruling, which the United States has agreed to, 15 months must transpire so the Europeans can become in compliance, and that date is January 7. If we were talking about this on the 3rd or 4th or 5th of January, I would say that is very timely. We should be making these statements and taking these actions. But the fact of the matter is we are bringing it up in the waning days of the session. The administration has told Members informally they are going to take action, but they cannot take formal action yet because it is not January 2, 1999. Why are we doing this? We have never taken 301 action, the House of Representatives, never in the history of this institution. Why is this Congress doing this? We did not do it on semiconductors in the early 1980s against the Japanese. We did not do it for the movie industry. We have not done it for pharmaceuticals. We have not done it for aircraft. We have not done it for steel. We have not done it for autos and auto parts. But we are going to do it for bananas. We are going to do it for bananas. Do my colleagues know what? I have checked. The only place in the 50 States where they produce bananas is in Hawaii. In Hawaii. We are not even going to create jobs by taking this action. Hawaii only produces a very small number. They do not even export out of their State. So all of a sudden we are taking this monumental, unprecedented action for bananas. Not one job will be created by this. I have to believe that, again, just as we took a vote 2 weeks ago on fast track, which we all knew was going to be defeated, this Congress has destroyed trade policy. I hope every lobbyist that watches this debate understands what is happening with the Republican rule of trade policy. They have destroyed the bipartisan consensus we have had, because they want to take action to help people, lobbyists, because we know, we know because bananas are not produced in the United States, it is only to help multinational corporations. I have to tell my colleagues that again, again, the United States is going to be isolated on a little island. We only represent a small part of the trading world, we only represent a small part of the consumers of the world; and this decision and decisions like it are going to be regretted by this body.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 75th Anniversary of one of the nation's leading medical institutions, Sutter Health. As the Sacramento community celebrates this milestone, I ask all of my colleagues to join me in saluting the excellent work of the Sutter network of medical facilities. Seventy-five years ago, a group of Sacramento physicians joined together to plant the seeds of what has grown into one of the region's leading medical centers, Sutter Community Hospitals. The founders' passion for their community was matched only by their commitment to providing unparalleled medial service. From the founding of Sutter Hospital, the sophistication of medical services provided has grown with the needs of the Sacramento community. For example, in delivering more than 260,000 births since its founding, more than 8,000 annually, Sutter has become the leading Women's and Children's Services center in the Central Valley of California. Sutter opened Sacramento's first Cancer Center in the 1940s. This facility has flourished into a national leader in critical trials for treatments of prostate, ovarian, and breast cancer. Its pediatrics hematology/oncology program is one of the busiest in the world. Much of this research is in conjunction with the Sutter Institute for Medical Research--the largest non-university medical research center in Northern California. The Sacramento area's only heart transplantation center is housed at Sutter. In 1959, the region's first open heart transplant occurred there. Recently Sutter's Heart Institute was recognized as having the second highest survival rate in the United States. Sutter Health's tradition of providing leading medical care continues to this day. Its use of advanced services and medical devices not only provide the Sacramento area with outstanding care, but has also established Sacramento as one of the leading centers of medical excellence in the world. The quality of physicians, nurses, and other health professionals is superior at Sutter. For the past 75 years, its reputation for excellence has consistently attracted the highest quality medical personnel. Northern California has also been the fortunate recipient of Sutter's outstanding community service endeavors. In the last year alone, Sutter spent more than $51 million on community services, in addition to the nearly $100,000 it gave to our community's non-profit organizations, such as the American Heart Association and the Sacramento Food Bank. Over the years, Sutter's staff has worked to provide quality pediatric care to poor families in some of Sacramento's most neglected neighborhoods. Through its Keeping Families Safe and Healthy program, Sutter has helped to prevent child abuse and neglect, strengthen families, and improve child immunization rates. The Sutter SeniorCare program, an innovative way to care for the frail elderly in our community, helps older people with multiple heart problems live as independently as possible. In the last year, Sutter SeniorCare assisted 238 elderly residents in Northern California. Since its founding, Sutter Health has grown from a modest community hospital into a world-renowned medical center. This remarkable accomplishment deserves recognition throughout Sacramento and the nation's medical community. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in acknowledging the achievements of Sutter Health and proudly recognizing its 75th Anniversary.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of Sacramento's most inspiring citizens, Mary Fat. Mrs. Fat will be honored this evening by the Jinan-Sacramento Sister Cities Corporation. I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in commemorating her remarkable contributions to the people of Sacramento. Mary Fat was born Yee Lai Ching in Canton, China in 1908. She was the youngest of seven children in a prominent Hong Kong family. She became the bride of a young Frank Fat in 1924 in Canton. A traditionally arranged marriage, she never knew her husband before they were wed. In 1925, the couple saw the birth of a son, Wing-Kai. Frank returned to the United States where he had worked before in 1926, without his wife and newborn son. His objective was to make enough money to repay debts and support his young family. Frank quickly found work in a restaurant in Sacramento, California. Yee Lai Ching was not eager to join her husband in the United States. But in 1936 she and her son joined Frank in Sacamento. At this time she adopted the American name of ``Mary.'' She found a job at a Del Monte cannery in addition to her work raising a young son. Frank and Mary eventually had six children, four sons and two daughters. Their children were educated as attorneys, a dentist, and successful businessmen and women. In 1939, Frank bought a dilapidated restaurant on L Street in Sacramento. His hard work and Mary's assistance eventually established the restaurant as one of the best in California's capital. They forged a successful life together in both business and community activism which encouraged an awareness of Chinese culture. Mary strongly supported Frank as the leader of the Chinese community in Sacramento. With her help, he founded the Jinan-Sacramento Sister Cities Corporation, the Chinese American Council of Sacramento, and CAPITAL, the Council of Asian Pacific Islanders Together for Active Leadership. Today, with the tireless work of Mary and Frank Fat, CAPITAL is Sacramento's premier Asian American Pacific Islander organization, comprising 65 groups in Northern California. Yet the Fat's family life was every bit as prolific as their civic endeavors. Mary and Frank's children and grandchildren are following the example set by the Fats. They are positively contributing to their community and furthering awareness of the diverse Chinese culture which exists not only in Sacramento and California, but throughout the United States. Mr. Speaker, Mary Fat has devoted her adult life to supporting the civic activism of her husband and promoting the wealth of Chinese culture which exists in my home state. As she is honored tonight, I ask all of my colleagues to join with me in saluting her seventy years of great accomplishments and community service in Sacramento.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, today, together with my Ways and Means colleague, Mr. Neal, I have introduced a bill setting forth the Administration's approach to legislation addressing the tax consequences of electricity deregulation upon tax-exempt bonds issued by municipally owned utilities for the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. As my colleagues may recall, the Administration unveiled a comprehensive electricity deregulation proposal on March 24, 1998, which included a section dealing with the tax issues associated with deregulation. The 105th Congress did not have an opportunity to take up this or other proposals on electricity deregulation this year. However, despite the lack of Federal legislation in this area, 18 states have already gone forward and begun to deregulate electricity at the state and local level. My own home state of California has deregulated much of its market already. The era of competition has already started for the utilities operating in these states. Municipally-owned utilities have operated up to now under a strict regime of Federal tax rules governing their ability to issue tax-exempt bonds which were enacted in an era that did not contemplate electricity deregulation. These so-called ``private use'' rules limit the amount of power that municipal or state-owned utilities (``public power'') may sell to private entities through facilities financed with tax-exempt bonds. For years, the private use rules were cumbersome but manageable. As states deregulate, however, the private use rules are threatening many communities that are served by public power with significant financial penalties as they adjust to the changing marketplace. In effect, the rules are forcing public utilities to face the prospects of violating the private use rules, or walling off their customers from competition, or raising rates to consumers--the precise opposite of what deregulation is supposed to achieve. The consumer can only lose when this happens. The Administration proposal that I am introducing today would protect consumers by grandfathering already outstanding bonds, continue to permit public utilities to issue tax-exempt bonds for facilities involved in the distribution of electricity in the future, but eliminate their ability to issue tax-exempt debt in the future for facilities involved with the transmission or generation of electricity. In addition, because the restructuring of the electric utility industry is affecting the investor-owned utilities as well as public utilities, the Administration proposal includes a provision intended to address a tax problem that a number of the investor-owned utilities face in a deregulated world. Specifically, under present law, the amount of contributions to a qualified nuclear decommissioning fund a utility is entitled to deduct is the lesser of ``cost-of-service'' amount or the ``ruling amount.'' In a restructured market, if a nuclear power plant is no longer subject to cost-of-service ratemaking, it could be determined that the amount of decommissioning costs included in cost-of-service would be zero. To eliminate this possibility, the provision would change the present law limitation on the amount of the deduction by limiting the deduction solely by reference to the ``ruling amount'' I am introducing this legislation at this time in order to give affected parties, including consumers, an opportunity to review the bill and provided us in Congress with input on its provisions. With this input, we will be in a position to address this important issue more capably in the 106th Congress. I am certainly aware that there are other approaches to the private use problem, some of which have been introduced this year in the House and others in the other body. There are numerous policy and technical issues to be resolved in designing a fair and workable solution to this problem. The bill does not resolve all of those problems, and indeed, is intended to be a starting point for the consideration of the tax issues involved with electricity deregulation. Other approaches, for instance, providing an election for public utilities to live within the current private use regime or opt into a regime without the ability to issue tax-exempt bonds except for distribution and transmission, merit serious review and discussion. Even within the approach the Administration has taken in this bill, there are issues that might be decided differently. For instance, the legislation somewhat arbitrarily defines ``distribution property'' as output facilities that operate at 69 KV or lower. It is our understanding that this definition does not pick up all facilities used for distribution, and that a more flexible definition may be necessary. We welcome input on this issue. In addition, the legislation ties the relief in the bill to enactment of a Federal electric deregulation bill, which, of course, has not yet been enacted. Because states like California have already deregulated, public power consumers need this relief now. An alternate effective date tied to state deregulation activities would be appropriate. Another example of an important issue that might be addressed differently is the refunding of bonds. The legislation permits only current refundings of tax-exempt bonds within the grandfather of existing debt, but it also permits the maturity of the bonds to be extended for a limited period. On the other hand, it does not permit advance refundings. The legislation could be drafted to permit either approach to refunding, or advanced and current refundings without extension of the maturity term. I urge affected parties to comment on which is the more appropriate rule. Another complex issue on which we seek comment is whether public utilities should be able to issue bonds for generation and transmission where the proceeds of the bonds are used just to repair or make environmental improvements to existing facilities and are not used to expand significantly current capacity. The bill as introduced does not address this issue. Mr. Speaker, we plan to work with all interested parties including American consumers to ensure that we end up with the fairest, most reasonable solution to this complex problem. We want electricity deregulation to be a good deal for everyone involved, especially the American consumer who certainly deserves the lower electric bills that a competitive marketplace is supposed to provide. I urge my colleagues to review this legislation carefully over the coming months and welcome their input, as well as that of all affected parties.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise before my colleagues today in support of this legislation that will help pay tribute to one of the most esteemed Members in this House. Contained in this legislation is a provision that will rename the Yolo Basin Wetlands in Yolo, CA in honor of Congressman Vic Fazio. Congressman Fazio recognized the potential value of this area as a wetlands habitat long ago and has since played a significant role in turning what was once a dream into reality. The Wetlands represents the largest public/private restoration project in the West at more than 3,600 acres. The Yolo Basin Wetlands occupies a central location on the Pacific flyway and will benefit migratory and resident ducks, geese, swans, shorebirds, raptors and songbirds. For more than a decade, Vic has worked tirelessly to guarantee the design and construction of the wetlands area. He has been involved every step of the way, making certain the project meets Army Corps of Engineers construction criteria and has remained the key figure in securing the federal funds needed for the Corps to build the project. The gentleman from California is the first to recognize that the Yolo Basin Wetlands project truly is a cooperative venture--combining the efforts of local, State and Federal agencies as well as elected officials and private sector entities. In all, Vic Fazio has become the centerpiece of more than 20 individual and agency partners involved in completing this effort. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the conferees for their support of this provision and particularly appreciate the efforts of Chairman McDade to ensure that this language was included in the bill. As we say goodbye to one of the most beloved and well-respected Members of this governing body, I think it is important to remember the acts of dedication and generosity that define his career. I can think of no better way to recognize the more than 20 years of faithful public service my good friend from California has given to his community and his country than by renaming this beautiful wildlife area in his honor.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant.) (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I might just point out to the gentleman, my very dear friend from Arizona, that the President does not oppose fast track. The President advised the gentleman's membership in the early summer of this year that the votes were not there. He knew the votes were not there. The votes are not going to happen. They will not have 218 votes. The President was right about this. We are bringing this up for no reason at all except for political advantage. The gentleman saw the quotes in the newspapers from various Members, including the chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the State of Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge).