Robert Matsui

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, the question before us is quite simple. It is whether we will allow the Department of Defense to implement a base closure recommendation in the manner it deems most effective. Opponents of the Everett amendment claim it will undermine the BRAC process, but the recommendations of the Commission regarding both McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases is absolutely clear. In calling for the closure of these facilities, the Commission directed the DOD to either consolidate the workloads of other DOD depots or to allow private sector commercial activities. It is very clear what the language says. Let no one in this Chamber be misled. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] said, McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases will be closed as of July 2001, and they will no longer be Air Force facilities. Nothing in the Everett amendment will change that. What this amendment will do, however, is to strike a provision in the underlying bill that disallows the conducting of competition for some of the work now at Kelly and McClellan Air Force Bases. Let me just respond, if I may, to the GAO study that has been talked about time and time again by the opposition. In fact, the last speaker from Oklahoma talked about the $468 million that will be lost if, in fact, these bases do not close. These bases will close. The issue is whether or not to allow competition. This will save money. The GAO study is totally irrelevant to this discussion, because these bases will close. In fact, it will cost more if we disallow private competition in this situation, because these employees, the mission, will have to be moved to these other bases, whereas if, in fact, we allow private competition, many of these employees that have the technical skills that go back 20, 30 years will be able to stay at these particular bases in a private sector capacity, not in a public sector capacity. These bases are in fact going to close. We all know that. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Everett amendment. Mr. Chairman, the question before us is quite simple. It is whether we will allow the Department of Defense to implement a base closure recommendation in the manner it deems most effective. Opponents of the Everett amendment claim it will undermine the BRAC process. However, the recommendations of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission regarding both McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases are absolutely clear. In calling for closure of these facilities, the Commission directed DOD to either ``[c]onsolidate the remaining workloads to other DoD depots or to private sector commercial activities as determined by the Defense Depot Maintenance Council.'' Let no one in this Chamber be misled. McClellan and Kelly Air Force Bases will close. As of July 2001, they will no longer be Air Force facilities. Nothing in the Everett amendment will alter that fact in any way. What this amendment will do, however, is strike provisions of the underlying bill that prevent the Department of Defense from conducting competitions for some work now performed at McClellan and Kelly. The Air Force is currently seeking detailed bids from public depots and private industry for this work. Public-private competition will allow the Air Force to accurately determine which of its options under the 1995 BRAC law makes the most sense for our national security. Without the Everett amendment, the DOD would be barred from privatizing, even if that course proves to be the best value for the taxpayer. Ironically, while the opponents of this amendment accuse us of subverting the BRAC process, it is the language of this bill itself that does so. Despite the clear direction of the Commission that privatization was an acceptable course of action for McClellan and Kelly workloads, the Congress would be effectively foreclosing this option. We must not take the precedent-setting step of limiting DOD flexibility in its implementation of a BRAC recommendation. Many experts--including the 1995 BRAC Commission itself--have concluded that our national security would be best served by allowing the private sector a larger role in defense industrial activities. The Commission's Report to the President noted: ``Privatization of [DoD industrial and commercial] functions would reduce operating costs, eliminate excess infrastructure, and allow uniformed personnel to focus on skills and activities directly related to their military missions.'' Yet the Department is not moving blindly to privatization based on the many voices that have called for it in the past. It will take that step only if competition proves that the private sector will produce savings and protect readiness for the workload in question. Even the December 1996 General Accounting Office report, so often cited by opponents of the Everett amendment during this debate, concluded by calling for the use of ``competitive procedures, where applicable, for determining the most cost-effective source of repair for workloads at the closing Air Force depots.'' In a recent letter to Speaker Gingrich on this issue, Secretary of Defense William Cohen wrote, ``Our initiatives to increase competition and free funds for modernization are vital to our national security.'' If we do not pass the Everett amendment, we will be denying DOD a critical tool in controlling its costs. This body would be taking the untenable position of commanding our armed forces to manage their assets with complete disregard for the national interest. I urge my colleagues to reject that course and to support this important amendment.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment to this rule, House Resolution 169. I am outraged and astonished that the rule passed by the committee would deny the House an opportunity to speak about the critical issue of depot maintenance and repair. In its current form, H.R. 1119 contains provisions that would severely impact the ability of the Department of Defense to conduct competitions for its depot maintenance and repair work. The Air Force has designed a model competitive process for repair and maintenance activities now performed at McClellan and Kelly Air Force bases. Through these competitions, the Air Force will be able to accurately determine whether public depots or private contractors can provide the best value to the taxpayer in the performance of this work. Yet a component of this bill would prevent these competitions from moving forward. That proposal has implications far beyond the issue of whether Air Force maintenance work is performed in Sacramento, Texas, Utah, or elsewhere in the Nation. Through these anticompetition provisions, this bill would insert the Congress for the first time into the Pentagon's implementation of a base realignment and closure commission decision. Further, it would put the Congress in the position of dictating to the Pentagon how to manage its maintenance and repair activities, regardless of what is sound security or fiscal policy. That is why my colleagues, Representatives Everett, Sabo, Klug and Fazio have sought an amendment to strike the anticompetition provisions from the bill. Yet House Resolution 169 would not allow the House to consider that important amendment. The depot maintenance and repair proposal in this bill represents a significant, and absolutely unwise, new direction in defense policy. The House ought to have an opportunity to debate this matter. We must ensure that the Solomon amendment to the rule is approved so that this important debate can occur. I urge my colleagues to support the Solomon amendment and to oppose the rule if the amendment does not pass.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to join my colleagues in commemorating Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month and recognize the many achievements and contributions Asian-Pacific Americans have made to our country. I would also like to thank my colleague from Hawaii, Representative Patsy Mink, for arranging this special order. The month of May was permanently designated Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month in 1992. Since then, it has become a wonderful opportunity to recognize the many ways in which Americans of Asian and Pacific Islander descent have enriched our Nation. I would like to take this moment to reflect on the diversity and richness that have so benefited our country. Asian and Pacific Islanders have a rich history in America that spans over 150 years. As immigrants Asian and Pacific Islanders brought with them unique skills and abilities that enhanced the diversity and richness of our society. Asian-Pacific Americans added to the fabric of our culture through the sharing of values, customs, and perspectives. These same immigrants helped build our rapidly growing Nation during the turn of the century, expanding industries and cultivating farmland in the West. Over the years, the American experience transformed Asian immigrants as they have in turn transformed America. We, as a nation of immigrants, have shared the same hopes and the same dreams. As a diverse people, Asian-Pacific Americans have enriched our national character. In every area of society, from the arts to business, people of Asian and Pacific Islander ancestry have excelled. In the process, Asian-Pacific Americans have become an integral part of our country's past, and of our country's future. As one of the fastest growing groups in the Nation, recent Asian- Pacific American immigrants infuse a passionate sense of optimism in the American dream. America has benefited from their collective energy and vision. As these immigrants embrace the ideals and traditions of American life, we must also embrace them and the diversity and new ideas they bring with them. It is clearly in our national interest to extend to them the same opportunities and equalities that attracted all of our ancestors here. Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month is a celebration of our heritage and our contributions, but it is also a time for reflection. Amid the accomplishments of the past we must also remember the struggles and discrimination that Asian-Pacific Americans had to overcome. We must use this opportunity to redouble our commitment to the goals that have been the cornerstone of our Nation's great history--to build a country of equal opportunity and where people of all nations would be accepted. Asian-Pacific Americans are said to embody the values of hard work, commitment to family, and pursuit of education. These are not exclusively Asian values, but values we all cherish. During this month of celebration we must strive to uphold these ideals, because the celebration of Asian-Pacific American Heritage Month is ultimately a celebration of America. Because more than anything else, we are all Americans.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to commend the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and certainly the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] and certainly the President and his staff for putting together this agreement. I would call it a historic agreement, and it is. If, in fact, it is implemented as it is agreed to, then it will be a very good budget because it will carry out the priorities of both sides. It will have a modest tax cut and at the same time it will provide relief for legal immigrants that was taken away in 1996, it will provide new initiatives for children's health care, and certainly it will provide more resources for education in the form of Pell grants and increases of 25 percent in many of the areas of education. On the other hand, I must point out that I thank the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] for saying that many Democrats will be joining him, but for the last 7 years, in 1990, and 1993, it was the Democrats that basically carried deficit reduction. In 1990, as my colleagues recall when President Bush was President we reduced the deficit by some $600 billion. In 1993, with President Clinton, we reduced it by some $490 billion. That is why we are here today with a $67 billion deficit and on our way to balance. But I will say I am a little concerned, and I want to make one caveat. This is just a piece of paper. It has no force of law. The President does not even have to sign it. The real test will be the 13 appropriations bills and the reconciliation bill and also the reconciliation bills on the tax cut. Bear in mind, 1981, when Ronald Reagan said, ``We're going to balance the budget, we're going to cut taxes and we're going to increase defense.'' He said he was going to balance the budget by 1984. My colleagues know that did not happen. I just heard some of my friends on the other side of the aisle talking about the tax cuts, the capital gains tax cuts, the cuts in the estate tax, the child credit of $500, and also the IRA's. If we add all those up as introduced in the Contract With America, we are talking about 600 billion dollars' worth of tax cuts over the next 10 years. We will find ourselves in the same mess we did in the 1980's unless we are willing to implement this agreement as it was agreed upon by all the parties. I reserve the right, I think with my colleagues, that on the individual appropriations and individual reconciliation, we certainly will be in a position to examine those very closely.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1463, as amended, to authorize fiscal year 1988-99 appropriations for the U.S. Customs Service, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the U.S. International Trade Commission. The Committee on Ways and Means has a long tradition of strong bipartisan support for the work of these three major trade agencies within its jurisdiction. The bill recognizes and supports the essential functions and activities of these trade agencies by authorizing the funding levels requested by the President. The bill also reflects overall budgetary constraints by authorizing the minimum amounts necessary for each of these agencies to carry out their statutory responsibilities. The Customs Service has undergone a major reorganization, and it is modernizing its operations in order to carry out its main functions of trade law enforcement and revenue collections in addition to illegal drug interdiction and cargo and passenger processing in an effective and cost-efficient manner. The authorized funding increase for Customs is only about 3 percent, and it reflects these savings while providing additional resources to counteract drug smuggling and to update equipment. I might point out that the Customs Commissioner, George Weise, was formerly a member of the House Committee on Ways and Means staff. He was the staff director of the Subcommittee on Trade before resuming his role at the Customs Service, and Mr. Weise has announced recently that he will be retiring from that service, and we wish him the best of luck and obviously offer him all the congratulations for all the wonderful work he has done. The authorization for the Office of U.S. Trade Representative covers cost to maintain current services and current staffing levels. The amounts are modest and justified for an agency which Congress has granted the primary responsibility for developing and coordinating the Nation's trade policies and for conducting trade negotiations. The ITC has streamlined its operations by reducing staff by over 20 percent since 1992, consolidating offices and increasing productivity. A 3- percent increase in authorization for the fiscal year 1998 maintains a current level of services and staff levels for the ITC to conduct its investigatory functions under the various import statutes and to apply objective analysis and advisory reports of the President and the Congress. The bill also authorizes additional funds for the year 1999 requested by the ITC to cover the estimated costs to conduct so-called sunset reviews of 315 outstanding antidumping and countervailing duties orders as required by the Uruguay round implementation legislation of 1994. During the markup and also during the hearing on this particular matter, I indicated to the ITC officials that should they need more resources, given the fact that they have 315 antidumping and countervailing duty orders to review, they should come back to our committee because certainly we want to make sure that they complete these reviews in a timely manner. I would now conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the Subcommittee on Trade has held oversight hearings on the budget request and reviewed the activities of all three of these agencies as indicated by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane]. There is no known opposition to the authorization levels in the bill as reported by the committee, and I certainly urge passage of H.R. 1463.

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

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as the he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Stark].

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is no one that could really oppose this resolution, and I thank the gentleman on tax day for bringing it up. Resolution 109 is one in which bipartisan support will occur. Basically it says expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the American family deserves tax relief, the American family currently pays too much of their hard-earned taxes whereas every American works 120 days, in 1997, to pay for his or her share of taxes. We need to keep more money to invest in our children's future, purchase homes, or start a business. Now we are asking for tax relief that the President and Congress worked together on. I might just also point out, however, in this discussion that April 15 is another day. Not only do over 100 million Americans pay their taxes by filing their tax returns, but also this Congress, this institution, has a responsibility as well, one that I think we will not talk too much about today; maybe on the floor of the House in this moment may be the only time we talk about it, but on April 15, according to the law, this is a law that was passed on July 12 signed by the President, President Nixon incidentally, on July 12, 1974. It says on or before April 15 of each year the Committee on the Budget of each House; that is the House and the Senate, shall report to the House the first concurrent resolution on the budget. It should do a comparison of revenues and expenditures and a comparison of the appropriate levels of the total budget outlays and total new budget authority. And so essentially what this law says; this is the law of the land, that on the 15th of April we have a budget resolution. Now we do not have a budget resolution. In fact this is the first time in 10 years, in 10 years, that we have not even had the Committee on the Budget come out with a budget resolution. I think it even goes further back than that, but I just wanted to take the last 10 years, since Democrats have been in control for 7 of those years, and Republicans in control 3 of those years. But in the last 10 years the Committee on the Budget has had a budget resolution out. This is the first time not only we do not have a bill on the floor, on the floor of the Senate, on the floor of the House, but the committees of the House and Senate have not come up with a budget resolution. The reason that is important, the reason that is important is because for the gentleman's wish, the maker of this resolution, those that will support it, for our wish to come true; that is for tax relief for the average American family, one has to have a budget resolution because we all agree, we have all agreed that by the year 2002 we want a balanced Federal budget. That is not a goal, that is a demand by both the House, the Senate, and the President. We want a balanced Federal budget. But in order to do that, one has to get the revenues of the Government, the expenditures of the Government and has to factor in our tax laws. And in order to come up with the tax provisions we have to figure out how we are going to balance the Federal budget. And so this resolution is great, it is wonderful, but the fact of the matter is it is like taking a gun and shooting blanks; and the gentleman talked about, well, let us start the debate as to how we are going to get tax relief. We have been debating this for quite some time. Why do we not just now have the Committee on the Budget of the House and the Senate come up with a resolution, bring it to the floor of the House so we can vote on it because that determines the priorities, that determines the priorities of each and every Member of this institution and each and every Member of the other body. Let me conclude by making one further observation. The gentleman said he wanted tax relief for middle-income families; that is a child credit. The gentleman says that he wants to eliminate the estate taxes. And the gentleman says he wants capital gains relief. I am assuming that means eliminating the capital gains tax. I add that all up, tax relief for children, if we want to do a $300 per child credit or $500 per child credit. The estimate is that a revenue loss will occur of $109 billion over the next 6 years. If we want to eliminate the estate and gift tax, that is a loss of $136 billion over 6 years, and if we eliminate the capital gains tax, that is a loss of $334 billion over 6 years; and that means essentially those three tax credits or tax deductions that the gentleman favors will result in a loss of $569 billion over the next 6 years. Now what we really should be talking about, we should show the courage, how are we going to come up with that kind of tax relief? Are we going to cut Social Security, are we going to cut Medicare, are we going to significantly reduce the CPI; that is, almost eliminate the cost-of-living adjustment? These are the issues we should be discussing. That is what we are being paid here for. That is what the American public sent us last November to make a decision on, not really to pass resolutions that no one opposes. The real debate in America should be about priorities. It should be about what we stand for, what our values are, what we want to do with our country in the next 10, 20 years. And tax relief should be a component of it, but also taking care of our children, taking care of educational needs, certainly taking care of senior citizens; that should all be part of the component, and the only way to do that is by having a budget. I would just like to see my colleagues find a way to have a budget resolution brought to the floor this week, if not this week next week, but I bet anything we will not have a budget resolution to the floor of the House even in the month, the entire month, of April; and the reason for it is because many Members do not want to make the tough decisions, the tough decisions on how to apportion tax relief and spending provisions and spending cuts. These are the decisions we should be making. We are not being paid to pass resolutions that have no meaning. We are being paid to make the tough decisions of America. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Missouri has the copy of the code there, and I will not ask, because I do not want to get involved in a rhetorical debate, but I would only point out to him that this resolution does not change one word, it does not eliminate one page in that document. That is just what we are trying to bring up today. We are not trying to say people are not entitled to tax relief. We are all going to be voting for the prior bill that is antibrowsing legislation. I was the originator, along with the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], last year on the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights, which gave significant protections to taxpayers, and we intend to do it again this year or 1998. So we want to make substantive changes and actually do some of the things the gentleman suggested. However, this resolution does not do anything to that big Tax Code there, nor does it reduce it one word nor one page. I might just finally conclude by making another observation. The reason I raised those numbers, $579 billion, was not to suggest that it should not go back to the American public. It is just that if we want to balance the budget, we have to come up with other spending cuts or revenue offsets in order to make up the difference, and then we have to ask ourselves, should it be Social Security? In other words, should we cut Social Security from seniors? Should we cut Medicare from senior citizens? Shall we cut Medicaid again and again and take money away from children? These are the issues we have to discuss. The reason we raise these numbers is not to create problems, but it is merely to point out that we have to make the tough decisions, and a paper like this does not do it. This is really a matter for a special order; it should not be part of a legislative process. I do not know why we even raise this issue today. As I said, no one is going to vote against it, because it is noncontroversial, it is kind of harmless. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I might just point out again, this resolution is one we should all support, since it is really harmless. But it basically says that the House of Representatives should urge ourselves to work for permanent tax relief for the American public. I have no objections to urging ourselves to work for permanent tax relief for the American public. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois, the chair of the Subcommittee on Trade for yielding me this time. Of course I thank the ranking member of the committee as well. I appreciate this. This is in the spirit of Hershey and bipartisanship. Mr. Speaker, I would only like to support Senate Joint Resolution 5 as well. I think that this resolution is vitally needed given the fact that we need a waiver and a grandfather specifically for the next U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky. As everyone knows, Ambassador Barshefsky has been the Deputy USTR now for 4 years, and she has been perhaps one of the greatest representatives we have had in terms of overseas negotiations. Most recently under her leadership as acting USTR, the United States completed a multilateral agreement, the Information Technology Agreement, which will cover over $500 billion in global trade, and just recently, in the last month, she and her staff have completed the basic Telecommunications Services Agreement, which will actually cover over 90 percent of the global population and perhaps have an additional to $600 billion worth of trade, and so I urge that we adopt Senate Joint Resolution 5 to make Charlene Barshefsky the next U.S. Trade Representative.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Col. James G. Sandman, U.S. Air Force retired, for exceptional service to the community of Sacramento while serving as executive vice president of the Sacramento Association of Realtors since 1979. After 17 years of dedicated service, he and his wife, Barbara, are retiring. A native Californian, Colonel Sandman's contributions have not been limited to his service with SAR. A member of a prominent Stockton family, he was graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point in 1947 and went on to a distinguished career in the U.S. Air Force until retiring in 1976. One of the highlights of Colonel Sandman's Air Force career was to be stationed at the newly opened Air Force Academy for the graduation of the first class of Air Force cadets. While serving in the Air Force, Colonel Sandman contributed to his country in a number of very important roles. He served as a command pilot and navigator during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, served on the Pentagon's Command and Control Staff, was part of a special exchange program and attended the Royal Air Force Staff College in the United Kingdom. His last tour of duty was commander of the Air Force Recruitment Wing for the Western Region. At one point, Colonel Sandman was chosen as the subject for a recruiting poster which was nationally distributed and displayed. During his military career, Colonel Sandman was honored with the Legion of Merit with an Oak Leaf Cluster, the Air Medal, and the Meritorious Service Medal. Immediately following his Air Force career, Colonel Sandman established himself in the Sacramento community by working on various political campaigns and managing a highly successful shopping center development project. As executive vice president of the Sacramento Association of Realtors, Colonel Sandman led the organization as it quickly established itself as a concerned member of the community at large. Under his leadership as its chief staff member, SAR became a major contributor to charitable causes in the community and could always be counted on in a crisis. Included among his significant accomplishments are the conversion of a board-owned book multiple listing service to a board-owned computer multiple listing service, the building of a state-of-the-art headquarters for Sacramento Realtors, complete with an auditorium that is used by many organizations in the community, and the initiation of discussion with six Realtor associations in the surrounding areas regarding a regional association system. Within the broader Realtor community, Colonel Sandman represented SAR with the highest of integrity and dedication. He served as director of the management committee for the Real Estate Land Use Institute, member and chair of the California Association of Realtors' Executive Officer's Committee, member of the National Association of Realtors' Executive Officer's Committee, and several other NAR and CAR Committees, including a stint on the CAR Executive Committee. He has also served on the California Department of Real Estate Task Force on Professional Standards. Locally, Colonel Sandman is a past trustee of the American Red Cross, is involved with the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, the Sacramento Area Commerce and Trade Organization [SACTO], and regularly contributes to a number of local charities and causes. As an association executive, Colonel Sandman distinguished himself within that group's ranks as well. He is a past member of the American Management Association and is a member of the California Society of Association Executives. He served as a board member and president of CSAE and was awarded that group's Association Executive of the Year Award in 1987. He also earned the ASAE's highest designation, Certified Association Executive and just recently was awarded the first and only National Association of Realtors' Lifetime Realtor Certified Executive designation. In recognition of these contributions made to his country, California and the local Sacramento community, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting James G. Sandman and wishing both he and his wife, Barbara, luck and happiness in their retirement.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my House colleagues and fellow members of the Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Phil English, and Congressman Jim McCrery in a bipartisan effort to promote economic growth and job creation through targeted capital gains incentives. This legislation is designed to be complimentary to a broad-based capital gains proposal similar to that passed by the House in the 104th Congress. I have worked for many years to enact legislation which provides critical incentives for high-risk, high-growth firms. In 1993, I was able to work with Senator Bumpers to enact the Enterprise Capital Formation Act of 1993. This new, bipartisan proposal is built upon that 1993 legislation and will greatly improve its effectiveness by: Shortening the holding period for qualified stock from 5 years to 3 years. Increasing the size of companies whose stock is eligible for the exclusion from $50 million to $100 million. Revising certain limitations to make the provision more attractive to investors. Biotech and high-technology companies are particularly dependent upon direct equity investments to fund research and to grow. A targeted capital gains incentive is crucial for encouraging investors, including venture capital investors, to purchase the stock of these companies, thus putting their capital at risk with a long-term speculative investment. These small venture-backed companies provide high-skilled jobs, grow very quickly to create more jobs and are aggressive exporters. Venture capital-backed firms have a much higher rate of growth than Fortune 500 firms. From 1990 to 1994, venture firms grew at an annual rate of 20 percent while Fortune 500 firms are powerful engines for job creation. In their first year, these firms typically have 18 employees, by their sixth year they have over 200. Finally, these firms perform 2 times the amount of research and development compared to nonventure-backed firms. Now more than ever, small companies need better access to investment capital in order to grow into productive enterprises. The risks associated with small firms has often been too great for venture capitalist. By giving a capital gains cut for investment in small, startup firms, the higher risks are offset by additional financial benefit to the investor.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute Dixie Wilks-Owens, who is retiring from the California Employment Development Department after 27 years of dedicated service. Throughout her career, Mrs. Wilks- Owens has earned a reputation among her peers as an outstanding communicator and public servant genuinely enthusiastic about her job and the opportunities it provides to affect positive change. Most recently, Mrs. Wilks-Owens served as chairperson of the 1996 Work Force Preparation Conference, a highly successful public forum on workforce preparation issues which was held in conjunction with the Federation of Conferences. While at the office of work force policy, Mrs. Wilks-Owens was staff to the State job training coordinating councils' planning committee. She prepared agendas and policy issue papers, analyzed Federal and State legislation and made presentations to the SJTCC, task forces, and other committees on work force preparation issues. Prior to this position, Mrs. Wilks-Owens was the manager and assistant deputy director of the EDD Marketing Services Office. In this role, she is noted for having developed the first biennial strategic marketing plan and for writing and producing the EDD employee handbook. In addition, she was an integral force in the planning, developing, and management of a full-functioning reemployment center for displaced legislative staffers left unemployed by Proposition 140. Additionally, she oversaw the planning and coordination of a broad retraining and reemployment program serving 5,000 former General Motors workers in Fremont, CA. Mrs. Wilks-Owens also served as a Federal legislative specialist in the EDD legislative liaison office. There, she tracked and analyzed Federal legislation, spearheaded the successful 1989 job service campaign and made legislative presentations. As an active member of the International Association of Personnel in Employment Security [IAPES], she has served as California Legislative chair, California vice president, California president, International Legislative chair and District XV representative and California Legislative chair. In addition to her professional pursuits, Mrs. Wilks-Owens has demonstrated a unique commitment to her community and is noted as a tireless volunteer and master organizer. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize Dixie Wilks-Owens for her outstanding commitment to her profession. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing her continued success in all of her future endeavors.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Aichi Kenjin Kai, a social and cultural institution now celebrating its 100th anniversary in northern California. The first large population of immigrants from Aichi-ken was established in the central valley during the late 1800's. By 1896, some 300 Aichi-kenjins had settled in the Sacramento region. For most of these immigrants, the standard of living was poor. Most of them carried their possessions in a suitcase. They made their living as seasonal workers, moving from place to place as jobs were offered. At this time in history, there was no welfare plan offered either by the Federal or State governments to care for such individuals when they fell ill or died. As such, this community of immigrants determined that it was necessary to establish an organization which would care for their fellow countrymen should they fall ill and assist their families when they passed away. In 1895, one of the first immigrants to northern California, Yoshio Yamada, recommended the establishment of the Aichi Club in Sacramento. He suggested collecting $50 to $60 from about 50 members who would then pay 15 cents in monthly dues. These fees were to be used to maintain a mutual aid fund, but was not accepted at the time. Two years later, this community of immigrants agreed to form the Aichi Club and opened a temporary office in Sakuraya Ryokan. The club's mission was to maintain a high reputation, respect morality and promote friendship. In the years following, the members used the club to share their joys, sorrows, and hopes for a prosperous future in their new country. Dues then were 15 cents per month and these fees enabled the club to assist fellow members who incurred expenses with medical care or funerals. The member accepting the assistance then paid the funds back to the club when they were able. For many years, the club operated this way and grew to hold great significance in the Japanese-American community. The Aichi Kenjin Kai today is somewhat different. Today, with greater mobility and affluence, the Japanese-Americans have moved to all parts of the State, blending culturally with California's population. Additionally, the singular interests the early immigrants shared have given way to more diverse business and civic interests. Other changes have reshaped the organization as well. Health insurance and ``Americanized'' funerals have impacted the need for the clubs' assistance in these areas. While the club still offers invaluable assistance with funeral plans and arrangements, its shift is toward a younger generation and its needs. To attract younger generations, the Aichi Kenjin Kai has begun to host an annual Aichi golf tournament. Structured as a team grouping event, the tournament successfully promotes camaraderie within the membership and is a draw to the younger Japanese-Americans who will be relied upon to take the organization into the next century. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize the many years of invaluable assistance this organization has provided to its membership. I ask my colleagues to join me in wishing many years of continued success to the Aichi Kenjin Kai.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a superlative example of the success which can result from partnerships between education and business. In Sacramento, Encina High School and Sutter Health have forged a partnership to rethink the way students are prepared for life after school. The partnership has come to serve as a model for other schools and was a large factor in Encina High School's recognition by the U.S. Department of Education this year as one of the Nation's 10 New American High Schools. This award recognized Encina's commitment to offer challenging academic standards for all students and demonstrates how new and innovative learning environments and career education opportunities can make a difference in helping all students achieve success. At Encina High School, small academies provide students with a nurturing environment that enhances their ability to achieve. Each student enrolls in one of the five career academies that organize the academic curriculum around a career-related theme. This structure customizes learning to accommodate a variety of learning styles, interests, and life experiences. The academies provide more one-on-one attention from adults, use technology appropriate to the course of study, and give students a better understanding of their field of interest by learning through doing in the classroom, in workplaces and through community service. The 7-year-old Encina High School Health Academy, in partnership with Sutter Health, has been recognized as a national model program. It provides a rigorous academic education with a health care focus. The program has enhanced the school-to-work transition by offering students many work experience opportunities such as apprenticeships and summer jobs, so that students can see themselves as a part of a productive work environment. The Health Academy program has resulted in improved student attendance, improved student learning, a greater student interest in continuing education--90 percent of the first year's graduates entered college. In addition to the Health Academy, Sutter has committed much more to the San Juan Unified School District. Sutter has established a health care link with the district, providing health care services for teens and pregnant minors, a physician and bilingual nurses to serve students and their families on school campuses, immunizations, medical screenings, and vision testing. Sutter Health has provided exemplary leadership by modeling the benefits of school and business partnerships and by encouraging other businesses to reach out to schools, especially in tough economic times. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting Encina High School and Sutter Health for their extraordinary success in this school and business partnership. This program illustrates a new approach to education I hope more school districts across the Nation will strive to adopt.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, the conference report for S. 640, the Water Resources Development Act, contains several important provisions for the area that I represent. There is no doubt that these steps will improve the flood control system for the city of Sacramento and afford a level of additional safety to the citizens of my district. Despite the inclusion of these provisions, I would note with grave disappointment that with the final approval of this conference report, another Corps of Engineers authorization will have passed the Congress without inclusion of a comprehensive plan to address the severe flood threat facing the Sacramento area. As a result, 400,000 people in Sacramento will continue to face an unacceptable threat of flooding. Our flood control system will be able to achieve the 100-year protection level established as an actuarial baseline by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Nonetheless, it will be far short of what is tolerable for a highly urbanized area like Sacramento. Given the very short warning period that Sacramento would have before a flood event occurred, this threat is more than just a matter of tremendous economic risk for our region. Lives will continue to be unnecessarily at risk until a comprehensive plan for protecting Sacramento from the American River is authorized and constructed. I am deeply committed to working for a comprehensive solution to this problem, and I am anxious to continue to build upon the progress toward such a result embodied in this bill. I would also like to take an opportunity to address one specific aspect of the conference report. Section 101(a)(1)(D) of the conference report directs that the non-Federal participant in the project for the American River Watershed shall bear only a 25-percent share of the costs associated with the variable flood control operation (reoperation) of Folsom Dam and Reservoir for a 4-year period. This provision modifies similar language in H.R. 3592 as passed by the House. I would like to underscore that it was the clear intent of the Sacramento delegation, in working with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on this provision, that the Federal share of reoperation costs would be nonreimbursable--in other words, that these costs could not be passed along to California water and power ratepayers. Only in this way will we actually limit the non-Federal share of costs associated with the variable flood control operation of Folsom Dam and Reservoir to 25 percent, as called for by the conference report. Finally, I would like to thank the members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, particularly Chairman Bud Shuster and the ranking member, James Oberstar, as well as Sherwood Boehlert and Robert Borski, respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. Without their assistance, we certainly would not have been able to take the important steps forward for Sacramento that were included in this bill.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, in recent years, Sacramento County has been increasingly troubled by the prevalence of the drug methamphetamine. Last year, the Sacramento Sheriff's Department made 1,117 arrests for methamphetamine charges, a number that greatly exceeded the amount of arrests for cocaine, marijuana, and heroin combined. The Sheriff's Department also discovered and dismantled seven methamphetamine labs, a significant accomplishment but one that drained the county government of approximately $40,000 of its valuable resources. This year, the Sacramento Sheriff's Department conducted an investigation that led to the arrest of four individuals and the seizure of 80 pounds of methamphetamine, valued at $2.9 million. Although law enforcement officials have made great progress, there is much more work to be done. I am proud to support the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, which takes a big step in addressing this very serious problem. In light of the public health, safety, and law enforcement challenges posed by methamphetamine in California and elsewhere in the United States, this bill represents an effective means of attacking its production, distribution and use. It is my hope that we will soon rid Sacramento County and the rest of the country of the terrible consequences of this dangerous drug.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of northern California's greatest medical resources, Mercy Healthcare, on the occasion of its 100th year of hospital service to this area. The Sisters of Mercy began making their mark on this area some 140 years ago when they traveled from San Francisco to Sacramento, then an emerging Gold Rush town. Once here, they compassionately administered to the poor and the orphaned, offering basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. Recognizing a greater need for health care, the Sisters quickly embarked on an endeavor to build an institution which would care for the medical needs of the people of Sacramento. Their dream was realized in 1896, when they opened the city's first private hospital. In 1897, shortly after they opened Mater Misericordiae Hospital, the Sisters started a training school for nurses. Over the next half century, the Mercy College of Nursing would train more than 600 nurses, including many young women who traveled overseas to care for the injured and dying victims of both World Wars. Less than 30 years after it opened, the hospital was closed and a new, more modern one took its place. The new hospital opened to the public on February 11, 1925. For the next 42 years, it would serve as the Sisters' only Sacramento area hospital, and the focal point for their evolving healthcare ministry. Throughout this period, Mercy General would provide many firsts in the local medical community. In 1953, the hospital campus celebrated the opening of Sacramento Valley's first hospital dedicated solely to the care of children, the 40-bed Mercy Children's Hospital. A year later, the hospital dedicated the J.L.R. Marsh Memorial Wing to care for children crippled during the polio epidemic, as well as adults injured in industrial accidents. In 1959, the hospital opened Sacramento's first intensive care unit; in 1964, Mercy installed one of the west coast's first electronic data processing systems for accounting; and in 1968, they dedicated a special unit to provide care for heart patients. Today, Mercy General's tradition of quality continues, hosting one of the Nation's best cardiac surgery programs and a renowned stroke program. As the region's healthcare needs changed and grew over the years, the Sisters were always poised to respond. Since the opening of their first hospital, Mercy has expanded its service to a number of communities in northern California. In addition to Mercy Healthcare Sacramento, there are now hospitals in Redding, Folsom, and Carmichael. In addition, the Sisters spread their health ministry south in 1993 with an affiliation between Methodist Hospital and Mercy Healthcare Sacramento, the organization that today carries out the Sisters' health ministry. Another affiliation between Mercy and Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital in Grass Valley was completed in 1995. Guided by the Sisters' values and compassion for serving those in need, Mercy Healthcare Sacramento is preparing to enter its second century of health ministry to the people of northern California. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in saluting the tremendous service the Sisters of Mercy have provided this region during the past century, and in wishing them many years of continued growth and success.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disappointment with the failure of the conferees to include a provision addressing the ongoing blatant insurance discrimination against the treatment of mental illness. Millions of American men, women, and children, from every ethnic, economic, and age group, suffer from mental illness. We have made great progress in recent years in diagnosis and effective treatment of these debilitating and sometimes life-threatening illnesses. Yet persons with mental illness must struggle every day not just with their illness itself, but also with the refusal of the Nation's insurance industry to end discriminatory coverage of their treatment. There is no reason for this discrimination, other than stigma and ignorance. Study after study has shown that parity coverage would save lives and money. The National Mental Health Advisory Council reported to Congress in 1993 that parallel treatment of severe mental and physical illness would actually save the national economy more than $2 billion every year. In April, the Senate adopted by a vote of 68-30 an amendment offered by Senator Domenici and Senator Wellstone which specified that insurance plans had to impose the same limits on mental illness as physical illness in areas such as patient cost sharing, drug coverage, hospital stay duration, and annual and lifetime caps. It did not prevent businesses from managing mental or physical health care. All it said was that insurers must apply the same restrictions on mental health care as they do to physical health care. During conference, Senators Domenici and WEllstone scaled back their proposal to require equal coverage only for lifetime and annual caps. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the revised proposal would cost employers no more than .16 percent in additional premiums-- literally pennies per day. This cost amounts to 3 cents per day per employee, or about $7 per year. It could have been completely offset by a negligible increase in the annual deductible, so that businesses would have paid nothing. Unfortunately, House Republican conferees rejected even the modest proposal for parity on annual and lifetime caps. There is, as a result, nothing in the conference agreement to specifically address the fair treatment of persons with mental illness. This is unacceptable. More than two-thirds of the Senate voted for mental illness parity, and 116 Representatives endorsed the Senate amendment. Mr. Speaker, this Congress and the Republican conferees had a real opportunity to make a modest but meaningful effort to reduce insurance discrimination against persons with mental illness. That they chose to do nothing at all is a lamentable rebuff to the millions of Americans who suffer from mental illness. We have to do better.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this important legislation and my great pleasure that it is before us this evening. H.R. 2636 is needed to facilitate the construction of a Memorial honoring the patriotism of Japanese Americans during World War II here in our nation's Capital. In 1992, Congress passed Public Law 102-502, authorizing the construction of this Memorial on federal property. Under the terms of the legislation, the Memorial will involve virtually no Federal costs. All construction and major maintenance costs will be paid by private funds. The National Japanese American Memorial Foundation, formerly the Go For Broke National Veterans Association, has already begun this fundraising effort. Land currently owned by the Architect of the Capitol has been selected as a site for the Memorial. However, in order for the construction of the Memorial to proceed, the land must be transferred to the National Park Service. H.R. 2636 would direct such a transfer to occur. In exchange, the Architect of the Capitol would obtain a parcel of land adjacent to the Hart Senate Office Building that is more integral to the Capitol grounds. It is critically important for the land exchange to occur this year. The 1992 authorizing legislation and other applicable law require that construction on the Memorial begin by 1999. Until the land is transferred, the approval process for the Memorial's design can not begin. Because of the many agencies involved, this approval process will almost definitely consume the next three years. 33,000 Americans of Japanese Ancestry served in the military during World War II. The all Japanese American 100th Infantry Battalion/442nd Regimental Combat Team was the most decorated unit in military history for its size and length of service--700 members of the unit gave their lives. When completed, this Memorial will pay tribute to the immeasurable sacrifice made by these individuals as well as the many other contributions that Japanese-Americans made to the war effort. This effort would not have reached this stage without the hard work and assistance of several individuals. The leadership of my friend and former colleague Norm Mineta in achieving the passage of the original 1992 legislation as well as his important role in developing this legislation was absolutely essential. In addition, I am extremely grateful to the sponsor of H.R. 2636, Jim Oberstar and also to Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bud Shuster. I also deeply appreciate the assistance of the Resources Committee, particularly Chairman Don Young and the Ranking Minority Member George Miller, as well as Jim Hansen and Bill Richardson, chairman and ranking minority member of the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee respectively. The Board and staff of the National Japanese American Memorial Foundation has also been critical to this effort. I would note particularly the Foundation's Chairman Emeritus William Marutani, its Chairman Mo Marumoto, Honorary Co-Chair Etsu Mineta Masaoka and Executive Director George Wakiji. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this body and in the Senate to achieve final passage of this important bill.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] for leading the way on this piece of legislation. We really appreciate all he has done as well as, of course, the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], and the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson]. I just want to thank all the gentlemen for all the help on behalf of the Japanese-American community.

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased that we are moving forward tonight with this important legislation, H.R. 3006, the Owens River Valley Environmental Restoration and Manzanar Land Transfer Act of 1996. This bill will allow us to complete the process of creating a National Historic Site on the grounds of the former Manzanar Internment Camp. During World War II, 11,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry were confined at the Manzanar Internment Camp. These individuals were some of the over 120,000 Japanese-Americans interned at 10 sites throughout the United States. The National Park Service determined in the 1980's that of the 10 former internment camps, Manzanar was best suited to be preserved and to thus serve as a reminder to Americans of the glaring violation of civil rights that the internment represented. As a result, the 102d Congress passed Public Law 102-248 establishing a national historic site at Manzanar. H.R. 3006 will finish this process by allowing the Federal Government to obtain the Manzanar site through a land exchange with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP], which currently owns the property. The parties that would be involved in this land transfer--LADWP, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and Inyo County-- reached agreement in February on a land exchange that can occur rapidly once our legislation is passed. All of these parties strongly support this legislation. When completed, the Manzanar National Historic Site will stand as powerful testimony to the tragedy of the internment. Through its ability to educate future generations of Americans, the site will make an important contribution to our efforts to prevent any group in the United States from ever suffering such a widespread abrogation of its constitutional liberties. I want to express my deep gratitude to my colleague, Jerry Lewis, for his hard work in introducing this legislation and moving it forward. In addition, I deeply appreciate the assistance of the Resources Committee, particularly Chairman Don Young and the ranking minority member George Miller, as well as Jim Hansen and Bill Richardson, chairman and ranking minority member of the National Parks, Forests and Lands Subcommittee respectively. I also want to thank Sue Embrey and the other members of the Manzanar National Historic Site Advisory Commission. Their tireless commitment to the realization of the Manzanar NHS has been the critical force behind this effort. Finally, we could not have reached this stage without the help of Director of the National Park Service Roger Kennedy, the regional staff of the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power [LADWP], and Inyo County. I look forward to working with my colleagues in this body and in the Senate to achieve final passage of this important bill.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Madam Chairman, yesterday we heard the chairman of the Budget Committee say that this debate was really about Judeo-Christian ethics. That is why I was somewhat disappointed last night when I read Congress Daily. In the Congress Daily we talked about welfare reform and we talked about what this debate was really all about. The chairman of the subcommittee that has jurisdiction over welfare was quoted as stating from a political point of view, the President of the United States is in a box. Madam Chairman, that is what this debate is all about--to jeopardize 9 million children who will be affected by this bill just to put the President of the United States in a box. What kind of people would draft legislation for political purposes to affect so many children of America? This bill is weak on work and tough on America's children. The Congressional Budget Office, their own agency, hired by the Republican House and Senate, has said that the 1.7 million jobs that the Republicans say will be created by a woman going off welfare is an illusion. It is deceptive, it is not going to happen, because they do not provide the resources for it. Their own agency has said they will not obtain those 1.7 million jobs. So this is not a jobs bill. This is not a bill to get people off of welfare into work. But the worst part of this bill is what it will do to children. Because of those time limits and because of the fact that the Republican bill prohibits the States from using Federal funds for vouchers or any kind of assistance after a woman meets those time limits, she will then become destitute, she will become homeless, her children will probably have to go into foster care, even though she might be a good mother. This is what this is all about. It is about politics to hurt America's children. I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Mr. MATSUI

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the commitment Sutter Community Hospitals has made to the good health of millions of northern Californians. For over 70 years, this institution has earned a reputation throughout this region for superior medical care and an unparalleled record of advancement and innovation. In this spirit, I am proud to announce the opening of the new Sutter Cancer Center, which brings together the talent, resources, and technologies necessary to offer an all inclusive program of care to residents of the greater Sacramento region and establishes northern California's most comprehensive cancer center. The Sutter Cancer Center, established in 1942, serves as a regional oncology center to more than 1 million northern California residents. The center has 100,000 visits per year and treats more than 2,000 new patients annually. Sutter Cancer Center's research activities have yielded important medical breakthroughs, including development of many new treatment options. Each year, the cancer center is an active participant in the prestigious National Cancer Institute clinical and prevention trials, and serves as one of the 10 registries for cancer surveillance. Recognized for innovation and clinical excellence, the Sutter Cancer Center's treatment program is on par with many of the Nation's renowned cancer centers and provides Sacramento area residents with vital community health resources to help prevent and detect cancer. This new facility is the culmination of Sutter's vision for a comprehensive, patient-focused center which brings together all the necessary resources to fight cancer in a single location. Designed as a healing environment, this premiere center provides the full compliment of cancer care services all under one roof, which Sutter believes will make the critical quality of life difference for cancer patients and their families. Committed to patient-centered care, the center has been designed to benefit patients in a variety of ways: Attendant-assisted parking, a separate entry-way, a one-stop registration center and linked information systems all will streamline the seemingly bureaucratic maze of medical services, help minimize travel and mitigate the accompanying stress associated with patients' therapy and rehabilitation. In all, the cancer center increases efficiency, eliminates duplication and enhances collaborative activities among our physicians and allied health professionals. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating a new era of treatment for cancer patients in this region. The Sutter Cancer Center is a spectacular testament to the spirit of institution and individual, and represents a cornerstone in the foundation of Sutter's vision for the fight against this deadly disease.