James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the underlying premise of H.R. 849 is not controversial. Persons illegally in the United States should not receive assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. However, as with so many of the issues that we face, the devil is in the details and there certainly were a number of details that needed closer examination. When we began several weeks ago to examine this legislation, several concerns arose for me on the details of how to ensure fair application of such a ban when there are dozens of agencies, Federal and non- Federal, that provide assistance under this Uniform Relocation Act. We raised those questions with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] and with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard], former member of our Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and together we worked out those concerns. In the substitute before us, the committee has crafted language that will ensure that this ban will be administered fairly and without discrimination against applicants for uniform relocation assistance. The legislation establishes that persons illegally in this country will not be eligible for Uniform Relocation Act assistance. Then it goes on to include important provisions that will ensure evenhanded implementation.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I certainly concur with the gentleman from Wisconsin, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation, that this has been a bipartisan effort. There has been splendid cooperation on the part of the majority staff with the Democratic staff. We welcome that splendid participation that we have always maintained in our committee. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], a cosponsor of the bill.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] for yielding this time to me, and I want to compliment him and the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] on moving this legislation forward expeditiously and especially the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster] for moving the bill to the floor, actually, moving it through full committee and then to the floor very expeditiously, recognizing the need that the John F. Kennedy Center has to proceed with the improvements that will be made possible by this legislation. The John F. Kennedy Center is America's national cultural center. It is a performing arts center, it is a world class cultural center, it is also a Presidential memorial. It stands out as America's tribute to the arts which the late President Kennedy featured so prominently in his years as President of the United States. It was during his tenure that I think the arts really got the national recognition and were paid the tribute that the arts deserve in a democratic society. The Kennedy Center itself has achieved national and international stature and acclaim. Every year the Kennedy Center honors program is watched on television nationwide, and, with a full house, the honors program attracts the President, the Cabinet, the leadership of both the House and Senate because it pays such justly deserved tribute to those who have made their mark for all time in our society in the performing arts. But enjoying the Kennedy Center has become more a travail than an enjoyment. The most often voiced complaint about attendance at Kennedy Center events is inability to get from parking to one's seat in time for the start of the performance. This legislation will make it possible for the Kennedy Center, without use of public funds, to undertake the renovations, add the parking, and make the traffic pattern changes necessary to move people expeditiously from parking to their seats before the performance begins. In addition, this legislation, with other funds that the Congress authorized and appropriated in the 104th Congress, will make the necessary changes to provide security that all realized the Center needs, as expressed in the counterterrorism legislation that we enacted in the 104th Congress. Those counterterrorism funds will enable the Kennedy Center to change traffic circulation in ways that will make it possible for the Center to be more secure and to greatly minimize the possibility which exists, tragically, in our society, of a terrorist attack. That, of course, is a matter that must be high on the minds of all of the security entities in the Federal Government during the Kennedy Center honors performance when the President, the Vice President, the Speaker, the majority leader of the Senate are all present, as are numerous Members of both the House and Senate and Cabinet officers, as well as members of the Supreme Court. So these changes will greatly improve the security of the Kennedy Center, but most important improve access to circulation around and parking for patrons of the Kennedy Center. Again I want to emphasize that the cost of construction will be financed by industrial revenue bonds repaid by charges upon those using the Kennedy Center; the construction will not be done at public cost, but this authorization will give the Kennedy Center the means that an entity of this national and international stature requires to continue to be accessible by people of all walks of life to this national center for the performing arts.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, last year during consideration of the NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996, the other body voted to designate Slovenia along with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic as nations that have made progress toward meeting NATO's criteria for new members. And Slovenia certainly stands out as a sterling candidate for admission to NATO, and I appreciate the support on the Democratic side and on the Republican side of the committee in accepting the Senate amendment in conference. We are soon to witness the Madrid meeting that will discuss the enlargement of NATO. I would urge the administration to keep uppermost on their agenda Slovenia as a candidate for the first round of expansion. Slovenia has moved successfully to privatize its economy. Everything from banking to aviation has been privatized. They have democratized their politics and their government. They have created 158 local governments and had local elections. They are a significant force in the modernization of trade in the former East European areas and deserve to be a member of NATO. Mr. Speaker, I urge the administration to accept Slovenia in this first round.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, let us make it very clear. The Smith- Barcia-Oberstar-Hyde amendment does not reduce by one penny the amount spent on international family planning. It merely ensures that the money we do spend and commit to population control goes to family planning, not to abortion. American taxpayers who believe that abortion is morally wrong should have their voice expressed on this floor in support of this amendment; and likewise, those who believe abortion is acceptable, and that abortion ought to be made safe and rare, ought to have assurance that their tax dollars do not go to groups who do not share that viewpoint, who see abortion as a means of family planning. Both sides have an interest in the outcome. I believe that our side is on the side of justice, that it is morally wrong for the United States to support with its taxpayer dollars abortion as a means of family planning control, and this amendment will assure that none of those dollars go to that purpose. That is what we are trying to accomplish; that just as we have pursued the policy at home of not funding abortion with taxpayer dollars, that we should not fund it abroad with taxpayer dollars. Family planning is a legitimate objective, but it should not include abortion as a means of family planning. That is what we are asking. That is what this amendment does. I ask Members to support the Smith- Barcia amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner]. (Mr. FILNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``A deal is a deal'' intoned our colleague from North Dakota a few hours ago. ``Do not break the deal,'' says a panicked White House. ``Stick to the deal,'' says the Committee on the Budget leadership on both sides. Whose deal, I ask my colleagues? Who was a part of this deal? Not me, and not very many in this Chamber. We did not have much to say about the deal, so why are we being asked to stick with it? There is only one deal that counts, and that is the deal that Congress made with the traveling public when we passed the gas tax in 1956 and set up the highway trust fund. That is the deal that counts, the deal we made with the traveling public of America, and the public has been paying that tax, that user fee, and getting less and less back every year, $24 billion less. That is the surplus built up in the highway trust fund being unspent, and that surplus, that less, will build up to $37 billion under the deal if we stick with it; $37 billion more in taxes we are taking out of people and not investing in what they agreed to be taxed for. Taxes paid, benefits not received. Seventy-six thousand bridges that need to be repaired in America, 3 million miles of rural road that have been neglected over the past 10 years. Fifteen percent of the interstate that needs to be rebuilt, 9,000 transit buses that need to be replaced in America. Seventy-three percent of the transit facilities in this country that need to be rebuilt, and for the sake of the deal we would turn our backs? We would condemn America to 5 more years of neglect, to 5 more years of underinvestment, a country that now ranks 55th in the world in infrastructure investment at the very time when Japan is investing $3 trillion in their infrastructure, when Germany is investing $2 trillion in their infrastructure, when Taiwan is investing $100 billion in their infrastructure, and we are going to say, do less for the sake of the deal. How short-sighted. We should invest the $24 billion surplus in our roads and bridges and transit systems and enhancements. We should put the 4.3 cent gas tax that we voted in this Chamber in 1993 that is going for deficit reduction and put it into the highway trust fund, but we are not asking you to do that. We are asking you to take one-third of 1 percent across the board and invest that little bit more, that $12 billion more, take that little bit of a cut out of the deal that you were not a part of and invest it in something that makes a difference in America. Invest it in the $1 trillion sector of our national economy that is represented by transportation. That makes a difference between America being a strong and vibrant economy and falling further behind. They say, stick with the deal. I say, no taxation without investment. No taxation without investment in our roads, our bridges, our transit systems and what is good for America. This Shuster-Oberstar amendment balances the budget by the year 2002, does not change annual deficit targets, no entitlement cuts, does not specify cuts. In fact, here is what the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations says. He supports the agreement, but he will not be bound by levels specified for various discretionary programs. So where is the deal? Our deal is with our constituents. Our deal is with America's future. Either we want to be a part of this process, either we want to be relevant in America, or spend the next 5 years with an oil can filling potholes in the roads that we refuse to rebuild, in the bridge decking that needs to be torn down and rebuilt. The budget process is where we decide priorities for America's future. That is the right place. This is where we decide what our values are and to a large degree, put a price tag on them. We have done that all evening. We have done it every year in this budget process, and tonight, tonight with your voting card, you are going to make a choice, you are going to make a choice about the future of America. About whether we move ahead, whether that bridge to the 21st century the President talks about has some concrete and asphalt on it, whether it has some bike lanes in it, whether it has some transit buses on it, or where it is just a chimerical bridge that exists out there in nowhere. Vote for the Shuster-Oberstar amendment, vote to invest in America's future, vote to put America back on wheels again.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski]. (Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the budget is that one piece of legislation where we really set forth priorities for America. We decide what is important to us, what our values are, and in effect, we put a price tag on them. In the Shuster-Oberstar-Petri-Rahall substitute provided for in this rule later tonight, Members will have an opportunity to make a choice for the future of America. We will offer Members the opportunity on behalf of all Americans to make an investment in America's transportation needs in $1 trillion of our $6 trillion national economy, which is what transportation accounts for. What we will do in this substitute is equally cut across-the-board, one-third of 1 percent over 5 years reduction in domestic discretionary, defense discretionary spending, and the tax reduction will be one-third of 1 percent less than proposed, in order to put back into transportation the tax dollars we pay at the gas pump.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Resolution 129, the committees' funding resolution for the 105th Congress. I do want to thank and commend the members of the Committee on House Oversight and the Democratic and Republican leadership for their diligence and hard work in bringing forward this resolution today. Striking a happy balance with committee budgets is a difficult and thankless job. Mr. Chairman, I will vote for this resolution. It is a step in the right direction, allowing our committee to begin recovering from the large budget cuts of 2 years ago. Historically, the work of the Congress increases in direct proportion to the enormity of the challenges facing this Nation. Getting more work done with less is always one of the greatest of our challenges. The increased funding in the budget for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is fully justified. The committee is the largest authorizing committee in Congress. When I came to the ``Hill'' in 1963, the committee had 34 members. In the 104th Congress, we had 61. Today we have 73--a 215-percent increase over 1963, and a 20-percent increase over the 104th Congress. This is a mixed blessing, but definitely an indication of the interest House Members have in the work of our committee. We welcome new Members, but also we need more resources to handle the increased workload. In the 104th Congress, for the first time one committee-- Transportation and Infrastructure--was given jurisdiction over all modes of civil transportation. Our new jurisdiction included the major areas of rail, Coast Guard, and maritime transportation. Now we can deal more effectively with the broader, intermodal picture which has a host of problems, many of which we hope to address in the reauthorization of ISTEA this session. Congestion has risen on our highways to a level that costs American businesses $40 billion each year. Americans waste 1.6 million hours every day sitting in traffic. Airport traffic delays have strained the capacity of 22 of our major airports, and within 10 years 10 more airports will be added to this list unless we modernize. More of our ports need dredging and expansion to compete in the international marketplace. Our railway system needs to be more integrated and accessible, and our only national passenger rail system needs the recapitalization long promised, but never received. Transportation policy decisions are very much a key factor to the standard of living for every American. At last count, our national transportation economy accounted for 10.8 percent of our gross domestic product. Transportation safety continues to be a serious problem. Since 1991, a staggering 200,000 Americans have died and more than 15 million have been seriously injured on our highways at a cost to society of more than $750 million. There has been no appreciable decline in highway fatalities in the past 10 years. Each and every day the equivalent of a major airline crash occurs on our highways in communities across the country. Nine out of 10 Americans want the Federal Government to play a strong leadership role in highway safety, similar to food safety and aviation safety. Aviation safety, itself, is increasingly a concern. Last month, the National Transportation Safety Board reported that in 1996, 380 people lost their lives in airline accidents, the highest level since 1985. Rail safety is also a serious problem. In the first 5 months of last year alone, there were 54 serious rail accidents, including 2 in which entire towns were evacuated for 3 weeks, 3 in which poison gas was released, and 1 in which a train carrying 750-pound bombs derailed. Three cases involving runaway trains might have been prevented had the Federal Railroad Administration acted promptly on Congressional directives to reform power brake rules. Safety is not a partisan issue. With added resources our committee can conduct the oversight and produce the legislation needed to reverse the disturbing increase in accidents in 1996. I have only touched on a sampling of transportation issues from our primary list. In this Congress we also need to be dealing with a number of intricate and technical matters in the areas of water resources, public buildings, and economic development. Obviously, this Congress will be an extremely busy one and we need solid and thorough staff work to support our efforts. In addition, at a time when the Federal Government is making drastic cutbacks, the need for close congressional oversight increases dramatically. Unfortunately, there are many issues that will receive less, or even no, attention simply because of the limits of our resources. I can tell you as the ranking Democratic member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, there are countless challenges and frustrations in my job, but few more exasperating than trying to stretch and make do with inadequate resources. My budget, in particular, for Democratic staff on the committee is one-third of the total personnel budget for the committee. At current funding levels, we are unable to fill two vacancies or to grant staff a cost-of-living adjustment. This is not the way to attract and retain quality, expert, and experienced staff needed to accomplish the work before us. Our committee badly needs the increased funding provided by the budget resolution. It will enhance our ability to make in-depth, informed legislative judgments and to vigorously pursue our oversight responsibilities. In answering to the American people, I would much rather defend funding we truly need, than try to explain that our job didn't get done for the lack of resources. There is no doubt we have to pass this resolution, and we should. It represents a good faith effort under very difficult circumstances. Accordingly, I will vote for this resolution. Mr. Thomas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Helen Horral of Duluth, MN. Helen Horral has rendered long and distinguished, dedicated service to the people and city of Duluth. She served on the Housing Redevelopment Authority [HRA] from 1985-1995, acting as president of the authority for 1 year. The HRA sets policy for Duluth's low-income housing and creates solutions to the city's low-income housing needs. Helen has also served on the Single Room Occupancy Commission [SRO]. The SRO advises the city of Duluth on homelessness and the use of shelters and food banks, and it oversees grants and loans to SRO building owners to improve living standards and make housing more affordable. While serving on the SRO, Helen was a staunch advocate for the residents, making sure that the tenants were treated with respect. She was known as the resident caretaker of the SRO Commission. The motivation for Helen's laudable efforts on behalf of the HRA and SRO is that she wants to help people less fortunate than herself. Many years ago, she saw that numerous Duluthians, especially senior citizens, had financial difficulties and could not afford decent housing. Helen decided to attack the problem head-on and take an active role in finding solutions. As a result of Helen's hard work, there has been real improvement in Duluth's low-income housing; there are now more low-income, high-quality units in Duluth, and low-income senior citizens can live in dignity. Even though she is now 82 years old, Helen continues to help others by planning meals and serving as a volunteer cook at senior citizens' centers around the city, which she has done for many years. In addition to actively helping senior citizens, Helen has been involved in politics in Duluth for more than 25 years. She works as a volunteer for candidates in Minnesota during election years and is involved in grassroots politics all year long. Helen also provides transportation to seniors who do not drive, and she hosts political dinners and meetings on numerous occasions each year. The 1996 election provided a good example of Helen's devotion to the political process. At one point near the end of the election, Helen worked at a campaign office in Duluth for 24 hours in a 2-day period. She did this not because she was asked to, but because she wanted to help. On many cold Minnesota winter days, when the next election may be more than a year away, Helen is still the first person at political meetings. And she rarely shows up for meetings or at the campaign headquarters alone--she is the best volunteer recruiter in the district and frequently encourages senior citizens to become involved in the political process. Helen says, with very simple, honest modesty that she has been blessed in her life and wants to share that blessing by working to assist those less fortunate. Helen truly understands the value of life and the worth of helping others. I am proud and honored to share with my colleagues this brief, but deserved tribute to Helen Horral, who has given so much of herself to enrich the lives of others and to serve her community. She is both a role model and an inspiration.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank our Democratic leader on the committee for yielding. Mr. Speaker, to characterize this bill as a tax increase is a disservice to truth, to history, and to aviation. The truth simply is that this bill represents the reinstatement of a fee. It is called a tax, but it has been treated as a fee, a fee that was the unintended victim of the budgetary train wreck that we engaged in at the end of 1995 and the beginning of 1996. Nobody intended that this fee, that these funds should lapse. It is only fair, it is only fair to air travelers that we reinstate this fee and these funds into the Aviation Trust Fund. The history that we would be disserving is that in 1970 air travelers of this country, through the Congress, agreed to impose a fee to be deposited in a trust fund like the Highway Trust Fund for the purposes of aviation, to serve the needs of a growing sector of our economy, which sector today represents $600 billion, 10 percent of our gross domestic product in the United States. To allow this fee to lapse and the funding that goes into the Aviation Trust Fund to lapse would be a disservice to aviation. It would mean that there would be no money for airport construction unless we are prepared to appropriate funds out of the general revenues, which, in effect, would be a real tax increase on the rest of the American economy. There would be no funds for airport improvement projects, runways, taxiways, overlays, parking aprons on the side of airports. There would be no funds to continue the modernization of the air traffic control system, the $32 billion modernization program which we get a monthly report on the status; 87 to 90 percent of a $32 billion program is already in place and we are making progress toward finishing the job by the end of this decade; and air traffic controllers would not be paid. All of us in this body who travel on weekends would find our travel schedules grinding to a halt unless we are prepared to appropriate funds from some other source. Again, air travelers agreed to impose this fee on themselves in 1970. For 27 years this revenue stream has funded the needs of aviation. As the former chairman of the Subcommittee on Aviation, I say those funds are wisely invested in stimulating the most dynamic sector of the Nation's economy, which in international affairs generates for the United States a huge surplus balance of payments in aviation trade, in cargo and passengers with the Pacific Rim and the European Community, and we ought not to do such a disservice to aviation, to that important economic sector, by allowing this fee to expire. So I commend the chairman of the committee for undertaking this initiative, and our Democratic leader for moving it forward. We look forward to working with the committee on developing an alternative means of financing air traffic control in the coming months. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of this measure, and I appreciate it being scheduled in an expeditious manner. With this bill, the aviation trust fund will not go broke a month from now. If the bill is not passed, there will be a forced curtailment of about three-fourths of our planned and already appropriated aviation capital development spending for the balance of this fiscal year. We are responding to a crisis created when the taxes expired at the end of last December and the airline industry, legally, did not remit the taxes collected last fall until this week. But traveling public needs to understand that this is a created crises, not one that just happened. Rather than provide a steady stream of revenues to fund most of the Federal Government's aviation safety and security programs and the operation of the air traffic control system, the Congress allowed the aviation taxes to expire twice in the past 14 months, and with this bill, there is the distinct possibility that the taxes will expire again 7 months from now. We have fallen into the mode of funding long-term capital improvements and the day-in-and-day-out operations of the Federal Aviation Administration in a hand-to-mouth fashion. This is no way to proceed. We should be establishing a long-term source of funding for the Nation's aviation programs, so that we are not in what has grown to become a perpetual funding crisis. The reason we are not doing so is clear: Our budget scorekeeping rules will permit these expired taxes to be counted as new revenue when they are reinstated, and hence, under our budget scorekeeping rules, the Congress can forgo, much more easily, tough budget and tax choices later. This is a neat trick; a cute gimmick; but it plays games with our Nation's aviation system. There is no choice but to support this bill, but we should be doing something for a much longer term. And if we need to change our system of funding our aviation programs when we get recommendations from the National Civil Aviation Review Commission later this year, let us do so. But we should not have to do so in the artificially created crisis atmosphere that we will find ourselves at the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Proponents of this resolution have framed the issue as simply a vote on family planning, or a vote about closing family planning clinics overseas. That is not the case. It is a vote on using one-half billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to subsidize and to promote abortions, and to promote efforts to overturn legal and cultural barriers in countries overseas and to promote abortion in foreign countries. The position of this House historically has been a position out of respect to the millions of women and men who in conscience are opposed to abortion, to ensure that our tax dollars do not subsidize or promote abortion. We have repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to approve funds for family planning, but we have also ensured safeguards against the use of those family planning dollars to promote or encourage in any way or advocate abortion. In international affairs from 1984 to 1993, 350 foreign organizations signed contracts for U.S. family planning funds, which included restrictions on the use of those funds, against using them for abortion. Only two turned down the funds, because they would not accept the House restrictions on abortion subsidy and abortion promotion. We should not approve this resolution which will open the door once again for use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote abortions overseas. I have heard the arguments. I have lived in Haiti. I have seen the face of poverty. I have seen the pain in those poor households, if you can call them households; little huts. I think family planning advice is fair. We should support such activities. But we should not allow U.S. taxpayer dollars to be used to promote abortion, to change the laws of countries that are against abortion. We should be neutral on that issue. That is what the resolution of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I will offer subsequent to this action does, is to provide $713 million, $170 million more than the bill before us, for international family planning, with the historic House pro-life language. If all these groups are so committed to instructing women on reproductive freedom, control of futures, control of their family life, then they should be willing to agree that they will not promote abortion.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, yes.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. OBERSTAR. As the gentleman well knows, under the Medicaid language for years that we have debated on this floor, we have had several dozen votes, maybe several hundred votes on this issue over the last 22 years that I have served here, we have imposed this restrictive language that none of the funds may be used to perform abortions.

Mr. OBERSTAR. To further respond to my dear friend, the gentleman from California, we would not have dozens or hundreds of votes on this subject if, in initiating programs, those who advocate family planning would stick to their last, and stick to what they believe in, and say these funds are only used for counseling, they are not used for changing people's minds about abortion, performing abortion, or advocating abortion. That is all we are asking.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, this is put-up-or-shut-up time for those who are advocating funding for family planning without abortions. This resolution reinstates a policy that has been in effect for the past nearly a decade. Three hundred fifty organizations worldwide have accepted funds from our Government with the restrictions on abortion that we have included, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and I have included in this language, which is the so-called Mexico City policy. To be very clear and very simple in stating the case, in order to receive U.S. population control funds, foreign nongovernmental organizations must agree not to perform abortion, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger; second, not to violate the laws of any foreign country with respect to abortion; or, third, not to engage in any activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies of any foreign country with respect to abortion. If they really believe what they say, that they do not use abortion as a method of family planning, they do not advocate abortion, they do not perform abortions as a method of family planning, then why can they simply not agree to that language? It is straightforward, it is simple, very clear, makes a wall of separation between the reprehensible practice of abortion and, on the other hand, helping women who are in difficult circumstances in any part of the world, particularly in third world countries, to gain some measure of control over their lives. Mr. Speaker, we have for years demonstrated the willingness of this Congress to approve funds for family planning, provided that none of those funds are used to perform abortion. In the international arena we have followed the same policy. This language that we include in our legislation, H.R. 581, makes it very clear that family planning funds may be available, but that they cannot be used to perform abortion. There are organizations that are very intent on using abortion, counseling for abortion, working to change the laws of foreign countries on abortion. We should not use U.S. taxpayer dollars for that purpose. I hear the arguments on the other side about the need for women to have access to family planning information, plan their lives and plan their pregnancies. That is fine. But it should not go hand in hand with abortion.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to share with my colleagues the national award winning essay of Arlene Helderman from International Falls, MN. I offer Arlen's superb presentation, ``I Am Me'' to serve as an enlightened statement to the Nation on the sanctity of human life. I want to offer my profound congratulations to Arlene and the Koochiching County Right-to-Life Committee and the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life organization for their sponsorship of this annual competition. I Am Me (Pro-Life Speech by Arlene Helderman) I am me. In all the world, there is no one else exactly like me. There are persons who have some parts like me, But no one adds up like me, Therefore, everything that comes out of me, Is authentically mine, because I alone chose it. I own everything about me: My body--including everything it does, My mind--including all its thoughts and ideas, My eyes--including all the images they behold, My feelings--whatever they may be, And all of my actions--whether they be to others or to myself. I own my fantasies, my dreams, my hopes, my fears. I own all my triumphs and successes, all my failures and mistakes. I own me, and therefore I engineer me, To work in my best interests, I can see, hear, feel, think, say and do. I am me. I am here today to talk about life. I am here, I am alive, and I am me because of a choice my mother made. Her choice is what accounts for many of the decisions I make now, because of the love present in her choice. I am me because my mom chose life. Everything that makes me me, was decided at conception, when forty-six human chromosomes laid out my genetic code. All characteristics were then determined, such as sex, eye color, shoe size, intelligence--many characteristics we now take for granted. But it was then that they were laid out, to create the me that I am. Only twelve weeks later during my precious development, I had the ability to experience pain-- the same pain I would one day experience at age twelve, when I would clumsily break my nose, I had tiny fingernails--the same fingernails I would paint so precariously years later, the night before my first formal dance. And my feet were perfectly shaped by this time--the same feet that I use now, to flex and point and dance and leap during my gymnastics routines. It's amazing, but at an early six weeks of my development, I had brain waves--brain waves that today enable me to create stories for English and calculate statistics for Math. And at an unbelievable three weeks, I had a heartbeat--the same heart which beats at seventeen, in anticipation of future dreams and aspirations. I am me, whether it be then or now. But I am only me because my mom chose life. The story of my mother's choice to keep my life is like no story you have ever heard, and you will probably never hear another quite like it. Everything was so normal. My mother was twenty-nine years old, and she and my father were a young couple with a four- year-old little girl, a white house, (with no picket fence), but picture perfect in their eyes. As springtime neared, she discovered she was pregnant with her second child, which was good news. The first couple months went well, and she had lots of energy. But as time crept on into summer, she felt tired all the time and became ill with bronchitis. She started to lose weight, and she constantly prayed for the doctors to find out exactly what was wrong with her. After many tests and many wrong answers, the doctors diagnosed my mother with leukemia. The doctors told her it was crucial to start chemotherapy treatments right away, because she would only live six weeks without them. Unfortunately, they also said the baby would not survive with the treatment, and that her best chance would be to abort the unborn child. It was fall, a time when things die naturally--leaves, flowers, grass; but what about--unnaturally? My mother had started her fifth month. She could feel the baby move inside her and it was like someone was trying to tear her heart out. She had to make a choice. Did she want to destroy her baby so she could have a greater chance at living, or did she want to continue on and hope, only to be told she'd have a greater chance at dying? Despite her threatening condition, she chose life. In the next month, my mother experienced more pain than most people could ever imagine. She had a bone marrow test taken, a test so painful, that my petite mother, tore a metal railing from the hospital bed in the midst of her agony. She endured over twenty shots a day, forced herself to eat for the sake of her baby, was hooked up to IV's, and lost so much weight, that even at five months pregnant she only weighed eighty pounds. She endured so much pain, and she did it all for me. I don't know how I can ever thank my mom for the sacrifices she made for me, but the faith and love she had in me is something that will live in my heart, forever. Another month passed, and my mother was feeling a little better. At seven months of the pregnancy, November twenty- fifth started out like any other day. She was weighed, and her IV's were changed, but by ten o'clock that morning, she was starting labor. The Doctors explained that most likely the baby would not survive, and for her safety, my mother should be flown to a larger hospital with better medical facilities. The hospital in her small town did not have the proper equipment if the baby was to survive. And so, although my mom persisted there was not enough time to make it to the hospital, they boarded her, a nurse, and a pilot onto a small air ambulance for an unforgettable journey. Halfway to the hospital I was born and I could not breathe. The nurse encouraged my mom to pray as she gave me resuscitation to try and keep me alive. The pilot radioed ahead for ambulances and to the hospital so everyone was ready for my arrival. The rest of the flight, forty minutes, was the longest forty minutes in my mother's life; but as we neared the landing, she thought she saw my tiny lip quiver, and it gave her hope. For days, I was placed on oxygen to breathe, and time pressed on with the unavoidable question of survival. The doctors again said it did not look promising. They suggested to my parents to pick a name for me, therefore I was named after the nurse-Arlene, and the pilot-Frances, who were both so courageous during my birth. I was hooked up to oxygen and heart machines, and there were so many IV's in my tiny arm, that at fourteen inches long, two and half pounds, you could barely see me under all that equipment. When my mom entered the intensive care unit I was in, my heart monitor became extremely active, perhaps because I could feel her presence. It was then that my mom knew I would be okay. After two months in an incubator, and weighing in at five pounds, I went home to a family that was anxiously waiting my arrival. My mom endured three more years of chemotherapy treatment. To this day, there is not a single trace of cancer in her body. Despite all of the odds and even when it looked like it couldn't get any worse, my mom and I broke medical history. We are alive, and we did it together. And today, because my mom chose life, I am me. My mom was given practically no chance, but she still underwent painful experiences, emotionally and physically, to give me life. I am who I am today, because of her. She had to make a choice. And she chose me! Because of the enormous obstacles overcome in my struggle, many people have deemed my birth to be a miracle. However, I have learned that life itself, is truly the miracle. Sometimes I forget how precious life is and we all tend to overlook the magic of every day. But then I remember. I remember that there are children not as fortunate as I am. I remember the dream that lies in every moment, and the expectation born in every thought. I remember that I am me. But most importantly, I remember the day I learned to fully appreciate the value of life. It was the day when my mom told me that the result of her choice had turned out to be priceless!

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to recognize and commend Commander (select) Richard W. Jones for his outstanding service and impressive accomplishments as commanding officer of the Naval Reserve Center in Duluth, MN. During his tenure, Commander Jones increased the readiness capability of his assigned reserve units and his units provided substantial support to the active U.S. Navy. Commander Jones designed and established a metal working shop and a computer repair shop; as a result, his personnel are better trained, and the products they produce are shipped to active duty ships. I am most impressed with the dedicated commitment of Commander Jones to improve the quality of life for the sailors and officers assigned to the Naval Reserve Center Duluth. He funded, partially at his own expense, a weight lifting gymnasium for use for all members, and his leadership, through example, bolstered the health and fitness awareness at the NRC Duluth. As a result of his leadership to improve the facilities at the reserve center, the morale of reservists and staff is at an all-time high. These achievements have not gone unnoticed. The Naval Reserve Center Duluth earned the Sidney Fields Trophy from the Naval Reserve Association this past January as the Nation's best reserve center. I am very pleased to commend Commander (select) Richard W. Jones for his significant contributions to the Naval Reserve Center Duluth and his superb service to the people of northern Minnesota.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I join in unexpectedly wishing a happy and well deserved birthday to my good friend from New York.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette] and compliment him for the leadership that he has taken on authoring this legislation, which I am proud to cosponsor and for moving it along. (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I will not object to passage of the National Invasive Species Act of 1996. The bill before us now is nearly identical to the Invasive Species bill that the House passed by voice vote earlier this week, except for limited amendments which have been requested by the other body. I continue to have some concerns regarding one of those changes, but on balance, those concerns are outweighed by the net gains to the Great Lakes region and to the Nation from this bill being signed into law this Congress. This bill will contribute toward preventing further invasions by, and the spread of, nonindigenous aquatic species. It builds on the very successful program in the Great Lakes, which was developed under the 1990 ``Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act,'' and expands the scope of the law to the entire Nation. Also of critical importance, the bill should promote the development of new technologies, recognizing the limitations of ballast exchange in preventing the spread of invasive species that already have been introduced into the Great Lakes and other U.S. waters. We all have a great deal at stake in passage of this bill this year. Passage of this bill into law will: Help prevent further unnecessary devastation of our most valuable fisheries, as has happened repeatedly in my district in the Duluth- Superior Harbor, in the Great Lakes, and is at risk of happening in the Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, the Gulf of Mexico, and other of our most treasured ecosystems; Avoid public and private expenditures of millions of dollars a year on clearing zebra mussels from intake pipes and water treatment systems, increasing the cost of providing water and electricity to our citizens; and help preserve native species and the natural biodiversity of our Nation's aquatic ecosystems. Finally, this bill includes certain exemptions which concern me. I intend to further examine these provisions and their impacts when we return next year. Along those lines, I would like to clarify that nothing in the bill supersedes any requirement or prohibition under any other law pertaining to the discharge or exchange of ballast water, including any conditions for lifting the export ban on Alaska North Slope crude oil. I will not object to passage of this bill.