John Sununu

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, my concern is not just for my constituents or just for the State. The fact of the matter is, I am concerned that we have a Federal Government that is responsive, that fulfills its duties and its obligations to reach out to those cities or towns or States that might be in need where there is an appropriate Federal role. And in this particular case, I think there is clearly a Federal role. We have land in the town that is encumbered by Federal regulation. We have a town that has been looking to find an appropriate solution to their public need for cemetery space. They currently lease 2 acres. They would like to take ownership of those 2 acres. We have a process called the public benefit transfer that has been used many times before. And, in fact, we have used legislation to move that process forward in an expedited way before and move that legislation through this legislative body on numerous occasions. And I think that is an appropriate way to address the concerns of the town and the concerns of the State so that they might bury their dead in dignity. As I described, the legislation here protects the interest of the Coast Guard, it protects the interest of the Park Service, it calls on the town to make sure that it meets all the requirements that the GSA might put on the land when it is transferred. The Park Service has previously written a letter to the State that states, ``We have reviewed the preliminary information submitted by your office regarding these proposed conversions and have no objection.'' Now, that is not the be all and end all from the administration, but it is a clear example or clear point that the issues were raised by the town and the State as early as 1995; that they have tried to make sure that everyone has had the information that they need throughout the entire process. I think what we have here is an opportunity to do the right thing for the town, to transfer 2 acres, not 200 acres as the legislation that the committee dealt with for California was done just a month ago, but just 2 acres so that the people in the town of New Castle can have peace of mind. We have moved this legislation through the subcommittee. We have tried to address the concerns of the minority. We have had the opportunity to meet with minority and majority staff and other representatives from the administration. I am disappointed that the administration sent over a fax today, October 5, saying that they have decided to oppose the bill. They could not send that a week ago apparently. They could not send it 2 weeks ago. They could not send it 2 years ago when the Park Service was saying that they have no objection. I am disappointed that we have received such a late response at such a late date, but I think in some ways that just points to the need for this body to do whatever it can to move the legislation forward on behalf of the people of the State of New Hampshire.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think that far from indicating any weakness in the legislation, the colloquy we just had and the remarks made is nothing more than a spirited defense of the kind of bureaucracy that gives Washington a bad name. I think there is no question that granting the land to the town would meet the contractual obligation under the Land and Water Conservation Fund requirements. Granting the land to the State would probably also achieve the same ends but, in all likelihood, the State would continue to give full responsibility to the town itself to continue to maintain, to continue to use for recreational purposes. What we are quibbling about here is the kind of regulatory red tape that the vast majority of Americans find repulsive about Washington. What we are trying to do here is to look at a process that exists, the public benefit transfer, which is actually fairly clear language for Washington, and to use a piece of legislation to make sure that we move these two acres of land to the ownership of the town to meet its needs for a public cemetery as quickly as is expeditious. But, at the same time, we are not going to leave the GSA or the Park Service out of the process. They are not cut out of the process. And as has been described, they have actually visited the site. They are going to be involved in the ultimate administrative transfer of the land. I think it is appropriate that we, as public servants, as elected officials, do what we can to give a community in this kind of a situation, with these kinds of problems, the benefit of moving forward with a process that they do not find frustrating and that they do not find fraught with red tape. And I think some of the description of the legalities and the technicalities are only evidence that the people's worst fears about bureaucracy and the defenders of bureaucracy in this institution are well-founded. We are talking about two acres. In the dear colleague letter that was sent around by the ranking member, the gentleman from California, and the gentleman from Ohio, they raise the grave concern that it might not be quite enough land because there may be a slight difference in the two-acre parcel on the common and the roughly two-acre parcel that the town is currently leasing. Well, the grave concern consists of a difference of perhaps a tenth of an acre, or two-tenths of an acre, the kind of difference that will only be determined with a fair and appropriate survey of the exact acreage of the land. Once again, the kind of minutia, the bureaucracy, the red tape that I think the vast majority of Americans find objectionable. I think there is no question that the GSA, as is called for in the legislation, will protect the interests of the United States. We have language in the legislation to protect the interests of the Coast Guard as well. We certainly want to make sure they have the right-of-way they need; that they can use the roadway that cuts through the property to get to anything that they might need. And those interests are protected in the legislation because it makes good sense to do so, but also because the interests of the town, the interests of the Coast Guard, and the interests of the country are all one in the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. SUNUNU. It is my understanding that they have contracted with the State, are under contractual obligation with the State to meet the requirements of the LWCF to replace the land.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the town is actually under contract from the State. They have full legal requirement for the replacement.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I would enter in a copy of the agreement that the town has with the State, and also the language of the regulations which says: The terms ``State'' as used herein means the State which is party to this agreement and the political subdivision or public agency to which the funds are to be transferred pursuant to the agreement. So, I believe the town also has a contractual obligation to meet the requirements of the LWCF.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, under New Hampshire State law, cities and towns are required to provide for public cemeteries within their own local boundaries. Since 1994, the town of New Castle, New Hampshire, has been working to acquire just 2 acres of surplus Federal property through the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act to meet this important public need. New Castle, however, is an island, a small community, a little bit more than 1 square mile, and there exists very limited land available for this purpose of cemetery expansion. Moreover, the town's present cemetery is filled to capacity, and the need for additional space has become urgent. New Castle has identified a 2-acre parcel of land that would be appropriate and enable the town to meet the State's requirement. Although the town owns the identified parcel, it is presently dedicated to recreational use under a National Park Service land and water conservation program. In order to use this parcel for cemetery use, the town must replace it with 2 additional acres that would then be dedicated to recreational use. The town had hoped to fulfill the Park Service replacement requirement with a 2-acre parcel that it currently leases from the United States Coast Guard right there on New Castle. However, after a 7-month delay, the town was finally informed by the Park Service that it would have to take ownership of that parcel it currently leases. In light of this, the town has been pursuing ownership of the land under the no-cost public benefit provisions of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. The Coast Guard has stated in a letter to me their intention to declare this property that is currently under lease to the town as excess. That land would then be presented to the GSA, the General Services Administration, for disposal. Furthermore, the Park Service has indicated in a letter to the State of New Hampshire, that has been working with the town on this important issue, that it ``has no objection'' to the town's replacement approach for converting land under this program for cemetery use. Given the urgency of this particular situation, I think it appropriate that we consider a legislative approach through which this transfer could be expedited. Therefore, in the interest of meeting this very real public need in as timely a fashion as possible, I have introduced this legislation, H.R. 4614, which directs the Administrator of General Services to convey to the town of New Castle the 2-acre parcel of land that it currently leases from the Coast Guard once the Coast Guard declares that property as excess. I am entering into the Record several letters of correspondence, including those mentioned above, as well as letters from the town of New Castle, the State Department of Resources and Economic Development, and the Commandant of the United States Coast Guard declaring his intention to excess the property. These letters clearly describe the urgent request by the town, the intent of the Coast Guard to excess the property, and the willingness of the Park Service to accept the town's proposal. Even after the passage of this legislation, implementation will require the continued cooperation of three major Federal agencies: the GSA, the Park Service, and the Coast Guard. Their cooperation is going to be required, working with the State and the town of New Castle, to make sure that this moves forward in as timely a manner as possible. They each have responsibilities in order to ensure a smooth transition of these properties. I would encourage each of these agencies to act quickly to accomplish the needed tasks. I am very pleased that the officials from the GSA and the Park Service have already taken the time to visit the properties. In summary, this legislation will help the State of New Hampshire and the town of New Castle deal with an urgent public need. The 2-acre property is already leased by the town at no cost, and they also already pay to maintain the property for recreational use. The bill will simply transfer ownership of this parcel so that the town may have the peace of mind knowing that their citizens can be buried with dignity. Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, it is true, however, that even if the Park Service was to grant such a waiver, they would still have to replace the land with a transfer under the Land and Water Conservation requirements.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the ranking member of the full committee does not feel that the Members meeting where we discussed this legislation and other legislation, the staff meeting where these issues were addressed, were not sufficient to deal with the issues raised in the depth that he would like to have dealt with, and I understand that concern. We are all busy. We all have schedules to keep, and we do not always have the time that we would like to to delve into matters of detail. The gentleman mentions the concern of the administration's position. And as I stated earlier, certainly from the perspective of the town and the State having received a letter from the Park Service stating that there was no objection to the proposal, I think there was some natural assumption that the administration would be somewhat supportive or at least accommodating of moving forward with a solution that meets such an urgent public need with all good speed. The fact of the matter is that the town has tried to work through formal channels to the best extent that they can, providing a proposal to the State Department of Resources and Economic Development, that was then passed on through to the Park Service, corresponding with them over a period of years. As I mentioned, it took 7 months just for the Park Service to respond to the town that the lease that they currently have on the property would not be sufficient and that they had to take ownership. The Ranking Member suggests that this is just shocking that Congress would actually try to work, or any Member of Congress would actually try to work to actively help a town or a State that it is representing deal with some of the Federal bureaucracy that we face every day here in Washington. That we might try to facilitate public benefit transfer that is actually quite common. Just a month ago in the committee, we supported legislation that happened to grant land to a town in the State of California, approximately 200 acres. Certainly, the ranking member would point out, and correctly so, that because of the size and scope of that transfer, 200 acres, we had a hearing on that transfer. I think that was appropriate. And if we had ample time in this session of Congress, we might be able to schedule a more formal hearing. But the fact is, there is a need that the town of New Castle has to bury its dead. We are talking about 2 acres of land. Not 200 acres of land, but 2 acres of land that the town is currently leasing and the town would take ownership of that land so that they can bury their dead with dignity. That may be a problem to some on the committee or the subcommittee. But the fact of the matter is, this bill was originally voiced through the subcommittee because, I believe, of the effort of the majority and minority on the committee to work together on issues like this to form some bipartisan consensus. The gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) the subcommittee chairman, has been good enough to schedule many bills of the minority in the past and to deal with them as expeditiously as he deals with bills that majority members might submit, and I think his fairness is to be commended in this case. Mr. Speaker, I think we should be able to come to some bipartisan agreement that this bill makes sense. It is fair. It serves a public need, not a special interest need. I urge support for H.R. 4614, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to further address some of the concerns that were raised by the minority. As the Chairman has pointed out, we had an informative hearing on the bill. While it was not a previously scheduled hearing specifically for this legislation, it allowed an opportunity to address many of the minority's concerns. Subsequent to that we had a meeting with officials of the GSA, of the Park Service, and even of the Coast Guard with both majority and minority staff to address their concerns. In fact, in particular they raised the concern that we be careful about the precedent, and the majority is very mindful of that. There was a request that we get notification of the town, that indeed they intended to use this transfer process specifically to enable them to expand their cemetery, which is obviously an enormous public need, certainly not a case for pork. In order to address those concerns, the town put together a letter from the town officials the, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, that they went even through the trouble to have notarized for minority staff. I ask that that be included in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I will quote it, We wish to make it clear at this time that the converted Land and Water Conservation Fund land, once approved for conversion, will not be used for any special purpose. It is the town's intention to develop the land as need arises for cemetery use only. Not only have they provided this notarized letter in response to the concerns of the minority, previously, in 1995, the town passed a warrant in town meeting to ensure, to see if the town will vote to authorize the selectmen to negotiate with the appropriate State and Federal officials to use the site of Great Island Common for cemetery purposes. Obviously, it is the full intention of the town to meet what is not just a serious but an urgent public need. To label it as anything else I think is somewhat disingenuous. There is no question that the Park Service could grant a temporary waiver so that the town could go forward, but the town would still have to replace the land and in that case a transfer would be necessary. This legislation would be extremely helpful in moving that process forward. Not only is there a great deal of uncertainty about how long any administrative process would take; history shows that in order to get a clear response from the Park Service that they would have to take ownership of the land, the town had to wait a full 7 months. Mr. Speaker, we could wait for a great deal of time for the administrative process to take its course. But the fact of the matter is I think the vast majority of Americans would agree that for the sake of a transfer of 2 acres that the town is currently leasing anyway, it would certainly give the citizens of the town peace of mind that they deserve. That they do not need to bury their dead at sea, that they do not need to inappropriately bury people in the aisles of cemeteries that they have existing, which sounds somewhat unusual, but it is in fact alternatives that have already been considered. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record: Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA, January 23, 1996. Joseph F. Quinn, Director, Officer of Recreation Services, Dept. of Resources & Economic Development, Division of Parks & Recreation, Concord, NH. Dear Joe: This is in response to your request for NPS consideration of concepts for conversions at three Land and Water Conservation Fund assisted sites. These sites are: 33-00260--26 acres of the 6f protected Gorham Common. 33-00139--1.42 acres of 6f protected land in Conway, NH. 33-00077--2 acres of the 6f protected Grat Island Common. We have reviewed the preliminary information submitted by your office regarding these proposed conversions and have no objection at this time to the approach you suggest for projects 260 and 77. As you know, final NPS approval of a conversion request can only be given after review and approval of a formal conversion package which includes full documentation. If you decide to proceed with conversion for projects 260 and 77 full documentation must be submitted at that time. In reviewing the conversion concept for project 33-00139 we find that the parcel now being considered as substitution land is not large enough to formulate an acceptable replacement for the land to be converted. We encourage the Town of Conway to look for an alternative site which will avoid loss of 6f protected land. If you need any additional information on any of these proposals please contact me. Sincerely, Cynthia Wilkerson.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio has stated that he does not have any questions about the merit of the bill. Now the gentleman from California is stating we do not have enough information. If the gentleman from California could clarify which position prevails.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SUNUNU. The gentleman's point that the ATP funding is going to the private sector and companies that already exist emphasizes exactly the point that those of us that oppose the program are trying to make, and that, is the beneficiaries or private companies in most cases are already earning a profit, already undertaking this research, and we ought not to be subsidizing those private sector profitable initiatives.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield further?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify that I am a strong proponent of Federal programs that invest in basic R&D, and I would point to the National Science Foundation, $2.2 billion or so that we will invest this year through universities and laboratories and colleges all across the country. And my question would be: What exactly is the difference between the kinds of projects that the gentleman describes and the National Science Foundation programs? The only fundamental difference that I can see is under ATP the projects and the subsidies are going towards corporations, again, the largest corporations in the country for the most part. Why can we not consolidate whatever efforts they have with the NSF, which is already well-founded, well-funded and undertaking true basic research rather than subsidizing?

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that even the strongest proponents of the ATP readily admit that its value, its subsidy goes almost exclusively to otherwise profitable corporations, many of them the largest corporations, not just in the United States but the largest and most profitable corporations in the entire world. They use phrases like cost-sharing and risk-sharing, but where I come from, that is simply a euphemism for subsidy. These are subsidies to very large corporations that are undertaking research and development, the vast majority of which otherwise would undertake that very same R&D because they know it makes good business sense to invest in these new products and in some cases even in emerging technologies. Risk-sharing. We somehow think that risk-sharing is something that the Federal Government, that the United States should be intimately involved in and taking taxpayer dollars and somehow subsidizing these risks. But the fact of the matter is we have a very well-developed venture capital industry in this country, most certainly the most well- developed, most sophisticated venture capital industry in the world, that has a keen ability to go out and find new technologies, find new products, find new companies in which they can invest profitably. The idea that somehow the United States government, that a number of bureaucrats sitting around in an office somewhere in Washington, D.C. has the intellectual acumen to compete with the greatest minds in the world who are investing in ventures every day is ridiculous. I think what it comes down to are two things, two reasons that people insist on trying to subsidize R&D for these profitable corporations year after year after year: First, perhaps politicians want to take some credit for creating jobs. They want to feel that they can take taxpayer money allocated for one part of the country to another in some sort of a company, some sort of a venture and then take credit for jobs that might somehow be related to that investment. But that is not really what we are here to do. We are here to create an economic climate in which jobs can be created. We are not here as elected officials or bureaucrats that might be appointed in Washington to somehow decide what the technological winners and losers in our economy ought to be. The notion that we somehow can pick the new technologies, the new products that are going to create jobs for companies tomorrow as elected officials is simply wrong. We might be able to find one or two projects or even five or 10 projects where some job was created, and I would certainly hope that after spending billions of dollars, the ATP can point to at least a couple of successes, but the ultimate question is whether or not we are going to engage in this kind of corporate welfare year after year after year. We can also just as easily point to the areas where we have subsidized or tried to subsidize otherwise profitable industries or mistaken technologies at the expense of the taxpayer. There was a movement in this Congress eight, 10 years ago to subsidize the static memory industry, the D-RAM industry. It was the be-all and end-all of technology investment. We needed to be competitive. This was the future of the country. The fact of the matter is today the static memory business is one of the least profitable businesses in the entire world. If we had followed the industry policy wonks down that road, we would not have wasted millions or tens of millions of public money, we would have wasted hundreds of millions. High definition television. The Japanese government wasted billions of dollars developing a high definition TV standard that ultimately will be a laughingstock, because the private minds, the private sector was willing to take risks, invest in new technology, evolve technology, and ultimately it is a private sector-developed standard that will dominate the HDTV industry if and when it finally does arrive. Politicians and bureaucrats cannot and should not pick winners and losers in industries across the country. We should not play off one industry against the other; the telecommunications industry against the pharmaceutical industry, the pharmaceutical industry against biotechnology, biotechnology against textiles. That is wrong. It is not just wrongheaded, it is not just intellectually wrong, but it is morally wrong, to take taxpayer funds from hardworking people who may not be in an industry that is getting the big subsidy, take their tax dollars and do not just give it to another industry but give it to some fat cat in a Fortune 500 company that is raking in billions and billions of dollars of profits every year. We need to take a stand against that kind of wrongheaded technology policy and industrial policy. We need to take a stand against corporate welfare. We need to support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate a very special group of high school students and their teachers taking part in the Capitol Hill robotics competition today in the Rayburn Office Building, a contest that is unlike any other that I know. This competition brings together students with high technology companies, universities, research laboratories and designers to compete head to head. They design machines that go head to head in competition in front of fans and a worldwide television audience. In forming this partnership, students are introduced to the concepts of design, mechanics, engineering and materials, and they are encouraged to push further into the worlds of science, technology, mathematics and the opportunities they create. This unique challenge is the brainchild of the Foundation for the Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology First, headed by Mr. Dean Kamen of Manchester, New Hampshire, a city I am proud to represent. The contest has grown from very humble beginnings in a high school gymnasium. This year, however, the finals will be at Epcot Center, a national presentation in front of thousands of high school fans that understand the value of learning science and technology. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all of those that have worked to make this initiative a success, inspiring students and teaching them to achieve their dreams through education.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I will begin by emphasizing that the colleague who just spoke was correct in one regard, and that is a simple point that the President's budget is not on the floor tonight. It is not on the floor tonight because nobody on the other side had the guts to bring it to the floor tonight. Even the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget refused to bring the President's budget to the floor, because it raises taxes $130 billion, it raises spending $150 billion, it creates new entitlements, it creates new programs, and not a single Member on the other side was willing to bring that sham to the floor. Instead we are talking about a Republican budget plan. Perhaps the problem is that it is too simple a vision for some on the other side to understand. It does three principal things. It pays down public debt. It reduces the amount of debt held by the public by taking surpluses and using it for that important cause. It shrinks the rate of growth of government by 1 percent. And it uses that controlling the size of government to eliminate the marriage penalty. I do not know what the other side is opposed to. Maybe they are opposed to paying down the debt. Maybe they are opposed to eliminating the marriage penalty. And we have heard that they certainly may be opposed to reducing the size of the government from $9.1 trillion to $9 trillion. Maybe $9 trillion just is not enough. Maybe they need $10 trillion or $11 or $12 or $15 trillion. But the fact is we have spent $7.8 trillion over the past 5 years and under this budget we spend $9 trillion. Government will grow at greater than the rate of inflation. Maybe it is not enough for some on this side of the aisle. Maybe government has to get bigger and bigger and bigger. But what we are trying to do is just control the rate of growth. Three goals, pay down the debt, control the rate of growth of government, and eliminate the marriage penalty. Paying down debt, why is it important? It is important because it brings down interest rates. We reduce public borrowing, we let the private sector borrow more and we reduce interest rates, lower cost of home mortgages, lower student loans, lower cost of auto loans. We heard what happened with the President's tax increase in 1993. Interest rates shot up. Over the next year they shot up 2 percent, from 6 percent all the way up to 8 percent. That is tens of thousands of dollars more in home mortgage costs, thousands of dollars more in student loan costs or automobile loan costs, right out of the pockets of the American consumer. Today interest rates are low. If we continue to pay down debt with these surpluses, they will go even lower; 1, 2 percent less if you talk to Alan Greenspan. Paying down debt keeps money in the pockets of the average American family. Second, controlling the rate of growth of government. We talked about that. From $9.1 trillion to $9 trillion. Earlier this evening, much earlier this evening, not at midnight or 11 o'clock or 10 o'clock, but around 9 o'clock or 8 o'clock, we saw a nine foot belt out here and said, can we not just take a nine foot belt and bring it in one notch, from $9.1 trillion to $9 trillion. We can reduce the rate of growth. And finally, eliminate the marriage penalty. Bring tax relief to the American people, more money in their pockets, take a little bit of power away from Washington, and give it back to the American people. I think any time we take power away from Washington and give it back to Americans, we are doing right thing. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to Ashley Allyn, 16, of New Durham, New Hampshire. As a national winner of 1997-98 Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary ``Voice of Democracy'' broadcast script writing contest, Ashley concisely captures the importance of America's most basic freedoms in her well-written entry. I hereby submit Ashley's work for publication in the Congressional Record and congratulate her for her thoughtful piece entitled ``My Voice in our Democracy.'' Her words serve as a thoughtful reminder to all Americans that in a Democracy each voice does matter [1997-1998 VFW Voice of Democracy Scholarship Competition] My Voice in our Democracy (By Ashley Allyn) ``The doctor will see you now.'' That's something you might expect to hear if you've lost your voice. That is ``voice''-- defined in the dictionary as ``sound made through the mouth, especially by human beings, as in talking, singing, etc.'' But there is another sort of voice we need to be concerned about. Consulting the dictionary again, we find quite ``the right to express one's wish, choice, opinion, or to make it prevail; as in, having a `voice' in our government.'' We have all seen enough newspaper and television accounts of the tragic consequences in counties where the people have lost their voice. My voice in our democracy started before I could even actually speak. Ours is a country with civil rights for all-- no matter how young. I was protected by laws from the very beginning of my life. As I grew older, I was able to function within our democracy on a smaller scale--within my family, my peer group, and my school. When I turn 18, my voice will grow louder, because I will be able to vote. But what about now? Under our Constitution, my rights as a citizen are protected. One of the most satisfying things about living in a democracy is knowing that I do have a voice. I have the right to free speech, the right to publish my feelings, the right to write my Congressmen, and the right to organize a group. Even children in elementary school have made their voices heard by launching a campaign addressing a concern. Anyone can make their voice heard by the leaders of this country--they must have to speak up. I can do it, too. With supporters behind any cause I choose, my voice will be heard in Washington. Ha, you think. Congressmen don't listen. They're corrupt, they're not even real to me. Think again. Given an unusual chance most people could only dream about, I was able to meet our nation's senators, to work with them face to face, and get to know their personal quirks and mannerisms. I realized that they are just people like you and me. They're everyday people--but they're people who had the drive, the initiative, and the concern for their country to try to fix its problems. After that opportunity, I saw how important and valuable anyone's voice is and I realized that I wanted my voice to be heard. Oh, I won't necessarily change the world at this stage of the game, but the knowledge that, in the very near future, that could be a real possibility is something that will direct my educational goals and my extracurricular activities. As a high school student, there are many opportunities for me to voice my opinion. I can debate issues in class, I can attend government related activities such as Model Congress and Youth in Government, and I can campaign for political candidates. By showing my support for a candidate, whether it be at the town or national level, I am telling my neighbors, my community, and my country that I care about what laws are passed and which programs are funded. I can petition my school board if I feel a change needs to be made in my school. I can write my state senator about a problem that I feel needs to be addressed in my state. There are countless ways a teenager can tell the rest of the world that they notice, observe, and strive to change their own little corner. And as my corner grows, so do the changes I can make. And as my voice grows, so do the others behind it. My voice will continue to be heard, at different levels, as my school years and community involvements continues. But in a democracy, it is reassuring to know that it will never be along. Others may be making different points, and even opposing points, but they will all be heard. And that, of course, is our fundamental strength--that here in America we will always have a chorus of voices.

Mr. SUNUNU

Mr. SUNUNU. I think it is interesting that the gentleman mentioned the circumstances in 1974, because the previous speaker made the point that somehow the call for the President to be forthcoming, the emphasis that no one is above the law, seemed to be unprecedented. Not only were the speaker's comments fair, I think they stand in stark contrast to the comments of the Speaker of the House in January of 1974, when the Speaker of this body called for the resignation of President Nixon months in advance of any bipartisan investigation. So at that time there was not only a willingness to move forward without any thought of a bipartisan discussion of the issues but the Speaker of the House was calling for a resignation before that impartial investigation could even move forward. I would finally like to note that in the gentleman's discussion of the obstruction that the committee has run into, not only were those four immunity requests, that had been approved by the Justice Department, voted down by all 19 Democrat members of the committee, there have been, to date, 92 individuals that have either taken the fifth amendment or fled the country or refused to talk to authorities that have obstructed the progress of the committee's investigation. And, Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of all 92 individuals that have obstructed the investigation in that way. Witnesses Who Have Fled or Plead the 5th (Full Committee Hearing--December 9, 1997) Mr. Burton. Have you ever experienced so many unavailable witnesses in any matter in which you have prosecuted or on which you have been involved? FBI Director Freeh. I spent about 16 years doing organized crime cases in New York City, and many people were frequently unavailable. 53 house & senate witnesses asserting fifth amendment John Huang, Gene Lum, Gin F. J. Chen, Mark Middleton, Nolanda Hill, Jane Huang, Duangnet Kronenberg, Maria L. Hsia, Webster Hubbell, Yogesh Ghandi, Steven Hwang, Gilbert Colon, Irene Wu, Mike Lin, Zie Pan Huang,* Michael Brown, Simon Chen, Kent La, Johnny Chung, David Wang,* Siuw Moi Lian,* Seow Fong Ooi, Bin Yueh Jeng, Hsiu Chu Lin, Jen Chin Hsueh, Chi Rung Wang, Jou Sheng, Judy Hsu, Jane Dewi Tahir, Maria Mapili, Jie Su Hsiao, Hsiu Luan Tseng, Mark Jimenez, Woody Hwang, Sioeng Fei Man, Terri Bradley, Man Ya Shih,* Keshi Zhan,* Yi Chu,* Joseph Landon,* Nora Lum, Larry Wong, Na-chi ``Nancy'' Lee, Hueutsan Huang,* Yue Chu,* Man Ho,* Manlin Foung,* Yumei Yang, Arapaho/Cheyenne Indians, Hsin Chen Shih, Shu Jen Wu,* Charles Intriago, and Jessica Elinitiarta. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *Granted Immunity after plead 5th Amendment. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 witnesses have left the country Charlie Trie (has returned to United States), Antonio Pan, Arief Wiriandinata, Subandi Tanuwidjaja, Susanto Tanuwidjaja, Yanti Ardi, Laureen Elnitiarta, Pauline Kanchanalak, John H.K. Lee, Ted Sioeng, Soraya Wiriadinata, Suryanti Tanuwidjaja, Nanny Nitiarta, Sandra Elnitiarta, Ming Chen, Agus Setiawan, Dewi Tirto, Felix Ma, Subandi Tanuwidjaja, Yopie Elnitiarta, and Sundari Elnitiarta. 18 foreign witnesses have refused to be interviewed by investigative bodies Ng Lap Seng, Ken Hsui, Eugene Wu, Suma Ching Hai, Ambrose Hsuing, Bruce Cheung, Stephen Riady, John Muncy, Mochtar Riady, James Riady, Lay Kweek Wie, Wang Jun, Roy Tirtadji, James Lin, Stanley Ho, Daniel Wu, Li Kwai Fai, and Hogen Fukunaga.

Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?