Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. The gentlewoman from New York said a little bit ago, asked the question, what is the difference between the grant of clemency today and what happened in 1979? Let me tell the Members the difference. In 1979 we had not experienced two of our embassies being blown up by terrorists. In 1979 we had not experienced the World Trade Center being bombed. In 1979 we had not experienced the Murragh Federal building being bombed. That is the difference. Today there is no greater threat to the United States of America. There is no army, no foreign army that is a greater threat to the United States than terrorism. That is the threat today, foreign terrorists and domestic terrorists. That is why this decision, whether it was made for political reasons or personal conscience, I do not care. It does not matter to me what it was. We have talked about what may have motivated the President. It is not significant. It is not relevant. The fact is that he is making this decision at the worst possible time. It is our responsibility in this House to voice a concern about the fact that terrorism does threaten the United States, today more than ever before. I have heard words like the resolution is a sham and it is embarrassing. The only thing that is a sham and is embarrassing here is opposition to this resolution, because we are in fact in the most severe situation we have ever faced with regard to terrorism. So therefore to suggest that these people are not terrorists because that is not what they were convicted for, to suggest that we should not be using the word ``terrorism'' here to describe these people, is something like suggesting that we should not use the word ``murderer or thief'' to describe Al Capone simply because he was convicted of tax evasion, when we all knew that he was responsible for and guilty of many other crimes. So ``terrorism'' is the right word, and we should support this resolution.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me say that it is a tribute to the work of this committee and to the subcommittee and its chairman that it has been very difficult to find the necessary offsets to do what we hope to do in this amendment, and that is to increase the amount for State extended-care facilities program by $7 million. We are, however, proposing to do that, and we do recognize the commitment of the committee, and I want to once again say that it was a very difficult task. I am not here asking for more money. I recognize fully well that the total bill is a very rich bill considering what he had available to him and considering what we had available to us and what the committee had available to work with. It is our hope to convince both the committee and the other Members of the Congress, of the House of Representatives, that we need to shift the priorities to a certain extent, to a very small extent, totaling again as I said only $7 million into the State extended-care facilities program. These are the nursing homes that we build across the country, and these are facilities that, by the way, are built with State matching funds, so it is a bigger bang for the buck that we get for this. The President's budget suggested only a $40 million appropriations level. The committee quite appropriately increased that dramatically. In fact, increased it a hundred percent, increased it to $80 million. That is still $10 million below last year's level, and therefore we are concerned. We are concerned because 36 percent of all veterans who are over the age of 65, and that number is expected to increase exponentially over the next 8 years. We are concerned that there are 25.2 million veterans as of July 1, 1998 of whom 19.3 million have served during at least one period defined as, quote, war time, concerned that in 2010 over half of the veterans population will be over the age of 62. An increasing in age of most veterans means additional demands for medical services for eligible veterans as aging brings on chronic conditions needing more frequent care and lengthier convalescence. A third of all the veterans will undoubtedly put a strain on our Nation's veterans health services. At the current pace of construction, we will not have the necessary facilities to meet veterans extended care needs. This is a cost share program, as I mentioned, with the State, so money that goes into this account is multiplied by the State's commitment to build and run the facility. Last year, as I mentioned, the House and Senate approved $90 million for the State extended facilities construction program, so this is the present bill. It anticipates a $10 million reduction below that. In truth, even if our amendment is successful in restoring at least $7 million of the funding approaching last year's level, it still may be not enough to meet the actual need for construction. Unfortunately, we still remain $15 million short of the funding that the State associations of veterans nursing homes say they need to meet construction deadlines. This amendment will be offset by minor reductions in the funding for various accounts, the EPA facilities management, chemical safety investigations, work salaries, and expenses. I recognize that in every single, and believe, I want to reiterate the fact that we looked very carefully for places where we could go to offset this. It was very difficult because this is a tight budget, and I fully understand that and commend the committee and the staff for their work. It is nonetheless our hope that we can encourage our colleagues to join in this small way in this very minor adjustment change a priority here that we think is extremely important.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call to the House's attention an event--actually, a celebration--which is expanding across the country. The celebration is Liberty Day, which honors the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Liberty Day was begun by the Colorado Lions and now represents a collaborative project among service clubs. It is totally nonpartisan and supported by all political parties in my state, has been unanimously endorsed by the state legislature, teachers, the state board of education and many others. Booklets containing copies of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are printed with private donations, and are distributed to school kids by elected officials who visit classes and speak about the importance of the founding documents. Earlier this year, I visited West Middle School in Greenwood Village, Colorado to mark Liberty Day in Colorado. Liberty Day Colorado is officially celebrated on March 16th, the birthday of James Madison. I believe that every student in America should take at least one day to study these documents, learning how these documents give us such remarkable rights and responsibilities as citizens. I would like to submit the following six proclamations into the Record. They were issued by Governor Bill Owens of Colorado; Governor Jim Geringer of Wyoming; Governor Gray Davis of California; the Colorado State Legislature; the Colorado State Board of Education; and the Colorado Federation of Teachers. I believe that our founding documents are essential to understanding what it means to be an American. The ideas embodied in these historical documents, so unprecedented at the time of the Founders, continue to make our country unique in the world today. I urge members to take advantage of the opportunity to start Liberty Day in their state. For information, please contact Andy McKean at the Liberty Day Colorado Information Clearinghouse at 3600 E. 48th Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80216; (phone) 303-333-3434; (fax) 303-339-1011; or (e-mail) Liberty Day@aol.com. Colorado Honorary Proclamation Whereas, we as Americans enjoy our liberties through the documents that our founding fathers created, those being known as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with its Bill of Rights; and Whereas, James Madison wrote the Virginia Plan, the model and the basis of discussion for the forming of a new constitution, in the constitutional convention of 1787, which new constitution established our new form of government, replacing the Articles of Confederation; and Whereas, James Madison wrote many of the newspaper articles which outlined the reasons that the states should endorse the new constitution. These articles became known as the Federalist Papers. James Madison served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1789 until 1797 during which time he introduced into Congress the Bill of Rights; and Whereas, James Madison was President of the United States from 1809 until 1817; and Tuesday, March 16, 1999 is the 243rd anniversary of the birth of James Madison; Now Therefore, I, Bill Owens, Governor of the State of Colorado, do hereby proclaim March 16, 1999, as Liberty Day in the State of Colorado. Given under my hand and the Executive Seal of the State of Colorado, this sixteenth day of February, 1999--Bill Owens, Governor.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove my name as cosponsor from H.R. 1621.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise with a heavy heart, but a heart that is buoyed by thoughts of hope and inspiration. In a little over a week, the first day of school begins at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, which is located in my district. We can all remember the first day of school and the excitement that went along with it. The anticipation for the year ahead and what it would bring. The exhilarating feeling of seeing friends, joining new clubs and sports teams, and being a part of something special. I doubt that many of us would ever trade our experiences in high school for anything. Tragically, more than 2,000 students will begin school at Columbine without twelve of their classmates, and one teacher. These individuals are not among them not because they have graduated and gone onto college or moved to another town and now attend another school. They are not pursuing passions such as being a Navy pilot, fishing, singing, playing football, traveling to France, acting, playing music, working as a missionary, playing volleyball, praying, or being a father. They are not with them, because they were the victims of a senseless and destructive act that took place April 20, 1999. Among these students will be twenty-two individuals who were wounded during the events of April 20th and are hoping to return to school this year. These students and teachers face challenges in the coming days and beyond that no one should have to face in the future. Richard Castaldo, Sean Graves, Anne Marie Hochhalter, Lance Kirklin, Kasey Ruegsegger, Patrick Ireland, Mark Taylor, Jennifer Doyle, Makai Hall, Mark Kintgen, Nicole, Nowlen, Danny Steepleton, Brian Anderson, Stephen Austin Eubanks, Nicholas Foss, Joyce Jankowski, Adam Kyler, Stephanie Munson, Patricia Nielsen, Charles Simmons, Evan Todd, and Michael Johnson are strong enough to stand up and begin another chapter in their lives, a chapter that we will help them write by giving them every opportunity to have a year of safe and enjoyable memories. Three of the wounded, Valeen Schnurr, Lisa Kreutz, and Jeanna Park, received their diplomas last Spring, and have now begun the important step of continuing on with life after such a tragic event. This tragedy has caused us as Americans to reevaluate and reflect on our own moral and social values and to reexamine the role that we play as parents, relatives, and family members in the lives of our nation's children. This tragedy has driven many of us to work to bring not only healing, but also a reformation of our way of life. Everyone who lives in America felt what happened to those students. The phrase, ``it can't happen in my backyard'' is now gone for the residents of the Sixth District. I do, however, feel hope and inspiration today. I feel a sense of hope when I see and hear the determination and genuine concern that individuals have when discussing our schools and a desire to make them a safe and prosperous environment. I feel a great sense of inspiration in these students and teachers who are walking back through the same doors they ran out on April 20, 1999. In fact, as of August 2, no students had applied for a transfer from Columbine. We are witnessing real courage. I ask that my colleagues in the United States Congress, any my fellow citizens, pray for the students of Columbine High School as they start a new year. Pray that the smiles of youth return to these students. Pray that we have the power and the faith to do our part to ensure that this horrible violation of innocence is never repeated again. And, most of all, pray for the families of: Cassie Bernall, Steven Curnow, Corey DePooter, Kelly Fleming, Matthew Kechter, Daniel Mauser, Daniel Rohrbough, Rachel Scott, Isaiah Shoels, John Tomlin, Lauren Townsend, Kyle Velazques, and Dave Sanders, the twelve students and one teacher who will not be starting school this year.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There have been a number of comments made with regard to the original treaty obligations of the United States, but concerning the Man and the Biosphere program, Congress has never gone on record either authorizing or supporting such a program to be carried out. Furthermore, many people have raised the issue as to the treaty obligation for the World Heritage Fund. This, however, is not true. In article 16, paragraph 2 of the convention concerning the protection of world cultural and natural heritage, it states that each state may declare at the time of ratification that it shall not be bound by the provisions of paragraph 1 which deals with the payment of regular contributions to the World Heritage Fund. Likewise on October 26, 1973, the Senate consented to the ratification of the convention subject to the declaration that the United States is not bound by provisions dealing with regular contributions to the World Heritage Fund. The Senate has the power to ratify, but this House has the responsibility of the public purse. We are not bound to contribute to the program with the hard-earned money of the American people. I strongly urge support of this amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. A decision affecting the land of private citizens in Australia was decided by bureaucrats in a country halfway around the world. These are decisions which should be handled by the government of the country in which the action in question takes place. It should in no way be given over to an international organization with foreign influence. Similar amendments to the one I have proposed have been passed in previous appropriations bills because these programs draw from funds of over 10 governmental agencies. This House has gone on record before to deny funding to these two particular organizations, and I believe that we must come together again to make sure more American taxpayer money is not used for programs which do not serve the American people justly. I believe that there are certainly better places for this funding to be spent than in UNESCO, an organization from which the United States withdrew over a decade and a half ago. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentlewoman for letting me interject here. The fact is that we have amended our own amendment. We do not strike any particular dollar amount, we just prevent funds from going for these two programs. It actually would go other places in the bill.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer today cuts nothing from the total appropriations for the Foreign Operations appropriations, but it does prohibit any use of funds for the Man and the Biosphere Program and the World Heritage Convention. Currently, there are 47 Biosphere Reserves and 20 World Heritage Sites in the United States that in total make up a land area the size of my home State of Colorado. Creation of these reserves and sites has significant impact on non-Federal lands outside the designated areas and in several instances has caused major problems for private land owners. In fact, several States have passed resolutions opposing U.S. Biosphere Programs. Over the past several years in both the United States and Australia, the weight levied by World Heritage Sites has been brought to bear by private citizens carrying out the course of their industry. In Yellowstone National Park, the environmental impact statement for the New World Mine was not even finished when the World Heritage Committee voted to place Yellowstone on the ``In Danger'' list for World Heritage Sites. Likewise, the Jabiluka Mine in Kakido National Forest in Australia came up against a similar threat by the World Heritage Committee, but this time the verdict was much more agreeable. What is ironic is that the decision was handed down in Paris.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The opponents of the amendment have suggested that in fact we have seen this many times before and it has been turned down by the House. In fact, the House has passed and the Congress has passed this amendment more than once on other programs, on other appropriations. I refer specifically to the State Department authorizations for fiscal year 1998 and 1999, agreed to by recorded vote of 222-202. The Interior appropriations bill, fiscal year 1998, agreed to 222-203. The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998, all of these. For one thing Mr. Chairman, these two programs actually receive funding from a variety of different organizations and a variety of different departments, and so you have to go after them as you see them arise. That is why we have had to do this before. But each time, at least in the situations that I have identified, they have been passed by this House. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, it has been more than three months since the tragic event of Columbine High School occurred a few blocks from my home. As we here in Congress continue to struggle to find ways to prevent this terror from ever happening again, I would like to call attention to a report prepared by the Free Congress Foundation which will hopefully broaden our understanding of how cultural factors shape the lives of our youth. I would like to submit into the record the attached executive summary from the report, written by Tom Jipping, Director of the Center for Law and Democracy at the Free Congress Foundation, which details popular music's contribution to youth violence. Mr. Jipping has worked with at- risk youth for a dozen years, and research and written in this area for over a decade. The report outlines research, survey data, and other evidence documenting how some popular music can lead some young people to violence. Many congressional offices have received a hard copy of the entire report already. The report does not advocate any specific policy proposals but instead provides comprehensive information that will make anyone, no matter what plan of action they pursue, better informed. The report has been endorsed by hundreds of grassroots organizations and religious leaders from the evangelical, Catholic, Jewish and Orthodox communities. I urge all Members to read the attached executive summary and the full report as we continue to address the problem of youth violence and delinquency. ``There Is a Virus Loose Within Our Culture:'' An Honest Look at Music's Impact (By Thomas L. Jipping) After two teenagers killed twelve of their peers, a teacher, and themselves at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, Governor Bill Owens said that ``there is a virus loose within our culture.'' The effort to identify that virus is properly focusing on visually powerful elements of youth culture such as television, movies, and video games. This report addresses whether non-visual media such as popular music are also part of this cultural virus that can help lead some young people to violence. Five days after the massacre, on NBC's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert reported that the Littleton killers idolized shock-rocker Marilyn Manson, described by even the music press as an ``ultra-violent satanic rock monstrosity.'' They were not alone. Kip Kinkel, who murdered his parents and two students in Springfield, Oregon, consumed Manson's message. Andrew Wurst, who killed a teacher at an eighth-grade dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, was nicknamed ``Satan'' because he ``was a fan of rocker Marilyn Manson and his dark music.'' Luke Woodham, who murdered his parents and a classmate in Pearl, Mississippi, was a fan of Manson's ``nihilistic'' lyrics. This pattern includes other violent youths whose plans were foiled. A Leesburg, Virginia, boy suspended for making threats against students who mocked his work was fascinated with Marilyn Manson. Five Wisconsin teenagers who had planned ``a bloodbath at their school in revenge for being teased'' consumed Manson's message. Some claim this is all just a coincidence. Perhaps, but a series of parallels suggests a more concrete connection. The first is the parallel between the facts of these cases, the motivation of the killers, and the themes in the music they consumed. According to media reports, these boys all killed out of hatred for, or revenge against, those who had offended, harassed, or persecuted them. Luke Woodham, for example, had said that ``the world has wronged me.'' Consider what their idol Marilyn Manson told them to do about it: ``The big bully try to stick his finger in my chest, try to tell me, tell me he's the best. But I don't really give a good * * * cause I got my lunchbox and I'm armed real well. . . . Next * * * gonna get my metal. . . . Pow pow pow, pow pow pow, pow pow pow, pow pow pow. . . . I wanna grow up so no one * * * with me ``But your selective judgments and goodguy badges don't mean a * * * to me. I throw a little fit. I slit my teenage wrist. . . . Get your gunn, get your gunn ``I hate the hater, I'd rape the raper ``There's no time to discriminate, hate every * * * that's in your way. ``There is no cure for what is killing me, I'm on my way down; I've looked ahead and saw a world that's dead, I guess I am too; I'm on my way down, I'd like to take you with me ``I'll make everyone pay and you will see . . . The boy that you loved is the monster you fear. ``When you are suffering know that I have betrayed you ``Shoot here and the world gets smaller; Shoot shoot shoot * * * ``Live like a teenage christ; I'm a saint, got a date with suicide ``I'm dying, I hope you're dying too ``I'm gonna hate you tomorrow because you make me hate you today'' The second parallel is the message Manson himself says he tries to promote. Ordained in the Church of Satan, Manson has said that ``[Church of Satan founder Anton] LaVey along with Nietzsche and [British Satanist Aleistair] Crowley have all been great influences on the way that I think.'' In a foreword to the book Satan Speaks, Manson wrote that ``Anton LaVey was the most righteous man I've ever known.'' On CNN's The American Edge program, Manson explained his message: ``God is dead, you are your own god. It's a lot about self preservation. . . . It's the part of you that no longer has hope in mankind. And you realize that you are the only thing you believe in.'' Manson has compared Christians to Nazis and insists that ``hate is just as healthy and worthwhile as love.'' This message contributes to the situation Vice President Al Gore described at a Littleton memorial service on April 25, 1999: ``Too many young people place too little value on human life.'' The third parallel is Manson's own life, which looks similar to those who consume and act on his message. In one interview, he described it this way: ``Then I had to go to public school and they would always kick my ass. . . . So I didn't end up having a lot of friends and music was the only thing I had to enjoy. So I got into [heavy metal rock bands] Kiss, Black Sabbath and things like that.'' While Marilyn Manson alone is not the problem, his brand of music promotes violence more aggressively than ever. Indeed, Manson's own response to the Littleton massacre raises the issue to be addressed here. Television or even religion may cause youth violence, he says, but music plays no role whatsoever. In fact, he claims that he is actually a victim when he asserts that the media ``has unfairly scapegoated the music industry. . . . and has speculated--with no basis in truth--that artists like myself are in some way [sic] to blame.'' Unfortunately, it appears that the music industry's only response to this cultural crisis is simply to deny that its products have any effect on anyone. One the June 29, 1999, edition on CNN's Showbiz Today program, for example, musician Billy Joel dismissed as ``absurd'' the idea that music influences violent behavior. Elton John put it more bluntly: ``It has nothing to do with the musical content or the lyrics whatsoever. [The idea is] absolute rubbish.'' No one, or course, argues that popular music is the sole cause of youth violence. Something as complex as human behavior does not have a sole cause. The question is not whether popular music is the exclusive cause of youth (something no one seriously argues), but whether there is any ``basis in truth'' for the proposition that some popular music makes a real contribution to youth (something only the music industry denies). The affirmative answer to this question rests on three pillars. First, media such as television and music are very powerful influences on attitudes and behavior. Second, popular music in an even more powerful influence on young people. Third, some of the most popular music today promotes destructive behavior such as violence and drug use. Effective prescriptions require accurate diagnoses. Whether the solution involves parental involvement, public policy, pressure on recording companies or retailers to change their practices, or all of these and more, the effort must be informed by a comprehensive understanding of the problem.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for recognizing me, to allow me to discuss the subject. Something has been bothering me ever since the debate on the bill that we had on the floor of the House on the issue of the tax reduction. I was observing the debate. It was heated. It was, I think for the most part, articulate and to the point. But one member of the opposition, a very prominent Democrat, stood at the well and said that he had been in this body for a number of years and he could remember, he said, that in 1981 we in fact put through a tax reduction package. It was actually I think in 1983. He was talking about the fact that at that point in time, he was suggesting we were watching the same phenomenon, that we were going to put through a tax reduction package again and that we would see something similar occur. He said what happened after we reduced taxes, essentially after the Reagan tax cuts, he said we saw an explosion of debt, and that the national debt increased dramatically. He was concerned, he said, because he believed the same thing was going to happen here. I wanted to, at the time, come to the floor just to have the opportunity, and that is why I appreciate this moment now, to remind the gentleman that in fact what he said was accurate, we did have a tax rates reduction and we did have an explosion in debt, but it was not because we gave the people back their money, it was because there was such an increase in revenue to the Federal Government that it was, of course, spent by the Congress. It was not a problem with the reduction of taxes, it was a problem in the increase in spending that caused the explosion in that debt. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid with this tax cut proposal, because there is not a soul out there, Mr. Speaker, I do not care which side of the aisle Members are on, and I do not care where Members are on the political spectrum, Members cannot believe, with history as our judge, Members cannot believe that this Congress, whether it was controlled by the Republicans or Democrats, would be given another $800 billion in the till, and we cannot believe that it would be used to ``pay down the national debt.'' It would be spent. That is why this Congress, this majority, is hoping against hope that we can give that money back before it gets spent, or the gentleman from the other side who was talking the other night will be right, it will, of course, increase the national debt, because we will spend every dime of it if it is left here.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 57, which was commendably introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) in direct defiance to the Jackson-Vanik waiver renewed by the President on June 3. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to address an issue that we characterize as normal trade status, normal trade relations, and we want to extend it. The implications, of course, going along with that phrase ``normal trade status,'' ``normal trade relations,'' would be that something good is happening as a result of it and, therefore, we want to continue it, normal trade relations. But in reality, Mr. Speaker, nothing good is happening as a result of having these trade relationships with China. Now, we in fact do not export very much and as a matter of fact every year it gets worse. The amount of products that we actually export from the United States to China is relatively small. A variety of reasons: The Chinese, of course the government keeps a number of obstacles in place to prevent us from actually exporting our merchandise. And beyond that, of course, there is no market. Relatively few people in China can buy anything when the at average income is $600 a year. That is one problem. On the other side, of course, we do import a great deal from China; and we say that this is a good thing because we can import products that are cheaper, our consumers can buy cheaper products. Well, it is absolutely true that we can buy cheaper products from China. It is much more difficult for American workers to compete with workers in China because, of course, workers in China, for the most part, are not paid anything. They are, in fact, slave laborers. A recent South China Morning Post article stated, China directory contains detailed financial information on 99 labor camps with annual commercial sales of $842 million to the United States. In other words, we import almost a billion dollars of slave labor products, slave labor produced products. How proud does that make my colleagues feel? Vote for the amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we just came upstairs from a hearing that the subcommittee held. It was subcommittee on examining education programs benefiting Native American children. It was a fascinating hearing. We heard from a number of people from the BIA and people running Indian schools on reservations. We asked those folks about what they considered to be the most significant change we could possibly provide for them that would make something positive happen in their schools. Because, frankly, today, the educational system for Native Americans is a disaster. From almost any standpoint or any way we want to measure it, it is a disaster. It is perhaps a microcosm of the broader problems we have in this country. So we asked what it was they thought we can do, what can the Federal Government possibly do to help you make it better. The first thing that was said by the gentleman who is with the BIA, and he went on at some length on this, is essentially this: please give us more flexibility. He said everything that has happened up to this point in time, the 20 to 25 years that we have been experimenting with the various programs handed down by government, all of the individual programs and titles that have tied our hands have made it literally impossible for us, and I am paraphrasing here, I admit, literally impossible for us to do what we have been asking them to do, and that is to improve the quality of education for our children. He said, please do this for us: give us the money; let us determine how it will be spent. Give us more flexibility in determining exactly who goes to school, in what school, and what kind of a teacher that particular student confronts. That, he said, is what will do more for Indian education than anything else. Mr. Chairman, I suggest it will also do more for American education, and that is why we have to defeat the Martinez amendment and go with the bill itself.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Colorado State Secretary, Victoria ``Vikki'' Buckley: a wife and mother of three, a public servant, a self made individual, and a leading citizen of the Denver Metro Area, in Colorado, who passed away last week. Vikky Buckley was a courageous political leader who worked in the Secretary of State office for the citizens of Colorado for more than a quarter century. Few realize that Vikki, a Denver Native, began working in the secretary of state office 28 years earlier. She had been a welfare mom and actively removed herself from a system that she believed fosters dependency. Many people have read about individuals who lift themselves through their own dedication and efforts, but it is seldom that they rise so quickly to an elected office. Vikki was educated in the Denver Public Schools attending East High School. She continued her education at Metro State College and then the Seible School of Engineering in Englewood where she received an Associates Degree in drafting. She was an active participant at Heritage Christian Center and in various political organizations including the Aurora Republican Forum and the Araphahoe County Republican Men's Club. She spoke frequently on issues of community and inclusion from the perspective of an American woman who happened to be black and Republican. Elected Secretary of State in 1994, Vikki was the first American of African descent elected to a statewide constitutional office in Colorado. As a Republican, she was noted as the highest ranking African American female holding statewide office in America. She has been featured in publications from the controversial Limbaugh Letter (June 1999) to the Ladies Home Journal (``Against All Odds''). She was a rising star that believed in making government work for people. She was loved by friends and admired for her courage of conviction. My heart goes out to her entire family upon their loss. I am honored to have known Vikki. Governor Bill Owens released the following statement, ``I join all Coloradans in being deeply saddened by the untimely passing of Colorado Secretary of State Vikki Buckley. She overcame many challenges in life and achieved high office in our state through determination and hard work. Vikki's competitive spirit paved the way for her election as Colorado's first African-American Secretary of State. Frances and I and our three three children express our profound sympathy to Vikki's family on behalf of all Coloradans and our appreciation for her many years of service to our state.'' Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show that Vikki Buckley was a tireless advocate for the people of Colorado, and a friend of America.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) for yielding me this time. American workers are not impoverished by African nations that are impoverished themselves. American workers are not protected by having an impoverished African continent. American workers are not employed nor are their wages increased by businesses which are prevented from trading with Africa. There are those who apparently want to see the African continent and most of the nations hobbled by a socialistic enterprise that has really impeded their progress for many years. They want to see countries continue in this failed program of a government-controlled economy. This will not work. It has not worked. It will only lead to greater degradation of both the environment and the economic situation in Africa. There is another aspect of this, not just the economic consequences which I believe are positive for both American workers and African workers. With the end of the Cold War almost a decade ago, we are now faced with confronting a new war: a war on international terrorism. Likewise, Africa is a continent which can be welcomed by the United States or left alone, as some would have us do, and fall into the arms of terrorism, as we have seen these examples before in the past with the bombings of American embassies. Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that with the passage of this bill we will eliminate the possibility of terrorist activities emanating out of Africa, but I am suggesting that it is a step in that direction. Because with the expansion of American exports in the way of trade and economies we are also exporting ideas. This is an extremely important point I think for our colleagues here to recognize. We are not only bolstering monetary gains for those involved, but we are helping to build up and strengthen the stability of a region in a world that is rampant with conflict and turmoil. It is time to take a stand, and I welcome the nations of Sub-Saharan Africa as trading partners.

Mr. TANCREDO

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, it was mentioned by the other side that someone on the other side said, we are not doing enough in terms of good scientific research. I agree. I absolutely agree. We are apparently are not doing enough in terms of good, scientific research and one reason is because we are doing this junk. This is not in anybody's estimation good scientific research, especially for the purpose stated for this particular program. I wish there was a better way. I truly wish there was a better way of getting the attention of the bureaucrats in this department or any department rather than having to cut their budget in order to make them pay attention to what it is we want. We tried this last year. They completely ignored it. This is the only option we have. Cut the budget, it gets their attention. I ask my colleagues for support of this amendment.

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