Tom Tancredo

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, these are the actual descriptions of the programs we were referring to, not just the titles but descriptions. I have read them. We will make them available. I assure the gentleman, they give no greater degree of surety that any of the things here match what this program is supposed to do. I go back to the original purpose of the program. It does not make us feel any better reading the descriptions, I assure the gentleman. One other thing I would like to point out, this is not just simply my analysis or our analysis. Originally this was part of what the Senate did. They looked at all of this. They went back and told, and this was last year, told the Forest Service, look, these are the things we have identified as a problem. These are way outside the bounds of what you are supposed to be doing. Do not do it anymore. The Forest Service ignored it entirely and came back with these kinds of studies, and the Senate took the action that I referred to earlier. They said, compared to the fiscal 1999 enacted level the committee, the Senate committee recommended, it consists of the following changes, a decrease of $14.9 million in base funding for the lower priority research activities, and increases of $1,130,000 for the harvesting and the wood utilization laboratory in Sitka, Alaska, and an increase of $2 million for forest inventory and analysis. So the purpose is to get the money into the good stuff and away from the junk.

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I propose is designed to save approximately $17 million presently being wasted in type of research programs conducted by the Forest Service of a nature that can only be described as worthy of the proverbial golden fleece award. The amendment reduces the appropriation for forest and range land research by $16.9 million, which is a cut of $10 million from last year's level and reduces the account to the Senate level. In explaining the decision to reduce the account by the $10 million, the Senate committee stated as follows: ``The committee is extremely concerned that the research program has lost its focus on what should be its primary mission, forest health and productivity. As it did last year, the committee directs the Agency to increase its emphasis on forest and range land productivity by implementing a reduction of $10 million in programs not directly related to enhancing forest and range land productivity.'' I emphasize ``not related to enhancing forest and range land productivity.'' That is the charge of the Forest Service for the forest and range land research. Now, let me tell my colleagues what they have been doing for the last several years with the money that we appropriate that is designed, once again, to go to enhancing forest and range land productivity. Let me cite an example. Theoretical Perspectives of Ethnicity and Outdoor Recreation: A Review and Synthesis of African-American and European-American Participation. Accounting for ethnicity in recreation demand: a flexible count data approach. I ask my colleagues, what has this got to do with enhancing forest and rangeland productivity? Another one. Research Emphasis for the Pacific Southwest Research Station: ``Social Aspects of Natural Research Management including cultural diversity, customer service, communication and social justice.'' I ask my colleagues, what has this got to do with enhancing forest and rangeland productivity? Another, the analytic hierarchy process and participatory decision- making: ``A systematic, explicit, rigorous and robust mechanism for eliciting and quantifying subjective judgments.'' I ask my colleagues, what has this got to do with enhancing forest and rangeland productivity? There are a number of programs, of course, that are operated, a number of research programs operated by the forest and rangeland research operation that are of great quality. I point out, for example, the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. Programs like this will be provided for. Mr. Chairman, this is almost a $200 million program. The fact that we are reducing it by $16 million in no way inhibits the ability of the Forest Service to accomplish its major and primary goal, that goal being to enhance forest and rangeland productivity. I suggest to Members that the rest of this stuff is pure junk. It is poppycock. We cannot waste dollars like this in programs like this anymore. I can go on. Here is another one. Voices from Southern Forests: ``Examines the changing social, economic, attitudinal and other voices of southerners and speculates about the meaning these changing voices might have on the future of forest wildlife management in the South.'' Again, Mr. Chairman, what has this got to do with enhancing forest and rangeland productivity? Once again, this is not my individual idea and the amount of money is not mine alone. It is going back to the Senate committee mark. This was the original appropriation by the Senate committee, reducing it by $10 million and then the House increased it by $6.9 million, so we are taking it down a total of $16.9 million. I suggest that this is only appropriate considering what the charge of the Forest Service is in this particular program. I ask for my colleagues' support.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, we often hear people stand up in front of this microphone and start out by saying, ``It is about,'' when they are going to talk about what it is about. Well, in fact in this body it is about taxes. No matter what else we say, no matter what else we do here, it is about taxes. It is the life blood that drives every other thing we do in this body, and the extent to which we can defend our country and incarcerate criminals and carry out all the other essential functions of government depends upon our ability to extract money from the population and pay for those services. But when is enough enough? Is it enough, Mr. Speaker, to take 40 percent of the income of the average family in America today for taxes? Is it enough to take 20 percent of the gross domestic product of this country every year now in taxes? Is that enough, Mr. Speaker? I suggest it is not only enough, I suggest it is far too much. That is why today I have introduced the bill that we refer to here as the 10 top terrible tax act. This is a bill to actually eliminate, not just reduce certain taxes, but actually eliminate certain taxes so that they cannot grow back again. We want to pull them up by their roots. Mr. Speaker, this is the only way that we can actually begin to reduce the size and scope of government. We talk about that here on this floor, and we talk about it in legislative bodies all over this country, reducing the size and scope of government. How many times have we heard that phrase? And yet nothing seems to actually accomplish the task of reducing the size and scope of government. There seems to be a commitment to that philosophy, but it does not work. Mr. Speaker, one reason it does not work is because we do not put a constraint on the life blood of these legislative bodies, and that life blood, I repeat, are the tax dollars that we extract in the population. Well, this does begin to put that constraint on that life blood flow, and it does begin to reduce the size and scope of government and its intervention into our lives which has grown far too great. Mr. Speaker, at 40 percent of the income of a family, I repeat 40 percent, and 20 percent of our gross domestic product it is too much. Something has to give, and if we just simply reduce the rate of taxation, it is far too easy to come back within a year or 2 years and simply increase it again. That is easy to do. But it is very difficult to actually come back and replace a tax that has been eliminated. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have identified 10 taxes that are legitimate targets for us to attack as being able to be eliminated, gone, erased from the books, not there any more: The estate tax, estate and gift tax, more commonly and appropriately referred to as the death tax; it is currently as high as 55 percent, and we want to phase that out over a 10 year period and completely repeal it by December 1, 2099. The E-rate universal tax; that is a euphemism, E-rate is a euphemism, for a tax. It is a tax that has been put on phone bills that did not even come through this body as an actual tax bill. It is a special friend, a special sort of tax of the Vice President. It is oftentimes referred to as the Gore tax, and appropriately so. Next is the excise tax on telephones and other communication services. My friends, this is the 3 percent tax that was put on telephones when they were a luxury item in 1898 in order to fund the Spanish-American war. Let me tell my colleagues it is over, the war is over, and we do not need this tax any more. The marriage penalty tax discrepancy in the Tax Code that results in a higher tax burden for married couples; let us get rid of it. The capital gains tax, currently up to 20 percent of gain would be phased out over a 10 year period. Let us get rid of it. The excise tax on vaccines, on vaccines. Do you hear me? Seventy-five cents per dose imposed on certain vaccines sold in the United States; this should be repealed by January 1, 2000. Why are we taxing vaccines, let me ask. Excise tax on sport fishing equipment. The 1993 income tax increase on Social Security benefits. The double tax on interest and dividends. The 1993 increase in motor fuels tax. Mr. Speaker, all these should be gone, and they can be. We can live without it, believe it or not. We can live without this. I want to enter into the Record, if I could, Mr. Speaker, the comments here from the Americans for Tax Reform and other organizations that have supported the bill, and I ask my colleagues to do so. It is enough. Americans For Tax Reform, Washington, DC, July 1, 1999. Hon. Tom Tancredo, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Tancredo: On behalf of its 90,000 members and its 3,000 state and local taxpayer groups across the nation, Americans for Tax Reform strongly supports your ``Top Ten Terrible Tax Act of 1999.'' As you already know, American families already pay on average almost forty percent of their income on taxes, be it federal, state, or local. That is more than food, shelter, and clothing combined. The Top Ten Terrible Tax Act of 1999 would eliminate excessive taxes and provide every American with tangible tax relief. By uprooting the death and gift taxes, the telephone universal service charge, the 3% telephone excise tax, the marriage penalty tax, the capital gains tax, the excise tax on vaccines, the excise tax on sport fishing equipment, the 1993 income tax increase on social security benefits, the double taxation on interest and dividends, and the 1993 motor fuel tax increase, taxpayers will be able to improve their quality of life and save more for education and retirement. I thank you for your leadership in taking a step in the right direction to providing fundamental tax reform. Sincerely, Grover G. Norquist.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the House will soon consider legislation to implement the budget resolution's call for $778 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years. While I believe today's complicated and cumbersome Tax Code needs to be completely replaced, this will take time as the American people debate alternative tax systems. In the meantime, we can take a major step toward tax simplification by eliminating 10 of the worst taxes in the Tax Code today. We should pull these taxes out by their roots, not just reduce them, trim them or cut them back or decrease them. This will make it more difficult for them ever to grow back again. That is why I am introducing the Top Ten Terrible Tax Act today--boy, that is quite alliterative--which would completely eliminate 10 of the most egregious taxes on the American people, including estate and gift taxes, the tax on telephone calls, capital gains taxes and the tax increase on Social Security beneficiaries. The American people deserve to keep more of their hard-earned money and the Top Ten Terrible Tax Act would provide much-needed tangible tax relief to every American.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this bill, I have heard often during the debate on this particular piece of legislation, refer to the procedure that we call abortion as being both safe and legal. I have heard this now two or three times. It is indeed legal, but it is anything but safe, for inevitably in this procedure one person ends up dead and another oftentimes wounded emotionally and/or physically harmed. It is anything but a safe procedure. It is for that reason that I rise in support of the Child Custody and Protection Act and in support of the rights of parents across this country. Because these decisions that a girl will make in this regard will live with her for the rest of her life and they are the ones with which parents should be involved. Just 2 weeks ago, we stood in this chamber talking about the importance of family and the need for parents to play a greater role in the lives of their children. A vote for this bill today is a step in that direction.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would be standing in front of this or any other legislative body asking for a vote in favor of a bill that has any type of gun control legislation attached to it, but then I never thought I would be representing a district in which two teenagers would walk into a school and callously, mercilessly, take the lives of 12 of their classmates and 1 of their teachers and wound over 20 other children. Of course, there are things that happen in individual lives that delineate one section from another. That is what has happened to every one of us who live in Littleton, Colorado. No one will be the same after April 20, 1999. Everybody's life has changed and will be dated from that point on by that event. I do not mean to suggest that what we are doing here in this bill will have the effect of guaranteeing that we will never have a recurrence of Columbine High School. I know that we cannot make such a guarantee, because there is nothing in this bill actually that can cure the sickness of the soul that afflicts so many, such an unfortunately large segment of the population of this great land. I do hope that we have addressed that issue to the extent that we are able to address that issue, the underlying issue, the real cause of the problem. I hope we did that yesterday and late last night. To the extent that we can address the other side of the problem, the more superficial side, and I admit fully well that I believe that this is relatively superficial, that when we deal with the gun side of this thing it is the superficial side. It is the attention to a sore that appears on one's body and that they apply a Band-Aid to, but that they ignore whatever it is that is causing that sore to appear. But, nonetheless, we must oftentimes apply that Band-Aid. We have to have it. Even though it is relatively superficial, it needs to be done. We are bleeding. There is no two ways about that. We are bleeding in my district. We are bleeding across this land both literally and figuratively. So I recognize that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are concerned about the ability for this particular piece of legislation to get the job done, but I will tell my colleagues that I believe that we are far closer to getting it done if we pass this than if we do not. I fear that, if this fails, first of all, that there will be nothing that comes out of this Congress, nothing that can come out even in a conference committee if the Conyers amendment passes and eventually this bill fails, which I think is exactly what would happen. We have done a number of things that I think we can be proud of. We have extended Brady. It does now include everyone that walks into the door that wants to purchase a gun in a gun show. If the Dingell bill passes, that is what we have accomplished. There are things that we have done right, Mr. Chairman, and I would ask for a yes vote on the bill and no vote on the Conyers amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I want to also say that, although there have been times when I have disagreed with my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), his commitment to address the problems of youth, the youth in our country, is extremely commendable. I just want to tell him that I sincerely appreciate his efforts on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I wish to specifically support that provision of the amendment which deals with giving the ability to schools to use funds for the establishment of safe school hotlines. It was shortly after the incident in Colorado, after a brief discussion with a colleague of mine, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) was telling me about the safe school hotline program that was operating in Georgia. He was telling me of the success of the program. I endeavored to replicate it in Colorado, and was able to do so with the help and participation of a number of organizations, including the State Department of Education and the CBI and AT&T. I want to speak about the specific issue that I know to be a very positive step in prevention. This is one thing that in fact does give us some ability to control the environment. It gives children the ability to control their own environment and to go back into schools. They are so afraid, and I get many, many calls from parents who talk about the fact that their kids were afraid to go back into schools after this event. This gives children and parents some degree of control over that environment. For that, I say it is the best possible thing that we can do. I heard many references to Colorado and to specifically Columbine during the debate on this bill. I must say that although I sincerely hope and pray that anything we do in this bill would work to prevent a replication of that incident, that it is also my sincere belief that, frankly, what these two gentlemen were talking about in Colorado, it was not necessarily more counseling they needed, as they had plenty of that, it was an exorcist. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I sincerely support the amendment.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) said something with which I can agree. She referenced the first amendment, and she said that it guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of religion. What does that mean? How much more clear could it have been put: Freedom to express one's own religious ideas, freedom to practice one's religion. It is a statement so clear that it is difficult for me to understand how people can put obstacles in the way of that freedom, and yet that is exactly what has been done. Even in Colorado, that is what has been suggested should be done in cases where the most horrific tragedies have occurred, that we should put obstacles in the way of people expressing their own religious preference and seek God's help. This amendment hopes to change that experience.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, difficult as it is to believe, there are people and organizations that would attempt to prevent parents and students from seeking the comfort of their Creator when dealing with the horror of a situation like the one that we experienced in my hometown of Littleton, Colorado. The amendment I have sponsored clarifies the position of the Congress with regard to these issues. It declares that a fitting memorial on public school campuses may contain religious speech without violating the Constitution. It puts Congress on record with respect to the constitutionality of a permanent memorial or memorial service that contains religious speech. The amendment does not specify what kind of memorial that would be appropriate. That decision is for local schools and communities. It states that it is fitting and proper for a school to hold a memorial service when a student or teacher is killed on school grounds, and that it is fitting and proper to include religious references, songs and readings in such a service. Prayer, reading of scripture or the performance of religious music can be included in a memorial service that is held on the campus of a public school in order to honor the memory of any person slain on campus. The amendment also allows for the construction of a memorial that includes religious symbols or references to God on school property. Mr. Chairman, there are many examples in our government of proper and constitutional references to religion. Chaplains of the Armed Forces conduct memorial services, yet do not compromise the establishment of religion by the government. Both the House and Senate conduct opening prayers before each legislative day, and Arlington Cemetery has signs identifying it as a Sacred Shrine and Hallowed Ground. The amendment specifically mentions that religious songs may be sung at such memorials without violating the Constitution. Two Federal appeals courts that have taken up the issue both have ruled that school choirs may sing religious music. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that it was constitutional for a public high school choir to have ``The Lord Bless You and Keep You'' as a signature song. In the same way, erecting a memorial that contains religious references such as a quote from the scripture or a religious symbol from the deceased's religious tradition would not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This is not the equivalent of a daily school prayer. A memorial service is a very specific response to an unusual and regrettable circumstance. In either case, if a lawsuit is brought forth, parties are required to pay their own legal fees and costs, and the Attorney General is authorized to provide legal assistance to defenders. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are a number of differences that exist in this particular amendment and what it refers to in terms of the kind of religious liberty that it is designed to allow, or at least put the Congress on record that supports a particular expression of religious freedom. The gentleman indicates that there have been a number of cases already heard that have been decided against the expression of religious points of view in schools. That is true, but the significant difference here is that in each one of the court cases that have come down on that side of the issue, they have talked about the fact that there is a captive audience in a particular location in a classroom; and if that is the case, if this audience is held captive by the environment, by the situation in which they are placed, that it is indeed unconstitutional to advance some sort of religious preference. But that is not the case with anything that we are talking about here in terms of a memorial or a memorial service. There is no one that is there because they have to be there. No one is forced by any sort of law to participate. It is simply an expression of a religious preference, a religious point of view, a degree of religiosity that exists in a community and has every right to be expressed. There is nothing in the Constitution, it seems to me, or in the first amendment that suggests that that expression should be hampered. All this amendment does is to put the Congress on record that it supports that particular point of view. In terms of it making a claim that school boards and school districts will automatically reject certain ``minority'' religions, whatever that might be, I do not know where there is proof of that particular statement. I do not know exactly even what the definition of ``minority religions'' might be, but we leave that, of course, up to school boards and school districts. Mr. Chairman, there is a right, or there is nothing in this amendment that restricts anyone from taking this thing to court. Of course, it does, as my colleague indicates, suggest that if one loses, one has to pay their own court costs. Again, I do not see anything really wrong with that. In general, this is not really the kind of issue that should spark a debate, it seems to me, over the essence of the First Amendment, because it is patently clear, at least to me, that we are not doing anything in this amendment that forces anyone to accept one sort of religious ideology. Again, the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, of religion, to express one's religious ideas. In a situation like we faced in Colorado, I must tell the Members that without that ability to express that particular faith, I do not know where any of us would be. And there were people and organizations that really argued against that sort of expression. I have a letter here that was written by a parent of one of the individuals who was killed in Columbine, a young lady by the name of Cassie Bernall. This was written by her father, Brad Bernall, in support of this amendment when a similar amendment was offered in the Senate by my colleague, Senator Allard. He said, ``My wife, Misty, and I both believe any Columbine incident memorial should memorialize each individual in a personal way. Everyone knows, thanks to a good job by the media, that Cassie was a very strong Christian. To leave this facet of her persona out would be to mis- memorialize her and others.'' I think the statement is accurate, and I believe that this Congress should go on record in support of it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. It is accurate that my colleagues, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), and Senator Brownback, and I just returned from the Sudan where we witnessed the events described in this resolution, as described on the floor. We witnessed them firsthand, and witness them we did. Not only did we witness the effects, the physical effects of the bombing, the physical effects of the terror being imposed on the people of south Sudan by the government in the north, or the government in Khartoum, but we also witnessed the terror in the eyes of the people in south Sudan who came to us time after time after time, village after village, and asked us to do something, to do anything, as representatives of the greatest Nation on earth, as representatives of the most powerful Nation on the planet. They asked us to do something about the horror that they face day in and day out and that they have faced now for lo these many years. As my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) has indicated, it is the longest running battle, war, conflict, whatever we wish to call it, on the continent. It has now killed more people than any conflict since the Second World War. Two million dead, 4 million displaced. All of this has happened and the world has been silent. My colleague, and the chairman the distinguished chairman of our committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), has offered and will offer a statement for the Record in its entirety, but I would like to just excerpt one part of it because I think it is extremely poignant and needs to be stressed. It says: ``Sudan has had a long history of suffering. For many years, it has gone largely unnoticed by the rest of the world. I am reminded of the Book of Isaiah, where in chapter 40 the prophet speaks of a `voice crying out in the wilderness.' A few of our colleagues, like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne) have cried out again and again at the pain and suffering of the people of south Sudan. But for too long, they have been the lone voices in the wilderness.'' I am here to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will add my voice willingly to the voices of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and others who have been crying out in this wilderness for some time. Hard as it is to believe, Mr. Speaker, there are still places on this earth where people can be abducted from their own homes, placed in chains, taken to a foreign land, branded, and forced to live out their lives as slaves. Hard as it is to believe, Mr. Speaker, these things are happening to people, and their own government is a culprit in the crime. There are many issues, of course, being addressed in the resolution. I certainly want to add my support to all of them. But this particular issue needs to be brought to the attention of the American public because maybe this is the thing that will get someone to pay attention to this horrible situation in Sudan and bring some relief to these people. Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that a vast majority of northern Sudanese citizens are not complicit in this oppression. To the contrary, many northerners are suffering under the regime and they would like to see it end also. As with most abusive regimes, a small minority of military extremists are driving the government's policies. Far from condemning all of the people of the north, we express our sympathy and solidarity with them.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Madam Speaker, the day before yesterday I returned from the Sudan where I had gone with a group of other congressmen to bring attention to the plight of the south Sudanese, to bring attention of the country of the United States to the horrible abuses that are going on in Sudan. In a nutshell, Madam Speaker, Sudan makes Kosovo look like a Sunday school picnic in terms of the human rights abuses being perpetrated in that country. We have heard from the President for the last several months about all of the reasons why we had to go into Kosovo, but I assure my colleagues that for every reason he gave us regarding Kosovo I could give 10 that pertain to the Sudan. The human rights abuses there are far greater; 2 million dead so far in their Civil War, true genocide going on, true slavery being undertaken by the north, raids into the south. It is amazing, Madam Speaker, that the attention of the United States is so easily drawn to Europe and so difficult to draw to the African continent.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, American military success in Kosovo has shown once again that American forces are second to none in the world. Our brave pilots and many thousands who work around the clock to support them deserve our highest praise and our deep gratitude. However, the military operation in Kosovo has also exposed the problem in our national defense structure that we need that needs immediate attention. Our military is undermanned, overextended, and showing severe signs of strain after having to do more with less for too long. The defense appropriations bill on the House floor later this week is an excellent first step to reverse the trend and to end the damage to the shortchanging of the U.S. military. I urge its support.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the mantra of the Democrats this day has been gun control. But Mr. Speaker, it is very, very difficult to entrust this administration and that side of the aisle with gun control when they have been so unsuccessful with arms control. Many are calling the information revealed in the Cox Report the scandal of the century. There are two major scandals detailed in this impressive bipartisan report. There was a national security breakdown in the Energy Department labs, a breakdown that started in the 1970s and became nearly total beginning in 1993 under an administration that has never taken national security issues seriously. And there is an even bigger scandal, the effort to downplay, to cover up and to thwart investigations into the first scandal when it became known in 1995. I repeat, the bigger of the two scandals is not that China successfully spied on the U.S., but the almost incomprehensible reaction to that fact when it was discovered in 1995. The biggest scandal of all is the arming of the communist Chinese after hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, the Missing, Exploited, and Runaway Children's Act, but more specifically in support of the school violence study that has been referred to here several times. Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that we have now had to deal with for quite some time, but it has been brought home to us more dramatically in the last few weeks than perhaps anytime in the recent past. That fact is that we are a violent country. The character of the American people, unfortunately, we have a violent character. The history of this Nation is replete with violence. It is not a good thing that I say but it is unfortunately a true thing. What is completely unusual, what is not at all to be explained by our history, however, is the violence we see now in schools and with children. Because although we have always had a violent society, the fact is we have never in the history of this country had a situation where children were participants to the extent that they are today in that violent nature. So something has happened. Something has changed. This is one thing we know for sure, that this is a brand new phenomenon. We have to figure out why this is occurring. There was a recent study that was a fascinating study I commend to my colleagues. It was done by an individual who works for the armed forces. His task really is to desensitize members of the armed forces to the actual act of killing another human being because, as he says, this is a very difficult thing. People do not do it naturally. Taking the life of another member of your own species is not natural and you have to work at it. When we do it in the armed forces under controlled circumstances, you use technology to desensitize members of the armed forces to actually taking a life. But that is in a very controlled environment. What has happened is that some of the same technology that is used by the armed forces, in particular a computerized game called Doom, is a game that is now available to everyone, to youngsters in our society, over the Internet. As a matter of fact, the two shooters in Colorado, Mr. Klebold and Mr. Harris, were compulsive about this game, Doom, were into it to a very great extent. I do not know whether or not that one thing had everything to do with what happened in Columbine. I do not know how much of an impact it had on what they decided to do. All I do know is this, that something has changed in our society, and we are turning children into killers. We are turning children into individuals without a conscience. This is new, Mr. Speaker, and this is frightening. We have to find out why this is happening. Therefore, I commend my colleagues on the committee for this bill and specifically for the study on school violence, which I hope will bring to our attention the cause of this new phenomenon.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to talk about the horrible tragedies of the Columbine shootings, though they linger in all of our minds. Rather I would like to speak of the good that has come from the ashes of this horrid event. All around my home community of Littleton, Colorado, we have seen a spirit of coming together. In Littleton our churches have been crowded to the walls with those turning to their faith for answers. Across my district, people of all colors, classes and backgrounds have embraced in the comfort of a mutual loss. Unfortunately, many children still do not feel safe to go to school. As the school year ends, attendance rates across the district are still horribly low. Students and parents feel helpless in controlling the safety of their learning environment. In Denver, on Friday, we announced another coming together. We brought together leaders from business, State and local governments into a partnership to create the School Safety Hotline, an anonymous hotline for students, parents and teachers to report violent or threatening behavior to authorities. It is my sincere hope that this initiative will give our students a sense they can control the safety of their environment by calling in to report threatening behavior. For that reason, I would like to offer the School Safety Hotline Act of 1999. This bill will allow state and local agencies all across the country to apply for federal grants to help create and maintain public-private partnership hotlines similar to ours in Colorado. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage all of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this modest, but important, legislation. I ask my colleagues to use this legislation as the first step to reach out to your own community and business leaders, so that we may give back to our young students the feeling that they can do something to ensure a safe and healthy learning environment.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I am the newest member of the Committee on Resources, and I would like to commend my distinguished colleague from the great State of Alaska (Mr. Young) for his leadership in introducing this bill. Under Article IV, section 3 of the Constitution, quote, ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' Mr. Chairman, the Constitution is clear. The United Nations, despite efforts by its supporters, is not a governing body superior in authority to this Congress. I know that comes as a shock to some of my colleagues in this place and certainly some of the supporters from whom I have heard, who believe that the United Nations has some superior claim to the sovereignty of the United States, particularly when it comes to determining what is the appropriate use of the land within our borders. It is, however, not, as I say, not a superior authority to this Congress. Yet, the U.N. is designating land within our country's borders for special protection without the consent of the House. There are 83 U.N. sites in America, Mr. Chairman. In my home State of Colorado there are five United Nations biosphere reserves. I can tell the Members, having served in the Colorado State legislature for many years, those sites were designated without the express consent of the State of Colorado and without the Congress of the United States. I have visited many of these areas. I agree they are incredible and breathtaking. I agree they are a treasure, but they are the property of the United States, and we must maintain absolute autonomy in our land management decisions. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the bill, and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the amendment of my good friend and colleague from Colorado (Mr. Udall). The sites that he identifies that presently exist in Colorado, the Niwot Ridge Reserve and specifically also the Rocky Mountain National Park, are being designated sites under the Heritage Act. Specifically, the Rocky Mountain National Park, of course, has been around for a long time and has been the protected environmental jewel in the crown of Colorado for a long, long time. It is peculiar, to say the least, that some other kind of designation, some United Nations designation, would help continue or would help preserve the environmental uniqueness of this particular property, or anything else in the State of Colorado, for that matter. My colleague talks about the many tourists that flock to the State to see these places, especially Rocky Mountain Park. He is certainly correct in that; and, of course, they come in droves. In fact, one of our problems in Colorado is that oftentimes we have far too many people trying to get into these particular areas and preserves, into Rocky Mountain National Park; and our problem is trying to deal with the numbers coming in and the impact that that has on the Rocky Mountain Park and on many things that we are trying to protect. When I was in the committee, Mr. Chairman, and we were debating this bill, it was a very interesting situation that occurred, in that in the State of Wyoming there was an attempt on the part of some people in the State of Wyoming to develop some mining adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, and all the processes were underway. The environmental impact statements had been ordered and were underway. We had spent years actually in the process of identifying the problems and trying to come to a solution as to whether or not it was appropriate to let this mine go forward. All of a sudden, within I think it was a short period of time, a week or less, that we were going to actually get the final go-ahead on this project in Wyoming, the head of the Park Service stepped in and called upon the United Nations to come out to this particular area and give it a designation that would, in fact, prohibit any future development. And when that happened, the administration intervened and everything stopped. Now, this is the kind of thing I am concerned about in the State of Colorado, and this is why I certainly oppose the amendment of the gentleman that would exempt Colorado from the protection provided by this particular bill. We need this protection just as much as any other State in the Nation because the same thing could happen in Colorado. We think we know about how to preserve and protect the land that we have under our control in the State of Colorado and with the Department of Parks and Recreation. We do not need the United Nations to tell us how to manage that land. We do not need the imprimatur of the United Nations on Rocky Mountain Park in order to encourage tourism to Colorado. We can do it without them. In fact, oftentimes, as in the case I just stated, this United Nations designation becomes much more problematic from the standpoint of the proper regulation of the land within any State, in this case Colorado. So I certainly rise to oppose the amendment of the gentleman from the Second Congressional District.

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Chairman, I just would conclude with a comment, a quote actually from Jeane Kirkpatrick that I think encompasses everything we have tried to establish here on our side about our concerns with regard to this amendment in particular and to the concerns of our opponents to this bill in general: If American citizens have an interest in the conservation of a particular area, that decision should be made by Congress, the body designated responsibility by the Constitution for making these decisions in full view of the American public. And if each decision requires consideration of costs and benefit to the property rights of individual voters affected, so be it. UNESCO committees are not competent to address the complex private property and public interest issues presented here.

Mr. TANCREDO

Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove the name of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green) from the list of cosponsors for my bill, H.R. 692. The gentleman from Wisconsin's name was placed on the list in error.