Frank Wolf

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, yes, that is my understanding.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot], a member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], a member of the committee.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today we present to the House the conference report to accompany H.R. 2002, the Fiscal Year 1996 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. As Members know, the start of the fiscal year began 3 weeks ago, and the time to conclude the remaining appropriation bills wanes with each passing day. The Department of Transportation, like 11 other Government departments, is operating under the strict terms of the continuing resolution. This conference report will provide funding to further the important operation of transportation programs, including air traffic control, Coast Guard operations, and other critical transportation safety programs outside the continuing resolution. The Transportation bill always requires a delicate balancing act, and this year proved to be no different. The conferees have had to deal with competing demands for very limited funds. The conference agreement represents the very best effort of the conference committee to achieve a balanced and fair bill, and may I say to colleagues on both sides, a bipartisan bill. This bill has been totally and completely bipartisan. We did not make any decisions in the bill based on partisanship, and we hope and pray, Mr. Speaker, that we can continue that for many years to come. The conference report before the House today totals $12.5 billion in discretionary budget authority, and $11.4 billion in new outlays. The conference report is below the subcommittee's allocation for discretionary budget authority, and just at its allocation for outlays. The total budgetary resources provided, including new budget authority, limitation on obligations, and exempt obligations, is $13.1 billion in budget authority, and $37.3 billion in outlays. The agreement represents an increase of $1.5 billion in budget authority over last year. However, this figure is a bit misleading. If the totals are adjusted to exclude a rescission of $2.6 billion in contract authority that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations, but was enacted by Congress this year, the conference report actually reduces spending by $1.1 billion below comparable fiscal year 1995 levels. I would like now, Mr. Speaker, to turn to some of the specific provisions of the conference report. First, the conference agreement drops the Senate provision which designates the National Highway System. I have been assured by the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure that the conferees are making progress on that piece of legislation, and that States will soon be in receipt of some $5.4 billion in highway apportionments that are being held pending the enactment of the NHS. It is imperative that the NHS be designated very soon, as the withholding of $5.4 billion in NHS and interstate maintenance funds threatens hundreds of thousands of construction jobs and the Nation's infrastructure. After the worst year in aviation safety in decades, the conference agreement provides $4.7 billion for the operation of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Nation's air traffic control facilities, $110 million over last year's and slightly above the administration's request; let me say it again, above the administration's request. In addition, $1.9 billion is provided for FAA facilities and equipment. The conference agreement includes $159.6 million above the President's request for equipment to enhance safety and capacity of the aviation system, restoring funds to the FAA for safety equipment, such as airport surface detection systems, wind sheer detection systems, improved weather detection and forecasting systems, and replacement for computers at Aurora, IL, and our other centers. In addition, the conference agreement also provides procurement and personnel reform for the FAA. These reforms would permit the FAA to operate much more efficiently and are fully supported by and included, in part, and at the request of the administration. Despite suggestions made, and I was somewhat disappointed to see this, by the National Air Traffic Controllers Union, the conference agreement does not force the disestablishment of any existing management labor agreement or lead to the dissolution of any union currently representing the FAA employees. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear about this and quote from the statement of managers, and I quote: ``The conferees do not intend that the personnel management reforms in this bill force the disestablishment of any existing management-labor agreement, or lead to the dissolution of any union currently representing FAA employees.'' It is interesting that when the air traffic controllers came by to see us, they raised the issue of the 5 percent pay differential. The House went with the 5 percent pay differential, because we think it is important to support the air traffic controllers. The Senate did not. Yet now we hear not that the air traffic controllers union is grateful that this was done and they appreciate what the committee did. They now come in with something that they never raised with us during a meeting on the day of the conference when they spoke to us; they never even raised the issue. They never even raised the issue. These provisions, Mr. Speaker, would not become effective until April 1, 1996, allowing for sufficient and adequate review by the appropriate authorizing committee. In the wake of the worst year in aviation safety and with equipment failing on a nearly daily basis, as we heard from the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] when she talked about the Denver Airport situation, FAA personnel procurement reforms are necessary. In fact, people would come and say we need to do something. If you just exempt the FAA from procurement and personnel regulations, we can do some of these things, and safety is so important. So we did this in order to bring about these safety changes, and we did it, I might say in fairness to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], in a bipartisan way. So I think when you come to the FAA, it is safety, safety, safety. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement, as I said, restores the reduction of $45 million for the 5 percent paid bonus for air traffic controllers. However, in order to accommodate the $88.6 million estimated for this program, the conferees were required to hold funding for the airport improvement program to the fiscal year 1995 level of $1.45 billion. The conference report drops controversial language relating to workers' compensation. The conference report also provides new budget authority and obligation limitations for the Federal Highway Administration totaling almost $20 billion. The bill includes $17.550 billion for the primary Federal-aid highway program, and an additional $2.3 billion for highway programs exempt from the limitation. In total, highway spending will increase nearly half a billion dollars over comparable fiscal year 1995 levels, to a level that is only half a billion below the fully authorized level of $20.4 billion. The conference report includes no special highway demonstration projects, returning some $350 million appropriated last year in Federal highway aid to the States. Doing so provides greater equity among the States and allows State Governors and departments of transportation to determine the appropriate expenditure of limited Federal highway assistance. Federal highway demonstration projects have gone the way of the past. Mr. Speaker, I think everyone agrees that this is the right thing to do. Every member in the House and in the Senate will now be treated fairly. It will not matter that you happen to be particularly powerful or famous or on a particular committee or having voted a certain way or having come from a certain region or having known somebody. Everybody now will be treated fairly, and I think that is something on which both the Republican party and the Democratic party can agree. Mr. Speaker, the agreement provides $2.053 billion for transit formula grants, the midpoint between the House and Senate proposed levels. Within this amount, $400 million is available for operating assistance, a reduction of $310 million from last year's level, and $100 million below the level requested by the President. Recognizing the limited ability of smaller and more rural transit providers to respond to reductions in Federal subsidies, the conference agreement provides that operating assistance to urbanized areas under 200,000 not be cut more than 25 percent from last year's level. A total of $3.375 billion is provided for the Coast Guard. These funds are supplemented by an additional $300 million to be transferred to the Coast Guard from the Department of Defense, and I appreciate the DOD appropriations subcommittee doing that, because we would have been very hard pressed had we not had the good cooperation of Chairman Young and also Senator Stevens on the Senate side. In total, funds for the Coast Guard rise $108 million over fiscal year 1995 levels. Program increases, however, came at the expense of other programs, like Amtrak. Federal subsidies for Amtrak are curtailed by 20 percent, falling from $793 million in fiscal year 1995 to $635 million in fiscal year 1996. Other program reductions include: essential air service, down $10.8 million; the northeast corridor improvement program, down $85 million; transit operating assistance, down $310 million; transit research and development, down $6,8 million; pipeline activities, down $6 million. In total, the conference report kills 20 programs, including local rail freight assistance, the interstate transfer grants for transit, the right-of-way revolving fund, numerous Coast Guard and FAA activities, and supportive service of the Federal Highway Administration. Consistent with the will of Congress, the Interstate Commerce Commission is eliminated in fiscal year 1996 and is funded at $13.8 million only for the first quarter of the fiscal year. An additional $8.4 million is provided for the successor to the ICC and once enacted into law by an authorization Administrative activities of the Department are also trimmed, including awards and bonuses, an 8 staff in the office of the Secretary and 10 political appointees department- wide. The Department is required to consolidate or colocate its extensive field offices saving $25 million in this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement prohibits training that is offensive to Federal workers including the HIV-AIDS and diversity training which was so controversial. Mr. Speaker, additional details of the bill are addressed in the conference report and in a joint statement of the managers. H.R. 2002 is a fair and balanced and bipartisan bill. It represents a compromise between the House and the Senate. It falls within the committee's 602(b) allocation, and has the support of the administration. Mr. Speaker, I spoke to Secretary Pena on Friday, and he said that this bill would be signed, that the administrator was in agreement. In fact, all indications, as I said, from the White House as well as the Office of Management and Budget, I assume, are certain that the President will sign the bill. Mr. Speaker, it does deserve the support, frankly, of all of the Members, and I urge its adoption swiftly. I want to thank all of the members of the committee on both sides of the aisle for their help and their cooperation. I also want to pay a tribute to all of the staff members, and identify them individually, for the good and the diligent work that they have done on both sides. It was a new team, a new operation, and they did a good job. I would like to acknowledge the following staff who worked on this bill: from the Majority Subcommittee staff: John Blazey; Rich Efford; Stephanie Gupta; Linda Muir; Deborah Frazier; and Ken Marx; from the Majority associate staff: Lori-Beth Feld Hua; Glenn LeMunyon; Connie Veillette; Jennifer Miller; Bill Deere; Ray Mock; Sean Murphy; Steve Carey; and Paul Cambon; from the Minority Subcommittee staff: Cheryl Smith; and from the Minority associate staff: Christy Cockburn; Kristen Hoeschler; Jim Jepsen; Barbara Zylinski-Mizrahi; and Paul Carver. I also want to thank Senator Hatifeld, personally somebody that I have always admired for many years. It was a privilege for me to have the opportunity to work with him. He was a complete gentleman, and we really never had any differences that were really the type that you sometimes think about. So I just want to thank Senator Hatfield and his staff and the Members of that side for their work. Mr. Speaker, I insert the following information for inclusion in the Record: TH25OC95.000 TH25OC95.001 TH25OC95.002 TH25OC95.003 TH25OC95.004 Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of House Resolution 241, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. It is the Federal Employee Representation Improvement Act. It is bipartisan. It has been supported by the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on Justice, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady] and the ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank]. It will help Federal employees. Whereby up until this time they were able to negotiate and talk about day-care and different [[Page H 10669]] things like that. When the Department of Justice came down with their ruling, they were no longer able to do it. This will now permit them to do it. Mr. Speaker, this is strongly supported by a number of Federal employee groups. It will protect the rights of Federal employees that they have enjoyed until the Department of Justice removed them through its interpretation of section 205. It is a good measure. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank], the ranking member of the subcommittee, for quickly moving this, and also appreciate the hard work of the Office of Government Ethics and the staff of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, all of whom worked with my staff to create this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend and thank Will Moschella, who works for me, who really did the bulk of the work on this. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 782, the Federal Employee Representation Improvement Act. This legislation, which has bipartisan support, would allow Federal employee management and professional organizations to have Federal employees speak on their behalf without violating criminal law. This legislation is necessary because the Department of Justice [DOJ] issued a legal opinion on November 7, 1994, explaining Federal employee speaking on behalf of a nonunion association to their superiors could be guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. section 205, a criminal provision. It is apropos that H.R. 782 is being considered under the correction calendar process because we must correct the consequences of the DOJ legal opinion which has had negative repercussions throughout the entire Federal Government. Federal employees who are members of employee organizations, like child care centers, health and fitness organizations, recreation associations, and professional associations, have traditionally been able to represent the views of the employee organization to the employing department or agency. I think all would agree that active employee participation in matters of employment should be encouraged. Until now, Federal employees' ability to represent to their agencies the interests of their employee organization has peacefully coexisted with 18 U.S.C. section 205, which prohibits a Government employee, except in the performance of official duties, from acting as agent or attorney for anyone before any agency or court of the United States in connection with a covered matter. A covered matter is described at 18 U.S.C. sections 205(h) as including ``any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other particular matter.'' Until now, issues affecting employees as employees, such as pay and benefits issues, have not been viewed as covered matters. DOJ legal opinions and guidelines state that managers or supervisors who are Federal employees and who represent the interests of their peers or associations before senior management officials are guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 205 and could be prosecuted as felons and subject to imprisonment and fines. Technically, according to DOJ, an employee who asks to use office space on behalf of an employee organization may have violated the law and could be subject to criminal prosecution or a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. This is chilling to employee participation and is the wrong policy to pursue. During this time of downsizing and cutbacks, we should be encouraging more employee participation instead of less. 18 U.S.C. section 205 was enacted in 1962 and there has not been a problem until DOJ issued its opinion. Now, if a Federal employee wishes to discuss child care on behalf of his or her employee organization, he or she is in violation of the law. This situation is outrageous and must be corrected. This legislation, which reverses the Department of Justice's interpretation of the law, allows a Federal employee to represent an employee association or the interests of its members to the executive branch or any agency of the Government. For example, this legislation would allow a Federal employee member of the Conference of Administrative Law Judges to represent its views on changes in the Social Security adjudication process to or before a Federal department or agency. Under DOJ's interpretation of current law, administrative law judges who have experience in matters involving the administrative adjudicatory process, would not be able to share that knowhow with the agency. This is an absurd situation and H.R. 782 will change it. This bill will protect the rights that Federal employees have enjoyed for years until the Department of Justice removed them through its interpretation of section 205. This legislation is a good-government measure, is good for Federal employees and maintains the integrity and purpose of section 205. I urge unanimous support for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to Congressman Canady, chairman of the Constitution Law Subcommittee and Congressman Frank, the ranking member of the subcommittee, for quickly moving this legislation. I also appreciate the hard work of the staff of the Office of Government Ethics and the staffs of the Constitutional Law Subcommittee, all of whom worked with my staff to craft this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include a list of Federal employee groups who support H.R. 782. Who Supports H.R. 782? American Federation of Federal Employees. American Foreign Service Association. Asian Pacific American Network in Agriculture. Blacks in Government. Classification and Compensation Society. Coalition for Effective Change (29 Federal Employee Groups). Customs National Hispanic Agents Association. Federal Investigators' Association. Federal Bar Association. Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association. Federal Managers Association. Federal Physicians Association. Federal Asian Pacific American Council. Fraternal Order of Police, National Park Ranger Lodge. International Personnel Management Association. National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys. National Association of Black Customs Enforcement Officers. National Association of Federal Veterinarians. National Association of Retired Federal Employees. National Association of Treasury Agents. Naval Civilian Managers Association. NIST, Child Care Association. Organization of Professional Employees of the USDA. Professional Managers Association. Senior Executives Association. Senior Foreign Service Association. Social Security Management Associations, Inc.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, the conference on foreign operations appropriations is scheduled for next week. One of the areas of discussion between the two bills is a $12 million appropriation for the Croatian-American Enterprise Fund. Mr. Speaker, let me read you some excerpts from a recent human rights report by monitors from the European Union who investigated human rights atrocities in the Krajina region of Croatia, which was recently liberated from Serb occupation: After Operation Storm * * * the area was largely devastated. Killings and harassments of civilians have been observed. Looting of virtually all houses took place and houses were burnt to the ground long after fighting had stopped. On August 11, an ECMM team from Knin found the body of an old man, shot in the head and in the right side * * * as late as September 11, ECMM Knin found two elderly women recently shot through their head * * * Reports of killing are numerous * * * at some point newly killed Serbs were found at a rate of six per day. The most common murder method is shots in the back of the head or slit throat. These reports came in weeks after the fighting has stopped. Many Serbs fled the Krajina but those that remained were for the most part elderly. On September 30, the Washington Post reported: That evening [August 25] human rights officials returned to Grubrori and found the bodies of two elderly men. One was on the floor of his bedroom in his pajamas with a bullet in the back of the head * * * the other was discovered in a field with his throat slashed. The next day, monitors found the body of a 90-year-old women who had been burned alive in her house. Mr. Speaker, these kinds of atrocities could not have occurred without some kind of tacit approval from some elements of the government of Zagreb. I am not saying the orders came from Zagreb, but the Croatian Government should have known these kinds of things [[Page H 10212]] were going to take place and taken steps to prevent them. As Congress is asked to make tough choices about development assistance and funding for the poorest of the poor, is it right for Congress to appropriate $12 million for the Croatian-American Enterprise Fund in light of these recent atrocities. The answer is no. Congress would not only be turning our backs on genocide, we would be approving it.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I have a bill in now on which we have 53 cosponsors, bipartisan, which would set up a national commission to study the impact of gambling on the country. Gambling is beginning to corrupt this country. It is spreading from two States 20 years ago to 48 States, and it is destroying the American family. Also the gambling interests are now hiring prominent political people of both parties to represent their interests. We now have 53 cosponsors on this bill. The gentleman from Illinois, Henry Hyde, has promised us hearings next week. I would ask and urge all Members of the Congress, Republican, Democrat, liberal, and conservative, to cosponsor this bill, so we can pass a bill that studies the impact of gambling, so when local boards of supervisors look, they know what the impact will be.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I will put the gentleman on, and urge all other Members to sign on.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong, strong support of the amendment. We did this in 1984, and it worked. Let me tell the Members why. In the Washington, DC, area and in my congressional district, we basically [[Page H 9302]] had a situation whereby we had a blood border. We had young men and women from my congressional district in McLean and places like that going into Washington, DC, where the drinking age was 18, purchasing alcohol, coming out and getting killed on the George Washington Parkway. The number of deaths on the George Washington Parkway was amazing. One night I was coming back and there were police there, and I stopped and pulled over to the side, and there was a young lady under a blanket who had just died, had been in a collision, just south of 123. When we did this in 1984, we saved a lot of live. I would tell the Members, as a father, a mother, a grandparent, or as somebody who has young children, think in terms of what this means to your family. I as a father of five children can still remember at nights listening to the gravel on the driveway, waiting for my children to come home, to know that they were safe. The most disturbing call that anyone can possibly get must be that telephone call, and I thank the good Lord that we have not gotten it, that telephone call at 12 or 1 o'clock to say your son or your daughter has been killed in an accident somewhere because of drunk driving, or things like that. I do not want to put mandates on the States on all these other things. I stand with the body on most other issues. But on the safety issues and on this blood alcohol issue, I think this is one of the exceptions we should make. I would just ask, frankly, those of you out there who have never experienced what I have never experienced, we may not have experienced it because of the work that was done in this body in 1984. That language that we passed may have kept us from getting a telephone call, and we may not even know why we did not get the telephone call, but that may be why we did not get the telephone call. I would hope that the chairman would accept this language. I would hope that something like this could come in, and maybe 5 percent is not it, maybe it should be 10 or 3, but somehow we know it worked in 1984, and we know it saved thousands of lives. We do not want the pain and agony in anyone's else's life. I strongly urge that it will work this time, and I urge support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to rise today in support of this amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] to H.R. 2274, the National Highway System Designation Act. This amendment will help save the lives of scores of young people and will make all our Nation's highway's safer. The amendment by the gentlewoman from New York strongly encourages States to implement zero- tolerance alcohol standards for drivers under the age of 21. It is the current law in every State that you must be at least 21 years of age to purchase or consume alcohol, and this amendment certainly is consistent with that law. Furthermore, this amendment will be very effective, as States will lose a percentage of their basic Federal highway funds for each year, after October 1, 1998, that zero-tolerance laws are not in effect. Did you know that according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 40 percent of traffic deaths involving underage drivers were alcohol related? Did you know that in 1994 2,200 people were killed because minors were drinking and driving. And further that 1,600 of these people were teenagers themselves? Mr. Chairman, it should be noted that the Lowey amendment has already been overwhelmingly adopted in the Senate version of this legislation and is supported by the National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives and Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I know what a widespread problem underage drinking and driving is. I have sponsored my own legislation, the High Risk Drivers Act of 1995, on this subject, and can remember the blood border days when youths would drive, many under the influence of alcohol, from States with higher drinking ages to places where they could more easily consume and buy alcohol. The Lowey amendment will be an important step in combating drunk driving and, as a matter of public safety and concern for our children and grandchildren, should be accepted as part of H.R. 2274. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the efforts of the gentlewoman from New York and urge passage of her amendment.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1091, a bill which would improve the National Park System in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I am particularly interested and supportive of title IV of the bill which incorporates legislation I introduced which would create the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic Park. Mr. Speaker, this morning I had the pleasure and honor of participating in a dedication ceremony for the preservation of the 3d Battle of Winchester. The 3d Battle of Winchester, or Opequon, was the largest and most desperately contested battle of the Civil War in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, resulting in more than 9,000 casualties. This battle, where over 15,000 Confederate troops led by Lt. Gen. Jubal Early and about 39,000 Union troops led by Maj. Gen Philip Sheridan clashed in the otherwise quiet countryside, marked the rise of Sheridan and the decline of Confederate power. Perhaps it is coincidence, providence, fortuity, serendipity or luck that H.R. 1091 is being considered on the floor of the House of Representatives the same day the 3d Battle of Winchester is saved by development. The hallowed Civil War site of Opequon was saved by a partnership between the Federal Government, State and local government, businesses persons, and private preservationists. This has been the approach taken in the valley for years and is the approach embodied in title IV of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, in response to a congressional directive (Public Law 101-628), the National Park Service [NPS] undertook the task of studying the Civil War sites in the Shenandoah Valley. The NPS identified significant Civil War sites and determined their condition, established their relative importance, assessed short- and long-term threats to their integrity, and provided general alternatives for their preservation. The Park Service discovered that 15 of the 326 documented armed conflicts in the valley between 1861 and 1865 were of particularly high significance. Because many portions of the valley retain a high degree of historic, rural and scenic integrity, the NPS concluded that they should be preserved. The two major Valley campaigns--the Thomas J. ``Stonewall'' Jackson Valley campaign of 1862 and the decisive Philip Sheridan campaign of 1864--are the major Civil War battlefields not yet preserved. This Congress has a historic opportunity to capitalize on the overwhelming momentum of support for this legislation. Unfortunately, the NPS did not recommend a specific preservation strategy. Therefore, some local valley residents accepted a challenge by Park Service staff to devise a plan to preserve these historic lands. Their efforts were remarkable. Their dedication and perseverance unflappable. This was truly a grassroots effort. Local residents began to meet and discuss how these hallowed lands could be preserved for future generations to learn and enjoy. They are eager to share the stories of the valley--not just battle maneuvers and formations, but the stories of people dislocated by a brutal war. They want to share the story of how the city of Winchester, VA, changed hands between North and South at least 73 times, and how that turmoil affected local residents. Even today, one can sense the effect the war had on the Valley. After countless meetings and telephone conversations, in which the National Park Service was consulted, a consensus began to form around a partnership concept where Federal, State, and local governments, private landowners and preservation groups could work together to preserve these lands. After a draft bill was ready, we held discussion meetings in the Shenandoah Valley on the proposed legislation. These meetings provided an opportunity for thorough review and comment by Valley residents and officials on this legislation. These meetings, attended by local government officials, landowners, business people, and preservationists, served as a vehicle to refine, modify, and improve the legislation with the input and advice of citizens from throughout the Shenandoah Valley. What I found during those public meetings was unprecedented unanimous support for this legislation. I served at the Department of the Interior in the 1970's under Secretary Morton, and I can't recall ever gaining such widespread support for a park bill. The legislation before this subcommittee has been endorsed by every local government where core battlefield properties are located. Moreover, we have a broad, bipartisan coalition of interests united to preserve these treasures of history. The list that follows my statement, compiled over a year and a half ago, comprises those persons and entities who endorsed this partnership approach to preservation. There have been many others since this list was put together. This subcommittee should know that the work of valley residents did not end with the drafting and introduction of this legislation. The Cedar Creek Battlefield Foundation is a private nonprofit corporation organized to save the historic Cedar Creek Civil War battlefield site. The Frederick County Board of Supervisors and Winchester City Council have appointed a Battlefield Task Force whose responsibility it is to prepare a strategic plan for the protection and use of the battlefield sites. The task force's interim action plan designates the most critical and significant sites and recommends immediate actions to be taken. Frederick County and the city of Winchester have also successfully convinced a trustee of a battlefield property at Kernstown to postpone a planned auction. Moreover, they have purchased a $500,000 2-year option to buy land. Within the last couple of weeks, the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites [APCWS] exercised an option to purchase 222 acres, known as Caleb Heights, of the threatened third battle of Winchester using funds derived from the sale of Civil War commemorative [[Page H 9080]] coins. APCWS is committed to raising the remaining $2 billion needed to pay off the remaining cost of the property. Not only have the local governments and private groups dedicated time and personnel to planning the preservation of the battlefields, they have committed scarce resources to protect these lands. This is an overwhelming demonstration of their commitment to the successful implementation of a preservation plan. Local governments alone can't preserve these valuable resources; they need a partnership with the Federal Government to preserve these lands. Even the most well intentioned friends of battlefield preservation will find it difficult to keep the threats of residential construction, commercial development, highway construction, and industrial development at bay. Interstates 66 and 81 bring increasing pressure on this rural landscape and threaten to consume more battlefield land. As the NPS study indicates, some critical properties have already been lost. Since the Civil War, most of the Shenandoah Valley has remained in the same type of agricultural use, but, as the Park Service has reported, increasing development threatens key battlefield sites. Title IV of H.R. 1091 would protect many of these through designation as a unit of the National Park System, while encouraging partnerships with local governments and private landowners to protect the natural cultural and historical resources on adjacent lands within the historic core areas of the key battlefield sites. Partnership is the key ingredient in this bill. It was borne of cooperation and will succeed by bringing all interested parties into the planning, development, and implementation of this novel preservation scheme. This bill capitalizes on the cooperation and hard work which have created a sturdy foundation upon which to build this park. Much of the groundwork has been laid by residents of the valley and specialists knowledgeable about land use planning, environmental impact studies, and so forth. I encourage this subcommittee to utilize the experience, dedication, and knowledge base that exists in the valley in preparing a plan for park management, visitor facilities, educational programs, and historical markers and exhibits throughout the Shenandoah Valley. The NPS should work hand-in-glove with the local community. The second important component of the legislation is that it provides incentives for local governments to preserve historic land by including battlefield protection in regional planning. As the Park Service study observed, local governments are under increasing pressure to allow residential construction, commercial development, highway construction, and industrial development. Grants and technical assistance provide the necessary incentive that local governments need to ward off development pressures. The third key ingredient which I would like to stress in the grants to private battlefield landowners. Because of the tight fiscal constraints of federal discretionary spending, we can't expect the National Park Service to purchase thousands and thousands of acres of land. This is much too expensive. We can, however, provide incentives to local landowners to assist in the preservation of historic lands. In exchange for these economic incentives, private landowners could provide the Park Service needed scenic or preservation easements or could contractually agree to maintain open-space lands with historic viewsheds. This will ensure that a comprehensive overall interpretation of the resource is attained. Mr. Speaker, the time is upon us for Federal action to preserve the historic Civil War battlefields of the Shenandoah Valley, in partnership with State and local governments, local landowners, and preservation groups. This innovative concept will be the least costly and disruptive strategy to protect the lands forever. Mr. Speaker, one point of interest that people should know, that there is a Colonel McCormick in my congressional district, 94 years old, lives in Front Royal, just retired from practicing law. His father and his grandfather and his uncle were in Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. The interest in the Shenandoah Valley for this is very important. In closing, Mr. Speaker, the time is upon us for Federal action to preserve the historic Civil War battlefields of the valley in partnership with State and local governments and local landowners and preservation groups. I want to acknowledge before I close and thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] and his staff. Without the help of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen], this legislation would not be passing. He nurtured it through, worked with us and he did everything he possibly could. I want to say on the record, the gentleman and I were freshmen together in that class of 1980 when we came, I think there are only 16 of us left, but I want to publicly say I will be eternally grateful for his help and his entire staff. He helped us work this thing through. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte] for his efforts. It was a good team effort. Our districts are joined together. We were lockstepped together at the beginning of this. I thank him. I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], and the other members of the Virginia delegation, and on the Senate side, Senators Robb and Warner. We were together almost like Stonewall Jackson. There stood the Virginia like a stone wall, we were together and united on this. And finally Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a very special thank you to Will Moschella, one of my legislative assistants, who was instrumental in helping to bring this bill forward. Tomorrow it is my hope and expectation, and I might say I am going to say a little prayer, that this legislation will pass without any controversy and will then be passed by the other body. Mr. Speaker, I include the following articles and extraneous material for the Record, which describe the efforts to create a Civil War National Battlefield Park in the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia: Shenanoah Valley Proposal Endorsements by County frederick The Glass-Glen Burnie Foundation, Landowner/Individual. Town of Middletown, Government. Town of Stephens City, Government. Winchester-Frederick Chamber of Commerce, Business. Winchester-Frederick County Econ. Deve. Comm., Business. shenandoah Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Landowner/Individual C.M. ``Mike'' Hunt, Landowner/Individual. Sarah P. Faulconer, Landowner/Individual. James H. Faulconer, Landowner/Individual. Garland C. Hudgins, Landowner/Individual. Breckenridge Chapter, Daughters of the Confederacy, Historic Group. Town of New Market, Government. Clinton M. Truesdale, Individual. The Strasburg Guards, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Historic Group. Town of Woodstock, Government. David E. Smith, Landowner/Individual. William Craun, Landowner/Individual. William F. Bausserman, Landowner/Individual. William J. Bausserman, Landowner/Individual. Harold Walter, Landowner/Individual. Keith Rocco, Landowner/Individual. J.W. Troxell, Landowner/Individual. Ralph Stickley, Landowner/Individual. Tom's Brook Farm,/Rodney A. Bankson, CDR, USN-Ret., Landowner/Individual. 10th Virginia Volunteer Infantry, Historic Group. Cross Keys Antiques/John B. Woodyard, Landowner/Individual. Friends of the North Fork of the Shenandoah River, Civic Group. Hupp's Hill Battlefield Park and Study Center, Historic Group/Business. New Market Area Chamber of Commerce, Business. New Market Battlefield Historic Park, Historic Group. Patricia K. Marie, Landowner/Individual. Reformation Lutheran Church, Civic Group. Robert D. Plu, Landowner/Individual. Shenanoah Caverns, Business. Shenandoah Valley Civil War Roundtable, Historic Group. Shenandoah Valley Quality Inn/Lois Moomaw, Gen. Man., Business. Strasburg Rotary Club, Civic Group. Town of Mount Jackson, Government. Town of Tom's Brook, Government. VMI Museum Programs, Historic Group. Women's Memorial Society, Civic Group. Woodstock Museum, Historic Group. rockingham Arthur J. Hamilton, Landowner/Individual. Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Landowner/Individual. [[Page H 9081]] Barbara Paulson, Landowner/Individual. Cherry Grove Farm/George K. Harnsberger, Landowner/ Individual. F & M Bank-Massanutten, Business. Graham C. Lilly/Professor of Law UVA, Landowner/Individual. Harrisonburg-Rockingham Historical Society, Historic Group. Harry L. Chandler, Landowner/Individual. Lawrence D. Bowers/Wilson & Bowers, Landowner/Individual. Martha B. Caldwell/Professor of Art History JMU, Landowner/ Individual. Mr. & Mrs. Brownie A. Cummins, Landowner/Individual. Mr. & Mrs. Thomas F. Tutwiller, Landowner/Individual. Peter Svenson, Landowner/Individual. The Inn at Keezletown Road Bed & Breakfast, Business. The Society of Port Republic Preservationists, Historic Group. The Town of Dayton, Virginia, Government. James J. Geary, Former Dir. New market Battle, Landowner/ Individual. Ronald E. Carrier, President, James Madison Univ., Educational. Barbara Moore, Landowner/Individual. Daniel M. Downey, Ph.D., Landowner/Individual. Tom's Brook Farm/Rodney A. Bankson, CDR, USN-Ret., Landowner/Individual. W. Allen & Phoebe Sherwood, Landowner/Individual. W.C. Bedall, Jr., Landowner/Individual. Wilmer Diehl Family, Landowner/Individual. highland Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Landowner/Individual. The Board of Supervisors for Highland County, Government. The Recorder, Business/Press. Virginia's Western Highlands Travel Council, Business. winchester City of Winchester, Government. Elizabeth G. Helm/Former Mayor, Government. Downtown Development Board, Government. The Common Council of the City of Winchester, Government. augusta Winston Wine, Landowner/Individual. page Luray Caverns Corporation, Business. port republic Mark & Susan Hardy, Landowner/Individual. regional The Civil War Trust, Historic Group. alexandria Brian C. Pohanka, Landowner. valley wide Shenandoah Valley Travel Association, Business. [From the Washington Post, June 13, 1993] Unsung Soldiers The case for saving Shenandoah's Civil War battlegrounds (By James M. McPherson) Many Americans recognize the significance of such Civil War battles and campaigns as Antietam, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga and Petersburg. All of these battlefields are now national parks that attract millions of visitors each year. More than 125 years after the guns went silent, tourists can walk the ground near Sharpsburg, Md., where more Americans died in one day--Sept. 17, 1862--than any other day in our history. They can scan the fields at Gettysburg, where 13,000 Confederate soldiers launched an assault of futile courage on July 3, 1863. And they can see where Grant's legions put their siege lines at Vicksburg, forcing that city's defenders to eat mules and rats before surrendering. No one can truly comprehend the tragic but triumphant trauma of the American Civil War without visiting such battlefields. But there are two large gaps in our commemoration of the engagements of the Civil War--Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign in 1862 and Phil Sheridan's Shenandoah Valley campaign in 1864. No national park--or state or local park--marks any of the eight battles and numerous important skirmishes involved in these campaigns, even though they were as crucial in shaping the course and outcome of the war as were Antietam, Vicksburg and Chattanooga--yes, even as important as Gettysburg itself. The two Shenandoah Valley campaigns produced two of the four major turning points of the war (the other two were Antietam and Gettysburg-Vicksburg). Jackson's string of victories in the valley from May 8, 1862, to June 9, 1862, reversed a tide of Northern triumphs during the preceding three months that had threatened to sink the Confederacy. The Union had captured Roanoke Island and New Bern in North Carolina, forts Henry and Donelson, Nashville and New Orleans and the lower Mississippi valley. Union victories in the bloody battles of Shiloh and Pea Ridge and the advance of the largest Union army to within six miles of Richmond in the spring of 1862 had caused panic and depression in the South. In mid-May 1862, the Confederate government was prepared to evacuate Richmond. Then came Jackson's extraordinary victories in the Shenandoah Valley--at McDowell on May 8, Front Royal on May 23, Winchester on May 25 and Cross Keys and Port Republic on June 8 and 9. These victories proved to be a strategic shot in the arm for the Confederacy. They changed the momentum of the war and launched a year of Southern victories in the Virginia theater that culminated in the Confederacy's high tide at Gettysburg. The tide receded, but by the late summer of 1864 Confederate prospects again seemed promising. The two largest Northern military efforts of the war, to capture Richmond and Atlanta, had bogged down in apparent stalemate after 100,000 Union casualties. The shock of death and failure staggered the Union, threatened Lincoln's reelection and spawned a peace movement in the North. In July a small Confederate army commanded by Jubal Early cleared Union forces out of the Shenandoah Valley and marched all the way to the outskirts of Washington before pulling back. During this crisis, Gen. Ulysses S. Grant sent one of his favorite subordinates, Philip Sheridan, to the valley to take command of a composite ``Army of the Shenandoah'' and crush Early. In three battles--among the most one-sided Union victories of the war--Sheridan did precisely that: at Third Winchester (or Opequon Creek) on Sept. 19, Fisher's Hill on Sept. 22 and Cedar Creek on Oct. 19. These battles ensured Lincoln's reelection on a platform of unconditional victory and marked the final turn of the tide toward Appomattox. The absence of a national park for any of these Shenandoah Valley battlefields has always been a mystery to me, But there is now a chance to remedy this omission--maybe the last chance. The expansion of development along I-66 to its intersection with I-81 a few miles from five of the Shenandoah Valley battlefield sites threatens these sites with extinction. That fate could be avoided by the creation of a Shenandoah Valley national battlefields park. Many residents of this area recognize that preservation of these sites would produce more than the obvious historical and cultural benefits. It would also yield the economic benefits of tourism at a much lower cost than residential development, with its inevitable byproducts of congestion, noise and pollution. Most of the battlefield sites in the valley still possess a high degree of historical integrity, that is, the topography--the fields and forests, the hills and valleys and viewsheds--has changed little since the Civil War. At surprisingly low cost to taxpayers, much of the battlefield acreage could be saved for posterity, with sites linked by already existing state and local roads. Several parcels of battlefield lands already are owned by private preservations groups that are ready to turn them over to the National Park Service. Congress should authorize a Shenandoah Valley National Battlefield Park as envisioned in legislation introduced by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) in the House and Sens. John Warner (R) and Chuck Robb (D) of Virginia and Sen. James Jeffords (R) of Vermont. Creation of such a park would make it possible for millions of Americans to visit these battlefields, where thousands gave their last full measure of devotion just as surely as did those who died at Gettysburg.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motions offered by the gentleman from Texas. As the gentleman already pointed out, the House bill provides $18 billion for the Federal air highway program, an increase of $840 million over the previous fiscal year. Under this, most States get more than they did in the past. The Senate alternatively has elected to reduce highway spending to $17 billion, $1 billion below the House level and $160 million below last year's level. The Federal-Aid Highway Program consists of several programs designed to aid in the construction, rehabilitation, traffic management, and safety of our Nation's highways. These programs also assist in the improvement of other modes of transportation, so it is my hope that the committee conference can agree to provide the funding for the Federal-Aid Highway Program at a level which is as close as possible to the level of the House-passed bill, realizing the competing needs of the Coast Guard and others. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. As the gentleman has already pointed out, the House bill provides $18 billion for the Federal-Aid [[Page H 8710]] Highway Program, an increase of $840 million over the previous fiscal year. The Senate, alternatively, has elected to reduce highway spending to $17 billion, $1 billion below the House level, and $160 million below last year's level. The Federal-Aid Highway Program consists of several programs designed to aid in the construction, rehabilitation, traffic management, and safety of our Nation's highways. These programs also assist in the improvement of other modes of transportation. Infrastructure spending on highways is critical to the efficient movement of goods and people in the United States and has direct effects on the national economy and interstate commerce. In fact, every billion dollars spent on the highway system results in improvements in pavements and bridge conditions and reduced congestion. For example, $1 billion could fund 2,500 lane miles of pavement improvements, 375 lane miles of increased capacity, and 190 bridge improvements. Highway spending also means jobs: For a billion dollars, as many as 50,000 jobs can be supported. It is my hope that the conference committee can agree to provide funding for the Federal-Aid Highway Program at a level which is as close as possible to the level in the House-passed bill, recognizing the competing demands of the Coast Guard, the Federal Aviation Administration, and other safety programs of the Department of Transportation. I support the gentleman's motion and urge that the motion be agreed to.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2002) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes, with Senate amendments thereto, disagree to the Senate amendments and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material, on this legislation.

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. COLEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WOLF. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, earlier this summer, at the Filene Center at Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts, Mr. Davis and I celebrated the life of Catherine Filene Shouse. It was a grand event for a grand lady on the 99th anniversary of her birth--June 9, 1995. On December 14, 1994, Mrs. Shouse ``moved to a grander stage,'' as one person noted, but the vision she had for America's first national park for the performing arts lives on as her gift to America at Wolf Trap Farm Park. Her life was celebrated that evening at a gala so befitting her style, elegance, dignity, respect, wit, humor and love. There were many remembrances of Mrs. Shouse. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II sent a message. Many felt that the remarks of the Honorable G. William Miller that evening eloquently captured the spirit and achievements of Mrs. Shouse. Mr. Speaker, we are honored to represent the northern Virginia area which is home to Wolf Trap and we would like to share with our colleagues the message from Queen Elizabeth and the Remembrances by Mr. Miller of an extraordinary national and international figure, Catherine Filene Shouse. British Embassy Washington, June 6, 1995. Mrs. Carol Harford, 823 South 26th Place, Arlington, VA. Dear Mrs. Harford: Her Majesty The Queen has asked me to send you her very best wishes for the concert which is being arranged at Wolf Trap on 9 June in honour of Catherine Filene Shouse. Her Majesty is sure that this will be a memorable occasion. Yours sincerely, Robin Renwick. Catherine Filene Shouse Celebration filene center, wolf trap national park for the performing arts june 9, 1995 the 99th anniversary of her birth Remembrances G. William Miller To dream an impossible dream. It is not the dream that is impossible, but the task of putting it into words. How does one grasp a thunderbolt, or capture a moonbeam? Describe an earthquake, or bottle a fleeting melody? Commemorate a howling gale, or reflect the rapture of a child awakened by the magic of the stage? How does one celebrate a celebrity who is already a legend? Carefully, lest the enthusiasm to extol create myth where there was reality, fashion ethereal portraits where there was life and vitality and flesh and blood. Each of us has remembrances of Kay Shouse. String them all together and they form an endless chain, as infinite as humanity. Creative, energetic, determined, resourceful, imaginative, fearless, independent, patriotic, learned. Skillful, hopeful, optimistic, unique, steadfast, eternal. Catherine Filene Shouse. Kay valued Shakespeare, but there was none of his Hamlet in her character. There was no hesitation over ``To be or not to be.'' For Kay, the only course was full engagement in life with all its challenges. In As You Like It, Kay found a more compatible concept: ``All the world's a stage And all the men and women merely players.'' What a production she made of the stage that is our world: Inspiring the young to reach for the stars. Moving the successful to rise to greatness. Encouraging women to unleash all their talents, in all fields. Moving governments to stretch their visions to open new opportunities. But Kay was not merely a player. She was the Play! Once, at Plantation House there was a small post- performance gathering where the conversation turned at that age-old question: What is the greatest boon to mankind? One favored the great art, capturing countless images to reflect the inner soul of humankind. Another chose the great music, with timeless melodies which comfort and inspire over the ages. A third argued for the great literature, where creative ideas are passed from generation to generation to instruct and enrich. And, of course, there was one colleague who championed the performing arts, which combines all the others to present the full range of human drama in real life form. A guest from a distant state than intervened. ``That's interesting,'' he remarked, ``but where I come from the greatest boon to mankind is * * * the promissory note.'' Without missing a beat, Kay had the last word. ``Fine,'' she said, ``we'll take one of yours * * * with six figures!'' Archimedes was so bold as to claim, ``Give me a place to stand, and I shall move the world.'' Kay did not wait for a place to be given. She took her place--and she moved the world. A visitor at a Wolf Trap performance once noted the mad trajectory of a golf cart piloted by a compelling figure in a flowing cape. He remarked to his companion, ``Who does she think she is, the big pooh-bah?'' When the golf cart approached and Kay introduced herself, the patron's astonished retort was, ``Holy cow, she is the great pooh- bah!'' For those who experienced an outing on Chesapeake Bay abroad the Pink Pontoon, with Kay at the helm, know first hand that Kay could truly claim: ``I am the captain of my soul, I am the master of my fate.'' Kay subscribed to Abraham Lincoln's parliamentary procedures. Once at a Wolf Trap meeting she presented a bold and controversial proposal for a grand event. To others it seemed far too risky considering the financial condition of the Foundation at the time. The vote was all against, save Kay. Whereupon she announced, ``Well, now that we've settled that, let's get out the invitations.'' Kay never gave up, no matter how hopeless the cause, when she cared and when she believed. The great fire of '82 stirred the fire within her. Like Ulysses, until the end, she never turned back. ``. . . For my purpose holds To sail beyond the sunset, and the baths of all the Western stars, until I die.'' ``To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.'' As we remember Kay, we think of the words of Emily Dickinson: ``Because I could not stop for Death He kindly stopped for me-- The Carriage held but just Ourselves and Immortality.'' Kay, we remember you in awe and admiration and love. Now that you have moved to a grander stage, where you command choirs of angels and orchestras of saints, we hope that you remember us too. Kay, you told us always to be glad, not sad. Never to say good bye or good night, but always ``Good morning''. Good morning, Kay.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. These were Members who voted when they had an opportunity to do it and voted the other way. I want to look at a quote. This is what it says: ``Unless and until there is unmistakable proof to the contrary, the presumption must be that television is and will be a main factor in influencing the values and moral standards of our society. Television does not, and cannot, merely reflect the moral standards of our society. It must affect them, either by changing or by reinforcing them.'' If we miss this opportunity, it will never come back. The moms and the dads of our districts did not have any lobbyists hanging outside for the last week. They were so busy working, trying to do it, a single parent has the toughest job in the world. This is a good opportunity. If it can be perfect when we go to conference, let us perfect it. I strongly urge, on behalf of all the kids that are going to come home and watch this garbage, a ``no'' vote on Coburn and an ``aye'' vote for Burton.

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Coburn because it will do nothing--everyone knows that--and for the Markey-Burton amendment. The eye is the gate to the mind. It says it in the Bible. It says it in many other places. Garbage in, garbage out. Good things in, good things out. When I go see the Chariots of Fire, I leave the movies feeling good. But if you go see the Texas Chain Saw Massacre, you go out of the movies feeling not very good. The working parents are not around all the time. Ozzie and Harriet do not live in America all the time in every house, and they are not around. But many times no one is around, and it has been said that more young women become pregnant in their own house between the hours of 3 and 5 because no one is home. So face the reality. I wish it were different, but it is not that way. Second, if you try to block out, what show would you block out? Would you block out Married with Children? Would you block out Melrose Place? What about Beverly Hills 90210 or Beavis and Butt-head, that stupid show? Or would you block out the afternoons? What afternoon show would you do? Geraldo? We do not know how to get Geraldo, but how about Jenny Jones? Well, Jenny Jones; is that the show that the guy killed the other person on? What about Ricki Lake? It goes on, and it goes on. Lastly, to the conservations on this side, back in 1985, I came with the idea to create a national commission on pornography, and it worked. Let me tell you who served on one of those national commissions that the gentleman [[Page H 8495]] from Washington [Mr. White] just ridiculed, Dr. James Dobson. And we set up a standard to bring about prosecution because, under the first term of the Reagan administration, there were no prosecutions of pornographers. But, for that national commission, we changed it around. Somebody says this is censorship. Who were the Senators, Senator Dan Coats, we all know Dan Coats. He was one of the finest Members that ever served in this Congress. Very conservative. He supported this over in the Senate. Thad Cochran, real flaming liberal over there from Mississippi. He is conservative. Mike DeWine, nobody was tougher on crime than Mike Dewine. announcement by the chairman

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I want to pay tribute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] for their leadership on this issue. Before I speak, I want to say that there are good and decent people on both sides of the issue, and it is a difficult issue, and I am speaking for myself. I thank God, and I know that if the French had not needed us at Yorktown, we may not have been an independent nation. I will tell you, the British ought to thank God for the fact that Americans went to their rescue in World War II. So we talk about aid and what will make the difference. History ha been changed by people assisting other people. I have visited Bosnia three times. The first time I went there, I was with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who is not here. We were in Vukovar just 2 weeks before Vukovar fell. When we went down in the cellars of Vukovar, the people there said, ``America? What will America do? Will America get involved?'' We did not get involved. We now see the reports, hundreds were killed; in fact, 204 people were taken out of the Vukovar hospital and killed by the Serbs and put in a mass grave. So we did not learn much of a lesson. We went on and maintained the embargo. The second time I went to Bosnia, I visited a Serb-run prisoner-of- war camp. If you cannot see this picture, just go back and remember what ``Schindler's List'' was like, because this is what ``Schindler's List'' was like. The Moslem men would go like this, they would walk around, they would not look you in the eye. I went in a place, and I hollered, ``I am an American Congressman from America.'' They lit up like that. You could see they thought maybe finally somebody cares. Well, nothing more happened, and the embargo continued. The third time I went, I went to East Mostar, and this young lady, who is probably maybe dead now, had nothing whereby they were being attacked over and over first by the Serbs and then by the Crouts. We continued, we continued the arms embargo. Now, the geopolitic things are being talked about. Let us bring it down to where you and I and all of us are. It says, in the Golden Rule, it says, ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' It does not say, ``Do unto others as you would not have them do to you.'' It says, ``Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' Try to put yourself in this case. I am going to take one narrow slice. When we had the CSCE hearings, they said, the witnesses came and said there had been 20,000-some rapes in a country of less than 5 million people. Let me read you the testimony from that one day, the expert said. He said: Most of the rapes occurred in detention facilities or in custodial settings. Most of them occurred on a mass basis, not only in terms of the repeated number of rapes against the victim, but also the number of victims. In other words, the victims were rounded up. I will give you three examples in the town of Foca. There were three places where this occurred: the partisan hall where the women were brought in and raped and kept, and it was sort of a turning point where people would be brought in and out and raped and brought in and out and raped and brought in and out. In another place where women were kept for the satisfaction on rotation on a 15-day basis for soldiers coming in from the field, and I can identify with that one, because the people outside at risk, there was a little house there where women, young girls ranging in age from 11 to 17, were kept from 8 to 10 months, 8 to 10 months in this house. They were all daughters of prominent persons in the cities, and they were ultimately ransomed. I interviewed, he said, a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old who had been raped repeatedly for 8 to 10 months, consistently by their guards. I have seen an 11-year-old in a fetal position in a psychiatric hospital in Sarajevo having given birth to a child but having completely lost her mind. As fathers, forget the Congressmen and the Congresswomen, as fathers and as mothers, imagine you had to sit back and watch your wife raped in front of you, imagine that you watched your daughters raped in front of you, imagine that your sister is involved or, if you are woman, imagine that your daughter has been taken away, pulled out of your arms and taken away and is in a house in a village down the street, and you know the soldiers go in there day in and day out and your little daughter is in there. Talk about the geopolitical things. Forget it. Talk about what you would do if you were a father, and I say, God willing, if you were a father and if you were a mother, you would want the arms to defend yourself. But more important than defending your country, but to defend your mom and your wife or your daughter or your sister. That is what we are talking about. The Moslems have come to us and said over and over they do not want American troops. Do not hide behind this. There are no American troops involved. They have told us over and over. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] has been there. They do not want American troops. So we are not voting on American troops. Second, under the U.N. Charter, they have the right to defend themselves. They have the right to defend themselves. That is all they want to do. No American troops. We are not voting on American troops. We are voting to lift the arms embargo. So enough of this Bosnian nation, but so these Moslem fathers and sons and mothers and daughters can defend something that is so important that, if each of us were in that situation, we would want to do. I strongly urge an ``aye'' vote to lift the embargo.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2017, the District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act. This legislation is of vital importance to our Nation's capital and the Washington metropolitan area and I urge Congress to approve this legislation as quickly as possible. For the past 1\1/2\ years, the District of Columbia has not moved forward with critically important highway projects. As a result of the D.C. financial crisis, the District of Columbia has been unable to fund the matching share required before it may obligate Federal highway funds. The District of Columbia has been unable to plan and implement necessary highway projects. Now, roads and bridges in and around the District of Columbia are literally falling apart. Some roads are barely passable, and without necessary repairs, may need to be closed off to traffic. Our Nation's capital must have a basic network of transportation which includes safe roads. Transportation is about getting to work, the grocery store, church, and recreational activities. Safe roadways are critical for ambulances, fire and rescue vehicles, and police. Finally, roadways provide access to the Nation's capital, allowing thousands of Federal employees to get to work, and serving thousands more tourists who visit annually. H.R. 2017 offers a reasonable and necessary solution to the District of Columbia dire financial situation. This legislation will grant the District of Columbia additional time in which to pay its matching share of the highway funds. The District of Columbia would be permitted to use its portion of Federal highway funds now rather than lose these funds forever. I want to underscore an essential aspect of this legislation: The bill does not provide a forgiveness of the matching fund requirement. The District of Columbia will still be required to pay the requisite matching portion. H.R. 2017 merely allows the District of Columbia additional time in which to make this payment while allowing critical road work to go forward. In addition, as amended by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, H.R. 2017 includes important provisions aimed at improving highway program oversight in the District of Columbia by requiring it to institute programmatic reforms and establish a dedicated highway fund. Finally, the District of Columbia is subject to strict enforcement procedures if the repayment requirements of this legislation are not met. The District of Columbia simply does not have the money necessary to pay its portion of the highway funds at this time. Additional oversight and control over the D.C. financial affairs has been implemented and I am hopeful that the control board can make needed improvement in the D.C. financial position. However, since the District of Columbia cannot pay its portion of the highway funds now, it will lose $82 million in Federal highway funds unless legislation delaying payment of the District of Columbia portion is enacted. Legislation is needed to allow for needed repairs and upgrades to the most heavily traveled roads leading to and within the District of Columbia. Timely enactment of this legislation will allow the District of Columbia to begin road work right away, during the summer construction period. I urge passage of H.R. 2017.

Mr. WOLF

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], a member of the committee.