May 22, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H 5371

States could not impose term limits on

Federal officeholders.

I think it is a very interesting day to

look at that decision, which I think

was the correct answer, on the very

same day that we are here memorializing Les Aspin. Had term limits been in

effect, be they 8 or 12 years, Les Aspin,

who spent 22 years in this House, would

not have been able to do the things

that we were talking about today in

which he contributed so much to this

great Nation.

I think also as we look at term limits, we look at something that is going

to be coming up this week that concerns me a lot, about whether we do

not jump into some things too fast and

do not have people able to really understand some of the unintended consequences of policies that come in

front of us. There may be a reason, Mr.

Speaker, that some of us with gray

hair are needed around here.

I guess that is what I am doing

today, as I salute the Supreme Count’s

decision and say, I think that we do

need some people who have been

around more than 8 years or 12 years to

kind of guide this great ship of state

and to have a little corporate memory.

One of the things I particularly

would like to address that I will be

talking about later this week when we

get to the foreign aid bill that will be

coming to the floor is that the provision in that bill, I think, is very dangerous. I certainly hope it will be

struck.

There is a provision in that bill that

I think on first blush sounds wonderful,

as so many things do. But then let us

examine it more carefully. The provision I am talking about is the provision that says, people in the world who

live in a country that has a population

policy that they think is oppressive

can come to America. This is the new

way to get to that Great Golden Gate

in America and come in and become an

American.

Now, I certainly do not approve of

immigrant bashing, and I do not approve of doing those kinds of inflammatory things, but let me say, are we

really serious about this and have

Americans thought about where this

policy would lead if we put it into effect.

In essence, what we are really

targeting with this provision is China.

People are saying that China and their

one-child policy is very oppressive and

that people who want to have more

children or people who do not like the

one-child policy, under this provision,

if it becomes law, can then make themselves an immediate qualifier for immigration status to the United States.

Now, the real problem is, I am sure,

there are people who do sincerely feel

very repressed and there will be other

people who will find that these are

magic words that you can utter and

they you get to come to America.

Let us be perfectly honest, thank

goodness this is still a wonderful country where everybody wants to come. So

we are talking about a country that

has a population of a billion two, a billion two.

Over the Easter break, I happened to

be in China. I was there with the Committee on the Judiciary talking about

the intellectual property issues, because, as you know, China has been ripping off many of our very important

assets, such as movies, such as CD’s,

and so forth. They signed an agreement

on intellectual property, and we were

there to test the enforcement and see

what was happening.

But in being there, one of the things

that transpired was I got to talk to

many of our folks over there and many

people on the ground, and they were

very concerned about this policy that

we are going to vote on this week.

They were saying they were seeing any

number of people getting ready to

apply for this new immigration status

should it appear, that large families

were coming in and saying, because

they had had a large family, they felt

discriminated against in their village.

Single people were coming in saying

they might want a large family, just

the very fact that that family, that

one-child policy was in effect was

there, they might want to come in. All

of these people were lining up and beginning to line up, and the rumble was

going on to come line up soon if this

passed and this is how you get to come

to America.

We remember just a few years ago

when many Chinese came here on boats

illegally because they wanted to come

so desperately.

I as an American, and I am sure

every other American is terribly flattered that people want to come to this

country, but I think Americans who

are here wonder how many can we let

in reasonably and keep America at the

same standard.

I hope all of us take this very seriously when it comes to the floor, think

about the unintended consequences and

salute the Supreme Court who today

said maybe some of us here with gray

heads should remain to keep talking

about these issues and make sure we do

not get off the road.

previous order of the House, the genThe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a

ftleman from Maryland [Mr. HOYER] is

recognized for 60 minutes.

[Mr. HOYER addressed the House. His

remarks will appear hereafter in the

Extensions of Remarks.]

fRECESS

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 12 of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess, subject to

the call of the Chair.

Accordingly (at 12 o’clock and 20

minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess subject to the call of the Chair.

b 1600

AFTER RECESS

The recess having expired, the House

was called to order by the Speaker pro

tempore [Mr. SOLOMON] at 4 o’clock

p.m.

REPORT ON RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF

fH.R. 1561, AMERICAN OVERSEAS

INTERESTS ACT OF 1995

Mr. GOSS, from the Committee on

Rules, submitted a privileged report

(Rept. No. 104–129) on the resolution (H.

Res. 155) providing for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1561) to consolidate the

foreign affairs agencies of the United

States; to authorize appropriations for

the Department of State and related

agencies for fiscal years 1996 and 1997;

to responsibly reduce the authorizations of appropriations for United

States foreign assistance programs for

fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and for other

purposes, which was referred to the

House Calendar and ordered to be

printed.

AMMONIUM NITRATE FERTILIZER

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under

fthe Speaker’s announced policy of May

12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana

[Mr. TAUZIN] is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority

leader.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I take

this special order this afternoon to report to you and to the American public

on a hearing that was just completed

by the Commerce Subcommittee of the

Committee on Commerce, a hearing designed to explore the possibility that

may have existed as long as 25 years or

more ago to render ammonium nitrate

fertilizer insensitive to its use as a

bomb material in America.

I hold in my hand a patent that was

issued by the U.S. Patent Office on

January 20, 1968, a patent developed by

Mr. Sam Porter in Arlington, VA, here,

that literally details how a simple addition of diammonium phosphate to

ammonium nitrate fertilizer in the

manufacturing process could, in fact,

desensitive the product so that it cannot be turned into a bomb, much like

the bomb which may have been used to

detonate the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City.

My interest in this subject matter

goes back a long time. It was in 1970

that a Mr. Bob Colbert of Kansas was

in Louisiana, building, in fact, or helping in the construction of an ANFO

plant. An ANFO plant is a plant that

takes industrial grade ammonium nitrate and converts it into blasting material.

He was in the State on behalf of his

company, and my father and uncle

were doing electrical work for him in

the construction of that facility. I

came to know him. As a young practicing attorney in the State then many