Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to a very disturbing Op Ed article by Professor Amos Perlmutter (``More words than deeds on Kazakhstan?'' in the Washington Times of October 4, 2000), detailing how the Clinton- Gore Administration has dropped the ball in promoting democracy and respect for human rights in Kazakhstan. Time after time, Kazakhstan's ruthless and corrupt President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, has made promises to Vice President Gore and others in the Administration and has then failed to deliver on those promises. And so, as Professor Perlmutter puts it, the Nazarbayev regime continues its campaign of ``relentlessly destroying the opposition, closing the free press and involving itself in corrupt schemes.'' It should have been possible for the United States, which has had the support of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe as well as numerous non-governmental human rights organizations, to insist that Nazarbayev fulfill the promises he made on human rights and free elections as a price for legitimacy in American eyes. Sadly, however, it seems clear that the Clinton-Gore Administration has pulled its punches, because it wants oil rich Kazakhstan's support for an oil pipeline that does not go through Russia. What is particularly troublesome in this regard is that the United States should not be turning a blind eye to repression and corruption in order to persuade Kazakhstan to do something that is in its interest in any event. Mr. Speaker, I submit Professor Perlmutter's article for the Record. [From the Washington Times, Oct. 4, 2000] More Words Than Deeds on Kazakhstan? (By Amos Perlmutter) The Clinton-Gore administration relationship with Nursultan Nazarbayev's corrupt dictatorship in Kazakhstan is, once again, making news. Not without reason. The case is that the administration failed to defend political freedom and free enterprise in Kazakhstan. They talked the talk without walking the walk when it came to challenging the Nazarbayev dictatorship. Promises from Mr. Nazarbayev went unfulfilled. The administration failed to support the claims of human rights organizations, non-government organizations (NGOs), and the OSCE that the Nazarbayev government is not only failing to undergo democratic changes as a price for support from the United States, but also is relentlessly destroying the opposition, closing the free press and involving itself in corrupt schemes. The effort to support this regime was conceived in conformity with the American national interest. After all, there are three reasons for U.S. strategic interest in Kazakhstan: oil, nukes and independence. Kazakhstan has been one of the Soviet Union's major oil reserves, and continues to be a most significant oil reserve and also a Caspian littoral state. Josef Stalin made Kazakhstan a Soviet nuclear arsenal. Independence was the goal of both the Bush and Clinton administrations, to strengthen Central Asia non-Russian Muslim states, and to move them in the direction of democracy and free enterprise. There was a tacit strategic purpose in separating Kazakhstan from Russia's historical imperial linkages (an exercise in futility). Kazakhstan is the most Russified Central Asian state, with close to 30 percent of its population Russians who serve as the main scientific, industrial and business elite. However, the Clinton administration sank into the pool of oil that inadvertently led to the most serious corruption of the Nazarbayev dictatorship by failing to resist the dictatorship. One of the administration's major foreign policy goals was humanitarian intervention to help bring an end to former communist dictatorships in the former Soviet Union and the Balkans. In fact, the administration conducted a ``humanitarian war'' in Kosovo. The idea of a humanitarian and exemplary intervention, i.e. support of opposition groups in Kazakhstan, free press, and democracy was sacrificed, unfortunately, to the pool of oil. The administration was not directly involved in support of the dictatorship. But it failed to vigorously resist the Nazarbayev violation of human rights, dissolution of the Kazakh parliament on two In defense of the administration you could say diplomatic gobbleygook and securing unfulfilled promises from Mr. Nazarbayev was unfortunately subordinated to oil and nuclear strategic policies. The embassy in Kazakhstan continuously reported to the U.S. State Department on Mr. Nazarbayev's violations of human rights. In fact, the OSCE, human rights groups, non-government organizations (NGOs), and other groups have warned the administration and continuously protested Mr. Nazarbayev's dictatorship and suppression of freedom in Kazakhstan. Leon Fuerth, Vice President Al Gore's national security adviser, and his assistant, Richard Brody, met on Sept. 15, 1999, at the Old Executive Office Building to discuss the upcoming visit of President Nazarbayev to the United States. Attending were several people from the State Department, regional and human rights bureaus, as well as the Human Rights Foundation, and the Kazakhstan 21st Century Foundation. Mr. Fuerth was on the defensive throughout the meeting, as the various representatives pressed hard the argument that the meeting was a mistake at that time, since Mr. Nazarbayev would interpret it as an endorsement of his behavior. According to one of the participants, Mr. Fuerth was unpersuasive and ineffective in defending the purpose for the visit of Mr. Nazarbayev to the United States. The issue at stake was Kazakhstan's MiG sales to North Korea and the failure of democracy. When Mr. Nazarbayev promised Mr. Gore the next election ``would be better,'' the OSCE report on the 1999 elections in Kazakhstan were still pending. Mr. Fuerth said at the meeting, ``We will adopt its [OSCE's] findings as leverage on Nazarbayev.'' Mr. Fuerth continued, ``Our government has been saying repeatedly, and the vice president personally, pay attention to what the monitors are saying about your, i.e. Nazarbayev's, elections.'' Mr. Fuerth said Mr. Nazarbayev is ``not your poster boy'' for democracy and freedom. Mr. Fuerth said, ``Gore sees his personal relationship as essential to prodding Nazarbayev toward democracy.'' America's goals include, says Mr. Fuerth, ``carrying Kazakhstan to a modern self-sustaining state at every level of societal concern. . . . We are into their affairs at a fantastic level of detail, and that is only Mr. Fuerth continued to say the United States must persuade them to ``more and more perfect democracy,'' and he is ``perfectly aware of the imperfections.'' According to Mr. Feurth, Mr. Gore's message is ``Democracy is on the agenda. Democracy is not our idiosyncrasy.'' He describes Mr. Gore's agenda as follows: ``Democracy and elections are essential parts of the relationship Nazarbayev wants with the U.S. Gore will explain why a valid election is indispensable if he [Mr. Nazarbayev] wants the relationship he seeks.'' After meeting with the president, Mr. Nazarbayev went back home and continued in his oil-mired practices, human-rights violations and the creation of his position as president for life. Since Mr. Gore was given the portfolio on Russia and the independent states of the former Soviet Union, the essential difference between what the Cox Report finds in the case of Russia and the administration policy toward Kazakhstan is that in the case of Russia it was mired with good intentions for reform that turned sour because of support for Boris Yeltsin's corrupt, undemocratic government. You cannot tell Russia, a major power, what to do, while the situation in Kazakhstan was totally different. Not only was the United States in the position to help implement the recommendations for democracy and freedom in Kazakhstan, it coddled the dictator and made no impact whatsoever or follow up on the promises made by Mr. Nazarbayev to Mr. Gore to advance the democracy in Kazakhstan. In the case of Kazakhstan, the United States was in a stronger position than in Russia, with the support of OSCE, multiple human rights organizations and NGOs, to impose upon the dictatorship to implement their promises made on human rights and free elections as a price for legitimacy in American eyes. They did not do it. The administration tacitly accepted Mr. Nazarbayev's defense that there is an emergent democracy in Kazakhstan and it is a question of ``time.'' It seems the Clinton-Gore administration did not try very hard to institutionalize and implement their commitments to democracy, free elections, and an open press in the case of Kazakhstan.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last year, during our investigation, the Committee on Government Reform had John Huang testify that James Riady, a close personal friend of the President of the United States, organized a scheme to funnel a million dollars into the President's campaign in the early 1990s. Around $700,000 to $800,000 of that money was raised, brought into the country from Indonesia through conduits, and funneled into the campaign as had been promised. We believe much more than that was brought in, but that is all we could account for. Most of that money was sent back, was returned, because it was illegal campaign contributions. We have been after the Justice Department for some time to, in absentia, indict Mr. Riady for illegal campaign contributions and for obstruction of justice. Mr. Riady fled the country. He is now living in Indonesia, and he is one of the major partners or executive officers in the Lippo Group, which was formed by his father, Mochtar Riady, sometime ago. Mr. Riady also orchestrated a complex scheme to launder over $4 million in political contributions to various campaigns, parties and other nonprofit groups in addition to the money that he gave to the President's campaign in the early 1990s. And throughout the 1990s, he worked with John Huang, helped get John Huang appointed to the Democratic National Committee leadership, so that he could extract more money from illegal sources in China and the Far East, including Indonesia. The Justice Department has not moved to indict Mr. Riady, and that is something that we have really been fighting with them about, because we think, even though he is in Indonesia, he has violated American law, he has fled the country, and he has not complied with subpoenas from our committee and others. One of the things that really bothers me, and the reason I come to the floor today, is not to rehash what we have known for a long time, Mr. Speaker; but today we find out that Mr. Riady invites the President of the United States to be on the Lippo board of directors in Indonesia. This comes right from the Far Eastern Economic Review that was reported today, and I urge my colleagues to look at the article. Mr. Speaker, I include this article for the Record. Riady Invites Clinton to Lippo Board Indonesian tycoon James Riady has invited U.S. President Bill Clinton to join the board of Lippo Group when he steps down from Office early next year, according to business people who have met Riady in Jakarta recently. Riady has been telling business contacts in Jakarta that he expects Clinton to accept, even though the U.S. president has been dogged by allegations that Riady funnelled illegal foreign donations to Clinton's 1992 and 1996 election campaigns. A former Lippo Group employee reports that as far back as the mid-1990's Riady was said to be trying to recruit Clinton to the board as soon as he left office. Jakarta police are currently helping the U.S. Justice Department in its investigation of the alleged campaign contributions. The article reads like this: ``Riady invites Clinton to Lippo board. Indonesian tycoon James Riady has invited President Bill Clinton to join the board of Lippo Group when he steps down from office early next year, according to business people who have met with Mr. Riady in Jakarta recently. Riady has been telling business contacts in Jakarta that he expects Clinton to accept even though the U.S. President has been dogged by allegations that Riady funneled illegal foreign contributions to the 1992 and 1996 campaigns.'' The thing that is interesting about this, and I am not accusing the President of anything, so I do not want to be stopped for anything, but the thing that is interesting about this, Mr. Speaker, is that the beneficiary of one of the major decisions by the administration was the Riady group, the Lippo Group, in Indonesia. Sometime in the 1990s, the President took the coal reserve, the largest clean burning coal reserve in the United States, out of possible production in Utah and made it a national park. Many engineers told us that this could have been mined in an environmentally safe way; but, nevertheless, the President said he wanted to make it a national park to preserve the ecology. Now the beneficiary of that was the Lippo Group in Indonesia, because they have one of the largest clean burning mining operations in the entire world. And when you take this large reserve out of possible production in Utah, the only real beneficiary that we could find was the Riadys and the Lippo Group in Indonesia. In addition to that, Mr. Riady met with the President in the back of a car in 1992, and again in 1996 worked with him, met with him, and funneled, we believe, millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions in from Indonesia and from China and many of those hundreds of thousands of dollars of this money was returned because it was to be illegal. Now we find out that the Riady group is going to put the President on the board of directors when he leaves office in January. All I can say is that this really bothers me a great deal, because all of the information we have would lead one to believe that the very strong possibility exists that a lot of these things were done to benefit the Riady group, and now they are going to put the President on the board of directors. I think every American ought to know that.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, this morning, I was unavoidably detained in my home district, and therefore, I was unable to be present on the House floor during votes. Had I been here I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 488, 489, 490, 491 and 492.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on September 25th, I was unavoidably detained in my home district, and therefore, I was unable to be present on the House floor during votes. Had I been here I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote 487.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4642) to make certain personnel flexibilities available with respect to the General Accounting Office, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for H.R. 4642, a bill to improve the effectiveness of the General Accounting Office through improvement to its personnel system. I would like to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service for his work and efforts on this legislation. The General Accounting Office sometimes referred to as the ``watchdog'' of Congress or the ``investigative arm'' of Congress today faces many of the same personnel problems confronting other Federal agencies. As my colleagues know, the Federal Government is nearing a crisis in its ability to recruit, retain and reward a skilled, trained, and knowledgeable workforce for the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, like the rest of the government, GAO is fundamentally constrained by personnel issues in its ability to meet future obligations to Congress and the country. It is to ensure that GAO can successfully confront these personnel problems and secure its future that I rise in support of this very important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I think that I can safely speak for all Members on both sides of the aisle in saying that GAO makes many contributions to helping us improve the economy, effectiveness and efficiency of government and in pointing out waste and abuse in government programs. Not a week goes by without a major GAO report about some important aspect of government operations. From my own perspective and experience, I know that the Committee on Government Reform has a unique relationship with GAO, not only does the committee authorize GAO, but under House rules, it also officially receives every GAO record that is sent to Congress. The Committee on Government Reform also receives more GAO testimony than any other committee in Congress. The agency is invaluable to the entire congressional community. All Members of Congress, including myself, rely upon GAO for briefings, testimony, oversight, information and review of executive operations. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation for GAO to ensure that our watchdog can continue to effectively do its job for Congress in the future. As my colleagues know, we have a new Comptroller General at GAO, David M. Walker, who was confirmed about 19 months ago. Mr. Walker is committed to making sure that the agency can successfully meet its mission. Mr. Walker has developed a new strategic plan to keep aligned with our needs on the Hill. He has embarked on a reorganization designed to streamline operations and remove redundancies and he has determined to meet personnel crises head on. As Mr. Walker seeks to make constructive changes, continue improvements in GAO, he faces a personnel quandary that has been many years in the making, a series of budget cuts in the last decade forced GAO to undergo a severe downsizing and a hiring freeze which resulted in a 39 percent staff reduction and significant imbalances among the staff remaining. The impact of these cuts and freezes continues to hamper the agency. GAO also faces one of the government's most significant problems of the next few years. The anticipated retirement of many mid-level and senior-level employees who have been with the government for decades and who represent the greatest source of knowledge and experience in the Federal sector. For example, nearly 55 percent of GAO's senior executive service are eligible to retire in the next 4 years and 34 percent of the agency's total workforce will be eligible to leave government. This potential mass exodus has the ability to undermine GAO's effectiveness to an unprecedented loss of institutional memory that could directly impact its products and services to Congress. These executives and personnel have provided such long service to the government and have a storehouse of knowledge and experience that cannot be duplicated or easily replaced. In the case of GAO, because of the wide variety of issues they handle, this is a loss of expertise across many, many areas of government. The expected loss of so many seasoned executives and supervisors, combined with the massive downsizing experienced during the past decades, when taken together, is at the core of GAO's current and future personnel problems. Indeed, it is this one-two punch of recent and expected personnel departures that Mr. Walker and the GAO are now trying to confront, in part through the legislation now before us. In his efforts to more effectively focus GAO on the needs of Congress in the 21st century, the Comptroller General has also recognized that the skills GAO employees have today may not always be suited for the agency's needs in the future. GAO has undertaken a number of initiatives from the new strategic plan to a skills and knowledge database of its employees. These efforts will help the agency to ascertain both the current skill set and future skills gap of its work force. The legislation will also help to remedy this problem by providing flexibility in filling the gaps. Mr. Speaker, as I think my comments have proved, GAO urgently needs this important legislation to help it face the future and by doing so help us here in the Congress. This bill will allow GAO to overcome its pressing personnel problems by providing the Comptroller General with the ability to correct workforce skill imbalances to successfully handle current and future issues, and to help achieve a more balanced, productive and focused workforce. H.R. 4642 provides the agency with a set of tools so that it can better fulfill its mission to support Congress. The bill will help GAO build a workforce for the future to implement its strategic plan and be positioned to serve the varied important needs of the Congress. The bill has three main provisions, which I will address very briefly. First, the legislation will allow the Comptroller General to hire scientific and technical experts who will have the same pay and benefits as the SES and reclassify senior executives without loss of pay. This creates a new career path for selected technical positions and helps to redress the loss of institutional memory so critical to the agency's work. Second, the Comptroller General will be able to offer voluntary early retirement and cash buyouts to employees in jobs deemed surplus. This tool which the Comptroller General would use judiciously can help to realign the agency in ways to improve its focus in critical areas. The final provision addresses the Comptroller General's ability to run a reduction in force or a RIF. The Comptroller General already has the authority to conduct a RIF; but under existing rules, a RIF would be based largely on a person's length of service but also would rely upon tenure and military preference. Under this legislation, a RIF would be based on a person's skills, performance, and knowledge, as well as length of service and tenure, while retaining the statutory preference for military veterans, which I strongly support. This is an important change because, absent this provision, efforts to reshape the agency to better serve Congress in the future could be hampered by continued loss of employees critical to implementing strategic plans, goals, and objectives. This legislation gives GAO the flexibility it needs to maximize its performance and focus on the future. It helps rebalance the agency's personnel structure after years of budget and personnel cuts, and it continues efforts to sustain an environment in which performance in government matters. I have been pleased to sponsor this legislation with my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Scarborough) of the Subcommittee on Civil Service; and we have been supported by the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) in the legislation that has been discussed in several hearings in which the Comptroller General outlined the importance of the bill and the reasons why it was necessary to take this action. Mr. Speaker, as a result of this bill's progress in Congress, there is considerable Member support and recognition of the need for this important legislation. The legislation is also supported by Mr. Walker's two predecessors in office, Comptrollers General, Elmer Staats and Charles Browser, who together represent 30 years of GAO leadership supported it. I would further note that the administration does not oppose this bill as it only affects the agency of the legislative branch. It is important to highlight that the provisions of this bill will not have an impact on executive branch agencies or their employees. I know that several of my colleagues initially objected to this bill because they believed it might have an impact on some of their constituents. Let me reiterate that this legislation will only affect the GAO and does not have any application to the executive branch of the Federal Government. Furthermore, I hope that my colleagues recognize that the legislation before them now includes several changes from the original bill which are designed to ensure that the provisions, if they are implemented, are done so in an equitable and responsible manner. This includes a requirement that GAO must issue regulations on RIF selection criteria after a public comment period. GAO must also report back to the Congress on how it implemented the law. I believe these and other safeguards will help to satisfy any concerns of the local delegation. In summary, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that GAO can achieve its goal of being a model Federal agency of sustaining a strong and effective workforce and of meeting its mission to Congress and to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a legislative history of GAO's personnel legislation. Legislation Authorizing GAO To Take Certain Personnel Actions I. Purpose The General Accounting Office (GAO) has requested these personnel authorities to enable the agency to effectively address human capital challenges in order to more effectively fulfill its mission. GAO explained that it recently completed a thorough evaluation of its workforce needs and resources and found that they do not match up. This arose in part because of the severe downsizing and hiring freezes from 1992-1997. Also, the kinds of skills, knowledge, and performance needed by GAO in its workforce are changing with the impact of information technology, globalization, and other trends in the broader society. Finally, these kinds of imbalances threaten to become worse, because the retirement of many employees possessing necessary expertise are or are close to being eligible for retirement. GAO has said that it is doing what it can administratively to correct these imbalances, e.g., by enhanced entry-level recruitment, active management of promotion decisions, and compilation of an inventory of the agency's human capital needs and resources. The agency is also being restructured to have less hierarchy and fewer field offices. GAO explained, however, that its current law is designed for ``downsizing,'' not ``rightsizing,'' and prevents GAO from taking needed management steps. GAO has thus explained why this new legislative authority is necessary to enable GAO to effectively address the agency's human capital requirements. This legislation is appropriate for GAO considering its role and responsibilities in the legislative branch and its unique relationship to the Congress, and also taking account of the specific, fact-based demonstration that GAO has made explaining why the requested authority is needed and appropriate. II. Summary of provisions The legislation provides narrowly tailored authority, preserving due process protections, in four specific areas: (1) to offer early retirement (early-outs) on a voluntary basis to a limited number of qualified employees in each fiscal year; (2) to offer separation pay (buyouts) on a voluntary basis to a limited number of qualified employees in each fiscal year for a five-year period after enactment of the legislation; (3) to release officers and employees in a reduction in force (RIF) or an adjustment in force carried out for downsizing, realigning, or correcting skill imbalances; and (4) to establish senior-level positions to meet critical scientific, technical or professional needs and to extend to those positions the rights and benefits of Senior Executive Service employees. Regulations governing the RIF provision must give effect to tenure, military preference, veterans preference, performance, length of service, and other factors such as skills and knowledge. In addition, the legislation requires that the Comptroller General report annually to the Congress on the use and effectiveness of the legislation, and provide the Congress with a report in three years summarizing the use and effectiveness of the legislation and recommending whether it should be continued or changed. III. Employee Rights and Protections Under the New Authorities First, as a general matter, it is essential that the Comptroller General consult with employees concerning plans for implementation of the legislation in advance of issuing proposed orders or regulations for comment. GAO has described the efforts taken by the Comptroller General to foster two- way communication between the Office of the Comptroller General and all agency officers and employees, including extensive discussions regarding the need for and development of this legislation. Broad consultation with officers and employees should be continued at each stage of the legislation's implementation. In addition, in developing implementing regulations, GAO is obligated under existing law to afford notice and opportunity for comment, and GAO has said it will follow the best practices of regulatory agencies in regards to summarizing and responding on the public record to significant comments received. The legislation itself contains a number of provisions and preserves rights and protections under existing laws to assure that employees will not be subject to arbitrary and illegal action. Notably, this legislation in no way affects existing laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability, that forbid prohibited personnel practices, or that require compliance with merit principles. GAO's implementation of the authorities granted by this legislation must continue to be in conformity with those existing laws. This legislation requires that, to implement the provisions authorizing early retirement, separation pay, and reductions in force, the agency must issue regulations that provide criteria for, in effect, two levels of decision-making: the decision to use the authorities and the decision regarding which officers or employees shall be subject to actions under the authorities. GAO has stated that these regulations must set forth clearly defined criteria and require consistent and well documented application of those criteria. Any decisions based upon individual data, such as skills/knowledge and performance, will be based on identification and measurement systems. Ratings from the agency's performance appraisal systems will be the basis for measuring individual performance, and GAO has stated that an individual's ratings for three years will be used. Similarly, skills and knowledge must be ascertained in a well-documented skills inventory. GAO has explained that its staff will fill out such a skills inventory, subject to supervisory review, which will be used in conjunction with the agency's strategic plan to identify any ``gaps'' or ``overages'' in workforce skills and knowledge. If GAO finds it necessary to use the RIF authority before a skills inventory is completed, the agency would use existing organizational groups and units. In giving effect to military preference, GAO must comply with the requirements of its own Personnel Act, section 732(b)(5) of title 31, which requires GAO to provide a preference to veterans in a way and to an extent consistent with the system in the executive branch. In the executive branch under section 3502(b) of title 5, a preference eligible with a compensable service connected disability of at least 30% and whose performance has not been rated unacceptable is retained in preference to other preference eligibles. Section 3502(c) of title 5 requires that all other preference eligibles whose performance has not been rated unacceptable be retained in preference to all other competing employees. Therefore, these provisions would bind GAO, and preference eligibles would be the last to be terminated in their applicable unit/job or skill group under a reduction in force. The legislation allows the provisions authorizing early retirement, separation pay, and reductions in force to be exercised only for workforce realignment and other purposes as specified in the legislation. Addressing individual employee performance is not among these specified purposes, and it is only for the specified purposes that the Comptroller General may consider individual performance data among the criteria for offering early retirement or separation pay or for carrying out a reduction in force. For example, GAO may not use these authorities for the purpose of replacing lower-performing employees with higher-performing employees or to address problems in individual employees' performance. To address performance problems, GAO must continue to use its performance management system under existing law, which affords affected employees particular procedural and substantive rights. Under this legislation as under existing law, individuals are not subject to being ``targeted,'' i.e., reductions in force may not be carried out for the purpose of removing a particular individual or individuals. The legislation requires that GAO regulations governing RIFs be consistent with Office of Personnel Management regulations. The use of the term ``consistent with'' recognizes that because of the form of GAO's personnel system, GAO's organizational structure, and the authorities granted under this and other legislation applicable to GAO, the implementing GAO regulations may vary from the approach taken by OPM. Nevertheless, the GAO regulations should follow the OPM approach where such considerations do not apply. GAO's Personnel Appeals Board (PAB) will serve as an independent body to review and decide any cases arising out of a reduction in force where individuals feel they have not been treated in accordance with law or regulations. GAO has stated that this review authority of the PAB is established under existing statute and under provisions of GAO's existing regulations that GAO will retain. If an action under the RIF authority was unlawful, the individual employee shall be restored to the grade or rate of pay to which the employee is entitled, retroactively effective to the date of the improper action. As to the senior level positions established under the legislation, employees appointed to those positions will generally enjoy the same rights and privileges as members of GAO's Senior Executive Service. Furthermore, except as otherwise specified in the legislation, the employees appointed to the new senior level positions will enjoy the rights and protections that apply generally to professional employees at GAO. Any employees transferred under this provision from GAO's SES to a non-executive senior level position will retain their current pay and will have an equivalent pay system to what they had in the SES. The new early-out authority will be in addition to, and will not detract from, any rights to early retirement established under existing law. Finally, the legislation requires GAO to report on the implementation of the new authorities both annually and in a 3-year assessment, and GAO has said that these reports will include information about any impact upon employee attitudes and opinions, as measured by employee feedback survey responses. The 3-year assessment will include not only recommendations of the Comptroller General for continuation or change of the authorities granted by this legislation, but also any assessments or recommendations of the GAO Personnel Appeals Board and of any interested GAO employee groups. I encourage all Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4642.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, last week the Indian Prime Minister spoke in this very chamber to a joint session of Congress. In addition, he will meet with several American leaders, including President Clinton and perhaps both major-party Presidential candidates. When he meets with these leaders, they must bring up the issue of human rights and self-determination. India claims to be a democracy, but in truth there is no democracy in India. It is a militant Hindu fundamentalist state. Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Dalits, and other minorities suffer severe oppression and atrocities at the hands of Hindu fundamentalists. Just last month, a priest in India was kidnapped, tortured, and paraded through town naked by militant Hindu nationalists. The Indian government has refused to register a complaint against the kidnappers. This is the latest act in a campaign of terror against Christians that has been going on since Christmas of 1998. This campaign has seen the murders of priests, 5 of which were beheaded; rape of nuns, Hindu militants burning a missionary and his two sons to death in their van, the destruction of schools and prayer halls, and other anti-Christian atrocities. Most of these activities have been carried out by allies of the government or people affiliated with organizations under the umbrella of the RSS, the parent organization of the ruling BJP, which was founded in support of Fascism. And its not just Christians, where more than 200,000 have been murdered in Nagaland since 1947, who are in danger in India. Over 250,000 Sikhs have been murdered since 1984, and well over 70,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, as well as tens of thousands of other minorities by Indian security forces. We cannot accept this kind of brutality and tyranny from a government that claims to be democratic. Last year, India denied the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on torture and extrajudicial killings permission to visit the country. And since the 1970's, Amnesty International & other human rights groups have been barred from areas in India. Even Cuba allows Amnesty in! In 1999 Human Rights Watch issued their annual report that noted, ``Despite government claims that `normalcy' has returned to Kashmir, Indian troops in the state continue to carry out summary executions, disappearances, rape and torture''. (Human Rights Watch Report; India: Human Rights Abuses Fuel Conflict, July 1, 1999.) And, while the Prime Minister talks today about a strong relationship with the U.S., just last year his Defense Minister led a meeting with Cuba, China, Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and Libya to construct a security alliance. The Indian Express quoted the Defense Minister in explaining that this security alliance was intended ``to stop the U.S.'' India is not a country to be trusted. India introduced the nuclear arms race to South Asia, it supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it votes against us in the United Nations. Its time that India clean up its human rights violations and ends its anti- Americanism. And, let Kashmir determine its own fate as it was promised nearly 50 years ago to by offering a referendum for self-determination. If it is a democracy, it should let its own people vote on their future. Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan group of 17 Members of Congress, including myself, have written a letter to President Clinton urging him to press the Prime Minister on issues of self-determination for Khalistan, human rights, and release of political prisoners. I'd like to submit a copy of the letter into the Record, as well as a press release from the Council of Khalistan that sheds more light on the issue. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, September 12, 2000. Hon. Bill Clinton, President of the United States, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari VaJpayee will be visiting you from September 13 to September 17. It is important that you press him on the issue of the persecution of Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities by the Indian government. Press Trust of India reported on August 25 that a Christian priest in Gujarat was kidnapped, tortured, and paraded through town naked. This attack was not an isolated incident. Since Christmas 1998, priests have been murdered, nuns have been raped, a missionary and his two sons were burned to death in their van by members of the RSS, which is the parent organization of the ruling BJP, schools and prayer halls have been attacked and destroyed. Yet the Indian government refuses to take any action against the people who perpetrate these atrocities. During your trip to India, 35 Sikhs were murdered in the village of Chithi Singhpora, Kashmir. The Ludhiana-based International Human Rights Organization investigated this and separately the Movement Against State Repression and the Punjab Human Rights Organization conducted an investigation. Both of these investigations have proven that the Indian government carried out this massacre. The Indian government has admitted that the five Muslims they killed on the claim that they were responsible for the massacre were innocent. Now they have arrested two more people, claiming that they were responsible for this massacre. Yet despite the fact that so-called ``militant'' groups almost always claim responsibility for incidents they are responsible for, nobody has emerged to claim responsibility for the killings in Chithi Singhpora. The Politics of Genocide by Indejit Singh Jaijee reports that the Indian government has murdered more than 250,000 Sikhs since 1984. These figures were derived from figures put out by the Punjab State Magistracy. India has also killed more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 70,000 Kashmiri Muslims since 1988, and tens of thousands of Dalits, Assamese, Tamils, Manipuris, and others. According to Amnesty International, there are thousands of political prisoners being held in illegal detention without charge or trial in ``the world's largest democracy.'' India is a hostile country. Last year the Indian Defense Minister led a meeting with Cuba, China, Iraq, Serbia, Russia, and Libya to construct a security alliance ``to stop the U.S.'' India openly supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It tested five nuclear warheads, beginning the nuclear arms race to South Asia. And it refuses to allow the Sikhs, Kashmiris, Christians, and other minority nations and peoples decide their own political future in a free and fair vote, as democratic countries do. America has repeatedly granted this opportunity to Puerto Rico and Canada has permitted Quebec to do so. Why can't the ``world's largest democracy'' settle these issues the democratic way? America is the bastion of freedom for the world. We cannot accept this kind of brutality and tyranny from a government that claims to be democratic. We call on you to press Prime Minister Vajpayee on the issues of human rights and self- determination for Khanistan, Christian Nagalim, Kashmir, and all the minority nations and peoples living under Indian rule. Sincerely, Edolphus Towns, Donald M. Payne, Wally Herger, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, Cynthia McKinney, Dan Burton, James Traficant, John T. Doolittle, James Rogan, James Oberstar, Peter King, Roscoe Bartlett, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, Philip M. Crane, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, George P. Radanovich.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for bringing forth this resolution for our good friend, Herb Bateman. Herb and I were elected to the Congress together back in 1982, and I can remember right down the hall the night that we had dinner with the leadership, the candlelight dinner with the Marine Violin Corps playing for us, and all of us who were elected, 26 Republicans at that time, how touched we were by being Members of the United States Congress for the first time in our lives. I remember Herb and Laura were really touched by the way we were received by the leadership and what a thrill it was for all of us to be Members of the 98th Congress of the United States. Herb was very well aware of history, as has been mentioned by my colleagues. He was so proud that he represented the ``First District of America'' where Washington and Monroe and others came from and who later became President of the United States. He was a man of integrity. He was a man who, if he gave his word on anything, you could take it to the bank. Herb was not one of those guys that played both sides of the fence. He was a man of integrity, impeccable integrity, and one that all of us respected. He really had a grasp for the law; and when he came down here to speak in the well, we knew that he knew what he was talking about because he researched it very, very well and spoke from the heart. He spoke from the heart. He was always patriotic and concerned about what was best for America first. One of the things about Herb that I liked was he loved the game of golf. He was not the best golfer in the world, but he sure did like it. As a matter of fact, he and Laura and I were together the day before yesterday down at Leesburg playing golf, and we had a great time together and had dinner together. He was in good spirits. He went over to the hotel where we were going to stay for the night, and I can recall vividly as we checked in, I said, ``Herb, we have to be up early tomorrow morning because the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) is having an event and we have to be there at 8 o'clock.'' He said, ``I will see you then. I will see you tomorrow.'' But unfortunately, he was not with us the next morning. So all I can say in closing is that we have lost not only a great friend but a great American, a man who was above reproach, a man we all respected. I would like to say to his wife and his family, to Laura and his family, we send our deepest sympathy to her, and we are going to miss Herb.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Chief Minister of Kashmir, Farooq Abdullah, recently called for greater autonomy for the state of Kashmir. However, Abdullah is closely allied with India's ruling BJP, and the BJP government firmly rejected the demand. Other state leaders like Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Simrangid Singh Mann asked Chief Badal to pass a similar measure in the Punjab Assembly. Under India's constitution, Kashmir was supposed to have a special status, but India has systematically chipped away at it. How would Chief Minister Abdullah make sure that they do not do so under his autonomy plan? The Indian government has imposed President's Rule on Punjab nine times. How would Punjabi leaders ensure that it would not happen again if Punjab has autonomy? When India forcibly and illegally occupied Kashmir, they promised that there would be a plebiscite on Kashmir's status. That promise has not been kept. The Sikhs in Punjab were promised ``the glow of freedom'' in Punjab. That promise, too, has been broken. India proclaims its democratic principles loudly, but fails to live up to them when the time comes. Mr. Speaker, the book The Politics of Genocide by Iderjit Singh Jaijee reports that the Indian government has murdered over 250,000 Sikhs since 1984, over 70,000 Kashmiri Muslims, more than 200,000 Christians in Nagalim, and thousands of others. According to Amnesty International, thousands of innocent civilians are being held as political prisoners. Christmas of 1998 unleashed a waive of violence against Christians that has resulted in church burnings and bombings, the murders of priests and missionaries, and other atrocities. Just recently, two extensive, independent studies concluded that the Indian government killed 35 Sikhs in Chithi Singhpora. Amnesty International has also said that India is responsible. How is autonomy going to prevent these things from happening? America should support self-determination for all the peoples and nations of South Asia. We should act against the atrocities by cutting off American aid against India until basic human rights are enjoyed by all people within its borders. We should declare India a terrorist nation. And we should declare our support for self-determination in South Asia by calling for a free and fair plebiscite on the question of independence. Not autonomy, but independence. That is the only solution, the only way to bring true freedom to all the peoples and nations of South Asia. If India is truly a democracy, why can't it allow the people of Kashmir to have the plebiscite fifty-two years ago? Why can't it allow the people of Khalistan, Nagalim, and the other nations seeking their freedom to vote on their status the democratic way? Is that too much to ask of democracy?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 435. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on July 29, 2000, due to a scheduling conflict, I was unable to be present on the House floor during the vote on H.R. 4871 and its amendments. Had I been here I would have voted in the following manner: ``No'' on rollcall 428; ``aye'' on rollcall 427; ``no'' on rollcall 426; ``no'' on rollcall 425; ``no'' on rollcall 424; ``aye'' on rollcall 423; ``no'' on rollcall 422; and ``aye'' on rollcall 421.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 417, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for the past probably 10 or 12 years, maybe even longer, I have been coming to the floor talking about the atrocities that have been taking place at the hands of the Indian government in places like Kashmir, Punjab, Nagaland, and other places in India, and today this amendment is merely to update my colleagues and anybody else who is paying attention as to where we stand on this issue. When only a few hundred people were killed in Haiti, we sent 20,000 troops into Haiti at taxpayer expense, and the problems there have not been resolved. In the Sudan, over 2 million people have been killed, and the United States has not really done too much. In Kashmir, there are half a million Indian troops that have been there for years and years and years imposing marshal law, gang raping women, taking men out of their homes in the middle of the night never to be seen again, except maybe turning up in the streams around Kashmir with their hands and feet bound, having been tortured and drowned. Amnesty International concludes the policies of the Indian government in Kashmir to be an official policy of sanctioning extrajudicial killings. Another half million troops are in Punjab, right next to Kashmir. If U.S. action and attention was justified in places like Kosovo and Bosnia around the world, then we at least ought to be paying attention to what is going on in the area of human rights violations in places like Kashmir and Punjab and Nagaland and other places in India. India does not allow Amnesty International or other human rights groups to go into these areas. Even Cuba, the last communist bastion in our hemisphere, allows Amnesty International in. India has killed over 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, 250,000 Sikhs in Punjab have been killed since 1984, more than 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir have been killed since 1988, and thousands of Dalits, or what they call the untouchables, the blacks in India, have been killed. We do not know how many of them. According to our own State Department, India paid over 41,000, 41,000, cash bounties to the police for killing innocent Sikhs from 1991 to 1993. They actually paid bounties to kill some of those people. In Punjab, Sikhs are picked up in the middle of the night, only to be found floating dead in the canals with their hands and feet bound. As I mentioned before, the same thing happened in Kashmir. Some Sikhs are only so fortunate, and others are just never found. Recently, India's Central Bureau of Investigation, the CBI, told the Supreme Court that it had confirmed 2,000 cases of unidentified bodies that were cremated by the military. Their families did not know what happened to them. They were all piled up and cremated. It does not get any better in Kashmir. Women, because of their Muslim beliefs, are taken out of their homes in the middle of the night and gang raped, while their husbands are forced to stay inside. The State Department says on page 3 of its report released this year, ``The National Human Rights Commission does not have the power to investigate the military's actions in that area.'' They went on to say, ``The Indian government rejected the Commission's recommendations to bring the army and paramilitary forces under closer scrutiny by allowing the Commission to investigate complaints of their excesses.'' So the military has so much power, the Human Rights Commission in India cannot even look into these things. Human Rights Watch, an international organization, says, ``Despite government claims that normalcy has returned to Kashmir, Indian troops in the State continue to carry out summary executions, disappearances, rape and torture.'' That is from this year's Human Rights Report, the 1999 Human Rights Report, issued last July. ``Methods of torture include severe beatings with truncheons, rolling a heavy log on the legs, hanging the detainee upside down, and using electric shocks on various parts of their body.'' Just imagine what it would be like if you had to go through that. ``Security forces are making Dalit women,'' the untouchables, ``eat human defecation, parading them naked, and gang raping them.'' Amnesty International says, ``Torture, including rape and ill- treatment, continued to be endemic throughout the country.'' That is in their annual report. ``Disappearances continue to be reported during the year, predominantly in Jammu and Kashmir.'' Amnesty International again, the recent report. ``Hundreds of extrajudicial executions were reported in many States.'' Again, in the same report. In July of 1998, police picked up Kashmira Singh. Police said they were investigating a theft. They then tortured him for 15 days. They rolled logs over his legs until he could not walk. They submerged him in a tub of water and slashed his thighs with razor blades and stuffed hot peppers into the wounds. Muslim persecution. March 1996, Mr. Jalil Andrabi, chairman of the Kashmir Commission of Jurists and a human rights advocate, was abducted and slain 2 weeks before he was to travel to Geneva to testify before the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Christian persecution. Since Christmas day of 1998, there has been a wave of attacks against Christians all over the country. Churches have been burned, Christian schools and prayer halls have been attacked, nuns have been raped and priests have been killed. Our State Department agrees, there has been a sharp increase in attacks against Christians and Christian organizations. This past weekend, just this past weekend, two churches were bombed in India. Last month, a women's prayer meeting was bombed by militant Hindus. Last month, four Christian missionaries who were distributing Bibles were beaten, one so severely that he may lose both his arms and his legs. Right now, we are talking about giving India more money. We are talking about today in this appropriation bill giving them more money and yet India has increased their military budget this year by 28 percent. They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on conventional and nuclear weapons, and we are subsidizing, indirectly, that proliferation of weaponry. This year, the President has requested $46.6 million for developmental assistance to India through AID. That is an increase of almost $18 million from last year's request. I cannot recall the President asking for this large of a request for India ever. I understand that the Glenn amendment, which passed the U.S. Senate, is currently imposing sanctions on India for some of these violations. So why should we be increasing aid to a country that we are currently sanctioning for human rights abuses and other travesties? It makes absolutely no sense to me. We are talking about 25 percent cut with this amendment. I think it is justifiable, it sends a strong message, one that will be heard around the world, but especially in India. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I will end by saying that a few years ago, this amendment did pass. Since then the other side, the Indian lobby, has been very effective. I congratulate them on their effectiveness. The problem still exists, though. I hope one day we will not even have to talk about it because they will have solved that problem.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), chairman of the Committee on International Relations. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple in nature. It moves money from three accounts bloated with bureaucracy and into an account which helps fight the scourge of drugs which are devastating our society. As the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) just said, our allies, the Colombian National Police, just yesterday seized three metric tons of cocaine destined for the United States through Mexico. This is just the latest testament that the Congress has provided aid to the right people in Colombia. With the six Black Hawk Helicopters the Congress provided to the CNP last year, the CNP has eradicated more opium, which is used to make heroin, than it did in 1998, and nearly as much as it did last year, and they have only had the Black Hawk Helicopters for 4 months. Yet in the Colombia supplemental aid package, the Clinton administration chose to virtually ignore our CNP allies and start a duplicative Colombian army unit, providing only $100 million to the CNP while spending nearly $1 billion on an army unit. Throughout the process, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and I have tried to explain why there needed to be a more equitable distribution of aid between the two. Yet, despite our long involvement with Colombia, not to mention our role as authorizers, we were ignored. To this end, I include for the Record a letter and a request which the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and I wrote to have the needs of the CNP addressed in the supplemental. I wanted to offer another amendment which would have directed funding to the CNP, but that amendment would have been subject to a point of order that I am sure my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), would have raised. I hope that after I withdraw this amendment, the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) will consider a more equitable distribution of funds in the conference with the Senate. The letter referred to is as follows: Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, April 7, 2000. Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: We were pleased to support your Colombian aid proposal last week, and we will continue to provide any assistance necessary to see that the package is enacted into law. To that end, senior committee staff members from both our committees have just returned from a bipartisan staff delegation to Colombia. They met with many Colombian officials, including our friend General Serrano, and were able to gather information about the current situation there, and about the Clinton Administration's Colombian aid proposal. Their analysis can help improve the efficiency of our aid package. black hawks On a bright note, the Colombian National Police (CNP) have finally received all six Black Hawk utility helicopters that Congress provided for them under your leadership, and the last three are scheduled to begin missions next week. The earlier problems with the floor armoring have been resolved, and the weapons systems seem to be operational. The only concern remains that FARC terrorists likely have surface-to- air missiles, and these Black Hawks are not equipped with inexpensive flares and chaff, which provide the best protection against such attacks by diverting the missile away from the helicopter. Finally, the CNP appears to be able to absorb the two additional Black Hawks we provided to them in the supplemental appropriations package passed by the House. They are grateful! The Black Hawks have already paid for themselves. On a recent mission FARC terrorists ambushed a squad of CNP officers just 30 miles from Bogota in La Pena. A single Black Hawk was able to land and extract 21 fully armed CNP officers, lifting them to safety. It is comforting to know that the Congress' efforts helped save the lives of these good men. ammunition The .50 caliber ammunition supply appears to still be a problem. As you may remember, the State Department bought 2 million rounds of .50 caliber ammunition for the GAU-19 defensive weapons systems that were manufactured during the Eisenhower Administration, in 1952 (see photo). Even worse, the State Department purchased 5 million additional rounds of this aged and useless ammunition (spending a total of approximately $10 million). The 50 year-old ammunition was suitable for the weapons of the Eisenhower era, but according to the manufacturer, it cannot be safely used in the defensive rapid-fire weapons systems that we purchased for the CNP to protect our nearly $100 million U.S. taxpayer- financed helicopter investment. The State Department insists it can operate the weapons at a reduced rate of fire. However the manufacturer has explicitly warned the State Department not to use this aged ammunition because of serious risk of endangering the operator and/or weapon. The manufacturer says only ammunition manufactured after 1983 is safe to use in this weapon. Clearly, this situation must be addressed immediately, before someone is injured or killed and/or an expensive weapon is damaged or destroyed. The easy answer is to buy new ammunition, instead of trying to do this on the cheap. support capacity/supply line The most disturbing revelation from the trip was the discovery that there had been little consideration given to how the push into southern Colombia would be supported. The only certainty is that increased levels of fuel and herbicide will have to be flown in due to the remote locations of the forward operating bases, where often even contracted commercial planes refuse to land or there is no commercial source to purchase gasoline. Possibly even more critical than defending the helicopters themselves is the ability to support and maintain a supply line to keep the helicopters flying. Otherwise many if not all, of the helicopters provided in this package will constantly be waiting for their next tank of gas or spare part. Shockingly, the State Department plans to use the CNP's 2 aging DC-3's (their third is being cannibalized to keep the other two in the air) as the backbone of the support effort. These planes from the FDR/Truman era are 60 years old (see photo), do not have a reliable spare parts supply line, and have some sort of mechanical trouble on nearly every mission. Almost every flight is flown with the potential of engine failure on take-offs and landings due to a recurring malfunction in the electronics system--which has been ongoing for the last two years. As you may remember, General Serrano requested a Buffalo transport plane over a year ago (in his 1999 $51 million priority list). Congress placed report language directing the State Department to purchase the Buffalo supply plane in this year's House Foreign Operations Appropriations Report. However the State Department chose to ignore the report language, saying it was non-binding. In order to sustain the operations tempo necessary to be the primary supplier of fuel and herbicide for the push into southern Colombia, the CNP needs to update and increase its number of supply planes. The Buffalo appears to be the best platform for the project. One specific example of the need for increased supply plane capacity is a recent CNP operation that required 18 staging flights by inadequate fixed-wing aircraft, like the DC-3, to supply in advance a supposedly ``secret'' mission in Vichada to destroy a clandestine cocaine lab. The 18 staging flights (10 for fuel alone) cost the CNP the critical element of surprise. Unfortunately, FARC terrorists had already taken their cocaine and all incriminating evidence, and abandoned the lab well before the CNP was able to execute its mission. If the CNP had the Buffalo supply plane Congress directed the State Department to purchase, the 18 trips could have been decreased to one or two. critical needs Mr. Speaker, we have been pleased to help gain the support needed to pass the supplemental appropriations bill, however there are a few things which have been over-looked in the construction of this package. General Serrano, when asked by committee staff if he needed anything further to support both the CNP Black Hawks and the Colombian Army's push into southern Colombia, favored the following modest list of items that he felt were critical to the CNP's ability to successfully execute the supply mission for Plan Colombia. It is our hope that the House would push for the following items in conference, if and when it occurs. $52 million--to purchase 4 Buffalo transport/supply aircraft ($13 million each). $3.5 million--to update the CNP sidearms with Sig-Arms for the DANTI, DIJIN, COPEZ, and CIP, the key units involved in the day-to-day struggle against narco-traffickers and their FARC terrorist allies. $200,000--to purchase anti-missile defense kits for the 6 CNP Black Hawks to help protect them from surface-to-air missiles. $10 million--to purchase new .50 caliber ammunition for CNP GAU-19 weapons systems. $1.5 million--to purchase one additional two-seat T-65 Turbo Thrush spraying aircraft for CNP training purposes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dan Burton, Chairman, Government Reform Committee. Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman, International Relations Committee. Enclosures. P.S. Just yesterday a newly modified Huey II was shot down by the FARC, who look 8 CNP officers hostage, including those wounded in the crash. This only further proves the point that we need to get the CNP the best equipment possible, including FLIR and capable defensive weapons systems, as this shows anything less is dangerous, penny wise and pound foolish. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.