Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 2260, the Pain Relief Promotion Act of 1999, I think it is important to reiterate the importance of this bill. On October 19, the Committee for Government Reform conducted a hearing entitled, ``Improving Care at the End of Life with Complementary Medicine.'' Pain management is one of the top concerns of palliative care, including those patients who are dying. The need to properly recognize and treat pain is why the Veterans Health Administration added monitoring pain as the fifth vital sign. It is a sad day in this country when some individuals in the medical establishment have determined that one of the options for alleviating pain will be for a doctor to hasten the death. And a sadder day indeed when that option gains so much credibility that the U.S. Congress has to debate a bill clarifying that physician-assisted suicide or the polite term ``euthanasia'' is not an option for pain management. As we look to provide care for our veterans, including the 32,000 World War II veterans that die each month, we must insure that pain is properly treated. We must also assure that the option to hasten death is not what we look to as a resolution for taking care of veterans and all Americans. At our October 19, hearing we heard from Dr. Ira Byock, a renowned expert in palliative care. Dr. Byock clarified some of the misconceptions of this bill, including that physicians who use drugs such as morphine to treat pain are already monitored by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and that this bill will not prevent the prescribing of strong and effective pain drugs. This bill clarifies the importance of pain management and palliative care and asks for further research and the development of practice guidelines for pain management. We heard from Dr. Byock, who also conducts research in improving care at the end of life, as well as Dannion Brinkley, the chairman of Compassion in Action, an organization that trains hospice volunteers and provides professional and community education, that pain management has to be addressed and that there are other options available to individuals including non-pharmacologic efforts. These treatment options include music therapy, acupuncture, and guided imagery. We heard from Dr. Patricia Grady, Director of the National Institute of Nursing Research that there is research to indicate that these therapies especially when used in conjunction with pain medication allowed patients to have less pain, to rest better, and to go longer between the need for medication. Dr. Byock also stated something that my colleague from Florida, Congressman Weldon (MD) has reiterated--a doctor knows whether he or she is prescribing a drug to treat pain or to cause death and that pain can be properly treated. Educating health care professionals in pain management and treatment options is vital and this bill will move this forward. I stand in support of this bill and also suggest that we look at solving the problems of pain in this country by looking to non- controlled substances and complementary therapies as options to treat pain.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), with whom I have had some differences on the Turkish-Greek issue over the years, for being a primary sponsor on this bill, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), who came to me and we sat down and talked about it, and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) for her contribution. I also want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), with whom I have become quite a good friend over the last couple weeks and months. So maybe the millennium is coming, and even my good friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), we are all becoming closer. I guess the millennium is getting closer by the day. I do not think they are quite as bad as I thought they once were, and hopefully they do not think I am quite as bad as they once thought I was. But this resolution I think is extremely important because it sends a signal from the Congress of the United States to both Greek and Turkish governmental leaders about how we feel about their spirit of cooperation. Sometimes out of bad comes good, and the terrible tragedy that occurred in Turkey showed that Greek citizens and Greek governmental leaders were concerned about their fellow human beings in Turkey who were suffering. Two or three weeks later there was a terrible earthquake in Greece, and the Turkish government and the Turkish people reciprocated in kind. So an era of good feeling has evolved out of this. It is the kind of thing that sparks warmth in the human heart, when you see enemies who have come close to being at war with one another three times in the last 25 years working together because people are hurting. Since that time, there have been three steps, four steps that have been taken by the two governments which are very positive. The two countries decided to form a joint emergency response team to deal with natural disasters. The Greek and Turkish diplomats have held a series of meetings over the past 2 months on issues such as cooperation in culture, tourism, environment, and combatting crime. During a meeting of the EU foreign ministers that was held in September, Greece expressed its support for Turkey's membership in the European Union. These are great steps in the right direction. This resolution will not gloss over the fact that there are still strong differences on the issue of Cyprus, and those issues long-term are going to have to be resolved. Both sides are going to have to sit down and work out their differences. But make no mistake about it, steps in the right direction have been taken by both Greece and Turkey. We applaud that in the Congress. We would like to see it continue. We want to work with both countries to make sure it continues. We want to congratulate them today for their efforts on behalf of each other in times of great crisis for their two countries.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote 521, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be on the House floor during that time. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab recently issued a new report on enforced disappearances, arbitrary executions, and secret cremations of Sikhs in Punjab. It documents the names and addresses of 838 victims of this tyrannical policy. The report is both shocking and distressing. The Committee is an umbrella organization of 18 human rights organizations under the leadership of Hindu human rights activist Ram Narayan Kumar. The report discusses ``illegal abductions and secret cremations of dead bodies.'' In fact, the Indian Supreme Court has itself described this policy as ``worse than a genocide.'' The report includes direct testimony from members of the victims' families, other witnesses, and details of these brutal cases. The human rights community has stated that over 50,000 Sikhs have ``disappeared'' at the hands of the Indian government in the early nineties. How can any country, especially one that claims to be the ``world's largest democracy,'' get away with so many killings, abductions and other atrocities? Will the Indian government prosecute the officials of its security forces who are responsible for these acts? Will the Indian government compensate the victims and their families? If America can compensate the Japanese victims of the internment camps during World War II, why can't India compensate the families whose husbands, sons, wives, or daughters have been murdered? Murder is a lot more serious than internment, and these acts are much more recent. The Council of Kahlistan recently issued a press release on the Committees's report. I am placing that release in the Congressional Record for the information of my colleagues. New Report Exposes Enforced Disappearances, Arbitrary Executions, Secret Cremations of Sikhs by Indian Government Identifies Victims of Genocide by Name Washington, D.C., September 15, 1999--The Committee for Coordination on Disappearances in Punjab, led by Hindu human- rights activist Ram Narayan Kumar, has issued an interim report entitled ``Enforced Disappearances, Arbitrary Executions, and Secret Cremations'' which exposes secret mass cremations of Sikhs by the Indian government. The report contains a 21-page list of 838 victims who were identified by name and address. This is a very preliminary report. Three of India's most respected human rights group issued a joint letter in 1997 stating that between 1992 and 1994, 50,000 Sikhs were made to disappear by Indian forces. They were arrested, tortured, and murdered by police, then their bodies were declared ``unidentified'' and cremated. The Indian Supreme Court described the situation as ``worse than a genocide.'' More than 250,000 Sikhs have been killed since 1984. Over 200,000 Christians have been killed since 1947 and over 65,000 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed since 1988. Thousands more languish in prisons without charge or trial, according to Amnesty International. Last month, 29 Members of the U.S. Congress wrote to the Prime Minister of India demanding the release of these political prisoners. The report makes reference to the police kidnapping and murder of human-rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra in 1995. Khalra ``released some official documents which established that the security agencies in Punjab had been secretly cremating thousands of dead bodies labelled as unidentified,'' the report noted. ``Khalra suggested the most of these cremations were of people who had earlier been picked up in the state on suspicion of separatist sympathies,'' according to the report. ``In September 1995, it was Khalra's turn to disappear; he was kidnapped from his Armristar home by officers of the Punjab police.'' In October 1995, the police murdered Mr. Khalra. Despite an order of the Supreme Court, none of the police officers involved has been brought to justice. The report also cited an official inquiry's findings of ``flagrant violation of human rights on a mass scale.'' ``This report shows that for Sikhs there are no human rights in India,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan. ``The genocide by the Indian Government shows Sikhs that there is no religious tolerance in India and India will never allow Sikhs or other religious minorities to exercise their religious or political rights,'' he said. ``If India is the democracy it claims to be, then why not simply hold a plebiscite on independence in Punjab, Khalistan? Dr. Aulakh asked. ``Instead of doing the democratic thing and allowing the people of Punjab, Khalistan, of Kashmir, of Christian Nagaland to vote on their political status, as America has repeatedly allowed Puerto Rico to do and Canada has allowed Quebec to do, the Indians try to crush the freedom movements by killing massive numbers of people in these minority nations,'' he said. ``Democracies don't commit genocide.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and take great personal pride in having the Medal of Honor Memorial in Indianapolis recognized as a National Memorial. My colleagues, by passing H.R. 1663 today, we have designated as National memorials the memorial being built at the Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California; the memorial aboard the former USS Yorktown (CV-6) at Mount Pleasant, South Carolina; and the memorial at White River State Park in Indianapolis, Indiana, to honor the 3,410 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. On May 28, 1999, the last Memorial Day weekend of the 20th Century, I joined my Hoosier colleagues Representatives Buyer, McIntosh, and Hill, Senator Bayh, Lt. Governor Kernan, Mayor Goldsmith of Indianapolis, IPALCO Chairman John Hodowal, and 98 of the 157 living Medal of Honor recipients to dedicate the Medal of Honor Memorial. Medal of Honor recipients Sammy L. Davis and Melvin Biddle joined us at the dais, representing their comrades-in-arms. The new memorial is located along the north bank of the Central Canal in White River State Park in downtown Indianapolis. It sits adjacent to Military Park, the site of the city's first recorded 4th of July celebration in 1822, which was used as a recruiting and training camp for soldiers from Indiana during the Civil War. It is at this fitting site that the local power utility, IPALCO Enterprises under the leadership of its Chairman, John Hodowal, who along with his wife, Caroline, and countless employees and volunteers, has erected this breathtaking memorial. Caroline Hodowal first read a newspaper article about the Medal recipients and then conceived the idea for the new memorial when she and her husband realized that none existed. Visitors to the site will see citations for each of the 3,410 medal recipients etched into glass walls. The twenty-seven curved glass walls, each between 7 and 10 feet tall, represent the 15 conflicts, dating back to the Civil War, in which uncommon acts of bravery resulted in the awarding of the Medal of Honor. Steps, benches, and a grassy area provide seating for visitors to rest, reflect, and view this magnificent memorial. Additionally, each evening at dusk, a sound system plays a thirty minute recorded account about a medal recipient, his story, and the act for which he received this Nation's highest military honor. As each story is told, lights illuminate the appropriate portion of the memorial to highlight the war or conflict being discussed. In the words of Mr. Hodowal, this memorial serves two purposes: ``It's an opportunity to say thanks for the sacrifices [these men] made, and it's a chance to show the next generation what real heroes look like . . . to show that ordinary people sometimes do extraordinary things.'' Mr. Speaker, Indiana has a proud tradition of honoring those who have sacrificed so much to secure and preserve our freedom. We must never forget that freedom is not free. Because of the selfless sacrifices of so many, we enjoy so much in America. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit Indianapolis, Indiana and see this newest addition to our city and State. It is something, I can assure you, that you will not soon forget.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote 466, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be on the House floor during that time. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, in March of 1998, Colombian National Police (CNP) Captain Wilson Quintero left his base in San Jose del Guaviare for the last time. As he took off in his Vietnam-era UH-1H Huey helicopter, he saluted the ground crew, and left on his mission to fly cover for U.S.-sponsored eradication spray planes. Something all too familiar happened that day. Captain Quintero's aging chopper was shot down by the terrorist group, the Armed Revolutionary Forces of Colombia (FARC). As his chopper was going down, Captain Quintero radioed for help, and proceeded to crash-land his helicopter without severely injuring his crew. Another helicopter landed to take away the injured CNP officers. The helicopter had parts which were deemed to be salvageable, and the decision was made to leave six CNP officers overnight to guard the aging Huey. Captain Quintero chose to stay with his chopper, feeling it was his responsibility. At dawn the next morning, several CNP Hueys landed near the crash site to pick up Captain Quintero. The sight they came upon was gruesome. Three of the six CNP officers were found with their hands tied behind their backs, face down with bullet holes in the back of their heads. They had been executed by the FARC terrorists. Captain Quintero and the others had been taken hostage by the FARC terrorists. Over the next 18 months his family waited for any word that he was alive. None came. In early September 1999, Captain Quintero escaped from his FARC terrorist captors. He stayed on the run through the triple canopy jungles of northeastern Colombia for the next two weeks. The FARC, fearing a successful escape, launched an all-out effort to find Captain Quintero. Captain Quintero did not give-in easily. He was shot 35 times in his last standoff, finally murdered by FARC terrorists. Two fellow CNP counter-narcotics officers were also found executed near Captain Quintero's body. The CNP, who knew he was on the run, did everything in their power to find him. Every ill-equipped helicopter and aging aircraft was given the recovery of Captain Quintero as a top priority. Unfortunately these aircraft were not able to find him in time. Captain Quintero is survived by his wife, Carmen Elisa Quintero and two-year old daughter Laura Andrea Quintero Nunez. I extend to his family my deepest sympathy. Mr. Speaker, I ask that Congress take a moment to recognize the service Captain Wilson Quintero has done for our country. Captain Quintero is truly a hero. May he rest in peace.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I just got back from Colorado Springs a couple of weeks ago, and what the gentleman said about Colorado is absolutely true. It is a gorgeous state. Mr. Speaker, once again I underestimated the lengths to which the White House would go appease the Castro regime, the most violent sponsor of terrorism in the Western Hemisphere. If you think freeing over one dozen FALN terrorists responsible for the deaths of his own countrymen is unexplainable, what the White House is doing right now is baffling. Mr. Speaker, today I am disturbed by reports that as the White House was preparing to grant clemency to 16 imprisoned terrorists, it told the State Department to grant a visa to a notorious Cuban spy named Fernando Garcia Bielsa. This visa would allow Mr. Bielsa to work under diplomatic cover at the Cuban Interests Section just blocks from the White House. Ironically, Mr. Bielsa is a high-ranking Cuban communist party official in charge of supporting the very terrorist groups to which the prisoners belonged. President Clinton is asking the State Department to issue a visa to Bielsa, in spite of the evidence in intelligence reports linking him with the FALN terrorists and other terrorist groups. I was particularly impressed by reports that the FBI strongly objected to granting a visa to him. Yet, apparently when the State Department pressured the FBI, the Bureau had to drop its objections. It has been reported that Mr. Bielsa serves as the chief of the American Department of the Cuban Communist Party Central Committee. The American Department, known by its initials DA, has a long tradition of being Castro's main instrument for coordinating terrorism in the Western Hemisphere, including agent influence activity and support for Puerto Rican terrorism against the United States. Mr. Speaker, the State Department continues to classify Cuba as a state sponsor of international terrorism. In fact, the State Department's report, Patterns of Terrorism Report for 1998, Cuba reportedly maintains, ``close ties to other state sponsors of terrorism and leftist insurgent groups in Latin America. For instance, Columbia's two main terrorist groups, the FARC and the ELN, maintain representatives in Cuba. Moreover, Havana continues to provide a safe haven to a number of international terrorists and U.S. terrorist fugitives.'' Make no mistake about it: Cuba believes what the FALN stands for and has a history of supporting them in very material ways. Senate hearings in 1982 revealed that Cuban intelligence helped organize the FALN terrorists and other related groups. Here are a few examples. Cuba continues to provide asylum to FALN terrorist fugitives, including William Morales, who escaped in 1979 while serving a 99 year sentence for bombing and murder. He fled to Mexico, where he fled a policeman and was finally granted asylum by the Castro government. Just last year, in 1998, Mr. Bielsa flew to Puerto Rico to meet with leaders of a Puerto Rican terrorist group. What I want to know is why did not the Clinton Administration automatically refuse Mr. Bielsa's visa application? Under U.S. law, the State Department cannot independently issue visas to foreigners believed to be entering the country for the purpose of hostile intelligence activity. A 1981 State Department report says the DA was created to ``centralize Cuban control over covert activities'' in support of revolutionary groups in our hemisphere. Who pressured the State Department to grant this visa for Mr. Bielsa? Was it the National Security Council? If so, who pressured the NSC? Mr. Speaker, Castro has spies here in the U.S. For example, last year 10 people allegedly operating as a spy ring for Castro were arrested and accused of collecting information on U.S. military installations and anti-Castro groups in Florida. At the same time, the arrests ended the most extensive espionage effort involving Cuban agents ever uncovered in the U.S. U.S. Attorney Thomas Scott was quoted as saying, ``In scope and in depth, it is really unparalleled in recent years. This was an attempt to strike at the very heart of our national security system.'' Investigators said it was the first time in memory that a Cuba- sponsored spy ring had been dismantled in Southern Florida, even though between 200 and 300 operatives are believed to have worked with impunity in the Miami area for decades. Our intelligence has uncovered new construction and an expansion of a Russian spy base near Havana that could endanger U.S. military operations overseas. The number of satellite dishes has doubled from three to six. Workers built new buildings, new parking lots and a swimming pool for the Russian military technicians who are now running the base. From this facility, Moscow has intercepted communications from the White House, the State Department, Washington-based international financial institutions and private U.S. companies. In fact, the Russians had intercepted advanced word on U.S. military movements during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. And, Mr. Speaker, if that doesn't frighten the American people, China's defense minister visited Havana last year to negotiate the construction of an electronic spy base next to this Russian facility. This is not fiction from a paperback novel, Mr. Speaker. So it is obvious why U.S. counterintelligence believes that the Castro government is placing their agents where they can influence policy decisions on issues affecting the Castro regime. What decisions, you may ask? How about granting clemency and allowing terrorists back on the streets, the FALN terrorists? Many in Congress have opinions about why that offer was made. Some feel it has a lot to do with what is going on New York politics today, but maybe there is more to it. What other kinds of policy decisions would Castro want to influence? How about easing the restrictions on the U.S. embargo on Cuba? The U.S. embargo was instituted to pressure the Castro regime to abandon its dictatorial and subversive ways. Castro has been able to stay in power because the embargo was not strong enough and because of massive Soviet subsidies. The collapse of the USSR triggered a 60 percent contraction of the Cuban economy, proving the utter bankruptcy of Castro's policies. In addition, passage of both the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 by this Congress, the Toricelli Act, and the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1995, the Helms-Burton law, have further tightened U.S. policy on the totalitarian dictatorship of Fidel Castro. These factors, as well as the complete weariness and disgust of the Cuban people with Castro, indicate that time is running out on the dictatorship in Cuba, but not if Castro can send his highest ranking spy to Washington and influence key officials to ease that embargo. Is it working? Well, let us just see. Earlier this year the White House expanded commercial flights to Cuba. The President allowed U.S. residents, not just those with family in Cuba, to send larger amounts of money to individual households, which simply gives Castro the hard currency he needs to prop up his communist regime. He allowed direct mail service between our countries, the President did, and finally he has authorized the sale of food and agriculture products to ``private companies'' in Cuba. One more policy decision that could be influenced should be considered. Only December 3, 1998, a 7.2 metric ton cocaine shipment bound for a state-owned company, Union del Plastico, in Havana, Cuba, was seized by Colombian National Police in Cartegena, Colombia. The consigned company was a joint venture with two minority Spanish partners, who contend they were not partners, but rather shipping and purchasing agents for the Cuban government. Cuban ``spin'' started the day after the seizure with Castro's anti- narcotics police searching the company's premises with drug dogs and coming up with no traces of drugs there whatsoever. Cuban police claimed the shipment was destined for Spain, without any proof. Castro made a speech on January 4, 1999, identifying the two Spaniards as the culprits in this scheme which had been alleged to operate without his government's knowledge and complicity. That is baloney. The U.S. State Department has bought this story from Castro and accepted his claims as evidence and proclaims the shipment was headed for Spain. However, two House committees and one Senate committee have conducted a thorough investigation into this shipment and determined the shipment was likely headed to the United States, 7.2 metric tons of cocaine through Mexico. The Cuban company has a subsidiary, Plastimex. There is a company bearing that name located right across the U.S. border in Juarez, Mexico. Regardless of the final destination, the 7.2 tons of cocaine, Cuba, as a recipient of this shipment, should meet the criteria to be placed on the major list of countries who traffic or transit illicit narcotics. The Cuban government has been complicit in drug trafficking for decades as a method of collecting much-needed hard currency to keep Fidel Castro's regime in power. As a matter of fact, Raul Castro, Fidel's brother, is under indictment for drug trafficking in Miami, Florida. So, influencing decisions to keep Cuba off the major's list and look the other way on drug trafficking would sure help Castro, and it is working. The Clinton Administration is assisting Castro in his coverup by sending two Coast Guard personnel to Havana to help promote the image that Fidel Castro is getting tough on drugs, and this is simply not the case. It is a public relations campaign by the Castro regime to repair its tarnished image on the drug front. The Clinton Administration is doing nothing but strengthening Castro's position. Clearly this 7.2 ton drug seizure should place Cuba squarely on the major's list. Not to mention the increased overflights of Cuba by drug trafficking planes, which have been unchallenged by Fidel Castro. Also drug trafficking fast boats into Cuban territorial water go without a challenge from the Cuban navy. It seems strange that the Cuban Air Force can shoot down two unarmed American civilian planes out of the sky and Castro's Navy can sink a tugboat full of innocent women and children, yet they cannot respond to the hundreds of increased drug trafficking activities in Cuban air space and territorial waters. Mr. Speaker, the granting of a visa for Mr. Garcia Bielsa is an affront to the national security of the United States. The American people will be outraged when they learn that a top Cuban spy known for his support of terrorism and espionage is allowed to set up shop real close to the White House here in Washington. Why should Mr. Bielsa be allowed to live and work in Washington, D.C.? The Cuban Interests Section, as I said, is not in need of personnel. Quite the opposite. Prior to 1994, the Cuban Interests Section contained 24 staff and, according to the Cuban-American National Foundation, nearly all of whom were intelligence agents. According to the Congressional sources today, the espionage presence in the Cuban Interests Section is nearly doubled. Granting a visa to Mr. Garcia Bielsa is more than misguided, because this man and his mission here pose a real threat to our Nation's security right here in the United States. Mr. Garcia Bielsa is not just an ordinary Cuban citizen or a visiting diplomat. He is a principal spy and a leader within Castro's inner circle. With Mr. Bielsa using Washington, D.C. as a base of operations, Castro's campaign to discredit the U.S. and our commitment against communism has been invigorated. I believe Mr. Garcia Bielsa's presence in Washington, D.C. will, without a doubt, enhance Castro's ongoing operations against the United States. That is why I sent a letter, along with four of my colleagues, to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright expressing our concerns over these troubling reports. We also asked her to provide us with answers to a few simple questions. First, why were the views of the Federal Bureau of Investigation not respected in the decision to grant a U.S. visa to Mr. Bielsa? Second, has any representative of the Department of Justice or the FBI provided any information to the State Department regarding Mr. Garcia Bielsa's anti-U.S. espionage spying or pro-terrorism activities? Did this information talk of his contact with Puerto Rican terrorists or so-called nationalist groups? Three, if the State Department did have knowledge of Mr. Garcia Bielsa's activities, who instructed his visa be accepted? Mr. Speaker, in closing, I hope we receive accurate and helpful responses to these questions because we now know that China has stolen classified information on every thermonuclear warhead in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal, including the W-88 warhead, our most modern warhead; we also know that Chinese penetration of our national weapons labs spans at least the past several decades and certainly continues today; finally, because the Chinese Government used illegal fund- raising channels in this country to influence the 1996 presidential elections. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time has come for our government to cease and desist with these shortcuts that have led to a breach of our national security and initiate a more rigorous system of scrutinizing the campaigns of hostile nations against the U.S., and I believe that Mr. Bielsa's visa should not be approved.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes 444, 445, and 446, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be on the House floor during that time. Had I been here I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 444, ``nay'' on rollcall vote 445, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote 446.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to share them with anyone who would like to see these documents, all of them.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing not long ago involving some whistleblowers from various agencies of government and one of the people we had testify before our committee was a man named Jonathan Fox. Mr. Fox is a defense security analyst at the Department of Defense; and in October of 1997, he was asked to write a national security assessment about Communist China and about the agreement for cooperation in the peaceful uses of atomic energy between China and the United States. Now, Mr. Fox was told that he had to have this national security assessment done by October 25, 1997, because the administration wanted to have everything ready before the state visit of Chinese President Jiang Zemin. The day after Mr. Fox submitted his memo, he was called by a man who was one of his superiors named Michael Jackson. He said, okay, how bad is it, about his memo, meaning the reaction to his candid memo? And Mr. Jackson answered, you will be lucky if you still have a job by the end of the day. Fox indicated he did not think Johnson was joking. Johnson told him people were upset by the memo and it had to be revised and say that the agreement was not a threat to national security. Now, I hope everybody gets this straight. He wrote a national security assessment which said that giving any additional nuclear technology or anything that would help them with their nuclear program would be a threat not only to the United States, but to the allies of the United States as well. And just before President Jiang Zemin came over, he got a call from his superior saying, if you do not change this memo to say that they are not a threat, then you are going to be fired. Now, Mr. Fox said to one of his colleagues he was so concerned about his job because he had a wife and kids and he had been at the Defense Department for a long time that he did change that national security assessment because of the threat to his employment. He said China was not only a threat to the United States of America, but to our allies as well. And because President Jiang Zemin was coming over to meet with President Clinton, he got orders from above to tell him to change that national security assessment 180 degrees to say that China was no threat, or he might lose his job. Now, I think everybody in this country ought to be concerned about that. If an expert at the Defense Department says there is a national security threat to this country if we continue to give nuclear technology to Communist China and he is ordered by the White House to change that or somebody above him, and the guy said it was high above my pay grade that this order came from, indicating it was way up the chain of command, if people are being told to change national security assessments that threaten our national security, then somebody ought to be hung out to dry. I came down here today to talk about this because we really do need to impose economic sanctions on those who are proliferating nuclear weapons because it is a threat to everybody in the world; but in particular, we ought to really be going after Communist China because they have been giving nuclear technology that those countries can use, to Iran and to North Korea, and to others; and they are a threat to the security of the United States and to our allies, as Mr. Fox has stated. I think it is reprehensible that somebody above Mr. Fox's pay grade, and they said it was way above his pay grade, ordered them to change his national security assessment simply because President Jiang Zemin from Communist China was coming over to meet with the President of the United States and they wanted everything to be cool, everything to be on an even keel. It is unbelievable this happened. This was brought out before my committee, and none of the national media reported it, and I thought it was a shame that they did not. I called ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN; and I said why would you not think this was a major story, because a national security assessment was made regarding the security of America and our allies and whether or not China was selling nuclear weapons to potential enemies, and they told him that if he did not change it 180 degrees to where it looked like they were not a nuclear proliferator and there was no threat to America, he was going to lose his job, and not one of the networks picked that up. All I can say is shame on them. Shame on them. The American people need to know the truth. At least they got this much of it today. [From the Committee on Government Reform] Jonathan Fox Arms Control Specialist Department of Defense professional background Fox is an Arms Control Specialist in the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (formerly known as Defense Technology Security Agency). Fox's wife also works at the agency as a photographer. Fox fears both he and his wife will be retaliated against for speaking to Congress. Fox's Concerns In October 1997, Fox was asked to write a memo regarding the implementation of a 1985 ``Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy'' between China and the U.S. The terms of the reciprocal agreement allowed annual opportunities between the U.S. and China to: Send technical experts to each others' civil reactor sites; observe operations and reactor fueling; exchange and share technical information in the operation and maintenance of nuclear power generative and associated facilities; exchange detailed confidence-building and transparency information on transfer, storage and disposition of fissionable fuels utilized for peaceful purposes; and disclose detailed reactor site operational data, to include energy generated and loading. In his initial memo, Fox concluded that count ``this assessment concludes that the proposed arrangement presents real and substantial risk to the common defense and security of both the United States and allied countries.'' Fox pointed out that Chinese past practices as a proliferant presented considerable risks to national security. Fox said he was told that the memo had to be done by October 25, 1997 because the Administration wanted to have everything ready before the state visit of Jiang Zemin. The day after Fox submitted the memo, he was called by Michael Johnson. When Fox asked him ``OK how bad is it?'' [meaning the reaction to his candid memo], Johnson answered: ``You'll be lucky if you still have a job by the end of the day.'' Fox indicated he didn't think Johnson was joking. Johnson told him people were upset by the memo and it had to be revised and say that the agreement is not inimical to U.S. national security. Fox said he told Johnson that everything in the memo was true and Johnson responded, ``I know, but that doesn't matter the issue has already been decided far above our pay grade.'' Johnson said the changes had to be made by 11:30 a.m. that morning. Fox said Johnson also said if he didn't change the opinion, he would have to explain to his Director why a GS-14 was blocking a Presidential summit. Fox returned to his meeting and discussed the matter with his colleagues (including Peter Leitner). They told him it was a done deal and there was no point in him falling on his sword and fighting this. Fox called Johnson back to ask what would make him happy and Johnson sent over the revisions that Fox then had a secretary incorporate. Johnson told him to have someone else sign the memo because it would look too obvious if he signed it after having done a memo that was initially so different. The memo was signed out by his boss, who signed it to help him out of a difficult situation. retaliation and/or intimidation When these matters became subject of an investigation by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Fox spoke with Senate investigators and believes he has been blacklisted since then for telling the truth. He was in line to get a position in DTRA which came to a stop allegedly when David Tarbell heard ``things'' about Fox.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time, but there has been some disturbing things that have come to my attention in the past couple of days that I think the Members ought to be aware of. One is that we sent subpoenas to the White House asking the President to give us the rationale for this pardoning exercise he has been involved in with these terrorists; and the second, we sent a subpoena to the Bureau of Prisons asking them for any information or transcripts of telephone calls that may have been made by these convicted terrorists to others that may have indicated that they were still involved or wanted to be involved or were advocating additional terrorist activities. I was informed that some people at the Justice Department have contacted us and said that the President and the Justice Department may claim executive privilege, and all I want to do is protest that because I think if they claim executive privilege, the American people will be kept in the dark about why these terrorists were pardoned. The President needs to make clear to the American people the reasons why these people were pardoned, number one; and, number two, we need to know if they were making telephone calls from the prisons advocating additional act of terrorism. If they were, they should not be on the streets under any circumstances.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Let me just say that we have had a number of hearings involving those who are whistle-blowers for various agencies of government. The problem that the gentleman from Florida is talking about is not unique. We had three people before our committee just recently who wanted to testify about reprisals against them because they were telling Congress about waste, fraud, abuse or mistakes made in their agencies and they were threatened with their jobs. Many of them were penalized. Ms. Shenwick is another example of people being taken to the cross, so to speak, and nailed to it because they are telling Congress about waste, fraud and abuse. One of the biggest debates we have on this floor is the United Nations. We just had one. For us to chastise somebody who is contacting the Congress about waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayers' money over there borders on the criminal as far as I am concerned. Madeleine Albright and the State Department should be made aware that we are not going to stand still in this Congress and let people be penalized who are telling Congress about this kind of waste, fraud and abuse. Ms. Shenwick should be vindicated. That is why we are both talking to the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky, to see if something cannot be done.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the case that we are talking about, I have no problem with the special counsel looking at this and making a judgment. But during that period of time, the lady in question is out of her job without any income, and she has a family. So the case could drag on for a long period of time, and she is suffering severe penalties because of that. So it seems to me that there ought to be some way to protect these people while an investigation is taking place so that they do not feel their job is in peril because they are telling Congress where there is waste, fraud, and abuse.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, this is not an isolated case. We had four whistleblowers before my committee just recently, all of whom have either been threatened or chastised for talking to Congress about problems that have occurred in their agencies. Ms. Shenwick's case is the latest in a series of those, and we want to be able to encourage people to tell where there is waste, fraud, and abuse in government. If whistleblowers are not protected, if they are not allowed to tell us if they know they are going to be threatened with their jobs, then they will not come forward. I would like to be able to assure anybody in this government who believes that there is wrongdoing occurring or waste in their department occurring, that they will be able to come to us, whether they are Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and know that they will not be impugned.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, my committee will be looking into it, and I will give the gentleman that information. But we are convinced that this kind of repressive action is being taken by State, and I hope that when the gentleman does the final appropriation in conference that the gentleman will let the State Department know that this kind of action will not be tolerated.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if I might just ask the gentleman, if we find, and I think that the gentleman will find after his investigation into this and his staff, that she is being chastised because she gave Congress this information, will the gentleman try to let the State Department know in some way, maybe through the appropriations process, that this is something that is not going to be tolerated by the Congress?

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would like to engage the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the subcommittee, in a colloquy, if I might. The United Nations has a very valued State Department employee that has worked over there for a long time named Linda Shenwick, and Ms. Shenwick has brought to the attention of a number of Members of Congress waste, fraud, and abuse at the United Nations. As a result of her giving this information to Congress, she has not only been chastised, she has been removed from her position by the State Department and Madeleine Albright. We have written to Madeleine Albright about this and have not received a response. We have also written to the Inspector General of the State Department, and they have said that they do not feel that they are inclined to want to investigate this. I would just like to say that we have had a number of whistleblowers before my committee, Mr. Chairman, and we have found that there are real repressive actions being taken against these whistleblowers to try to keep them from talking to the Congress of the United States about waste, fraud, and abuse in various agencies of government. So I would like to just ask if there is anything that could be done in the Shenwick case to let the State Department know that this kind of action is not going to be tolerated by moving people out of their positions, by threatening them with their jobs so that they will not talk to Congress. I think it turns the entire situation on its head. We ought to be encouraging people to tell us where there is waste, fraud, and abuse; and they should not have to worry about losing their jobs if they do.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the House, today, considered H.R. 1152, which seeks to promote free market policies in the new republics of Central Asia and the Caucasus and to encourage foreign investment, increased trade and other forms of commercial ties between the countries of these regions and the rest of the world. These are praiseworthy objectives, and legislation expressing U.S. support for the fledgling democracies of the Silk Road region deserves priority attention. Consequently, I support the goals of H.R. 1152, the Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999. At the same time, however, many companies from OECD countries, including the United States, have substantial direct investments in several of the Silk Road countries and are not being accorded fair treatment. Investment contracts are not being honored, export permits are not being issued and de facto nationalizations of foreign investment have occurred. In several instances, formal complaints have been lodged by investors through U.S. and other embassies in the region. In an effort to discourage this kind of mistreatment, the International Relations Committee amended the bill to include language conditioning U.S. assistance on the fair treatment of foreign investors. Specifically, the amendment requires recipient governments to demonstrate ``significant progress'' in resolving investment and other trade disputes that have been registered with the U.S. Embassy and raised by the U.S. Embassy with the host government. I was pleased to sponsor this amendment, because without it the Silk Road bill could have caused the beneficiary governments to conclude that they had a green light to renege on commitments to foreign investors, jeopardizing hundreds of millions of dollars of investments. In this regard, a number of pension plans have investments in companies doing business in countries such as Kazakhstan. The average worker participating in a pension is adversely affected as well, and this must stop. As amended, this bill should send a strong signal that countries should not expect to receive U.S. assistance if they mistreat companies that provide critical investment capital and employment opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1152.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the forefront a very important issue that has not been given the attention it deserves by this Congress. More than 9,000 American citizens, living on the island of Vieques, live in fear. But, it isn't a fear of drug trafficking. It isn't a fear of violent gangs or terrorism either. Our fellow citizens live in fear of our own military, and I would like to explain why. For more than 50 years, the residents of Vieques, Puerto Rico, an island encompassing fewer than 52 square miles of which the Navy occupies 35 square miles, have had to endure live military ammunition and bombing exercises. Vieques is the largest area in the Western hemisphere used for military exercises with live ammunition, and the only place where bombing still occurs near a substantial civilian population. For years, the residents of Vieques have expressed their concerns about the negative impact that the bombing and live ammunition exercises are having on their health and safety. Unfortunately, their voices have not been heard and that concerns me. On April 19, 1999, the people of Vieques raised their voices once again, this time in despair. It was on that date, during routine military practices conducted by two Navy F/A-18 Hornet jets, that two bombs were accidentally dropped near an observation post manned by civilian security guards. As a result, a security guard was killed and four others were wounded. I believe that if the citizens of Puerto Rico had equal representation in Congress, legitimate concerns for their safety and health would have been better safeguarded. Since that accident, the Navy has temporarily ceased military maneuvers while an investigation is carried out, and Puerto Rico's Governor, the Honorable Pedro Rossello, appointed a Commission that investigated the incident and reported its findings to the President's Special Panel on Military Operations on Vieques on July 9, 1999. The Governor's Commission unanimously concluded that it is not possible to protect the people of Vieques, or the environment, from the extreme danger posed by live ammunition testing. The Navy argues that Vieques is a unique site for training exercises with live ammunition, making it essential to our National security. I've always worked to protect our National security, however, it should never be achieved at the expense of the personal rights or safety of our own citizens. The only solution may be to end permanently the military's live ammunition testing on Vieques. No one in this House would tolerate what the military is doing on Vieques if it were taking place in our Congressional district, and neither would our constituents. Imagine trying to explain to the voters why they should welcome the bombardment of their communities with live ammunition. Try convincing your constituents to accept, and in return thank you, for having uranium-coated bombs dropped within a few miles of their homes, schools, hospitals, and public parks. Imagine asking your constituents to accept having their children attend classrooms which reverberate during the school day as live shells explode nearby. No one in this chamber would permit the continuation of a practice by our own military that endangers the lives of the very people we have been elected to represent. There's a reality about Puerto Rico, one that is wonderful and abhorrent at the same time. The people of Puerto Rico are truly American citizens, part of America's great democracy, and that is wonderful. However, the people of Puerto Rico currently lack the single most important tool that our democracy provides, two Senators and a voting delegation in the House of Representatives, and that is abhorrent. It is precisely because the people of Puerto Rico don't have equal representation in Congress that they need our help now. If they had real representation here, the military would have the proper incentive to solve the problem of live ammunition testing on Vieques. I trust that my colleagues in the House of Representatives would agree with me. If this practice were occurring in any one of the fifty States, I know we would all stand together to oppose it. We owe our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico the same level of respect. They deserve nothing less. In fact, their safety and their lives may depend on it. Mr. Speaker, I strongly encourage my colleagues to take a hard look at this issue.