Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, my committee, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, of which I am chairman over the past 2\1/2\ years, has been investigating illegal campaign contributions that came in from a variety of countries around the world. Came in from South America, from Taiwan, from communist China, from Macao, from Indonesia, from Egypt, and on and on, and these illegal campaign contributions came in to the Clinton/Gore Reelection Committee and to the Democrat National Committee. During the past 2\1/2\ years we have been trying, day and night, to get to the bottom of this. We have tried to get people to come forward and testify, we tried to get cooperation from the Justice Department, the White House, but we have been very, very unsuccessful because there seems to have been a stone wall erected by the White House and the Justice Department and other agencies to keep us from getting to the bottom of this. We have had 121 people, 121 people take the Fifth Amendment or flee the country. That is unparalleled in American history, and I have been here on the floor a number of times talking about this because I think it is unbelievable that foreign governments should be able to influence our elections and even elect a President. Millions of dollars have come in illegally into the Clinton/Gore campaign and to the Democrat National Committee, and much of that money has been returned because of our investigation. Now today I rise on a different subject, but it may be related, and that is why it is so troubling to me. The Chinese communists, through people in their government, the head of their military intelligence and the head of their Chinese aerospace industry gave a man named Johnny Chung $300,000 to give, at least in large part, to the Clinton Reelection Committee, and they were not doing it in my opinion for Mr. Clinton's good looks. They obviously had some kind of an agenda. The head of the Chinese military intelligence and the head of the Chinese aerospace industry giving campaign contributions to a candidate for President in this country would lead almost anyone to say there is something amiss here, there is something wrong, and it should be thoroughly investigated. Mr. Speaker, we just recently found out that at Los Alamos, one of our nuclear research facilities, that they had a man there named Wen Ho Lee who had been there for a long time who is believed to have been involved in espionage. I am very concerned about some of the statements that have come out of the administration with respect to China's thefts of these U.S. nuclear secrets. Again and again we have seen administration officials all the way up to the President make misleading statements about what they knew and when they knew it. Let me provide you with some examples. One good example is on March 19, 1999, President Clinton was asked by a reporter, ``Can you assure the American people that under your watch, no valuable secrets were lost?'' The President responded, ``Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the lab since I have been President? I can tell you that no one,''-- listen to this--``I can tell you that no one has reported to me that they suspect such a thing has occurred.'' So the President was saying he was totally uninformed. He did not know anything about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, the President's response about his knowledge of Chinese spying is not only troubling and disingenuous, it is just hard to believe. The Clinton administration, his administration, knew about the full extent of Chinese spying at Los Alamos and Livermore and other laboratories as far back as 1996, over 3 years ago. Then the National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, head of the NSC, was briefed about the Chinese spying by the Energy Department's chief of intelligence, a Mr. Notra Trulock. Berger was told that China had stolen W-88 nuclear warhead designs and neutron bomb technology. He was told that a spy might still be passing secrets to China at Los Alamos, our nuclear research facility. He was even told that the theft of neutron bomb data occurred in 1995 under the President's administration. Let me just tell you that the W-88 warhead is a miniaturized nuclear warhead that can be put on one missile. You can put 10 of these nuclear warheads on one missile so that with one missile you can hit 10 American cities and kill 50 to 60 million American citizens. We have no defense for that right now. The neutron bomb technology would allow a neutron bomb to be launched on a missile to the United States, and, if it exploded over a major city, it would kill everybody in the city, but the infrastructure would not be damaged, so it would be something an enemy would like to do, protect the infrastructure, the roads, the buildings, and so forth, but kill all the people in it. At the end of the briefing that Mr. Berger, the head of the National Security Council, received, Trulock referred to a recent intelligence report. In the report a Chinese source, a Chinese spy that spies for us, a Chinese source said that officials inside, inside, China's intelligence service, were boasting about how they had just stolen U.S. nuclear secrets, and how those secrets allowed them to improve their neutron bomb technology. Now, Mr. Speaker, again in July of 1997, a year before his meeting with President Jiang of Communist China and 21 months before his meeting with Prime Minister Shu of China, Sandy Berger received a second detailed briefing about China's spying, and soon after told the President about the weaknesses at the laboratories at Los Alamos and Livermore, and about the Chinese spying. This was in 1997. Now, remember, the President just a few weeks ago said that no one had informed him. Yet Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, did tell him for sure 2 years ago in 1997. Why would the President misspeak? Why would he mislead the American people? I do not know. Mr. Speaker, in August of 1997, Gary Samore, the senior National Security Council official assigned to the China spy case, received a briefing from Mr. Notra Trulock, who is the head of intelligence security over at the Department of Energy, and immediately after the briefing about this spying, he went to the CIA director and asked the CIA director to seek an alternative analysis about how the Chinese had developed these small nuclear warheads. So after he had been told they stole this nuclear technology and that spying was going on, he went to the CIA and said, ``Can't you give us a different way they got this technology?'' Why would he do that? Why, when presented with such overwhelming evidence of Chinese espionage, did Gary Samore seek to downplay the significance of the information, asking the CIA to come up with another explanation, other than espionage, about China's advances? We had already gotten some of this information from our intelligence sources over in China. Mr. Speaker, in May of 1998, Notra Trulock, the Energy Department's director of intelligence, was demoted; he was demoted after he brought this information out, to acting deputy director of Intelligence, after he made a third report to the Energy Department's Inspector General about a steady pattern, a steady pattern of suppression of counterintelligence issues. They did not like what he was saying, so they demoted the guy. I want to go back just a minute to this briefing that took place about the neutron bomb. The Chinese intelligence source that we have also said that Chinese agents solved a 1988 design problem by coming back to the United States after they had already been involved in espionage in 1995 to steal more secrets. Trulock's April 1996 briefing to Sandy Berger could not have been more detailed and it could not have been more alarming. So the head of the NSC, the man who reports to the President about security issues, was completely informed about this in 1996, in April. When Paul Redmund, the CIA's chief spy hunter was given a similar briefing from Trulock a few months earlier, he said that China spying, now, get this, China spying was far more damaging to the U.S. national security than Aldrich Ames, who is now serving a prison term for spying, and it would turn out to be as bad as the Rosenbergs, who were put to death because they gave Communist Russia, the Soviet Union, secrets back after World War II. Mr. Speaker, is it really, really likely that Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, after hearing such a detailed and alarming picture of Chinese espionage, would not tell the President about it? Yet the President just a few weeks ago said no one brought it to his attention, and this was 3 years ago. If you were the President or if I was the President and our head of National Security did not tell us this, you would fire him. You would have him hung out to dry, because this a national tragedy, a national security issue. Yet the President said he did not know about it just a few weeks ago. According to the White House, Berger first briefed the President about Chinese spying in July of 1997. So why did the President say he had not been informed about it? He did so after he received a second briefing from Notra Trulock, which, according to Berger, was much more specific than the first. In addition, according to NSC spokesman David Levy, Berger ``did not detail each and every allegation.'' Why would he not detail each and every allegation? We are talking about spying at one of our foremost nuclear research laboratories and about technology that could endanger every man, woman and child in the country. Mr. Levy gave this explanation, after being asked if Berger had told the President about the neutron bomb data that was stolen in 1995. Apparently the White House wants us to believe that Berger only told the President about the W-88 design theft which happened before 1992, which was done under his watch, and left out the theft of the neutron bomb data and China's recent spying at Los Alamos. Are we to believe that 3 years after the President's national security adviser received his first briefing about this wave of espionage that happened under the President's watch, that he would not have told the President about it? And, after that, how can you believe anything the administration says? Why does the President, despite all the evidence to the contrary, continue to accept every Chinese denial, not only of spying, but also of illegally funneling money to the Clinton-Gore reelection committee? We know that the President was briefed about China's spying in July of 1997. Why then, while in China in 1998, with President Jiang, did he quickly accept President Jiang's denial that China had illegally funneled money to the Clinton-Gore reelection committee? He already knew about the spying. He already had Chinese nationals coming in and out of the White House on a regular basis. Johnny Chung was bringing them in, Charlie Trie was bringing them in, John Huang, Mark Middleton, and on and on and on. They were running in and out like they were on a railroad train. Yet he said he believed President Jiang when President Jiang said they were not illegally funneling money into the Clinton- Gore reelection committee. We know for a fact that that was going on. How could the President say, I do believe him, that he did not order, authorize or approve such a thing, the illegal contributions, and that he could find no evidence that anybody in governmental authority had done that? The head of the Chinese military intelligence was running money through Johnny Chung. The head of the Chinese aerospace industry, who benefitted from the technology transfer I am talking about, was involved. They were very high up. In fact, the head of the Chinese National Aeronautics Agency over there, the aerospace industry, her father was the head of the Chinese Liberation Army, the People's Liberation Army. He was right in the Politburo, right next to the President of the country. For them to say the head of the country was not involved is just ludicrous, because if you do not keep the head of the government involved in a Communist society, you are either put away for good or you are killed. Mr. Speaker, again in April of this year, how could the President listen to Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji deny that Chinese had any involvement in spying and respond by saying, and this is what the President said, ``China is a big country with a big government, and I can only say that America is a big country with a big government, and occasionally things happen in this government that I do not know about.'' He was implying the Chinese did not know, the head of the Chinese Government, did not know they were stealing through espionage nuclear technology from Los Alamos and Livermore. That is just insane. I do not think anybody could believe that. Mr. Speaker, our leadership cannot continually be blind and accept each and every denial that comes out of China. Newsweek recently reported that a team of U.S. nuclear weapons experts in America practically fainted when the CIA showed them the data that China had obtained. These are the guys that know what these weapons can do. They practically fainted when they found out that technology had been taken by espionage to the Communist Chinese. What did this data show? It showed that Chinese scientist also routinely used phrases, descriptions and concepts that came straight out of Los Alamos and Livermore labs. The Chinese penetration, they said, is total, one official close to the investigation said. They are deep, deep into the labs' black programs. Those are the top, top secret programs involving our country and our security. Now, today, because of these things that happened, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr. Shelby, started investigating it. Mr. Shelby said that he had known there was an ongoing investigation and that it confirmed his worst fears. He said we have got to get to the bottom of this. He is working on it right now. One of the people, a senior analyst and nuclear weapons expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, ``It is staggering. I am still in shock here.'' Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I will do that. I will mention the other body generically, Mr. Speaker. ``It is staggering,'' he said. ``I am still in shock here,'' a senior analyst and nuclear weapons expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council said. He said, ``If someone had access to Lee's,'' that is the fellow who was involved in the espionage, allegedly involved, ``unclassified computer, this could be all over the world.'' What he was talking about, this was this Mr. Wen Ho Lee, took this top secret information and he transferred it from a top secret computer into a non-top secret computer, where all you had to do was put in a password and you could get every one of our nuclear secrets that he had available to him. This has been going on for some time. Norris's colleague, physicist Matthew G. McKenzie said that ``unauthorized access to those programs, so-called legacy codes, used to simulate warhead detonation, would represent an unprecedented act of espionage in his scope. Get this. The espionage in the Manhattan Project, that was right after we discovered the nuclear bomb that ended World War II, the espionage in the Manhattan Project would pale, would pale, in comparison.'' This is so much more damaging. We are focusing everything right now in the media almost on Kosovo, and our heart goes out to the people who are suffering over there. But this espionage endangers every man, woman and child in this country if we ever go to war with Communist China. And they have made threats in the Taiwan Straits. They have made overt threats about we would not go into Taiwan to protect them because we value Los Angeles more than we do Taiwan, which was an implied threat. So you do not know what might happen. They are a Communist dictatorship. Yet they got all this, and we keep working with them and dealing with them as if nothing happened. Asked whether Clinton stands by his statement that he made last month that there was no evidence indicating Chinese espionage on his watch, David Levy, a National Security Council spokesman, said, ``Administration officials are investigating a number of recent allegations and are under no illusion that China and other nations continue to acquire secrets. This does not come as news to this administration,'' he said. Does not come as news? The President said just a few weeks ago that he had not been informed about it, even though the national security adviser, the head of National Security in this country, found out about it in 1996. Why? Why was this money coming into America from Chinese Communist sources into the campaign? Why did this technology transfer take place, this espionage? Why did that take place? And why did the President say he did not know about it? The transfers took place from 1983 to 1995 when Los Alamos began installing a new mechanism that would have made such transfers more difficult. It looks like he was moving quickly, Mr. Lee, in the last few months, to get it transferred before the new system came in. They were coming up with a new system. When the FBI finally searched Lee's computer last month, following his dismissal on March 8, the official said they found he had made an effort to erase what he had been doing as far as classified information was concerned. Mr. Speaker, what is interesting is that the FBI a couple of years ago wanted to put electronic surveillance on Mr. Lee and the Justice Department said no. The Justice Department told the FBI two years ago that they did not want electronic surveillance on Mr. Lee because the information was not current enough. We were talking about espionage of our most top secret nuclear weapons systems, and the Justice Department denied the FBI the right to put electronic surveillance on this guy. In addition to that, they wanted a warrant to go in and look at his computer and search facilities of his, and that also was denied by the Justice Department. Why? What in the world is wrong with this administration, from the White House all the way to the Justice Department? I do not understand it.

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, they started investigating him in 1996-1997.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely correct. However, this administration, for whatever reason, from top to bottom, is guilty of either just mishandling all of this or worse. I do not know what it is. But we need to get to the bottom of it because this endangers, as I said before, every man, woman and child in this country. Let me just go on with this article, because I have some things I would like to comment about it. When the FBI finally searched Lee's computer last month following his dismissal, they found that he was trying to erase top secret information that he had put in the computer. The official said that a password was needed to access the information even after Lee transferred it from the classified computer system, but all he had to do was give the password to one of his Communist friends and they could access every nuclear secret before him at that laboratory, everything that was in that computer, and this was top secret information that had been transferred to a non-top secret computer. The unclassified system allows investigators to determine when and whether the data was accessed, the official said, and initial indications are that the materials was accessed. So they think somebody did get into the computer and get this technology, at least a little bit. Who was looking at it remains unclear, the official said, since Lee could have given the password to anyone else in any government. Another high-ranking official reported no indication that the information was compromised. He denied a published report of evidence showing a password had been misused to gain access. He also denied that the FBI had been derelict in not searching Lee's computer at the beginning of the espionage investigation in 1996. At the time the FBI agents from the Bureau's Albuquerque field office wanted to search the computer but were told they needed a search warrant from the Federal court under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The warrant was denied, the official said, because a lack of evidence showed that Mr. Lee was engaged in acts of espionage. If there was any doubt, why would the Justice Department not grant a search warrant? That would have been the prudent thing to do. They could have done that. I can tell the gentleman, the FBI would never go to the Justice Department without probable cause. If they think there is probable cause that espionage took place and they went to the Justice Department and that was denied, that is darn near criminal. Lee became a suspect in 1996 after the Energy Department and intelligence agencies determined that a Chinese military document that the CIA had obtained from some of our sources a year earlier contained classified data about the size and shape of the newest miniaturized nuclear weapon, which I was talking about, the W-88. The FBI was unable to gather hard evidence against him, and he has not been charged with a crime yet, but Lee was fired in March for security violations after the investigation was disclosed. The official said transferring data to an unclassified computer system would be or could be a crime, depending on the intent of the person who did it. As soon as FBI agents discovered Lee had transferred massive amounts of secret data to his unclassified computer, Richardson ordered to shut down, Mr. Richardson is now the head of the Energy Department, Richardson ordered a shutdown of the classified computers at Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Laboratories. The problem is this: The cat is out of the bag. The secrets have been taken by the Chinese communists. The things that our taxpayers spent millions and millions and millions of dollars and hundreds and thousands of man-hours researching to protect the citizens of this country have been given away through espionage to the Chinese communists, endangering every man, woman and child in this country. My committee will continue to investigate the illegal campaign contributions. The Cox report which looked into this espionage should be made public. The White House has blocked, according to the information I have, the White House has continued to block the Cox report from being made public. Much of it has been leaked to the American people through the media, but not all, and that information needs to be made known to every man, woman and child. Because if this administration has been derelict in its responsibilities and endangered every man, woman and child, it is more important than Kosovo. It is more important than anything. And we need to get to the bottom of it and those who let this happen, for whatever reason, campaign contributions or because they like the Chinese or whatever reason. They need to be held accountable and brought to justice.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. And why the Justice Department denied electronic surveillance on the man. Let me just interrupt my colleague and tell him something else that we recently found out, and I will be having other Special Orders going into other aspects of this, but the gentleman is welcome to stay so that we can discuss this. We found out under Hazel O'Leary, the previous head of the Department of Energy, that she relaxed, cut the budget for security, cut the security force to such a degree that the head of intelligence for the Energy Department was really alarmed. Not only that, they changed the cards, the cards that they used to have, one card for top secret people, another card for somebody else, color codes so people could not get into the top secret areas, she did away with those and came up with one card for everybody so you could not track who was going in and out of the top secret areas. This was an invitation to espionage. I cannot figure out why in the world they relaxed, they cut the budget for security, especially in view of the fact that this man was a suspect back as far as 1996. It does not make any sense to me.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me this time. First of all, let me just say to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Hastings) if we were in recess, the President could call us back for an emergency session within 24 hours to get an authorization for the money, so I think that it really is a red herring, although I have respect for my colleague. Mr. Speaker, is this war in our national interests? Does it involve the security of the United States? I think anybody who is familiar with this operation realizes that it is not. The Persian Gulf, on the other hand, did involve our national security, because 50 percent of our oil reserves came from that part of the world, and it also involved one country invading another. Should we be involved for humanitarian reasons? Look at the Sudan. Two million people, 2 million people, died in the Sudan. We did not do a darn thing about it. In Ethiopia, there have been 10,000 deaths in just the last couple of months. In Tibet, nearly 1.2 million people have died, and we have not done anything. In Sri Lanka, 56,000 people have lost their lives; 200,000 in Indonesia, and I could go on and on. In Croatia, in the former Yugoslavia, 10,000 Serbs were killed and 200,000 were driven out in ethnic cleansing in 1995, and we did not do a darn thing about it. That was a humanitarian crisis right next door. Why did we not do something about that? Should we be involved? At the NATO Summit here in Washington just last week, a resolution was passed to involve NATO in peacekeeping and humanitarian missions, like this one, anywhere in Europe. Are we going to be the world's policeman? We are already paying two-thirds of the costs and flying 90% of the missions. Can we afford it? My colleague from Cleveland just noted that we are going to have to take money out of the Social Security trust fund and other areas in order to pay for this war, if it is prolonged. Was this war properly planned like the Persian Gulf War? No. We all know that. It is piecemeal, and this President does not know where we are going. We have a man who knows nothing about the military directing this, even though the people at the Pentagon have told him that the bombing is only going to exacerbate the situation. Is this a prelude to more? I think it is. Putting in ground troops over there is going to bring back what to us? A lot of body bags, a lot of problems, a lot of costs that we simply do not need. We do not need to be there. We should support H.R. 1569, bring our troops home, and let the people in Europe deal with a European problem.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the issues of Communist China's efforts to steal our most advanced nuclear secrets, their funneling of illegal contributions to President Clinton's 1996 reelection campaign, and how the Clinton administration, either intentionally or through incompetence has irreparably damaged and compromised the security of every man, woman, and child in the United States. Mr. Speaker, last summer during President Clinton's trip to China, Jiang Zemin, the President of China, told him that he had no involvement in campaign fund-raising in the United States; and President Clinton took his word for it. In that July 2, 1998, press conference, President Clinton said, ``They looked into that, and he was obviously certain, and I do believe him, that he had not ordered or authorized or approved such a thing, and that he could find no evidence that anybody in governmental authority had done that,'' giving illegal campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee or the President's Reelection Committee. Why would President Clinton say that, Mr. Speaker? The New York Times reported in May that Johnny Chung was given $300,000 by Ms. Liu Chao- ying, a Chinese aerospace executive who is a lieutenant colonel in the People's Liberation Army in Communist Army, and her father at one time was the head of the Chinese People's Liberation Army. In April of 1996, 27 months before President Clinton's meeting with President Jiang of China, Sandy Berger, the head of the National Security Council, was briefed that China had stolen W-88 nuclear warhead designs, neutron bomb data, and that a spy might still be passing secrets to China at Los Alamos, one of our nuclear research facilities. Now, the W-88 nuclear warhead design is a miniaturized nuclear warhead, and you can put as many as 10 of them on one missile. So you can hit 10 cities with one missile launched from China, thereby endangering as many as 50 or 60 million Americans. And the neutron bomb data, that kind of information, would allow an enemy of the United States, Communist China, to launch a missile at the United States with a neutron bomb warhead, and when it explodes, kills everybody in the city but it does not destroy the infrastructure, the roads, the bridges, or the buildings. Now, Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, would have had to have told the President about this. Why would President Clinton say that he believed President Jiang of China? Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 1999, at a joint press conference with President Clinton, when Communist China's Prime Minister Zhu Rongji was here, he was asked about China's theft of U.S. nuclear secrets; and Prime Minister Zhu said, ``I have no knowledge whatsoever of any charge of any allegation of espionage or the theft of nuclear technology, and I do not believe such story.'' And President Clinton responded, ``China is a big country with a big government, and I can only say that America is a big country with a big government and occasionally things happen in this country and in this government that I do not know anything about.'' And he was indicating that the stealing of this technology and the illegal campaign contributions that were authorized by the leaders of the Communist Chinese Government could have happened without their knowledge. If that happens in Communist China, they either shoot them or put them in prison. So it is disingenuous for the President to say that he believed him when he knew full well that this was taking place. In July of 1997, a year before his meeting with President Jiang and 27 months before his meeting with Prime Minister Zhu, the administration acknowledges that NSC Director Sandy Berger briefed the President, told him about weaknesses in our nuclear laboratories and about China's spying. So when President Clinton met with President Jiang and Prime Minister Zhu, he had already been briefed by NSC Director Berger sometime before about the possibility of spying and espionage taking place at our nuclear facilities. Before the President met with Zhu, the L.A. Times reported that Johnny Chung had testified under oath that he was directed to make illegal campaign contributions to the President's reelection campaign by General Ji Shengde, who met with him three times and ordered that $300,000 be directed to Chung for political contributions, and that there were other conduits, other people that they were working with to get money into the President's reelection campaign and to the Democratic National Committee. Now, Johnny Chung was a friend of the President. He was in the White House 50 times. He brought other people in, Communist leaders, to meet with the President. And he was one of the major conduits of bringing illegal campaign contributions into this country. General Ji Shengde was the head of the Chinese Communist military intelligence, the equivalent of our Defense Intelligence Agency in this country; and he was the one that was giving the order to funnel these illegal campaign contributions from communist China into the President's reelection campaign and into the Democrat National Committee. Now, why would President Clinton suggest that maybe the Chinese leadership did not know about the spying at Los Alamos? Why would he say that? Mr. Speaker, when they do something in China, as I said before, they either shoot them or throw them in jail. Now, regarding Chinese espionage. In April of 1996, 27 months before President Clinton accepted President Jiang's denial, and 3 years before he suggested that China's spying might be the fault of ``big government,'' the Department of Energy's chief of intelligence Notra Trulock told National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, that China had stolen both W-88 nuclear warhead designs, that is the miniature nuclear warhead that they can put 10 of them on one missile, and neutron bomb data; that a spy might still be passing those secrets to China from Los Alamos, our nuclear research facility. Mr. Speaker, according to Energy officials who took part in the meeting and read highly classified materials used to prepare for it, Sandy Berger was also told how the stolen technology could fit into Beijing's overall nuclear strategy and how the W-88 technology could be used as part of a plan to rely on the mobility of truck-launched missiles with small warheads to better survive a counter-nuclear attack by the United States. According to the New York Times, Energy officials said the briefing was a culmination of a 5-month interagency study of the W-88 theft and related issues and it was pretty was ``a pretty specific briefing.'' One American official who was present said that. Sandy Berger was even told that investigators had identified a prime suspect at Los Alamos in the theft and would shortly turn their information over to the FBI for a formal criminal inquiry. Why did Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, appearing on NBC's Meet the Press last month, say the information he was told about 3 years ago was very general and very preliminary? Why did he say we did not have a suspect in the theft of the W-88 technology? Why did he say that we did not know who, we did not really know how, and we did not really know what? We know at the end of the briefing that I just talked about, according to officials that were present, Notra Trulock referred to a report from a Chinese source which had been provided to the Department of Energy by the FBI in March of 1996, over 3 years ago. Mr. Speaker, the Chinese source indicated that officials inside China's intelligence service were boasting about how they had just stolen secrets from the United States and had used them to improve Beijing's neutron bomb. The source further suggested that Chinese agents solved a 1988 design problem by coming back to the United States in 1995 to steal more secrets. The source, who in the past has provided reliable information, even detailed how the information was transferred from the United States to communist China. According to one official, the intelligence about the neutron bomb was hot off the press and it was included in the briefing to warn the White House of the possibility of continuing Chinese espionage. Mr. Speaker, in November of 1996, almost 1\1/2\ years after first suspecting the theft of nuclear secret from Los Alamos, Charles B. Curtis, the Deputy Secretary for Energy, ordered a series of security measures to be carried out on a straight timetable during the next several months. None of these measures were carried out until September of 1998, almost 2 years later, and there was a threat and a strong indication that espionage had taken place and our top secrets were being stolen by the communist Chinese. Why did we wait 2 years? Why did they not implement those series of security measures? Mr. Speaker, in March of 1997, 4 months before President Clinton was scheduled to visit China, the Energy Department's Acting Secretary for Defense Programs, Victor Reis, and the Acting Director for Nonproliferation, Kenneth Baker, prevented Notra Trulock, when he saw further evidence that the Chinese had other ongoing spy operations at the weapons lab and he asked to meet with Secretary of Energy Federico Pena, they kept him from briefing Secretary Pena for 4 months. Why? Mr. Speaker, in April of 1997, when the FBI requested a wiretap to be put on the phone of the conversations of Wen Ho Lee, the chief suspect in the theft of America's W-88 miniaturized warhead technology, the nuclear technology, they were turned down by the Justice Department. Why would the Justice Department turn down this request for electronic technology to be put on this gentleman's phone when they thought and highly suspected and even knew that he was giving top secret nuclear technology to the Chinese communists that endangered every man, woman, and child in this country? Why would the Justice Department not allow electronic technology and wiretaps to be put on his phone? Why? And who at the Justice Department turned down this request? This guy was accused of stealing America's most advanced nuclear technology. Why was this request turned down? Why? In August of 1997, FBI Director Louis Freeh told Energy Department officials that the Bureau did not have enough evidence to arrest Wen Ho Lee, but that Mr. Lee could now be removed from his position without harming their investigation and that DOE was to determine whether or not to keep Lee on since ``the case was not as important as what damage he might do or continue to do by accessing additional information.'' Why did the Department of Energy keep Lee on with FBI approval, retaining his security clearances until December of 1998, about 2 years later, when he was moved to a nonclassified area and took a lie detector test for the first time. Why? Mr. Speaker, again in 1997, in July, a year before his meeting with President Jiang and 21 months before his meeting with Prime Minister Zhu, Sandy Berger, the head of the NSC, received a second detailed briefing about China's spying and soon after told President Clinton about weaknesses at the laboratories and about China's spying. Mr. Speaker, in August of 1997, Gary Samore, the senior National Security Council official assigned to the China spy case asked, now, get this, asked the CIA director to seek an alternative analysis on how China developed its smaller warheads. In other words, he did not want to talk about them being stolen from Los Alamos through espionage. He wanted to find out an alternative analysis from the CIA on how they might have gotten this technology. Immediately after he got this briefing from Notra Trulock in August of 1997. Why, when presented with such overwhelming evidence of Chinese espionage, did Gary Samore at the National Security Council seek to downplay the significance of the information, asking the CIA to come up with another explanation about China's advances? Why? Mr. Speaker, in May of 1998, Notra Trulock, Energy Department's director of intelligence, was demoted to acting deputy director of intelligence after he made a third report to the Energy Department Inspector General about a steady pattern of suppression of counterintelligence issues. Somebody was trying to keep a lid on all this. Mr. Speaker, in July 1998, the same month that President Clinton was meeting with China's President Jiang, when the House intelligence committee requested an update on the spy case from Notra Trulock, Trulock testified that Acting Energy Secretary Elizabeth Moler ordered him not to go to the panel for fear that the information would be used to attack President Clinton's China policy. Why did Elizabeth Moler do this? Mr. Speaker, the Chinese thefts of U.S. nuclear secrets, according to Paul Redmund, the CIA's chief spy hunter, were, quote, far more damaging to national security than Aldrich Ames--he is the spy who is now in jail--and the spying would turn out to be as bad as the Rosenbergs. Now you recall the Rosenbergs were the ones who gave nuclear secrets to the Russians and the Soviet Union back during and after World War II. Both of them were executed for giving that nuclear technology to the Soviets so that they could build their nuclear missiles that were directed at the United States. And he said, this Mr. Redmund, that this spying would turn out to be as bad or worse, or as bad as the Rosenberg case. You can see how really bad this is. Mr. Speaker, at the same time that China was conducting its highly successful espionage operations against the United States, the Committee on Government Reform, which I chair, for 2 years has known about and tracked millions of dollars that were given to the Democrat Party and the President's reelection committee that can be directly traced to Hong Kong, Macao, Indonesia, South America and Communist China. Mr. Speaker, long before President Clinton met with President Jiang and long before he met with Prime Minister Zhu, we knew for a long time that China's head of military intelligence, General Ji Shengde, had been pulling the strings for a massive conglomerate called China Resources which U.S. intelligence agencies have said operates fronts for the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong and worldwide. Mr. Speaker, for a long time we have known that China Resources has joint ventures with the Indonesia-based international firm called the Lippo Group. We have also known that the Lippo Group is run by Mochtar and James Riady. We have known that the ethnic Chinese James Riady is a close friend of the President's and has frequently visited him at the White House. He was also instrumental in getting John Huang appointed to a very important position at the Commerce Department and later at the Democrat National Committee. Mr. Speaker, we have known that James Riady's chief adviser on political donations was John Huang, who is a former employee of the Lippo Group and who accepted this job at the Commerce Department and then left the Commerce Department to work at the Democrat National Committee where, with the help of James Riady and the Lippo Group and Mochtar, he collected nearly $3 million in illegal campaign contributions for the Democrat Party and the President's reelection committee. Mr. Speaker, we have in our possession checks, copies of checks which represent illegal contributions to the Democrat Party drawn from accounts in the Lippo Bank which is controlled by the Riady family. It is now being reported that Johnny Chung, who gave more than $360,000 to the Democrat Party, has told a grand jury that some of the money he contributed to the Democrat Party came from China's head of military intelligence, the very same people that wanted this nuclear technology, General Ji Shengde. General Ji is the man in the Chinese military most likely to be directing China's spy operations and most likely to be interested in America's nuclear secrets. Mr. Speaker, it now appears that General Ji was the mastermind behind China's efforts to get the Clinton-Gore team reelected. Johnny Chung has reportedly told a grand jury he was coordinating efforts to funnel money into the campaign, along with others, according to General Ji. Is it possible that he was working with John Huang and Charlie Trie as well? Mr. Speaker, Johnny Chung, John Huang and Charlie Trie together raised over $3 million in illegal donations, that we know of, that have been linked to the Bank of China. Mr. Speaker, it is important to repeat that on July 2, 1998 during President Clinton's trip to China when he was asked to comment on his discussions with President Jiang Zemin about China's involvement in campaign fund-raising in the United States, President Clinton said, ``they looked into that, and he was obviously certain, and I do believe him, that he had not ordered or authorized or approved such a thing, the illegal contributions, and that he could find no evidence that anybody in governmental authority had done that.'' The President said he believed that. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton at his own press conference on March 19, 1998, in response to the question, ``Can you assure us, the American people, that under your watch no valuable secrets were lost,'' and he said, quote: Can I tell you there has been no espionage at the lab since I have been President? I can tell you that no one has reported to me they suspect such a thing has occurred. Mr. Speaker, on April 8, 1999, at a joint press conference with President Clinton when China's Prime Minister Zhu Rongji was asked about China's theft of nuclear secrets, Zhu said, ``I have no knowledge whatsoever of any charge of any allegation of espionage or the theft of nuclear technology and I don't believe such a story.'' This is the prime minister of China. President Clinton responded, ``China is a big country with a big government and I can only say that America is a big country with a big government and occasionally things happen in this government that I do not know anything about.'' Mr. Speaker, how could President Clinton, who knew at least 1 year before meeting with President Jiang and probably as early as April of 1996 about Chinese spying, and had all this information about illegal Chinese efforts to funnel money into the 1996 Clinton-Gore reelection efforts, say, ``I do believe'' President Jiang? It is just almost disingenuous. Mr. Speaker, it is inconceivable that President Clinton did not know about China's espionage and China's funneling of illegal contributions into this reelection campaign when he met with Prime Minister Zhu. Mr. Speaker, how could the President who had been briefed by Sandy Berger in July of 1997 and probably as early as April of 1996 about Chinese spying suggest that maybe China's spying was the result of ``big government'' and that maybe China's leadership did not know about their spying at Los Alamos? Wen Ho Lee we know had not only been involved in that spying, at least that is what we believe now, and he has already taken some lie detector tests and is still under investigation, we also know that he called convicted spy Peter Lee at the Livermore Laboratories where a neutron bomb was being researched some time ago. How could the President say that this was a result of big government? It is impossible that the Chinese leadership did not know about this spying. You get shot in China when you do something like that without telling the leadership. Mr. Speaker, on March 7, 1997, President Clinton said, ``I don't believe you can find any evidence of the fact that I had changed government policy solely because of a contribution.'' Mr. Speaker, in February of 1998, 5 months before he met President Jiang and 14 months before he met Prime Minister Zhu, President Clinton ignored strenuous objections from the Department of Justice which was investigating the Loral Corporation for an unauthorized technology transfer to China and granted Loral a waiver for official transfers of essentially the same missile technology to China that Loral was being criminally investigated for giving to China without authorization in 1996. Bernard Schwartz, the chairman of Loral Corporation, contributed over $1.365 million to various Democratic accounts, including the reelection of the President. Mr. Speaker, in a March interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when questioned about China's spying at Los Alamos, Vice President Gore said, ``The law enforcement agencies pursued it aggressively with our full support.'' On March 14, 1999, Sandy Berger asserted that upon learning of China's nuclear espionage, the administration, quote, imposed and enforced the strictest controls on China of any country except those for which we have embargoes, such as Libya, end quote. Mr. Speaker, if the Vice President and NSC Director Sandy Berger are right, why after showing deceptive answers in his first lie detector test in December of 1998 did it take the Clinton administration another 2 months to give Mr. Lee a second test? After failing that second test, why did it take them another month to get rid of him? Why did Elizabeth Moler, who ordered Notra Trulock not to brief the House Intelligence Committee say that she could not recall being told about Trulock's request for a briefing even when a memorandum from Mr. Trulock concerning the briefing request was found in the safe in her office after she left her job at the Energy Department? Mr. Speaker, if what the Vice President and Sandy Berger say is true, why, within 2 months after becoming Energy Secretary in January of 1993, when Keith Fultz, Assistant Comptroller General with the General Accounting Office, briefed Hazel O'Leary and strongly recommended that the Department of Energy improve controls over foreign visitors to DOE weapons laboratories and urged O'Leary to seek a further briefing about espionage at DOE laboratories from U.S. intelligence agencies, did Fultz say that O'Leary say she did not seem very interested in the matter? Why, according to the Washington Times, did a former contractor for one of the Department of Energy's three nuclear weapons laboratories recall that O'Leary, quote, decided in her infinite wisdom to lessen security at the labs? Nuclear technology is being stolen and she lessened security at the labs. The Cold War is over, the contractor says that she indicated, and in Mrs. O'Leary's mind it was not necessary to have so much money spent on security. We did away with the people in actual security guard forces, security clearances were deemed virtually unnecessary in all but a very few areas, former secure areas were opened up, and many documents and files were allowed to be seen which at one time were of a secret or classified nature. Why, according to the Washington Times, did the White House originally tell the Cox committee that the President was not told about Chinese espionage until 1998? We know he must have known back as far as 1997 or 1996 when his NSC director, Sandy Berger, found out about it. Why did David Leavy, spokesman for the National Security Council, explain this discrepancy by saying, ``Well, after the Cox committee process, we've remembered more.'' Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 1998, speaking at a U.S. Institute for Peace event, President Clinton implied that anyone critical of China was using, quote, caricatures and exaggerating the Chinese threat. Let me share a portion of the President's speech according to the record. ``Now, we hear that China is a country to be feared. A growing number of people say that it is the next great threat to our security and our well-being. ``They claim it is building up its military machine for aggression and using the profits of our trade to pay for it. They urge us, therefore, to contain China, to deny it access to our markets, our technology, our investment, and to bolster the strength of our allies in Asia to counter the threat a strong China will pose in the 21st century. What about that scenario? Clearly, if it chooses to do so, China could pursue such a course, pouring much more of its wealth into military might and into traditional great power geopolitics. ``This would rob it of much of its future prosperity, and it is far from inevitable that China will choose this path. Therefore, I would argue that we should not make it more likely that China choose this path by acting as if that decision has already been made. ``We have to follow a different course. We cannot afford caricatures.'' Well, the President knew that they had been stealing nuclear secrets from our laboratories, our nuclear laboratories, neutron bomb technology, W88 technology, MRVing technology for warheads and it had been given to them by a person who worked for the laboratory. The President had to know this as far back as early 1997, and yet they kept the man on there for over 2 more years and the President said we do not need to worry about that? Why is China taking this additional nuclear technology if they do not really need it, if they do not have any intentions of using it? Just a couple of years ago, they fired some missiles into the Sea of China next to Taiwan. One of the leading military people in China said that he did not think the United States would worry too much about that because if we got involved, we would be much more concerned about Los Angeles than we would about Taiwan. The implication was that there might be a threat that they would do something like launching a missile at Los Angeles if we stuck our nose into the Taiwanese issue. Mr. Speaker, on March 29, 1999, one week before President Clinton's press conference with Chinese Prime Minister Zhu, Newsweek reported that when the CIA recently showed data obtained from its sources on China to a team of nuclear weapons experts, they practically fainted. These are our nuclear weapons experts, and when the CIA recently showed that data that was obtained from its sources about China's stealing of that technology, our nuclear weapons guys almost fainted. The data, much of it written in Chinese and never read, had been stored in CIA computers and forgotten until now. It showed that Chinese scientists were routinely using phrases, descriptions and concepts that came straight out of U.S. weapons laboratories like Los Alamos. ``The Chinese penetration is total,'' said one official close to the investigation. ``They are deep, deep into the lab's black programs,'' and black programs are our most sensitive nuclear technology security issues, and they are deep, deep into them according to our experts. Newsweek even reported that China may have even recently acquired two U.S. cruise missiles that failed to detonate during last fall's U.S. attack on terrorist Osama bin Laden and may be attempting to copy their sophisticated guidance and avoidance avionics technology. Mr. Speaker, how can the President say that anyone who is critical of China and the threat are using caricatures? Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years my committee has been conducting an investigation into illegal fund-raising including illegal efforts by the Chinese to influence our elections. We have had 121 people. Nothing like this in the history of the country: 121 people have either taken the Fifth Amendment or fled the country. A number of the most important people on this list are now in Communist China. When my staff attempted to travel to China to interview some of these people, the Chinese government denied us visas and said they would arrest anybody we sent over there to investigate this. Mr. Speaker, we asked the Bank of China to provide us with bank records that would show the origins of millions of dollars in foreign money that was funneled into the President's reelection committee and the Democrat National Committee. The Bank of China has turned us down flat. The Clinton administration has refused to do anything to help us get this important information. Mr. Speaker, when so many people take the Fifth Amendment or flee the country, it is obvious that a lot of laws have been broken. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton administration failure to investigate China's funneling of illegal contributions into the Clinton-Gore reelection campaign and China's theft of America's most advanced nuclear secrets are absolute tragedies. Either intentionally or through its own incompetence, the Clinton administration has caused irreparable damage to America's national security. It has compromised the security of every man, woman and child in this country. Mr. Speaker, this has to be investigated. The American public has a right to know what is going on regarding these illegal campaign contributions, and the thefts of our nuclear technology, and whether or not there is any connection between the two. We can no longer accept the compromise of this nation's national security, and we intend to pursue it as hard as we possibly can. But we need the help of the Justice Department, which has been stonewalling us, and we need the administration to give us some assistance as well.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to support H.R. 472, The Local Census Quality Check Act. This bill was one of seven pertaining to the Census that were recently reported out of the Government Reform Committee. This series of commonsense Census bills will help to ensure the most accurate count for the year 2000 Census. I want to congratulate the Census Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Miller, for putting together this very positive legislative package. Chairman Miller is the author of H.R. 472. He has done an excellent job under very difficult circumstances and is to be commended for his efforts. Some of my Democratic friends have accused us of micro-managing the Census. Well, there are some real problems over at the Census Bureau, and we need to take a hard look at them. That's not micro-managing, that's responsible oversight, which is our job. The voters didn't send us here to sit around and twiddle our thumbs. When there are problems, they expect us to solve them. One of the problems that we have is that it doesn't look like the Census Bureau is doing everything they can to count every American. The Supreme Court has ordered them to do a full enumeration for reapportioning congressional seats. They may very well order them to do only a full enumeration. That remains to be seen. They do not appear to be taking the steps they need to count the hard to count populations, which is why this bill should be passed. H.R. 472, The Local Census Quality Check Act is designed to get more people to participate in the Census. It will help to get a more accurate count and reduce the undercount. Local and tribal governments are the ones who need accurate Census data the most, and it is important that they are able to trust the Census counts. Post Census Local Review provides the opportunity for local governments or their designees to review official Census household counts in their jurisdictions before the Census numbers are final. Under this bill, local governments would be given 45 days after the completion of the nonresponse followup stage of the Census to review the official housing counts noting discrepancies for possible challenges. Post Census Local Review added 124,000 people to the final count of the 1990 Census. I just can't understand why anyone would be opposed to consulting with local governments to make sure that the numbers are right. This just makes common sense. The Census Bureau used this Post Census Local Review program in both 1980 and 1990 Censuses. For the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau has decided not to provide local governments with this opportunity, which is wrong. This bill shows that we're committed to counting every single American, whether they're a minority or not, whether they live in the inner city or the suburbs. I believe this bill will pass on its merits. We want everyone to be counted, and I wish the Clinton administration would join us in that commitment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, it was my pleasure to attend the Khalsa March this past Saturday. The March celebrated the 300th anniversary of the Sikh Nation. Over 40,000 people from all over America attended this special event. I thank my friend Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, President of the Council of Khalistan, for inviting me to this auspicious occasion. There are 22 million Sikhs in the world and nearly 500,000 here in the United States. They have enriched American life in almost every walk of life, including law, farming, medicine and many other. I was interested in learning that a Sikh named Dalip Singh Saund even served in the U.S. Congress. I would like to take this opportunity to salute their contributions to this country. Mr. Speaker, the March was truly a success. There was a tremendous amount of excitement in the air, as they celebrated their heritage of freedom and showed their support for regaining their lost sovereignty in an independent homeland they call khalistan. Their struggle against the oppression that the Indian government inflicts on them should be supported by every American and by those who support freedom around the globe. Mr. Speaker, the Council of Khalistan has issued a press release about the March. I would like to place this press release into the Record for the information of my colleagues. [From the Council of Khalistan, April 12, 1999] Khalsa March Very Successful--Over 40,000 Sikhs Come to Washington, DC to Celebrate 300th Anniversary of Khalsa Panth Washington, DC, April 12.--Over 40,000 Sikhs, more than twice as many as expected, came to Washington, D.C. on Saturday, April 10 to participate in Khalsa March 1999, celebrating the 300th anniversary of the day that Guru Gobind Singh baptized the Sikh Nation. It was the first time that so many Sikh gathered in the Nation's Capital. A sea of saffron turbans and scarves could be seen around the Reflecting Pool. There are 22 million Sikhs world wide and about 500,000 here in the United States. The mood of attendees was jubilant and excited as they celebrated the Sikh heritage. The celebration began in front of the Lincoln Memorial, which is a symbol of freedom, and the participants marched to the U.S. Capitol. The stage displayed pictures of Guru Gobind Singh Baptizing the Panj Pyaras (the Five Beloved Ones), depictions of Gurdwara Kesgarh Sahib, the birthplace of the Sikh Nation, the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest Sikh shrine, other major events in Sikh history, and banners with slogans like ``Indian Free Khalistan'', ``Long Live Khalistan'', etc. ``Guru Gobind Singh gave the Sikh Nation a heritage of freedom,'' said Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh, the coordinator of the march. ``Today we had a joyous celebration of that heritage,'' he said. ''Now we must dedicate ourselves to freeing our homeland, Khalistan.'' Participants in the march celebrated with family and friends and raised slogans. They carried banners that said ``India Free Khalistan,'' ``Long Live Khalistan,'' and ``Raj Karega Khalsa.'' There was a float bearing a replica of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh shrines, and another promoting ``Khalistan--the Sikh Nation on the Move. Speakers included dignitaries from Punjab, Khalistan like Justice Ajit Singh Bains, chairman of the Punjab Human Rights Organization (PHRO), and retired General Narinder Singh, as well as U.S. Congress Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Dr. Walter Landry, Executive Director of the Think-Tank for National Self- Determination, representatives of Sikh women and youth, and others. Justice Bains discussed the genocide and human-rights violations that the Indian government has committed against the Sikh Nation since 1984. He said that there is no rule of law in Punjab. He pointed out the Indian government's policy of mass cremations of Sikhs, which the Indian supreme Court called ``worse then a genocide.'' General Narinder Singh spoke of the sovereignty of the Sikh Nation. He noted that Guru Gobind Singh gave the Sikh Nation sovereignty and that this sovereignty is part of the Khalsa birthright. He said that there is no reason why the Khalsa Panth should not have sovereignty. Congressman Burton offered his continued support for the Sikh cause. He spoke against the Indian government's atrocities against Sikhs, Christians, Muslims, and other minorities. He urged that the United States stop supporting the Indian government. He said that Sikhs should have their freedom and that the United States should support it. Many other Members of Congress sent their greetings, including House Minority Leader David Bonior (D-Mich.), Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV), and others. Mayor Anthony Williams of Washington, D.C. sent a message of congratulations. He wrote, ``It is my distinct pleasure to extend warm greetings and congratulations to the members, guests and friends of the Council of Khalistan as you celebrate your 300th anniversary of the initiation of the Khalsa Panth. This is a significant milestone in the history of the world's religions as you celebrate Vaisaakhee Day.'' Mayor Williams added that ``you are to be congratulated for your efforts to provide spiritual enhancement to the principles of peace, prosperity, dignity, integrity, human rights and justice for all.'' Dr. Paramjit Singh Ajrawat, the Secretary of the march and Master of Ceremonies at the Lincoln Memorial, reminded the audience that Guru Gobind Singh created the Khalsa and recognized the whole human race as equal, including gender equality. He noted that Abraham Lincoln also worked to end slavery. Attendees passed resolutions to reiterate their support for a free Khalistan, the Sikh homeland that was declared independent on October 7, 1987; to honor Sikh martyrs; to ask the Indian government to release the tens of thousands of Sikh political prisoners it is holding; and to demand that the Akal Takht, the seat of the Sikh religion, be freed from the Badal government, asking the Khalsa Panth to boycott and oppose the Badal government; asking the Khalsa Panth to boycott and oppose the Badal government; and to declare there full support for Jathedar Bhai Ranjit Singh as the genuine Jathedar of the Akal Takht. ``Sikhs are religiously, culturally, and linguistically distinct from Hindu India or any other nation,'' said Dr. Aulakh. ``On this once-in-a-lifetime, milestone anniversary, let us dedicate ourselves to reclaiming our lost sovereignty,'' he said. ``Nations and religions that do not have political power do not survive,'' Dr. Aulakh said. ``Under Indian rule, the Sikhs are the victims of genocide,'' he said. Since 1984, the Indian government has murdered more than 250,000 Sikhs. Tens of thousands more languish in Indian jails without charge or trial. Some of the have been there since 1984. India has also murdered than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland since 1947, over 60,000 Muslims in Kashmir since 1988, and tens of thousands of Assamese, Manipuris, Tamils, Dalits (``black untouchables,'' the aboriginal people of the subcontinent), and others. ''The atrocities clearly show that for Sikhs, India is not a democracy,'' Said Dr. Aulakh. ``Every day we pray `Raj Kare Ga Khalsa,' the Khalsa shall rule ,'' he said. ``It is time to keep our promise to the Guru, live up to our heritage, and unite to liberate Khalistan,'' he said.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 75. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 76. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 77. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on the vote for final passage of H. Con. Res. 68.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained for rollcall No. 74. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, while I will not contest the point of order because this is legislating on an appropriation bill, I thought this issue was important enough to bring it before this body right now. On February 3 of last year, near Cavalese, Italy, a Marine pilot inadvertently ran into a gondola on a ski lift and killed 20 people. It has been an international incident ever since. While I agree and fully support the ruling of the court-martial that those pilots were not in error in this horrible tragedy, I do believe that we owe those people who died some monetary damages. We owe their families some monetary damages. We have spent $20 million repairing the gondola and the ski lift and the other things that were damaged near Cavalese, Italy, but we have not done really very much to take care of the people who were really hurt by this horrible tragedy, the families of those people. The Italian court system takes between 3 and 10 years to settle these kinds of claims. It seems to me relatively inhuman to make these people wait that long before we pay them the damages to which they are entitled. They are suffering a great deal right now. I do not know what kind of message it sends to the world when we take care of the ski lift but we do not take care of the Human tragedy that was involved. It is my opinion that the Defense Department has about $68 million in unobligated funds from prior years from which to draw this money. We are talking about a maximum of around $1 to $2 million for each one of the families that were involved. I would just say to my colleagues, although I know there is going to be a point of order that is going to be sustained on this, that we ought to do something about this in the very near future. I would urge the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, to do what they can to make sure reparations are dealt with in a very timely fashion. We do not want these people to suffer for another 3 to 10 years because this thing is being dragged out. Yell. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the United States was at fault. There is no question about that. While the pilots may not have been at fault, those maps did not have the gondola on them, did not have the ski lift on them. The altimeter on the plane, there is some question about whether or not it was working. When they flew into that valley, even though there was an optical illusion, there were other factors that factored into this that caused this tragedy to occur. I would just like to say before I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana, the United States owes a responsibility to the people of Italy that were harmed by this terrible tragedy, and we ought to make restitution as quickly as possible.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by saying that the process the gentleman from Indiana just alluded to could take 3 to 10 years. I think that is too long. The other body passed this resolution that I am talking about, this amendment, yesterday. I think it was Senator Robb that sponsored it. It passed, I think, without any opposition whatsoever. Those people who are suffering, and their families who are suffering right now, should not have to wait for an adjudication process that is going to go on for 3 to 10 years. They suffered enough. We need to get on with it. Point of Order

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

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 2.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the recent visit of French President Jacques Chirac to the Nation's Capital included the presentation of the Legion of Honor, an award created by Napolean Bonaparte, to three veterans of the First World War. This serves to remind us that eighty years ago, in the Spring of 1919, thousands of ``doughboys'' of the American Expeditionary Forces in France were returning to the United States following the first major appearance of U.S. military forces on the stage of world affairs. A weather-beaten newspaper clipping hails the arrival in New York CIty Harbor of a Navy transport ship, the Leviathan, carrying the 150th Field Artillery Regiment. (``Indiana Boys of Rainbow Welcomed Home,'' New York Times, April 23, 1919). They came back to U.S. soil after engaging in combat operations and then occupation duty with the famed 42d (Rainbow) Division. The Hoosier gunners, members of the old 1st Indiana Field Artillery, Indiana National Guard, landed in New York after having served in five major campaigns in France. These Hoosiers were among the first to arrive and among the last to leave before the occupation of postwar Germany became the responsibility of the Regular Army. Today, more than 14,000 dedicated men and women are currently serving in units of the Indiana Army National Guard and Air National Guard. They continue the tradition of patriotism and selfless service of World War I's ``Rainbow Hoosiers.'' They hold down full-time civilian employment; they maintain families; they are active in community life-- and they devote whatever time is mandated to fulfill Federal standards in order to maintain the military skills that have a distinct impact on our National security. Their trained capabilities have helped make it possible for the United States to sustain its awesome global responsibilities. However, we cannot forget that the National Guard is also a community enterprise. The chances are excellent that almost any Hoosier has some relative or knows someone who is serving, or who has served, in the Indiana National Guard. More than 70,000 Hoosiers are National Guard gamily members. The Indiana National Guard has a rock solid foundation. During the realignment and readjustment of military forces in the post-Cold War era, we have witnessed the high regard which the Indiana National Guard enjoys in the missions it has been called upon to perform, and the special tasks which it has assumed, as a consequence of increased reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces by the Department of Defense. As examples, Mr. Speaker, let me share just some of the things the Indiana Natonal Guard is doing: Both the Army and Air Guard units have been designated to receive advanced readiness training in order to be prepared for possible deployment at the leading edge of U.S. commitments throughout the world. Along with stepped-up homeland defense, and anti-terrorism and anti-drug missions, these are assignments which require serious and dedicated training. The Indiana Guard is involved in ongoing assistance missions, and over the last twelve months Hoosier Guard soldiers and airmen have lent a helping hand in Haiti, Hungary, Kuwait, Slovakia, and South Korea. The extraordinary range of military service being performed by the men and women of the Indiana National Guard is strong testimony to the reliance that is placed on them. We should never forget that while the Indiana National Guard is responsive to its Federal mission, it also stands ready to respond to the call of our Governor for service in support and protection of the citizens of Indiana. The Indiana Guard was also in the forefront of the special National Guard task force organized to help provide security for the Atlanta Olympic Games in 1996. The fighting men and women, the soldiers and airmen of today's Indiana National Guard, are worthy of those who, 80 years ago, proudly returned carrying the honors earned on European battlefields. As President Chirac reminds us by his public commendations, we should take time to remember and honor the soldiers of that era. Equally, we should pause as we approach the new millennium, to recognize today's successors to those ``Hoosier Gunners'' who served so bravely and honorably on the battlefields of France at the beginning of this century.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my support for H. Res. 99. If you follow Cuban policy at all, I know you will agree with me that it is disappointing to see this Administration yield to this hemisphere's last remaining dictator, Fidel Castro. Not long ago, President Clinton announced a new proposal to loosen the trade embargo on the Government of Cuba. The embargo was codified because of the murder of unarmed American citizens. I believe that Castro has done nothing to warrant any reevaluation of the sanctions imposed on his regime. Now, almost three years later, the President has taken steps that not only breathe new life into the brutal Castro dictatorship, but he is trying to circumvent U.S. law. Now, we learn that the Clinton Administration has decided to hold our American pastime hostage. If the President gets his way, the Baltimore Orioles will face a Cuban National team in Havana on March 28th of this year. It is appalling to me that the President is using baseball to push friendly relations with the Cuban dictatorship. This will be the first Major League Baseball visit to Havana since 1959, and it couldn't come at a worse time. A Cuban court has just convicted the island's four top opposition leaders for sedition. Vladimiro Roca Antunez, Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello, Felix Bonne Carcases, and Rene Gomez Manzano were arrested in 1997 after petitioning the regime for immediate reforms and publishing a pamphlet entitled ``The Homeland Belongs to Us All.'' In this pamphlet, they describe their hopes for a free and democratic Cuba. They were convicted for nothing more than expressing their opinions and speaking the truth. They are the Lech Walensas & Vaclav Havels of Cuba. Their trial and conviction came two weeks after Castro handed down his new Sedition Law to severely punish those who dare speak to foreign journalists or publicly criticize his revolution. Under the new Sedition Law, they were arrested for holding news conferences with foreign journalists and diplomats, urging voters to boycott Cuba's one-party elections, warning foreigners that their investments would contribute to Cuban suffering, condemning Castro's grip on power, and criticizing Communist Party propaganda. Mr. Speaker, this sounds to me like a return to the gulags of Soviet communism and the horror of European fascism. They were apprehended and jailed 1\1/2\ years ago for their ``crimes''. On top of the imprisonment and physical and mental mistreatment they endured for more than 600 days, the four freedom fighters were also forced to endure a Stalinist show trial. As a recent wire report observed, in keeping with the closed, totalitarian nature of the Castro regime, ``Few Cubans and even fewer foreigners are allowed inside a Cuban courtroom. Trials tend to be closed and proceedings are rarely reported by the government-controlled media.'' But Castro eagerly allowed the cameras to roll during the trial of these four dissidents to send a message to the rest of the island: Anyone who threatens his regime will be punished severely. Cuban reporters are terrified of the new Sedition Law; it has empowered Castro's secret police to intensify their harassment of Cuba's already- stifled press. The dissidents received prison sentences ranging from 3\1/2\ to 5 years. The independent Cuban Commission on Human Rights and National Reconciliation said that since Feb. 26, 1999, authorities had rounded up nearly 40 other dissidents and warned an additional 35 to remain at home during the March 1st trial. Officials from the U.S. Interest Section in Havana were denied access to the trial. The State Department recently released this statement regarding the trial: ``We strongly denounce these actions by the Cuban government, which reveal its utter disregard of the concerns of the international community.'' Yet, neither the president nor the secretary of state has taken any action to put muscle behind those words. In fact, underscoring its perverse misunderstanding of the situation, the State Department believes the trial and conviction of these four voices of freedom is the very reason we need more people-to-people contacts with Havana. The only thing more people-to-people contacts will do is further prop-up Castro's regime. Finally, it should be noted that the Sedition Law was approved by Castro just weeks after the president's January announcement that he was easing the embargo. Mr. Speaker, I must also report even more disturbing news to my colleagues. I believe we have an administration that is so hellbent on normalizing relations with Cuba that it is willing to overlook allegations of drug-trafficking. On December 3, 1998, the Colombian National Police seized 7.5 tons of cocaine headed for Cuba, and eventually likely the United States and elsewhere. I have sent investigators down there who were able to put together the pieces of the puzzle in three days which our government, the ONDCP, DEA, CIA, and White House have either not been willing to do, or worse do not want to put together. I have a letter from Barry McCaffrey which says there is no evidence that the Castro government is involved in drug-trafficking, ignoring the fact that Castro's brother, Raul, has been under indictment in Miami since the early 1990's for drug-trafficking and racketeering. Also, Ileana de la Guardia, the daughter of executed Cuban Colonel Tony de la Guardia, is currently involved in a court case in France where she alleges that drug trafficking reaches the ``highest echelons'' of the Cuban government. What is the problem with this administration when it comes to Fidel Castro? Why does the White House continue to ignore the grim and brutal realities of Castro's dictatorship? I don't know the answer, but I believe it goes beyond a simple disagreement on policy. How we can turn a blind eye to Castro's behavior and even reward him is truly beyond me. What is obvious is the fact that this White House will do anything to normalize relations with the last dictator in the Western Hemisphere. The White House wants to dilute and then eliminate the Burton-Helms Embargo; the White House is flouting the law, ignoring the will of the American people, and tossing aside four decades of bipartisan agreement on Castro. It is left to us in Congress to do what is right. Mr. Speaker, I join my fellow cosponsors in support of H. Res. 99. Let's do everything we can to keep the heat on Castro and his gulags. As a Houston Chronicle editorial recently observed, ``This is no time to play ball with Fidel Castro.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall votes No. 58 and No. 59, on H.R. 4, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been here I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote No. 58, a motion to recommit with instructions. Had I been here, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall vote No. 59, final passage of H.R. 4.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 57 on H. Res. 120, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first of all let me just say that I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), a member of our committee, a very hard working member, and I appreciate the input the gentleman gives us on a lot of legislation. The gentleman has helped a great deal. However, I disagree with the gentleman's amendment, and I would like to say why. First of all, small business people across this country are overburdened by Federal regulations and paperwork, unnecessary paperwork, and, because of that, many of them have had their overhead increased to such a degree that they have to start letting people off. They have to lay people off. It has an adverse economic impact on them. This legislation passed the House I think with 54 Democrat votes, it was a bipartisan bill last session. This bill is extremely important for the small businessman, the backbone of the economy of the United States of America. Now, there have been some misstatements made by some of the special interest groups that want this bill to die. They have said that workers are going to ``die on the job'' because of this, that the environment is going to be ``devastated,'' senior citizens in nursing homes are going to ``perish.'' Fortunately, none of that is true. I want my colleagues who are paying attention to this to listen to the safeguards in the bill, and I will not be redundant, because I think the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) has done an outstanding job of not only getting this bill to the floor and being the author of it, but also explaining it. Agencies do not have to suspend fines if the violation causes any actual serious harm. That is in the legislation. They do not have to suspend fines if the violation presents a threat to public health or safety. That would take care of the senior citizens in nursing homes and so forth. They do not have to suspend fines if doing so would impede the detection of criminal activity. These are very broad exceptions, and the agencies involved, if they detect any violations of the law, they can impose these fines. However, if it is a legitimate mistake that a small businessman has made, he has six months to rectify the situation. If he does not, then the penalties will be imposed. So I think if an honest mistake is made by a small businessman, he should not be penalized by the agencies of the Federal Government, and, for that reason, I think this legislation is extremely important, and, although I have great respect for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), I urge my colleagues to defeat his amendment and pass the McIntosh bill as written.

Mr. BURTON

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XI clause 2(a) of the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 106th Congress, I am requesting that the new Rules of the Committee on Government Reform be printed in their entirety in the Congressional Record for today.